Sure, let’s talk operation instead of the security bill

If you are trying to criticize, all you can say is three sentences; if you want to defend it again, the total of what you can say is three sentences. Well, add to them the two or three bad jokes that have been made up.

Since we heard the news Sunday morning, we have been listening - all together – to nine sentences. Some of us cannot stop writing and talking; sometimes nerves break down, even fights erupt out of these nine sentences.

Yes, I am talking about the relocation of the Tomb of Shah.

At a time when the whole country was talking about the relocation of the tomb operation with an almost lustful appetite, the first 10 articles of the Homeland Security Package, containing some of the most controversial articles, were accepted at the parliament. While you are reading this, I wonder: how many more have passed?

This bill introduces extremely important amendments on our most fundamental rights and should be thoroughly debated by the public; the public should at least be informed.

We should not have downgraded the issue to the “Are we becoming a police state?” slogan or the “Should we leave Molotov cocktails free?” simple logic, but unfortunately this has happened.

Now, some would immediately come up and say “They did the tomb operation to cool down the debates on the security package,” but I do not think so.

There is a “united opposition” in Turkey as strong as the government and they are against the Homeland Security Package. If they did not want to, the tomb operation would not have been talked about so much. There actually is an unspoken agreement between the government and the opposition. Both sides prefer to talk about the tomb operation instead of the Homeland Security bill.

Well, when the situation is like this, everybody continues to debate the discussion that consists of nine sentences. Well, then, good luck with our new homeland security law.

Language of the opposition

There is no doubt that a bill named the “Homeland Security Package” is prepared from a “policing” viewpoint instead of a libertarian viewpoint. Those defending the bill are also saying this. They said, “If the Oct. 6-7 Kobane incidents had not been experienced, this package would not have been introduced.”

The law does not expand the citizens’ rights and freedoms to criticize the government through peaceful protests and try to influence them. On the contrary, it expands the right of the police to intervene more harshly in these kinds of demonstrations.

What should you do as the opposition if the government comes up with such a bill?
 Our opposition rejected the bill categorically from the first day. They said, “If this bill passes, Turkey will become a police state, the regime of the country will change.” The opposition called on people to resist and take to the streets.

The opposition’s opting for this language ended all hopes of negotiation and compromise. Actually, the bill went through serious amendments at the parliamentary commission but it was the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) group, not the opposition, which made the changes.

Maybe you are watching the general assembly from time to time. Nobody is trying to correct the law or eliminate the inconveniences; the ruling party is stubbornly after passing the law and the opposition is out to obstruct it.

As a matter of fact, it is known that many ruling party deputies are not happy with the bill. The prime minister said they were open to suggestions; former President Abdullah Gül said it should be reviewed.
 
As a result, the bill is being accepted as it came out of the commission, and not many changes are being done in its articles at the general assembly.