The “hair-braiding” (kezî) protest was launched after a man affiliated with the Turkish state-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) cut the braid of a fighter from the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ) and shared the act in a video during the attacks on Northern and Eastern Syria. Participants in the protest are being detained on the grounds of “engaging in organizational propaganda.” The detentions have sparked public debate within the framework of freedom of expression and the right to protest.
Yilmaz spoke to ANF and said that the reactions in Turkey and in international public opinion to the developments in Syria were peaceful.
Yilmaz said: “In fact, all reactions in Turkey and in international public opinion to the issue in Syria and to the developments taking place there are peaceful. The right to peaceful assembly and demonstration is protected both by the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and by international legislation, and tolerance must be shown toward citizens who exercise this right. This is a matter that has been underlined in many court rulings.
News also appeared in the press today regarding the arrest of a 16-year-old high school student in Izmir in connection with the hair-braiding protest. We do not believe there is any acceptable justification for criminalizing in this way a completely peaceful protest, an act of civil disobedience that contains no call for violence. For many years, we have faced very absurd court rulings stemming from the unresolved nature of the Kurdish question. You may recall that at one point, reports were shared with the public that Abdullah Öcalan’s hair had been forcibly shaved to a number three cut against his will on Imrali Island. At that time as well, citizens considered this an insult to a person’s dignity and an intervention in the body against one’s will, and they cut their own hair to number three as an act of protest. Even then, in an equally absurd manner, cases were filed against those who carried out this action.
I want to give this example to underline the following point: the approach to the Kurdish question has moved away from the framework of law and human rights. If law and human rights were taken as the basis, many issues related to the Kurdish question could, in fact, be resolved quite easily.”
This is a war crime
Yilmaz said that cutting the hair of a murdered woman and sharing it on social media constitutes a war crime, and continued: “The entire world must, in fact, recognize this act as a war crime. Cutting the braided hair of a murdered woman and sharing it on social media is a war crime. This needs to be stated clearly. While all states, all international institutions, and human rights organizations should be opposing this, it is extremely difficult to explain, on the basis of any legal framework or any concrete grounds, why in Turkey women who braid their hair in protest, as well as every institution, organization, and citizen who draws attention to this, are being subjected to punishment.
What needs to be done here is to punish the perpetrator and the crime that was committed, to take a stand against it, and to develop a clear response. Human rights and democracy require this. Instead, we are faced with a situation in which people who protest the perpetrator of the crime and the mindset behind it are being punished.
The example of Amedspor is similar. After scoring a goal, Cekdar Orhan made a gesture, lasting perhaps only a fraction of a second, to draw attention to this atrocity. As a result, he was banned from sports competitions for five matches and fined. Kurds and all opposition circles in Turkey are weary of this prohibitive approach.
At a time when the resolution of the Kurdish question in Turkey is being discussed in terms of major aspirations, when weapons are expected to fall silent and a climate of non-conflict is envisaged, the punishment of such actions by the government and by a judiciary that has become politicized and aligned with the government will have no outcome other than further polarizing society.
There is now a widespread perception among Kurdish society, human rights defenders, and democratic circles that a peaceful protest developed in response to an act that constitutes a deep wound for us, causes serious pain, and provokes anger is not being accepted by the judiciary, and that we are being met with an attitude that stands in stark contrast to our grief. While this pain should be acknowledged and these reactions understood, and while Kurdish citizens expect the Republic of Turkey to ensure that such acts do not continue, punishing those who protest and take a stand against this is, from the outset, a serious obstacle to the socialization of the process we have been discussing.”
Obstacles to freedom of expression are causing deep fractures
Ercan Yilmaz said that people were experiencing serious fractures due to the obstacles imposed on freedom of expression and added: “This means that the obstacles preventing the recognition of Kurds’ rights arising from being a nation are becoming more entrenched. In other words, not only does this bring no benefit to the resolution of the issue, but it also creates very deep emotional fractures among people.
On these issues, we believe that the Republic of Turkey needs to be more flexible, more inclusive, and more transparent in ensuring the rights for which Kurds have been struggling for many years, based on dialogue and negotiation.”
Leave a Reply