German democracy stuck in a parking space

The meeting that Minister of Justice Bekir Bozdağ planned to hold near the German city of Stuttgart was unilaterally canceled by the Gaggenau Municipality on the grounds that there was not enough parking to meet the needs of those expected to attend. Turkey naturally saw this as a clear violation of freedom of expression and an act that cannot be described as being in good faith toward Turkey.

Germany, which permits all activities against Turkey, from the PKK-affiliated to the FETÖ-affiliated, generally attributes this tolerance to its respect for freedom of expression. When the occasion arises, it also never refrains from lecturing Turkey on freedom of expression.

But by curbing Bekir Bozdağ's expression, it shows how "selective" it is about freedom of expression when the occasion arises, and, more importantly, with the pretext it has shown, it also displays a very important skill regarding the possible tidy ways of curbing freedom of expression.

While having sufficient reason and legitimacy to easily block the actions of FETÖ and the PKK, not under simple freedom of expression but, on the contrary, because they fall under praise of and support for terror, its not resorting to this path and permitting such activities is in fact simply a matter of preference.

By contrast, its raising an obstacle, on account of a "parking problem," to a program of a completely peaceful and democratic content, to be carried out by a minister of Turkey together with his own citizens, reveals the direction of this preference more clearly. Evidently Germany's preference regarding the referendum in Turkey is in the same direction as the preference of the PKK and FETÖ.

After making this clear, we can of course question why Germany's preference is in this direction. But before that, it is necessary to pay attention to the techniques by which Germany sets out its democratic limits regarding democratic activities, expression, organization and political activities, and to what kind of democratic space for expression, demonstration and organization is created with these techniques.

Frankly, rather than taking an open stance to restrict freedom of expression and to prevent an unwanted opposition from creating a space for itself, Germany creates a destructive pressure by using the laws and regulations as it wishes.

In doing so, the judiciary and legislation provide it with its most important weapon. It is an unquestionable fact that it always has a special policy regarding Turkey on this matter.

Under the name of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, when it brings any organized structure it wishes under the scope of threat and goes after it, however peaceful and democratic that organized structure may be, it becomes even more hopeless in Germany, because all its assets are immediately seized and it is placed under close surveillance.

Germany, which these days regards Turkey's state of emergency practices regarding FETÖ as a violation of democracy and tries to give Turkey lessons in human rights in this way, has countless examples of how it can restrict the limits of democracy and freedom of expression when its own security is at stake.

In the past, in the operation and trial process against the Deniz Feneri Association, it was quite clear that it had set out from the start with the intention and motive of ending a charity and mutual aid activity. The rest was a matter of fabricating a cover.

It is clearer today that in this operation it also received significant logistical support from FETÖ elements. The mutual aid network and culture that Deniz Feneri built in Turkey and Germany was clearly a serious rival to FETÖ's Himmet mill, and what was done to all rivals was done to it too. FETÖ, without even getting its name involved, had that operation carried out entirely by the judiciary of brotherly (!) Germany.

The statement made by Federal Germany about the cancellation of Bozdağ's event revealed, in truth, another tactic for restricting freedom. This time responsibility was thrown onto the local administration. After all, Germany's limits regarding democracy and political activities are so many that within these limits only what is permitted can make its way and establish a presence.

Since those who do politics in the country have accepted these limits one way or another, there seems to be no problem, but the same Germany may regard similar limits in other countries as a sign of the absence of democracy. To protect its own regime it regards it as a right to impose the most fascistic pressures and the most unimaginable restrictions. But it may demand that Turkey change its terror law in the middle of the struggle it is waging against the murderous terrorist organization that has been sucking its blood for years, and offer terrorists a more comfortable field of activity.

Germany, which severely criticized Turkey for the violence used against the protesters during the Gezi incident, soon afterward presented the unimaginable police violence it showed against the protest demonstrations in Hamburg as "a justified and natural measure to be applied against those who disturb the peace." In fact it did not even present it; by keeping the press away from the scene in a blackout, it even prevented those protests from being seen in the world.

Germany is making a choice, true.

With this choice it is on the same side as FETÖ and the PKK.

While turning a blind eye to their activities and their sheltering in Germany, it also does not refrain from efforts to improve their situation in Turkey. We, as Turkey, of course have difficulty understanding the reasons. We ask: why is Germany doing this? And we will go on asking.