Turkey is accusing academics of seeking peace of terrorism

Last week, court processes began in Istanbul for those who signed the Peace Academy Petition in January 2016. A total of 148 processes are set to be held by May 2018, with new processes expected to be announced in the near future. Each focus on a single individual, but the charge is the same for all. If convicted, each signatory will face imprisonment of up to seven and a half years.

In the petition, titled “we will not be part of this crime”, more than 2 thousand signatories sought a solution through negotiations on the military conflict taking place between the Turkish state and the shuttle working party. [ PKK]. At the time of major clashes in Turkey's Kurdish-populated cities, petitioners condemned the continuation of violence against the Turkish people, calling for the ban on the police watch that deprived the population of the necessary foods, and asking the Turkish government to resume talks with the PKK, which the government had previously inaugurated. The petition cited violations of international law and violation of basic democratic principles, and accused the government of “of a planned massacre and deportation”.

Nearly 500 academics who have signed the petition have already lost their posts, and have no chance of working again; some are subject to stoppages on travel; and some others have received passports, preventing them from working in Turkey and finding them.

What is the substance of these charges? The public prosecutor charges academics that “have propagand for a terrorist organisation” punishable with Article 72 of Turkish anti-terror guidance. The call to petition for a ban on violence and to obey international laws is taken by the state as a propaganda for PKK. The prosecution offers a careful reading of the current petition. The weirdest thing is that the prosecution starts with the petition, quoting it literally, and then ending up, without any arguments, that it makes up a supportive statement about PKK.

This is a deliberate twist and a change in the clear meaning of the petition. In fact, the petition calls for a peaceful agreement, so it clearly does not affirm any purpose or violent action by the Kurdish group. And the word "peace" becomes a code for terrorism.

The steps by which the prosecution distorts the petition seem to be these: (1) in calling for a cease from violence against the Kurdish people, signatories are taking sides with Kurds; (2) Kurds are considered terrorists, so that taking their side translates into the alliance with terrorism; (3) calling for peaceful solutions includes negotiations with terrorists; (4) a call for negotiations with terrorists constitutes propaganda for terrorist organisation. Thus, (5) the petition for halting violence and launching negotiations on achieving peace and protecting national and international laws and also protecting human rights is nothing more than propaganda for the violence of Kurds.

The charge thus dismisss the petition for state violence. It is signatories who are considered violators of the Law for “organising slanderous campaigns against the Republic of Turkey, its government, its judges, army and security forces using the press and the media...” It is signatories who promote the propaganda campaign “for the terrorist PKK... legitimise or promote its methods, including violence and threats. ”

Those who call for peace, not violence, who oppose massacres as crimes against humanity are accused of advancing violent agendas.

The use of media to circulate and spread the purposes of the international petition becomes a point of the prosecution as well. The charge claims there were no massacres and that police hours did not lead dangerous cuts in food supplies, though these facts were confirmed by “Amnesty International” and “Human Rights Watch”. So the petition must have used false news on the charge. The prosecution calls state violence a necessary security company for the Serbians in Turkish areas, citing the appeal petitioning in international law to protect their lives, the éresidents, as a defamatory propaganda.

The petition followers have been charged with sub-x0> sharing forged news, baseless and Malaysian through deinformation, attacking the Republic of Turkey, government, military and security forces.” They accuse peace petitioners who are fighting “fighting” through the media, but their struggle is now taking shape in a series of court processes, designed for the consumption of mass media.

Curibly, the call to include international monitoring to ensure that human rights are being respected and that they participate in peace talks has been interpreted on charges as “attack” on the sovereignty of the Turkish state. Recep Tayip Erdogan, the president, initiated this line of thought when he attacked the call of the petition for international monitoring as the product of metalism, a twist that is very provocative in the world where international norms and human rights were really used for interventary purposes, often with catastrophic consequences.

Furthermore, Turkey's desire to enter Europe and its denial of the latter have spread a lot of bitterness towards international powers. The petitioning in the international one, however, is not interventionary: it is called on to the real potential that international human rights rates have ever contributed to the loss of human dignity granted by state violence.

International solidarity is once again cruise at this time when our colleagues in Turkey are facing criminal charges. This could take the form of financial support for condemned academics, and in calling on professional organisations and higher education institutes of a national and international level to solidify with our colleagues, whether through a boycott or through a different campaign.

It remains necessary to keep a close eye on the procedures, and despite risk for the people involved, to call on lawyers' associations and human rights organisations to sponsor delegations to Turkey to observe judicial processes in the coming months. It is important that they report how these things will go and what can be done to protect our colleagues who are suffering state vengeance for expressing their differences and wanting peace.

Subtitle by: Periscope. Taken by Guardian.