After September 11 attacks, the world has entered into a new political period called "era of terrorism". The greatest exam of democratic states in this period is to fight against terrorism staying within the rule of law and having respect for individual rights and freedoms. However, it doesn't seem easy to get through it successfully. Due to the fact that terrorism became consistent, the frame of the state of emergency also became consistent and usual. Accordingly it functions as a justification of authoritarian political practices restricting fundamental rights and freedoms arbitrarily.
It is currently and widely accepted that permanent extraordinary measures may be taken for the purpose of protecting social order, individual rights and freedoms, as a result of increasing number of terrorist attacks. Yet, it is crucial to implement within the framework of compliance with laws. Unfortunately today the governments use the fear in their society in order to maintain the state of emergency. Hence, it cause large mass to support oppressive policies and justification of any kind of decisions which leave rights and freedoms under threat.
Freedom of expression, undoubtedly, is the most affected human rights by state of emergency in terms of terrorism. The main problem is that governments can bring restrictions to freedom of expression by different means, even they can take these restrictions out of judicial review under the colour of "national security" and "territorial integrity".
Turkey is one of the countries which freedom of expression remains as hot topic. The reason is that the process of democratization and liberalization is still incomplete. This actually derives from continuous characteristics of threat perception against the state and political regime. In this manner it brings restrictions to freedom of expression. Moreover, according to constitutional law in Turkey, decree laws during the state of emergency paves the way for expansive realm of authority to administrative authorities out of judicial review regarding restriction of rights and freedoms.
From 1987 to 2002, the state of emergency sustainly implemented in the east and southeast regions in Turkey, on the grounds that terrorist attacks had increased. During this period governorships gained broad authority, and it brought a great deal of prohibitions to publications that have tendency to disturbance of the peace and public order as well as that are provocative for community. However, an efficent review mechanism was not provided in case of abuse of the power. Therefore, the European Court of Human Rights had numerous infringements established out of countenance of Turkey, and found these prohibitons were not adequately given justification in terms of essential requirements in democratic society.
Along with the unsuccessful military attempt on 15th of July 2016, Turkey has been currently facing state of emergency once again, all over the country. 16 television channels, 3 news agencies, 23 radio, 45 newspapers, 15 journals and 29 publishing houses have been closed down by a decree law. Considering these restrictions to freedom of expression, Turkey shows a picture quite far from any progress.
Freedom of expression has a significant function for ending state of emergency and normalization of political/juridical order. The darkest point of state of emergency is suspension of freedom of expression. Because once expression is suspened, the violence shows up. Once the violence is dominant, it is unavoidable that state of emergency becomes ordinary and exception becomes a rule. Consequently, criticism against oppressive practices and objections against continuity of them is possible only if freedom of expression is fully implemented.
Freedom of expression, undoubtedly, is the most affected human rights by state of emergency in terms of terrorism. The main problem is that governments can bring restrictions to freedom of expression by different means, even they can take these restrictions out of judicial review under the colour of "national security" and "territorial integrity".
Turkey is one of the countries which freedom of expression remains as hot topic. The reason is that the process of democratization and liberalization is still incomplete. This actually derives from continuous characteristics of threat perception against the state and political regime. In this manner it brings restrictions to freedom of expression. Moreover, according to constitutional law in Turkey, decree laws during the state of emergency paves the way for expansive realm of authority to administrative authorities out of judicial review regarding restriction of rights and freedoms.
From 1987 to 2002, the state of emergency sustainly implemented in the east and southeast regions in Turkey, on the grounds that terrorist attacks had increased. During this period governorships gained broad authority, and it brought a great deal of prohibitions to publications that have tendency to disturbance of the peace and public order as well as that are provocative for community. However, an efficent review mechanism was not provided in case of abuse of the power. Therefore, the European Court of Human Rights had numerous infringements established out of countenance of Turkey, and found these prohibitons were not adequately given justification in terms of essential requirements in democratic society.
Freedom of expression has a significant function for ending state of emergency and normalization of political/juridical order. The darkest point of state of emergency is suspension of freedom of expression. Because once expression is suspened, the violence shows up. Once the violence is dominant, it is unavoidable that state of emergency becomes ordinary and exception becomes a rule. Consequently, criticism against oppressive practices and objections against continuity of them is possible only if freedom of expression is fully implemented.
Best Article.
ReplyDeleteBest article. [2]
Delete