The need for justice

It is correct that in Western countries, as the prime minister noted, people do not attack their governments when a terror incident happens; they actually demonstrate social solidarity against terror.

Nobody can truly deny the importance of national solidarity in addition to enhanced security measures in the fight against terror. However, it is difficult to achieve this only through calls.

First of all, there should be an independent, impartial justice system in the country that all segments can trust. Moderate political relations should be routine; sharp polarization prevents that.

There are several factors needed for a society to become a “nation,” to become “we.” One of them is trust in state institutions and justice. Then, solidarity is much easier.

The West has been able to reach its current level of quality in law, politics and the feeling of solidarity after many bloody fights.  

It was anti-terror prosecutor François Molins who gave the statement about the investigation after the terror attacks in Paris. None of the politicians were making a show of “look, we caught him.”

The same happened in the terror incidents in Brussels. The statement was given by prosecutor Frederic van Leeuw. Why? First, the prosecutor’s statement was more credible. Second, it was because of the separation of powers and respect for the independence of the judiciary…

In our country, after an important terror incident, the Ankara chief public prosecutor made this statement: “The necessary statements will soon be made by our statesmen…” (Feb. 19).

Moreover, the 277th article in the penal code was changed on June 18, 2014; it was decriminalized “to give orders to and exert pressure on the judiciary” during an investigation.

Why? The only reason can be the desire to intervene in politically important investigations, the wish to be able to give orders, to exert pressure… What else, if not for this?

For this reason, indictments are written with the language of politics. A historic example of this was the Gezi Park cases. The government claimed it was an “attempted coup” and cases were opened seeking life sentences for an “attempted coup.” Then all the defendants were acquitted. If they had been sentenced, it would have been overruled by the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). 

Similarly, a case I believe to be a political one has been opened on charges of “organized oil smuggling” against 47 people, including Doğan Media Group honorary chair Aydın Doğan and İş Bank General Manager Ersin Özince.

First, a tax fine was imposed aimed at pressuring the Doğan Media Group… This was followed by constant targeting of the group and smear campaigns.  

There was even a physical attack which damaged daily Hürriyet’s headquarters. 

Following this, there were cases opened against the Doğan group with accusations of “terror propaganda…”
Now, there is an “organized smuggling” case.

The group has been accused of failing to pay the full amount of importation taxes. According to the group’s statement, this importation was exempt from tax, so how can a tax that does not exist be unpaid? How can there be a tax evasion in a tax exempt situation, the statement asked.

In order to put Aydın Doğan in the defendant box, the scope of the investigation has been opened so wide that 47 people have been included in the indictment.

I am again betting that if sentences are given due to the alleged crimes and if these rulings are not overruled in the Constitutional Court and the ECHR, then I know nothing about law.

I believe they will all be acquitted before this stage.

This too will pass and be forgotten, but with the fact trust in law and justice has been shaken and destruction and suffering has been caused by it, isn’t that experienced by everybody every day?

No problem should make us forget the necessity of universal law and justice.