Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Aug 10 2014
‘Change too slow, not systematic regarding freedom of belief’
There is a long way to go and much to do regarding the issue of
religious freedom in Turkey, says this week’s guest for Monday Talk,
and the current government has done too little in the more than 10
years it has been in power.
`The government is not responding systematically to issues of
religious freedom; instead, it is choosing which problems to address,’
says Mine Yıldırım, head of the Freedom of Belief Initiative project
of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee in Turkey.
`The Litmus test in this regard is the situation of the Alevis; their
demands have not been met. Plus, what has not changed is the idea that
religion should be controlled by a central authority. The government
has taken some positive steps to rectify the situation of the
so-called Lausanne minorities. The government has made a positive step
in this regard, changing the law regarding religious associations and
foundations, allowing the return of properties that belong to
non-Muslims. However, even there, change is too slow and, again, not
systematic,’ she added.
In addition, Yıldırım says the Turkish government does not respect
many decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR),
including cases regarding the removal of the `religion’ section on the
national identity cards of Turkish citizens, compulsory `Religious
Culture and Ethics’ courses in state schools and several decisions
regarding the right to conscientious objection to military service.
The Norwegian Helsinki Committee, which prepared `The Right to Freedom
of Religion or Belief in Turkey-Monitoring Report, January-June 2013,’
makes a number of recommendations to the government, media, the
Ministry of Education, Ministry of Interior, and municipalities.
Answering our questions, Yıldırım elaborates on the issue.
When did the Norwegian Helsinki Committee begin working on the issue
of freedom of religion?
The Norwegian Helsinki Committee studies concerning Turkey began in
the 1990s with the TÄ°HV (Human Rights Foundation of Turkey) in
relation to victims of torture. The committee has been working on the
issue of freedom of belief for the last year. The basic idea is to
monitor and record developments and deficiencies with regard to
freedom of religion or belief in Turkey without discrimination between
religions and beliefs, and it includes the rights of non-religious
people. We also make recommendations for corrective action by the
government.
What does Turkey’s record in this regard tell us?
Turkey does not protect freedom of thought, religion or belief in a
way which is compatible with the minimum standards of international
human rights law. Turkey is a party to many international agreements;
plus, many official statements are in the right direction. However,
there are deficiencies in practice. First, the right to freedom of
religion or belief is not protected with all of its components. For
example, conscientious objection to military service is not protected.
Then, groups based on religion or belief are often not allowed to
establish educational institutions. The state is not neutral regarding
freedom of religion. The Directorate of Religious Affairs decides
which beliefs are regarded as religions.
This reminds me of previous efforts by the Justice and Development
Party (AK Party) government of Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an regarding the
problems of the Alevis. Although the government arranged several
workshops in order to address their problems, in the end, ruling party
officials asked the Religious Affairs Directorate how to handle the
Alevis’ demands to have their own places of worship recognized. Was
this the right step on the part of the government?
The government did not have to ask the Religious Affairs Directorate
what to do in this regard. The directorate only serves Sunni Muslims,
even though it is financed by the taxes of all citizens. While imams
are paid by the Religious Affairs Directorate, Christians or Alevis
volunteer to finance the salaries of their religious leaders. This is
an issue raised by believers who would like to have equality in this
regard. What the government has to do in relation to the Alevi
community is to protect their right to freedom of religion or belief
in line with human rights standards. This will mean, for example,
granting place of worship status to cemevis (houses of worship for
Alevis) and granting exemptions to Alevi students who do not wish to
take the compulsory `Religious Culture and Ethics’ courses.
Unfortunately, there is strong resistance to these measures.
`Gov’t has monopoly on decisions concerning religious education’
You also deal with the issues of non-believers. What are the concerns
in this regard?
If there is no freedom not to believe, we cannot talk about freedom of
thought or belief. We place equal emphasis on Sunni Muslim women’s
right to wear headscarves and Baha’i’s demands for religious freedom,
Alevis’ rights to demand legal status for their cemevis and the demand
of atheists and agnostics for removal of the religion section from
birth certificates. We discuss the desire of atheists to express their
skepticism and discuss religion in the public sphere within the same
legal and conceptual framework. Atheists have been ostracized most.
They have problems with the right to freedom of association. They
usually organize through the Internet, and their sites have been
hacked as well as being the subject of prosecution. To a large extent
they feel that they have to hide their beliefs. It has been a positive
development that they were able to establish an association recently.
In one of our conferences, we have seen that all non-Sunni, non-Muslim
belief groups experience similar problems.
Different belief groups oppose the idea of the Religious Affairs
Directorate serving only Sunni Muslims although this directorate has
been financed by taxes collected from all citizens. What are other
problems common to different belief groups?
They have problems in the education system. Mandatory and selective
religion classes in schools and restrictions on the education of
religious leaders constitute the main problems. The `Religious Culture
and Ethics’ course is mandatory, and then there are elective courses,
such as learning the Quran and the life of the Prophet Muhammad.
Although the name of the course is `Religious Culture and Ethics,’ it
is really only about Sunni Islam. There is a section about Alevis and
Alevism, but Alevi citizens are not satisfied with it. Additionally,
to get an exemption from the courses, you need to be Christian or
Jewish; for Alevis, Baha’i’s, atheists and agnostics, it is mandatory
to participate in the courses. When it comes to the elective religion
courses, they cater only to the desires of Sunni Muslims. The gist of
the matter is that the government has a monopoly regarding decisions
concerning religious education.
`Law on Freedom of Religion or Belief is needed’
Are there any positive steps that the government has taken?
The government has been instrumental in creating conditions in which
people can voice their complaints. This has been the greatest and most
important achievement; but it has done too little in the more than
10-year period that it has been in power. In addition, the government
is not responding systematically to issues of religious freedom;
instead, it is choosing which problems to address. The litmus test in
this regard is the situation of the Alevis; their demands have not
been met. Plus, what has not changed is the idea that religion should
be controlled by a central authority.
The government has taken some positive steps to rectify the situation
of the so-called Lausanne minorities. The government has taken a
positive step in this regard and changed the law regarding religious
associations and foundations, allowing return of properties that
belong to non-Muslims. However, even there, change is too slow and
again, not systematic. For example, their right to associate freely is
highly restricted. They want to be able to freely elect the governing
boards of their community foundations. For years they have been
waiting for a fair regulation on the election procedure; yet, even
though the government has the power to make the necessary changes, it
is not happening.
In addition, no religious groups in Turkey are able to acquire legal
status. This is one of the most common problems of religious or belief
groups in Turkey. We organized a conference with Bilgi University in
May 2014 and it was clear that there is a demand to establish a new
legal status — religious association — that takes into account the
nature and functioning of religious communities and their
representative organs. This issue has to be on the agenda of the
government.
I sincerely think that we need a Law on Freedom of Religion or Belief
that is drafted with broad participation and by seeking broad
consensus. Legislation that is in line with Turkey’s human rights
commitments will be an important step to solve the problems of
individuals and groups affiliated with diverse religious or belief
traditions as well as non-believers.
`PM’s remarks extremely incompatible with where Turkey ought to be’
As you know, the prime minister has been targeting a specific belief
group, the Gülen group, using hate speech and other slanderous
communication. What is your take on this situation?
When a high-level official demonizes any belief group, this sends the
wrong signals to the society. Especially public authorities should
refrain from negative discourse about any belief group. As I said,
there is no legal regulation allowing belief groups to acquire legal
status. The necessary legislative changes must be made to ensure that
all belief groups and their high level institutions acquire this
status. This is the only way to ensure transparency and accountability
with regard to religious institutions.
There is also the recent issue of the prime minister’s anti-Armenian
remarks. Would you care to comment?
It is difficult to understand the prime minister’s recent remarks
concerning Armenians and Georgians. On the one hand, we have to face
the fact that a considerable number of people share his opinion,
unfortunately. One the other hand, these remarks are extremely
incompatible with where Turkey ought to be. It shows in a dramatic way
where change has to start. I believe that real change will come, once
we all start turning from the errors of the past. This includes
everyone.
There have been important court cases, including the murder of Hrant
Dink, the Turkish-Armenian Agos newspaper’s late editor-in-chief, and
the Zirve murder cases in Malatya. Representatives of Turkey’s
Christian communities have expressed that the release of the suspects
has made them anxious, and many now feel unsafe here. Your comment?
What we need in these cases is effective justice. This means effective
investigation to uncover those who organized those crimes. Secondly,
we cannot have impunity. This is important for both the families of
the victims and Turkey’s democratization. We should be following up
closely on those cases. We cannot move forward if we bury these cases.
________________________________
`Gov’t should respect international agreements signed by Turkey’
The Turkish people will elect the president for the first time. When
you look at the candidates’ statements concerning freedom of belief,
do you think they can address the issue in a holistic way? Do you
favor one candidate over another in this regard?
In Turkey’s system, the president cannot produce policies; policies
are made in Parliament. Still, the president has the power of veto. It
is important to have a candidate who respects the international
treaties which have been signed by Turkey. A president’s messages are
important for the society. The HDP [People’s Democratic Party]
candidate [Selahattin DemirtaÃ…?] seems to have articulated the most
progressive position in this regard. We have also seen that the BDP
[pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party, which has come under the
umbrella of the HDP along with several small leftist parties] had the
most progressive position during the constitution drafting process. On
the other hand, the joint candidate of several parties [Ekmeleddin
Ä°hsanoÄ?lu] has emphasized human rights and Alevi rights, as well. As
people demand more in this regard, candidates have to respond to this.
It shows that as the civil society becomes more demanding politicians
cannot be oblivious to their demands.
You have not mentioned the other candidate, current Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an, who said regarding the Constitutional Court
decision that he does not respect the court’s decision to remove the
ban on Twitter. When a prime minister says that he does not respect
his country’s high court, can we expect that he would respect Turkey’s
international agreements?
It was an unfortunate statement. In each country, it is the
government’s responsibility to respect international agreements,
protect human rights and implement the decisions of the European Court
of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, we see that many decisions of the
court have not been respected by the Turkish government. For example,
the Sinan IÃ…?ık decision, in regard to the removal of the `religion’
section of the national identity cards of Turkish citizens, the Hasan
and Eylem Zengin cases concerning the compulsory `Religious Culture
and Ethics’ courses and several decisions regarding the right to
conscientious objection to military service. I hope the past practices
of the government in this regard will not continue.
PROFILE
Mine Yıldırım
Ms. Yıldırım is the head of the Freedom of Belief Initiative project
of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee in Turkey. She received her
bachelor’s degree from Marmara University in international relations
and her master’s degree from Leicester University in human rights and
civil liberties. She is currently a doctoral candidate at Ã…bo Akademi,
Institute for Human Rights in Finland. Her research is on the
collective dimension of freedom of religion or belief — international
law and the case of Turkey. She has published numerous articles in
academic journals as well as newspapers. She regularly writes for
Forum 18 on freedom of religion and belief in Turkey.
From: Baghdasarian
http://www.todayszaman.com/monday-talk_change-too-slow-not-systematic-regarding-freedom-of-belief_355145.html