|
|
|
|
|
| |
About Media Watch on Hate Speech
We frequently observe that the media in Turkey uses biased, prejudice and discriminatory language. This trend becomes more visible around issues like minority rights, armed conflict and the EU membership process. The provocative, racist and discriminatory language used in the news, and in particular in headlines and spots, become tools used in fuelling the enmity and polarization in society, while also affirming the stereotypes. Although there exists national and international codes of ethic as well as tailored ethics for some media companies, we see them violated repeatedly/over and over again in the news. The discriminatory language used in the news and columns add to the unrest and an established prejudice against vulnerable and particular groups of people in the society. In addition, the targeted peoples and groups become nervous, silent and are forced to give up their right to participate in the social and political life of the society they live in. Furthermore, the provocative and biased language, which marginalizes and labels the targeted group as an “enemy” may sometimes result in violent attacks against these people and or their properties.
Hate speech stems from prejudices, racism, xenophobia, bias, discrimination, sexism and homophobia. Cultural identities and group characteristics are present in the use of hate speech, and in circumstances where there is already intolerance against ‘the other’ as well as increasing nationalism the consistent usage and tone of hate speech increases and become more effective in its practices.
Turkey has witnessed increasing polarization among different sectors of society over the last ten years, intolerance to the “other” and the ‘different’. One of the reasons for this intolerance is the armed conflict, which lasted for almost 30 years, the forced internal displacement which caused a sudden demographic change as well as economic, social and cultural clashes. On the other hand, the EU membership process brought forward discussions on the liberal economy, privatization, and minority rights, and last but not the least the discussions and moves to solve the “Cyprus issue” continue all of these matters are on the table for discussion within the framework of the democratization efforts. These developments are often presented as “the dirty games of the alien forces on Turkey” by some journalists and columnists which adds to the enmity and polarization within the country. Most recently, the discussions over secularism, and the threat of Islamism, have played a part in dividing society in different ideological camps.
All of the above mentioned issues are at the heart of the agenda on Turkey, these include the huge increases in the use of hostile language and negative attitudes towards the people who belong or are deemed to belong to different groups. Even the government authorities, opposition party leaders and the public officers do not hesitate in their use of racist and discriminatory language. As would be remembered, in 2005, the then Minister of Justice Cemil Cicek had accused the organizers of the Armenian Conference of “backstabbing” and requested “the necessary action to be taken”.
The European Court of Human Rights case-law says that the potential impact of the expression and the owner of the speech. The Court is stricter on the politicians’ responsibility on speech and recommends that they should avoid using any language which may develop or increase the intolerance among the society against the other.
The media, on the other hand, is one of the most effective cultural conductors. It has the power to promote diversity, but also to promote hatred. When the media acts irresponsibly or carelessly it can trigger, foster and intensify already existing hostility and racism, even worse this may justify and normalize hate speech.
For many years, the media in Turkey has been one of the major and effective sources of nationalist and discriminatory discourse, which has contributed to the widening polarization in society. By examining the hate crimes that have occurred during the last 3-4 years, the ‘contribution’ of the media in this role will become clearer. To illustrate, one of the suspect’s of the Hrant Dink case, Yasin Hayal, had told the court that he “had not known Dink personally but that he read from newspapers that he was an enemy of Turks.” Also, in December 2007, the offender who attacked the priest in Izmir Saint Sophia church said that he done it to become a hero like Ogun Samast, as he was portrayed thus in many media outlets.
One of the main objectives of the International Hrant Dink Foundation, which was established to uphold his ideals, and to keep his dreams and struggle alive, is to contribute to the work being done to end the hostility and the polarization found so much in Turkish society. We hope that through creating a common understanding of the definition and the effects of hate speech, promoting responsible journalism and opening a forum to discuss the alternative measures to end hate speech, the Foundation will continue to contribute to the ideal of living together in Turkey and abroad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
