Nefret söylemi linç ilişkisi: Türkiye'de nefret temelli linç
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
2020
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
ÖZET: Nefret söylemi temelli linci tanımlayabilmek için linç ve nefret söyleminin ne olduğu üzerine etimolojik ve sosyolojik bir tartışma yürütülmesi gerekir. Tezin ilk bölümünde erişilebilen kaynaklar çerçevesinde bu kavramlar açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Her linç olayı asli temelinde, “bir kitlenin bir kişi veya gruba karşı”, “herhangi bir şiddet eylemini planlı veya plansız olarak gerçekleştirmesi”, “kamu adına hukuksuz şiddet kullanması” ve/veya “yargısız ceza verilmesinin amaçlanması”dır. Özünde linç, nefrete giden yolun kendisidir. Diğer taraftan linci nefret suçundan ayıran en temel özellik, bireysellikten öte kontrolden çıkan bir kitlenin bir kişi veya gruba karşı fiziki anlamda şiddet uygulaması veya sanal ortamda görünümüyle kişinin veya grubun itibarını zedelemesidir. İkinci bölümde “nefret söylemi” ve “linç” kavramlarının hukuki boyutu ele alınmıştır. Bu bölümde dünyadaki somut vakalar ve uluslararası hukukta dayanak teşkil eden hukuki metinler irdelenmiştir. Nefret söylemi ve akabinde ortaya çıkan linç statik olmayan bir olgudur. Belirli bir dönemde mücadele edilen ve ardından sona eren bir olgu değil, aksine toplumun demokratik değerleri içselleştirememesine göre artabilen bir yapıya sahiptir. Bu nedenle, süregelen bir mücadelenin yanında hukuki dayanakların ve korumaların da pratikte nasıl uygulandığının da takip edilmesi gerekir. Üçüncü bölümde ilk iki bölümde anlatılan teorik konular, somut davalar üzerinden irdelenerek çalışma konumuzun Türk Adalet Sisteminde ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararlarında nasıl tezahür ettiği değerlendirilmiştir. Yine aynı bölümde dört örnek dava seçilmiştir. Bunlardan ikisi Türkiye yerel mahkemelerinin dava dosyaları ve diğer ikisi de AİHM kararlarıdır. Öncelikle dönemin yükselen milliyetçiliğinin sonuçlarına güzel bir örnek olabilecek, seracılık yapan ve Muğla’nın Fethiye ilçesinde yaşayan İ. Ç.’nin sadece yöresel bir kıyafeti giyip ‘Bu kıyafetleri giymek bile bir onurdur’ demesi sonucu ağır şekilde şiddete maruz kalması olayı üzerinde durulacaktır. İkinci olarak ise İ. Ç.’den yüzlerce kez daha iyi korunan buna rağmen Ankara Çubuk’ta linç girişimine maruz kalan Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’nun dava dosyası değerlendirilecektir. Ana muhalefet liderinin korumalarına rağmen yaşadığı nefret temelli linç, ne yazık ki bu topraklarda muhaliflerden, kadınlara, insan hakları savunucularından, LGBTİ+ bireylere kadar pek çok örneğinde olduğu gibi cezasızlık pratiğinin bir örneği ile sonuçlanmıştır. Her iki vaka linç girişimlerinin vahametini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca bölümün devamında Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Kaboğlu ve Oran v. Türkiye Kararı ve Dink v. Türkiye Kararı irdelenmiştir. Maruz kalanların pek çoğunun hayatta olmadığı ve ne yazık ki bir teze sıkıştırılamayacak kadar çok vakanın bulunduğu linç mevzusu bu çalışma ile irdelenmeye çalışılmıştır. Ne var ki, toplumda halen “biz” ve “öteki” üzerinden nefret söylemleri üretilmekte; muhalifler, kadınlar, Ermeniler, aleviler, LGBTİ+’lar ve toplumun “öteki”leri linç edecekleri günün hayalini kuran bir gruba karşı ceza kanunundaki eksiklikler ve cezasızlık nedeniyle korunamamaktadır. Bu kapsamda çalışmanın sonuç kısmında ceza adalet sistemindeki mevcut boşluğun doldurulması gerekliliği üzerinden, linç suçunun TCK’da ayrıca düzenlenmesini de içeren çözüm önerilerine yer verilmiştir. Ayrıca söz konusu düzenleme önerisi 28 Mayıs 2020 tarihinde Milletvekili Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu tarafından kanun teklifi olarak da sunulmuştur. Bu nedenle linç eyleminin ceza kanununda suç olarak tanınması ve yaptırımının ise bu suçun işlenmemesini sağlayacak oranda caydırıcı olması gerekmektedir.
ABSTRACT: An etymological and sociological debate on what is lynching and hate speech should be conducted in order to define the hate speech based lynch. In the first chapter of the thesis, these terms are tried to be explained within the framework of the available resources. The main basis of every lynching event is “aiming to impose a mass action against a person or group”, “to carry out any violent action with or without a plan”, “to use unlawful violence on behalf of the public” and / or “to aim to punish without a judgment”. Essentially, lynching is the path itself from hate. On the other hand, the most fundamental feature of lynching that distinguishes it from hate crime is the fact that a mass that comes out of control beyond individuality is physically violent against a person or group or damages the reputation of the person or group with its appearance in a virtual environment. In the second chapter, the legal dimension of “hate speech” and “lynching” terms is discussed. In this chapter, concrete cases in the world and legal texts that form a basis on international law are examined. Hate speech and subsequent lynching is a non-static phenomenon. It is not a phenomenon that struggles and ends after a certain period, but contrarily, it has a structure that can increase according to the inability of the society to internalize democratic values. Therefore, besides an ongoing struggle, it is necessary to follow how legal bases and protections are practiced. In the third chapter, the theoretical issues described in the first two chapters are examined through concrete cases and how the issue of our work is manifested in the Turkish Justice System and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In the same chapter, four sample cases are selected. The two of these case files are from Turkish domestic courts and the other ones are the ECHR decisions. First of all, a case which can be a good example of the results of the rising nationalism of the period will be held. İ.Ç., who is a greenhouse owner and lives in Fethiye district of Muğla was severely exposed to violence as a result of wearing a local dress and saying "Even wearing these clothes is an honor". Secondly, the case file of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, who was protected hundreds of times better than İ. Ç. despite subjected to lynching attempt in Çubuk will be held. The hate-based lynch that the main opposition leader suffered despite the bodyguards, unfortunately, has been resulted in one of the practice of impunity, as in many instances of opponents, women, human rights defenders, LGBTI + individuals. Both cases reveal the severity of lynching attempts. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights Kaboğlu and Oran v. Turkey Decision and Dink v. Turkey Decision are discussed. The study of lynching has been tried to be investigated with this study, since most of the ones who suffered were not alive and unfortunately there were too many cases that could not be put into a thesis. However, hate speech is still produced in society through “we” and “the other”; opponents, women, Armenians, Alewi people, LGBTI + people and the “others” of the society cannot be protected against groups that dreams of the day when they lynch bacause of deficiencies and impunity in criminal law. In this context, in the conclusion chapter of the study, the solution suggestions including the regulation of lynching crime in TCK over the necessity of filling the existing gap in the criminal justice system are included. In addition, the mentioned regulation proposal was submitted by Deputy Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu as a law proposal on 28 May 2020. Therefore, lynching should be recognized as a crime in the penal code and sanction should be a deterrent to ensure that this crime is not committed.
ABSTRACT: An etymological and sociological debate on what is lynching and hate speech should be conducted in order to define the hate speech based lynch. In the first chapter of the thesis, these terms are tried to be explained within the framework of the available resources. The main basis of every lynching event is “aiming to impose a mass action against a person or group”, “to carry out any violent action with or without a plan”, “to use unlawful violence on behalf of the public” and / or “to aim to punish without a judgment”. Essentially, lynching is the path itself from hate. On the other hand, the most fundamental feature of lynching that distinguishes it from hate crime is the fact that a mass that comes out of control beyond individuality is physically violent against a person or group or damages the reputation of the person or group with its appearance in a virtual environment. In the second chapter, the legal dimension of “hate speech” and “lynching” terms is discussed. In this chapter, concrete cases in the world and legal texts that form a basis on international law are examined. Hate speech and subsequent lynching is a non-static phenomenon. It is not a phenomenon that struggles and ends after a certain period, but contrarily, it has a structure that can increase according to the inability of the society to internalize democratic values. Therefore, besides an ongoing struggle, it is necessary to follow how legal bases and protections are practiced. In the third chapter, the theoretical issues described in the first two chapters are examined through concrete cases and how the issue of our work is manifested in the Turkish Justice System and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In the same chapter, four sample cases are selected. The two of these case files are from Turkish domestic courts and the other ones are the ECHR decisions. First of all, a case which can be a good example of the results of the rising nationalism of the period will be held. İ.Ç., who is a greenhouse owner and lives in Fethiye district of Muğla was severely exposed to violence as a result of wearing a local dress and saying "Even wearing these clothes is an honor". Secondly, the case file of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, who was protected hundreds of times better than İ. Ç. despite subjected to lynching attempt in Çubuk will be held. The hate-based lynch that the main opposition leader suffered despite the bodyguards, unfortunately, has been resulted in one of the practice of impunity, as in many instances of opponents, women, human rights defenders, LGBTI + individuals. Both cases reveal the severity of lynching attempts. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights Kaboğlu and Oran v. Turkey Decision and Dink v. Turkey Decision are discussed. The study of lynching has been tried to be investigated with this study, since most of the ones who suffered were not alive and unfortunately there were too many cases that could not be put into a thesis. However, hate speech is still produced in society through “we” and “the other”; opponents, women, Armenians, Alewi people, LGBTI + people and the “others” of the society cannot be protected against groups that dreams of the day when they lynch bacause of deficiencies and impunity in criminal law. In this context, in the conclusion chapter of the study, the solution suggestions including the regulation of lynching crime in TCK over the necessity of filling the existing gap in the criminal justice system are included. In addition, the mentioned regulation proposal was submitted by Deputy Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu as a law proposal on 28 May 2020. Therefore, lynching should be recognized as a crime in the penal code and sanction should be a deterrent to ensure that this crime is not committed.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Nefret Söylemi, Nefret Suçu, Linç, Şiddet, Kitle, Hate Speech, Hate Crime, Lynching, Violence, Mass