By Yusuf Kanli
TDN- Whatever the underlying reason might be, how could a member of a consultative board on human rights resort to the use of brute force to silence the chairman of that board? How can anyone help but deplore such behavior?
We must deplore primitive actions, regardless of the motivation by which they might be triggered. One cannot defend human rights on the one hand and try at the same time to suppress people by resorting to the use of brute force. There can be no excuse for the use of force by one individual on another in a modern society.
Nowadays Turkey is witnessing a campaign aimed at heightening national awareness against domestic violence -- that is, violence behind the sacred family walls. We have been hearing about men beating their wives and children, with women acting likewise, although to a much lesser extent. Many people, obviously for the sake of the "sanctity of family life" principle, keep such unhappy incidents from the public eye and never allow them to be revealed. This is a very serious problem in every society.
Violence inflicted on young children and juveniles, in particular, must be exposed -- of course, in a manner that avoids humiliating the victims -- and both the state and nongovernmental organizations established to defend modern values must collaborate with the mass media in building a national awareness against domestic violence.
Sometimes we witness extreme cases of violence that force us to think, "Oh my God, what kind of a world are we living in?"
Anyone interested in democratization, human rights and individual liberties must have heard about a report drafted by the Prime Ministry's Human Rights Advisory Board -- a report that was orphaned when the Prime Ministry and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul refused to acknowledge it, declaring that the board, for whatever reason it was established other than preparing such a paper, was not asked to prepare this kind of report.
A controversy over the issue has been simmering for some time, with some members of the board publicly expressing objections to the report, which was written by Professor Baskin Oran in line with extensive deliberations on the issue at the consultative board. The controversy centered in particular on the "definition of minority" and the "identity and sub-identity" or "culture and sub-culture" issues.
Ibrahim Kabaoglu, the chairman of the consultative board, was to officially unveil the report on Monday. He was unable to do so -- the entire Turkish press and everyone interested in such issues have already obtained a copy of the paper, anyway -- because a board member prevented him from releasing it by resorting to brute force, tearing the report up and bringing the news conference to an abrupt end.
Many supported the paper, while others objected to the terminology used in it and branded it as "prejudiced" and "harmful to national unity." Who could object to debate on any report? Wherever there is an idea, a thesis or a position on an issue under debate, naturally there are people for and against it. Is there a need to fight each other physically to prove our point?
Whatever the underlying reason, how could a member of a consultative board on human rights resort to the use of brute force to silence the chairman of that board? How can anyone help but deplore such behavior?
It's already bad enough to have a government refuting and publicly opposing a report prepared by a consultative board it had established. At least members of a "human rights" board -- even if it is just a consultative one -- should avoid the use of force.