Is Hizmet being subjected to genocide? (1)

Orhan Erdemli*

Genocide is a crime our society is acutely aware of. Are we sufficiently informed about it even though it is considered the most serious crime against humanity?

Indeed, the word genocide brings to our minds mass killings and relocations of members of a race, usually under war-like conditions. Yet, genocide is not a war crime. It is not a type of crime committed against a specific race. Rather, it has wider connotations. This crime may be committed against a specific group, without massacring them and in a peaceful setting.

As its title implies, this article aims to discuss the recent ill treatment of members of a religious community and the operations conducted or to be conducted against them within the context of the notion of genocide in the international law.

Everything started with Turkey entering a period of three consecutive elections. In this period, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan started to wield hate speech and hurl unfounded accusations against Fethullah Gülen, a well-respected Turkish-Islamic scholar, and the Hizmet movement inspired by his views. He labeled the Hizmet movement as a clandestine network, colluding with foreign forces trying to overthrow the government through treason and espionage. He publicly made Mr. Gülen and his followers the target of his uncontrolled attacks. Some ministers, deputies and advisers made similar remarks. Media outlets and columnists that closely support the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) are carrying fuel to this ever-growing defamation attempt. Unfortunately, the party's voter bank has been extremely incited to carry out physical attacks against the members of the Hizmet movement. Indeed, AKP supporters have beaten a teacher at a dershane (prep school) for spreading propaganda about another party and attacked a TV station for broadcasting anti-AKP news.

It goes without saying that what has been done so far constitutes crimes such as insults, threats, slanders and hate. Indeed, several individuals and organizations have filed official complaints with prosecutors, seeking legal action against the perpetrators of these crimes. Yet, what we intend to do here is to draw attention to the bigger picture and draw the public attention to this point in terms of genocide and crimes against humanity.

The crime of genocide: historical development

The definition of genocide as a crime was made possible thanks to Resolution 260 of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. On December 9, 1948, the UN General Assembly opened the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" for signature, ratification and accession. Turkey ratified this convention with a law numbered 23.03.1950. Thus, Turkey acknowledged that genocide, whether committed in times of peace or in times of war, is a crime under international law, and undertook to prevent and to punish it.

The convention entered into force on December 12, 1951. "Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international cooperation is required," the contracting parties agreed on the provisions of the convention.

According to Article 2 of the convention, "Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Following the ratification of the convention, the countries that were part of it were supposed to introduce laws defining the reprehensible acts and specifying effective penalties for them in their domestic laws. However, it took 55 years -- until 2005 -- for Turkey to define genocide in its domestic law. Article 76 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) entered into force on June 1, 2005, and described a crime in which tangible and intangible components are clearly defined under the title "genocide."

The TCK defines genocide in strict compliance with the UN convention. Article 76 reads: "Execution of any one of the following acts under a plan against members of national, racial or religious groups with the intention of destroying the complete or part of the group, creates the legal consequence of an offense defined as genocide:

(a) Voluntary manslaughter; (b) To act with the intention of giving severe corporal or spiritual injury; (c) To impose conditions that make survival of complete or part of the group members impossible; (d) To impose conditions that prevent births in the group; and (e) To transfer minors of a group to another group."

Unlike the UN Convention, Article 76 of the TCK adds the phrase "under a plan" into the definition.

Elements of the crime of genocide

It is clear from the aforementioned definitions that for an act to be defined as genocide, it must be performed "against members of national, racial or religious groups with the intention of destroying the complete or part of the group." This is the point we need to discuss in depth. The ruling party and pro-government groups have been uttering repeated threats such as "This is the second war of liberation," "We will wipe them out," "There is no mercy" and "There is no turning back." What do these statements mean from a legal perspective? Can this discourse be regarded as evidence of "intention[s] of destroying the complete or part of the group," which fits the definition in Article 76 of the TCK?

First, let us concentrate on the characteristics of the "group." Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan does not publicly use the words "Fethullah Gülen" or "Fethullah Gülen's group" in his speeches. Instead, he uses words like "Hoca" or "The guy in Pennsylvania" in public rallies, and everyone knows for sure which group he is specifically referring to with these words. Indeed, national and international media outlets note that the prime minister is specifically targeting a group known as Cemaat (community) or the Hizmet movement, with Mr. Gülen as its leader, and the prime minister does not refute these reports.

Today, it is generally accepted both Turkey and the international arena that there is a group referred to as the "Gülen movement." The government's viewpoint is no different; official reports sent from various public institutions to the Ankara 2nd State Security Court (DGM) -- later renamed to the Ankara 11th High Criminal Court -- tried Mr. Gülen on various charges for eight years and included the description "Fethullah Gülen Group." None of the reports sent by the National Police Department and the General Staff to the court referred to an organization or gang, but to a "group."

The National Police Department has described the "Fethullah Gülen Group" as one of the "traditional Islamic groups and religious movements," noting that it "focuses on activities for reinforcing the existing Islamic mentality in people and spreading the belief in God." The report from the General Staff referred to the "Fethullah Gülen Nurcu Group." It is clear that the "Fethullah Gülen Group" is accepted as a "religious group." Therefore, it is entitled to be defined as a "religious group" within the context of Article 76 of the TCK.

At this point, it should further be noted that Erdoğan and his ministers have been referring to Mr. Gülen and the Hizmet movement by stating, "You are hardly a hoca [religious leader]," "They are not pious," and "They are not a religious movement." The general public may perceive these remarks as denigrating. But it is also possible that the prime minister might have received warnings from legal professionals in connection with ongoing operations against the Gülen movement, which, it is said, will be considerably stepped up after the local elections on March 30.

Indeed, it would be considerably difficult for the government to explain their unlawful practices. When he fully implements his ambiguous "plan to finish off the movement," which he intends to do on a global scale, Erdoğan wouldn't want to face genocide charges. It is possible that the reason why he frequently says this group does not have religious character is an effort to avoid charges of attempting to "destroy the complete or part of the group."

*Orhan Erdemli is a lawyer of Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen, whose principles inspired the faith-based Hizmet movement.

Published on Sunday's Zaman, 23 March 2014, Sunday

Related

• Is Hizmet being subjected to genocide? (2)