arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

Indymedia: In Belgium, we don't have a lot of information about Turkey in the mainstream media. Could you just explain the situation concerning human rights, lack of freedom of expression,...?

Sanar Yurdatapan: ... and lack of a lot of democracy, yes. First I must tell that the valid constitution today was made by five generals at the time of the military regime. Even in this constitution, many human rights are declared: "you have this right, and that right, BUT..." There is always a "BUT" at the end of each article: "but this freedom can never be used against the unity of the state, blablabla...". So whenever you want to do something, you knock your head against that wall. This is why legislation is totally absurd in Turkey at the moment, because even though some laws seem to be democratic, or some practices seem to be democratic, at the same time you may also witness very horrible things. If you just want to see one side of that, you can say: "Well, look, that man just said very dangerous things, this means there is democracy in Turkey." But maybe half an hour later, the same person in the same place will have a lot of trouble because of the same words. So mainly the problem is not only the legislation, but the practice itself, which is totally arbitrary.

IMC: In this sense, how do you see the fact that the European Union talks about integrating Turkey in the Union "because it's a growing democracy"?

S.Y.: Well, it's a many-sided affair. First, Europe will never do that. They are only using the lack of democracy in Turkey as an excuse at the moment. They have the right to use this excuse, because it is true, unfortunately. But suppose Turkey was democratic all of a sudden tomorrow, all the freedoms were accepted. Would they accept a country with almost 65 million people and a lot of economic problems? Of course not. So let's turn back to the democratic rights, etcetera: yes, there should be a lot of progress in Turkey, and I'm not too hopeless yet. It's not possible to stop the interior powers in Turkey anymore with forbidding everything, putting people in prison.

I'll give you a very funny example about our freedom of expression action here. We've had a civil disobedience action, the republishing of articles which caused some people to be put in prison. There is such a law in Turkey: republishing any article which is defined as a crime means committing a new crime, and the publisher should be sentenced equally as the writer. Even if he or she states that he disagrees with the content, he's still responsible. A very good law to stop ideas, thinking, speaking and writing, but we are using it in reverse now. It started about seven years ago, we started a republishing, and went to the state prosecutor, telling him: "Look, here's a crime, do your duty please." It started with a group of a thousand people, among them very famous artists. For seven years, we went on and on and on, and we came to the point that now, the latest little book, a similar book, had 77.663 publishers. And the total number of places in Turkish prisons is around 71.000. So we need more prisons, and I think they need a stadium in that case. Now a new one is coming, we are about to start a new signature campaign, and our target is to have 200.000 publishers this time. We'll republish the old crimes of the people who are in prison or being tried to be put in prison, including myself; I'm playing both roles, I'm trying to save myself in this case (laughter).

IMC: Since we've arrived in Istanbul, we've heard people talk about daily murders, violences, attempts to arrest people, put them in jail and so on. It seems to belong to daily life. Is it really that bad? Is the state so authoritarian and arbitrary?

S.Y.: Arbitrary, yes. Authoritarian, yes again. Some forces within the state, mainly military, don't want to lose their privileges. They are also against the participation of Turkey in the European Union, but they cannot do anything because they don't have any economic power. But yet, they don't want to lose their privileges. This is why, as I told you a few minutes ago, here you may see something very democratic, and five minutes later, again here and to the same person, you may see some arbitrary attack or something like that. This is why many forces are struggling among them, but mainly, as I told you, the thing we call "state". It's quite different from what the people in Europe understand. Usually, when you ask us questions, you ask them this way: "your government is doing this, your government is doing that". Government is not very important in Turkey. The state is something else. You may win the elections, become the prime minister, but you're not allowed to realise your own plans. The state itself resists. It means mainly the military, but also many civilians in many institutions, universities, and the judicial power, the big judges, etcetera. They never allow new people to come and take their places if they are against the official ideas. So official ideas are blocked within many institutions. And this is why you see the state in front of you, and not the government. So in this sense, there is a great resistance and you see many arbitrary and antidemocratic things here and there.

IMC: For example? Daily examples: prosecution of trade unionists, press, activists...

S.Y.: Just a concrete example I may give you: the right to have rallies or meetings. In the constitution, it says that everybody has the right to have a rally or a political meeting, to express their ideas, without having to ask any permission. But when you turn to practice, you will see that they make it almost impossible for you. Normally, you have to declare what you're going to do, because if you get attacked, the police has to save you, to protect you. So you declare it, OK. But in order to make this declaration, seven people have to bring in those and those documents. And yet, the governor and the police have the right to stop it and declare it illegal at the last moment. How and why? Well, they don't have that authorisation by law, but they are doing it in practice. So if you just take to the street and ask 100 people the same question: "What do you think about illegal demonstrations Does police have the right to stop them?" No-one will say: "Illegal? Not permitted? But you never need permission for that! It's the law!" Nobody will say that, because they always hear on television and read in the newspapers: "Police attack on illegal demonstrators, demonstration without permission", things like that. So although it is a legal right for you to have demonstrations, in practice, you have to ask permission for it, and that permission is given very rarely. This is why almost every month, a few times, when people try to have very democratic and peaceful protest actions, the police attacks them.

Two days ago, some women tried to protest, on some square in Istanbul, against the attack of the police and oppression of the hunger strikers. Maybe you'll go and see that area, Küçük Armutlu. Some people, some prisoners, or some people who want to support them, are on hunger strike or "death fast" there. The state wants to put an end to that, but they resist. The state attacked the prisons last December, and they named that operation "Operation Back to life". They killed 31 people there, prisoners, unarmed people. They said that the death fasters in the prisons didn't do it willingly, that some political groups were forcing them to do that. But now, although they put them in separate cells, most of them are still keeping it up. And also, when they're released for health reasons, they keep up that hunger strike or death fast there in Armutlu. And two days ago, some women, unarmed women, very peacefully, wanted to protest against this situation, and police arrested them and beat them. So this is why, in daily life, we may very often see things like that.

IMC: Speaking specifically about death fasters and hunger strikers, can you explain us the origins and reasons of this struggle, and since when it is going on?

S.Y.: Well, even before there were any death fasters, many people died. In the past, the conditions in Turkish prisons were too bad. Usually, the prisoners were living all together in big barracks, with very little money. The food was too bad, everything was very bad. Plus, one more wrong thing, some gangsters, or some rich people who went to prison for some reason, would be a sort of leaders of the prison, and they had some people around. When a innocent, new person came around, first these men would try to understand how much money he had. And then the official offer would come: "Your life is not guaranteed here, there are all sorts of people here. You may even get killed for your money. So if you accept the protection of that "chief", your life will be safe, but you have to pay this and that." This was a normal practice in the past. But after that - it first started after the military takeover in 1971 - mainly after the 1980 military coup, a lot of political people were put in jail. They knew a lot about the world, and they had their personalities, so they never obeyed these rules. They started to protect themselves, and lived as groups in there. And of course, in their own barracks, they were speaking, reading, discussing about political problems, etcetera. Many things changed there. The state did not like this. They wanted them to be isolated, and bow their heads, and obey what was said. But they wouldn't, and they were protecting each other. Later on, they started to ask for more, because many things had to be changed: better food, good medical care, many things. So there has been a big struggle between the administration and the prisoners. In 1996, there have also been first hunger strikes and then death fasts, and some people died there too. The conditions there had to be changed, and there was a big support from society towards those people. The state decided to take those rights back. This is why they have prepared some special prisons called "F-type". In those F-type prisons, the people should be put in cells, one to five or six people - different cells - but an isolation should be in practice there. Of course, the political prisoners resisted, they didn't accept it. And so those hunger strikes and death fasts started, and the state attacked them, as I told you.

I've been in prison three times, and the first two times, we were living together in barracks. That's how I know what it all means. If I was there in prison with them, I would be one of them, because it's a matter of life guarantee. If you're alone, they can come at any time and take you away, torture you and bring you back - or they may even not bring you back. They can hang you somewhere and say you hung yourself. Two days ago, it happened in some prison in Turkey again. A young person. They said he hung himself, but we know very well that this is a lie; I hope the truth will be known some time. So of course, they resist it. It's a matter of life guarantee.

The third time I went to prison again - it was last December - it was a very short sentence of 24 days, because of a little book I republished, as I told you. At the time, this discussion was going on, the death fasts were going on, and the ministry of justice were giving declarations that "we cannot control the lives in prison". Unfortunately, it is also true that when a barrack is under the control of a political group, it is possible - it has happened when I was in prison two times before - that they may kill one of their own friends, saying that he was a traitor. It is true, unfortunately. But they kill one or two like that; when the state comes, they want to kill all of them. This was the excuse that the minister was giving. He was saying: "We can not give life guarantee to the people in prison". So I sent an open letter to him: "OK, I'm about to go to prison, so you have to send me to that F-type, since there's no life guarantee in the others." At the last moment - it came as a surprise for me - it was accepted. The F-types were closed then, but there was a very similar type called "special type", where there were cells for 4 to 12 people. It was accepted and I was put there. Although it was a short time - 24 days, in practice I spent only 13 - I felt what sort of thing isolation is. You can see nobody else. During the day, three times, your door, or a little window within your door, is opened, and your food is given to you, that's all. They don't even talk to you. The cell I was put into was for 6 people, and I was alone. So it's a bigger one, it was a bit luxurious, but it was expected. Since I'm a bit of a well-known person, something special had to be done for me, naturally. But yet, you can see it. There was a little garden, made of stone, with walls six metres high on the sides, and you could only see a little piece of sky there. You could take a walk there, it's around six metres by three metres. In that prison, it was possible to open the door to that little garden from the inside, but normally, in the other F-types, you cannot do that. Only if they open the door from the outside, you can get there. Let's say there are doors to that little garden from three or four cells, but the doors are opened only one by one, and the people can walk there for just 15 or 30 minutes. In the prison where I stayed, there were some facilities. Water was running all the time. There was a television, and I was able to control it. That's a big luxury. Normally, in the others - in some - you can have a television, but it's controlled from the outside. The lights are on all the time. When you know it's only for 24 days, you never think that you will spend your whole life there, and I can never say that I felt the isolation for 100%. I just got the smell of it. White all around, just one colour. Almost no other voice you can hear, except I had the television. But then, you're all by yourself. When you think that the rest of your life will be like that, it's really a big torture, another sort of torture. We know the stories of the people who have been isolated for a very long time; they slowly start to lose their feelings, the feeling of colour, the feeling of voices, hearing, and some other things. I could just smell it a little bit; it's something horrible, really.

IMC: Is it true that there are 11,000 political prisoners in Turkey?

S.Y.: Yes, but you can never really know the number, it changes every day.

IMC: Apparently, the number of political prisoners is related to a special anti-terrorist law. Can you give some details about this law, which is also denounced by the hunger strikers?

S.Y.: There are other articles in the Turkish penal code or other codes that can be a reason to send you to prison. I can give you a very clear example. The minister of justice defines the people who are trying to support the hunger strikers as terrorists themselves - article 169 of the Turkish penal code. This is "helping a terrorist organisation"; which should mean, in fact, giving them ammunition, money, having them in your home, hiding them, etcetera. That's what the law means. But he, Mr. Türk, says that the prosecutors have to define support as helping terror directly. Well, I'm a terrorist. Do I look like one? Yes. (laughter)

IMC: We've hardly had any information in the French-speaking press about the massacre on the 19th of December. Can you explain us what happened?

S.Y.: I read a lot about it later on. I was not in prison: two days before that, I was released. But yet, I've seen the whole thing on television. Well, it was a big lie. They attacked meaning to kill them, nothing else. All the people who could save their lives tell the very same story. All of a sudden, at around 4 o'clock or something, an attack started. No warning, no demanding anything, they directly shot with machine guns, and threw bombs, gas bombs, etcetera. Most of the people were suffocated there with the gas bombs. But on television, the minister told that they warned them, they resisted, and they started shooting... with what? In the end, they couldn't even find a single gun; well, maybe just one little gun somewhere. But the people who were killed, were killed by the bullets coming from rifles and things like that, that the prisoners never had there. And then we heard the stories. Many of them were really burnt. They were trying to frighten the so-called security forces by telling them not to attack, or else they would burn themselves. But the police used this sentence to do it themselves. They burnt them, they threw some chemical stuff that wasn't even identified until today. Some prisoners I talked to later on, who were released for health reasons at the moment, told me: "Nothing happened to my clothes, but my flesh is badly burnt." They used different kinds of chemical things. And today, in the newspapers, I read that in some autopsies of three murdered prisoners, it is proved that before the real autopsy, somebody came and took out some bullets. The reason could be that these bullets are something very special; when it gets in, it is divided into pieces, like shrapnel of a bomb, causing big, deep wounds. They must have taken out the main part, so that it wouldn't be proved. Or maybe special bullets that kill immediately, like the ones that are used only in Israel against Palestinians at the moment. This is from today's newspapers.

IMC: About the papers and the press, I suppose one can say that - not only about this massacre, but also about the whole struggle of these people - there is a total disinformation in the national press?

S.Y.: Mainly. From time to time, some journalists and some papers can also publish the truth, like in this case. I know how difficult it is to prove this. But everywhere, you also have people who don't have too much fear and want other people to know the truth. Of course, many doctors and some officials, when they see the truth, they find some way to let it be proved at least. This is one of the examples we have seen today. But mainly, mass media in Turkey are "mess media". Their first role is to try to cover things up or change the truth according to the wills of the state.

IMC: There is a movement from outside in support of the prisoners. What do you know about this movement, for example in Armutlu, and what is the situation now in Armutlu?

S.Y.: As far as I know, Küçük Armutlu is under very strict police oppression at the moment. Going there or leaving there is under control. They're trying to find some excuses to attack the death fasters and to stop them, because that's an order: the state wants to put an end to this. This area has always been a problem. There is a strong political resistance there against that sort of oppressions, and I believe they cannot solve this problem unless they attack and make a new massacre there. But there are other sorts of support, unfortunately not too strong, among intellectuals etcetera, so that the state cannot do it so easily. They have to prepare some provocations before, so that, with the help of the media, most of the people will think that they had the right to do this. Unless they can realise this, they cannot attack directly.

IMC: So you don't believe in an attack?

S.Y.: Maybe. You cannot say they will attack for sure, but you can never say they cannot and they won't. But it's not so easy for them, because of the reasons I told you before, and they need to prepare the background of the provocation with some small provocations, so that most of the people will say: "Yes, the state has the right to do that." Before doing that, if they could, they should have done it a million times up to that moment.

IMC.: Can you explain us what's happening in this neighbourhood, and what happened to all the people who already died?

S.Y.: Well, the result of that movement in 1996 brought many rights to the prisoners in their daily human life. All those rights are taken back at the moment, but yet the resistance goes on. The state, in the end, in order to get rid of that story - because it was a scandal for them - they said: "well, they're under pressure, this is why they have to do the death fast, they have nothing else to do, and we're trying to save their lives." OK, they "saved their lives", and they're still on strike and on death fast. It's going on, a big scandal for them. This is why the last solution they found was to send a big majority of them out for six months, for medical care. For some of them, unfortunately, it's too late, it's called the Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, and once you get there, you're like a little child, and it's impossible to turn back. The Turkish human rights foundation, which was deeply involved in curing the people who have been tortured, is also in a very bad position now. They cannot afford service to all the people. But now this is the state's responsibility. If a prisoner gets sick, whatever the sickness is, the state's responsible. Releasing them, they had two advantages: first, no more hunger strikers, or very few, in the prisons; second, they don't have to pay too much money, the families are trying to cope with it. But it's ridiculous. This is their responsibility.

IMC: What do you think about the future of this struggle? Do you think people are going to go on dying little by little, without any kind of change of behaviour from the government and any kind of reaction from outside Turkey?

S.Y.: Sometimes we talk about the last drop, which fills the glass. If the glass is visible, then you can understand the last drop is coming. But if it's not visible - and it's not visible in Turkey - you can never understand this drop will be the last one. But I feel the glass is almost full, and any time when you see a lot of oppression, any time you may see a sudden change. Because this cannot go on that way. Now, this autumn, the "government" - let me say the word this time - is preparing some sort of changes, starting with the constitution. They will change some articles, and then they will make some changes in the penal code, although mostly it's like a make-up, but there will also be some positive progresses too. They have to do that, it's impossible to go on like this. Maybe with this excuse they will have to change some more things, because they also want to get rid of this. Look, you could never imagine before that Mr. Türk would release those people for six months, or whatever, but he just had to. This is why they will have to do something, although they always say: "We don't care, this is the state, we know what to do, we'll never change our line,..." They will have to. But at what moment, and how? And until that moment, how many more people will lose their lives? It's impossible to say anything about that.

IMC: What do you think about this enormous involvement until death by all these people; their energy, the convictions to keep up such a struggle?

S.Y.: Well, because I was also there, and I really know what it means... What the state wants is to destroy the personality of the prisoners. They want them to beg for mercy, and this can only be done if you totally destroy the mental life of a person. The body is not enough sometimes. This is the struggle those people are doing: they're trying to protect their presence, mentally, their human pride. This is the reason they don't care about dying. "OK," they say, "I will die, but I will win, not you." This is what they feel.