DEM Party deputy for Urfa (Riha) and Justice Commission member Dilan Kunt Ayan told ANF that the 11th Judicial Package does not meet the justice demands of different segments of society, contains provisions that restrict rights and freedoms, and was prepared with an approach that blocks democratic solutions.
Ayan said that the fundamental rights of prisoners and society’s demand for justice were ignored, and that a closed draft was presented instead. She added: “Whenever a judicial package comes, society’s expectation is basically that the sense of justice will be met. We are talking about packages that carry the justice expectations of many parts of society, from villagers whose trees are destroyed to those whose rights are confiscated in prisons. Unfortunately, we see that the government is confronting us with a draft that turns a blind eye to these demands. This package, once again, is not one that meets society’s expectations.”
Political prisoners left out again
Ayan continued: “We can see that it expands the state’s authority and narrows citizens’ rights. When we look at the articles one by one, we see that they partly restrict rights and freedoms in places, broaden criminal provisions, introduce new articles with vague concepts, intensify control over the internet and social media, leave the limits of the right to demonstrate and march to uncontrollable and broad discretionary powers, narrow the areas under the authority of bar associations in the field of the legal profession, increase surveillance over personal data and the economy, and finally introduce a so-called Covid regulation. We also see that political prisoners are excluded. While it introduces three years of probation for all crimes, it excludes those convicted of organized crimes. This shows the law is made with discriminatory motives and does not eliminate inequality.”
Regulation to silence the streets
Ayan drew attention to a regulation on the right to protest and said: “Article 223 of the Penal Code is being rewritten and the condition of force and threat is being removed. It speaks of ‘any unlawful act,’ which is an extremely vague concept with no boundaries. A worker blocking a road to claim their rights, farmers protesting with tractors, women blocking roads in marches, or students protesting on campus could all face punishment based on this article. This regulation is the product of a mentality that wants to silence the streets. That is why we find it dangerous and problematic.”
Threats of censorship and to the right of defense
The authority to censor the internet and social media is being expanded, said Ayan, adding: “There is a regulation to remove content entirely from the internet, not just from a site. This grants intervention authority to the ICT Authority. It is a regulation that severely narrows rights and freedoms and greatly expands censorship.”
Reminding that the right to defense is at the heart of justice, she added: “We do not find it right for disciplinary offenses to be handled independently of professional organizations. If the independence of the legal profession weakens, citizens’ access to justice also weakens. Any change to the attorneyship law regarding discipline should be made collectively by the Union of Turkish Bar Associations and local bar associations. We have also requested opinions from the bar associations on this matter.”
Ground for deeper authoritarism
In summary, Ayan argued that these judicial packages serve to pave the way for further authoritarianism and anti-democratic practices, and concluded: “Let us state that we have no expectations from this package regarding the process. Removing the obstacles to the democratic solution of the Kurdish question is not possible through packages but through comprehensive legal reforms in the process itself. This problem cannot be solved by packages alone, but only by root changes. For example, the complete abolition of the Anti-Terror Law, changes to the Penal Code, and enactment of return laws are necessary. Our expectation of this package is not laws related to the Kurdish question, but that it will produce solutions to meet society’s overall demand for justice and address the justice demands of all segments.”