Turkey’s justice with mustache

Nevin used to live alone. No husband was there to protect her. A man kept on coming to her home to rape her.

The whole village knew about it. Including the muhtar. No-one raised their voice. No-one said “enough of this disgrace.” No-one prevented it. On the contrary, everyone waited, afraid that the rapist might come knocking on their doors next.

There was an alone, weak and desperate woman. No-one helped that woman. That is how we are. We are very ethical, very decent and very loyal to moral values! Is that so? Not really.

Not only did no one support Nevin but she was also held responsible.

This is how it works in our lands. The raped person must have done something to encourage it. They must have provoked it. They must have behaved in a certain, provocative way otherwise this would not have happened. And so the woman ends up getting blamed for the disgusting acts of others.

In the end she could bear no more. She wanted to prove herself a virtuous woman. She acted alone. She cut off the head of her rapist and throw it in front of the village tea house.

Enough of our hypocritical understanding of morality!

Don’t misunderstand me. There is no situation that justifies Nevin’s brutality. I do not justify it. But what about the brutality that was done to her?

I believe the whole village bears some responsibility in this murder, especially those who left her without support.

When the trial started, there were debates on whether “the state would take care of the baby born as a result of rape.”

They dragged their feet so much, acting so slowly that she was obliged to give birth. And she did. It came to that irreversible point. She had to give birth to the child of her rapist.

Having a child should be matter of love and affection, not of hate and violence.

Who wants to give birth to the children of rapists?

But Nevin’s plight went on and on as she was obliged to give birth to her rapist’s baby.

The decision to give birth should belong to the mother. The state should not interfere. Why should she be forced to give birth to the baby of a man she hates?

But then religion enters the equation. If you say this baby has been given to you by Allah, then there is no way out. There is no possibility of abortion. And obviously no-one is there to think about the woman, about Nevin’s wellbeing. Because she has no name, no right, no voice. Politics can be played out through her body.

Another aspect is that the case has been classed as homicide with provocation. But the charge of murder against Nevin has not been reduced to the lesser charge of manslaughter.

In this country several murderers, rapists and sex offense criminals have benefited from a reduction to the severity of the charges against them through considerations of provocation.

Several men have claimed their wives were cheating on them without providing any tangible evidence. Several men have said: “I was jealous.” They have said: “She told me I was not a man.” They have said: “I loved her so much, that’s why I killed her.”

They wore a tie in the court room and received reduced sentences because of their “provocation”-based defenses as well as their good conduct.

How about Nevin?

Why could Nevin not benefit from a similar reduction? Is it because we have a justice with a mustache? Is it because she is a woman living by herself and no one cares?

The local court gave her life imprisonment, a sentence that was later overruled by the Supreme Court of Appeals. She has been in prison for the past six years and in her latest court case that took place on Jan. 3, her demand for release was rejected.