As reported extensively in this paper, as well as other papers and outlets -- for instance, in the latest human rights report issued by US State Department -- there is a long way to go to meet an acceptable level of respect for freedom of expression. Laws, flawed as they are, reflect the chronic disease of silencing voices and ideas you do not want to hear. This state of mind, despite years of zigzagging reform, remains unchanged. What is worse, every issue related to suppression and censorship adds to the venomous polarization in the public domain -- through the press -- because selectivity has become the key word for explaining today's debate climate in Turkey.
The censorship episode regarding the cover story of the latest issue of the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey's (TÜBİTAK) "Bilim ve Teknik" (Science and Technology) magazine that led to the dropping of the story commemorating the bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth is not a storm in a teacup.
The deputy chair of the governing council, Ömer Cebeci, gave the following explanation to Zaman yesterday: "The editor [Çiğdem Akutaman] brought me the proof last Friday and we looked at it together. The cover story, then, was about global warming. I wanted to look at the latest proof before print last Monday. It had another cover. I was surprised. I called the editor and asked, ‘What is this?' I said, ‘I do not know anything about it.' She responded immediately that she would change it. I told her to keep it, but she insisted, saying that the issue was already over capacity and that she would deal with it. I told her it was up to her." Cebeci added also that the editor staged a "coup" last Saturday. Zaman reported that even in the controversial issue Darwin's books were advertised and TÜBİTAK was not allergic to the scientist.
I am not satisfied at all with this explanation for several reasons.
The first one has to do with editorial freedom. If we are to follow the basic logic of publishing, then we have to presume that a journal of science is run with competent people conferred with certain powers. It would be hard for Cebeci to convince people in press and science circles, particularly abroad, that the editor -- any editor -- can be treated like a secretary (because this is what is implied in his version). An editor is entitled to make changes before items are published and then discuss the issue later.
If we are to believe that Darwin did not cause any "high fever" amongst the board members, then the entire episode smells of incompetence on all sides. Both Cebeci and Akutaman should know and remind each other that such a change hours before publishing, publicly unexplained, would certainly lead to controversy in the pool of sensitivities called Turkey. This is what happened. Even if this would be a technical flaw or procedural error, all the people involved in TÜBİTAK must have a great deal of insensitivity.
Then, all is perception. Once you err, it will be called a new case of censorship, particularly when it is known that there is a growing wave of hateful propaganda here against the findings of Darwin that provide fuel for the circles abroad who believe that Islam is downright hostile to his theory.
Then we should not be surprised when justified sensitivities about freedom of expression are immediately triggered. A scientific institution must make it clear that its board does not actively interfere with its journal, because in a world increasingly under the influence of faith and prejudice, scientific debate and new findings will be subject to deeper controversy (stem cells, genetic engineering, etc.). What should not be underestimated is the focus on everything in detail, even if it is a tiny article that is dropped from publication.
This shows the burden on the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party). This utterly disturbing case shows once more, that it must not only take free speech issues seriously, but also leave science completely free so that it flourishes in synch with the rest of the world.
More than ever, the AK Party must be clear that the only path to a stable democracy goes not through increased political consolidation, but how to use it for freedom, tolerance and fair use of power.
