Anarchist lawyer writes "The article is some more detailed information about the judgement of 5 anarchists in State Security Courts in Turkey.

As you must have seen at some sites on the net (including infoshop.org), 5 anarchists in Turkey are judged. The first trial was on 13th of February in Izmir State Security Court (SSC) and it is postponed to 3th of April, 2002 (as the lawyer demanded additional time for defence). One of the anarchists was released because he had not been a perpetrator in the mentioned events (as the court decided), but he is still judged with the other four who were decided to be judged under arrest.

The anarchists were arrested while they were distributing "Usak Anarchist Autonom" signed pamphlets in a Turkey-wide demonstration day on 1st of December, 2001 in Usak. Because of the pamphlets and some wall-writings, anarchists were detained and accused of "participation in an illegal organization". The judge of the minor court in Usak decided to arrest them and send the file to the Izmir SSC.

A brief information about SSCs

SSCs are specialized criminal courts which are authorized in some areas. Before, there was a soldier judge in the court committee, but to ìproveî that the judgement process of Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of PKK, would be democratic and respectful to law state principles, this member was withdrawn. As it can be understood from the name of the court and the example above, SSCís are extraordinary courts established to oppress the streams opposing the ruling regime. These courts are authorized in the "organized crimes" including political organizations. They are established in some big cities (like Istanbul, Izmir, Diyarbakir etc.) and the files of the mentioned "crimes" that occurred in other cities are sent to these cities. So, as Usak is a small city and it is near to Izmir, five anarchists are judged in Izmir SSC.

Why such a big reaction to Usak anarchists from the state?

If Usak anarchists distributed the pamphlets in, for instance, Istanbul, they probably would not face such a big and sudden oppression. In small cities, state forces show sudden reactions to such initiatives. Probably as police saw the words "anarchist" and "autonom" (which they don't know what it means!) in the sign and some wall-writings about anarchism and revolutionary slogans, they adopted an exaggerated manner and detained the anarchists. Afterwards, judge of the minor court decided to arrest them, as they generally do, as they don't want to take the responsibility (fear: "if they are really members of an "illegal" organization?", "they can escape if I release them?"; so the decision: "let me arrest them and send the file to SSC! Let them decide!"). In many small cities and towns, state forces show such reactions to political activists, because, simply, they generally don't know what is going on.

The accusation

At first, five anarchists were accused of "participation in an illegal organization" and "distributing illegal pamphlets". As I learned, anarchists refused the first accusation, but accepted that they distributed the pamphlets. In the first trial (on Feb. 13), prosecuter based the indictment on violation of article 7/2 of Anti-Terror Laws, "carrying on propaganda of an illegal organization". In this ìcrimeî type, the accused doesnít have to be a member of an "illegal organization", he/she is accused of spreading the propaganda of a certain organization. For instance, in these days Kurdish university students make a campaign about education in Kurdish language. They petition to the rectorate or deanship for recognizing "the right of education in the parent language". These students are detained and some of them are arrested (sent to prison). State politics against this campaign is based on the claim that it is carried out by PKK, so (I don't know if they are, but) the applicants can be accused of violation of the mentioned article of Anti-Terror Laws.

On Feb. 13, I learned that the president judge adopted a hard manner and spoke very harshly with the anarchists (so that lawyer of Usak anarchists told that ëhe had been rougher than policeí). This is very ordinary especially in SSCs, as judges explicitly deem themselves as agents of the state (in spite of "the independence of judgementî principle -- of course I don't mean that this principle is something meaningful, but especially in SSCís the violation of the "written" principle is so publicly that you canít help yourself smiling). Anarchists are accused of helping and carrying on the propaganda of ìillegalî Anarchist Youth Federation (AYF) and Usak Anarchist Autonom which, the prosecuter says, is an autonom of AYF.

The procedure is something like this: when a lawsuit about "illegal organization" comes to SSCs, the court demands a report from the ministry of internal affairs. The report would be about if the organization which is object of the trial is illegal. If report says yes, then it is. And the decision will be based on this.

I saw the report. Probably, the court demanded an information about "Usak Anarchist Autonom" and so anarchists, but the mentioned report is mostly based on AYF.

In the introduction of the three-page report, an information about anarchism was given (a brief historical information -- Bakunin, Kropotkin, Spain etc. -- theory of anarchism, so on). After that, the information is about anarchism and anarchists in Turkey. According to the report, anarchists first appeared on Mayday 1993, and in 1997 they came together in AYF (and this is not true). The report gives information about the organization principles of anarchists (of course, in the report, AYF): anti-authority, decentralization, local autonoms etc. Afterwards, in the report, it is written that anarchists formed a "platform" (meaning "Anarchist Platform"). In this platform, -- again, in the report -- there are some organizations like Izmir Anarchist Federation (IAF), Anarchist Youth Federation, Anarchy in Marmara (my information: a local group in Kadikoy Autonom in A-Platform), Black Agenda Group (my information: a group in IAF) and some more groups and autonoms in A-Platform are written. According to the report, it is understood that Platform is the widest organization including federations that are formed of autonoms and local groups. Then, the magazines and periodicals of the organization are written: "Efendisizler (Masterless), Anar
ist (Anarchist), and Amargi". First two are really A-Platform's periodicals (with a mistake: it is not "Anarchist", but "Anarchy"), but the third one was published by another group (Amargi Autonom), and it is not published now. Some web sites (which are really the sites of the organizations in A-Platform) were written after this. In the end, brief informations of some "actions" were given. Two of them are those of Usak Anarchist Autonom; some of distributing pamphlets in Ankara; and two actions of A-Platform.

About the report

The report is taken from anti-terror section of Izmir police and although there are informations about Istanbul, it can easily be understood that many informations (about pamphlet etc.) are from Ankara (the capital city, so the ministry is there) and Izmir. And all organization structure of anarchists in Turkey are based on AYF and A-Platform. If someone who doesnít know anything about anarchism in Turkey read the report, he/she would probably think that A-Platform is the main organization of all local groups and autonoms.

As I tried to emphasize in some sentences above, some informations in the report are explicitly false. For instance, neither AYF nor A-Platform publishes Amargi. Some written pamphlet-distributings in Ankara was not organized by A-Platform, they are (or maybe they were -- I don't know --) of some other groups.

The most important point is that Usak Anarchist Autonom is not an autonom in AYF. It is a separate initiative. The friends did something, they organized or maybe tried to organize an autonom, but this initiative doesnít have a direct relationship with AYF or other organizations forming A-Platform.

What does the probable decision mean?

There are many trials going on about A-Platform members (such as "illegal demonstration", "crimes about freedom of thought", "damaging the public property" etc.). But none of these are about "participation in an illegal organization" or "helping an illegal organization" or "carrying on the propaganda". So this is the first trial -- although the "accused" are not members of A-Platform. If they are punished, the decision will be precedent for future. There is an interesting definition in the Anti-Terror Laws: Unarmed Terror Organization. According to this, you (I mean, your organization) can be an "illegal terror organization" although you don't use violence and you are an unarmed organization. So, if Usak anarchists are sentenced to prison for violating article 7/2 of Anti-Terror Laws, AYF will be an unarmed illegal organization (of course, in the eyes of the state). The decision will be precedent, and in the future many members of A-Platform will be accused of more oppresser articles. For instance, when comrades are detained in a demonstration (you have to take permission from the state for demonstration), they are accused of violating the law no. 2911 which has low punishments and also with the changes in the constitution, these actions will not be illegal very soon. But with such a decision of Izmir SSC, although demonstrating without permission will be legal, members can be accused of ìcarrying on the propaganda of an" illegal organization" or maybe other types. (I must remind an important thing that the judges in SSCís have a tendency to decide punishment.)

Another thing is that the state deems almost every anarchist groups/organizations in A-Platform and anarchist actions/demos/pamphlets by A-Platform. It is a considerable point. Any other individual or group may be considered as a part of the platform by the state. So, if the decision Izmir SSC is punishment, probably, at least for the near future, all of the anarchists (including the ones that donít like A-Platform) will be considered in A-Platform.

This, if I speak as a lawyer, is dangerous for, first of all, all anarchists in Turkey and mostly for the A-Platform members. A-Platform can face an oppression for something that it doesn't/wouldnít do. And if I speak as an anarchist active in A-Platform: A-Platform has some perspectives and criterias in organizing, actions, and theory etc. An individual or a group can chose some other perspectives and criterias (for instance, that we donít appropriate) and they will be considered as A-Platform. I personally donít like this.

Lawyer of Usak anarchists demanded the additional time to prove that A-Platform or AYF are not "illegal terror organizations". If the court accepts this defence, anarchists will be judged for violating another code, and will probably be acquitted.

I hope this text gives a general idea about the judgement and a spesific situation of anarchists in Turkey.

Anarchists greetings,

--It'll be better for me not to give my name as "an anarchist lawyer in A-Platform"

P.S.: you can contact wit me via my personal account ogoni1995@hotmail.com for further information or, I don't know, anything you want to get in touch for."