Distorting Turkey's reality with himmet money

There is a complete chasm between the undoubtedly progressive steps taken recently in Turkey in the field of democratization and how these steps are reflected to the outside world. Both the HSYK regulation and the internet-related regulations are measures that no democrat or anyone sensitive to human rights who is familiar with their details could object to, and that they would regard as progressive steps.

Neither in the US nor in any of the EU countries are there examples in which judges and prosecutors are selected in a closed circuit, sidelining the public or politics, as in our case. In the US, judges, prosecutors and sheriffs take office directly by public election and for a fixed term.

There is no office there in which election is not decisive. And no one worries that these offices, which are supposed to be objective, will become overly politicized because they come through election. On the contrary, this kind of political character ensures impartiality more than a process that claims to be above politics.

It is also a fact that in many European countries, even if not directly by the public, justice ministers or elected assemblies are more influential in determining the legal bureaucracy. Seen from this angle, the HSYK regulation brings Turkey closer to standards accepted in democracies. No one who learns the truth of the matter in the US or EU countries objects, but not everyone bothers to learn the truth of the matter; they form their opinions with the first reports that arrive.

Looking at the reports in the foreign press about the internet law, it is impossible not to be amazed at how such disinformation can be achieved. Media organizations regarded as extremely reputable, when Turkey is concerned, without caring in the least to learn the truth of the matter, present the regulations under headlines such as "censorship of the internet" and "the government takes the power to restrict freedom of expression arbitrarily." The details you find in the texts under these headlines have nothing to do with the text of the law that was passed.

In the end, the internet law does not give the government the power to shut down any site it wishes arbitrarily. Where do they get this? On the contrary, the circumstances in which a page on the internet may be intervened in are clearly defined, and there is no room for any arbitrary treatment.

1. In the case of an "attack on personality rights" (cursing, insult, belittling), the person goes to the criminal judgeship of peace, and if deemed appropriate, with a decision issued within 24 hours only the page concerned is taken off the air. If the court (said to have been bypassed by this regulation) later decides that this action was inappropriate, that page continues its publication again.

2. If the privacy of private life is at stake (illegal wiretapping/filming, sharing of personal data, etc.): in this type of violation, the delay incurred cannot be made up for the victim. For this reason, upon the victim's request, the possibility of "access blocking as a precaution and temporarily" has been provided. The final decision is then issued by the criminal judgeship of peace within 48 hours.

So the court is not completely sidelined as claimed; what is at issue is only the temporary suspension of publication so that there are no situations that cannot be made up. In fact, on such regulations Turkey can even be considered late compared with the practices that exist in the US and EU countries. Because in all likelihood much heavier regulations have existed in these countries for a long time.

Despite this, the press of these very countries, without looking at the content of the regulation made, does not refrain from reflecting every step taken in Turkey as either censorship or the restriction of freedom of expression. The reason is actually quite simple. These reports, in this form, are ultimately produced from within Turkey and served to a customer base that is already very ready to buy any news against Turkey.

A story of "the collapse of the Turkey legend" always has a ready customer base in Europe and America, and even in Middle Eastern countries. For different reasons, there are those in this customer base who eagerly await, hope for and desire the collapse of a democratic, developed, advanced Turkey.

Undoubtedly there are also those in the same geographies who do not want this and who would be saddened by these reports if they were true. Such people are already curious about the truth of the matter and learn it, and the only thing that saddens them is that such reports, which have nothing to do, near or far, with the reality of Turkey that they follow closely, can be produced.

The internet law is a simple rule-of-law measure against the most disgusting intelligence tactics ever adopted. The internet law is a simple measure that develops personality rights and the right to private life.

Broadcasts financed with money collected from the innocent and sincere tradesmen of Anatolia under the pretext of "himmet for service" have dropped everything and are busy distorting the reality of Turkey. All the international networks built up over the years, in every penny of which is the labor of the people of Anatolia, are now used to reflect the reality of Turkey differently. Meanwhile, they do not even care what kind of betrayal they are committing against all of Turkey, beginning with those sincere devout people from whom they collected their money.

They portray Turkey as an intelligence state. Yet the regulations made have no purpose other than to try to eliminate the effects of an intelligence regime that they themselves desired and partly implemented.

They will no longer be able to peep into anyone's private life and publish it as they wish; they object to this. They will no longer be able to play with anyone's personality and dignity as they wish, to carry out character and dignity assassinations; they object to this.