This judge, who was a woman like the complainant, was not content with chador-wearing Naciye Sönmez's revealing only her face, but shouted at her: "This is not acceptable! You will remove the chador completely." Sönmez, who applied to the judiciary seeking the redress of the injustice done to her but got only harsh remarks in return, said in response, "You cannot force me to do so under the laws of the Turkish Republic." But her words went unheeded. Mrs. Judge seemed to be in the grip of some sort of enthusiasm. "I cannot accept you as such under the principles and laws of [Mustafa Kemal] Atatürk, and so the trial cannot start," she insisted.What happened until now can be explained with reference to a personal tension, lack of communication, personal conflict and the attempt to teach a lesson with authority. Even, one may opt for belittling and covering up this incident by saying, "It is a nasty situation, but such things can happen anywhere in the world." However, this sentence uttered by Mrs. Judge made everything worse: "Your God and the laws of your God will not apply here."
Can a judge who is responsible for administering justice speak in this way? The person she addresses does not seek Shariah. The woman wearing a chador just wants her to run the judicial process and seeks to obtain compensation. Is it acceptable to say "your God" to citizens? Is there a distinction such as "your God" and "our God" that a judge can talk in such bad language? In the end, the claimant did not apply to a court of Shariah, but to the justice system of the state. Isn't this a shame?
For a long time, a group of members of the judiciary have been trying to hurt, disappoint and offend people. One feels utterly sorry seeing this. Can a judge talk to a claimant in this manner? Can a woman feel such rage against another woman -- whom she does not know and with whom she has an official relationship? More importantly, can a public servant preach secularism that starts with “your God”?
There is a hard test for those who react to the fault committed by Mrs. Judge: respect for rule of law. If it is the judiciary that maintains a disrespectful manner, then they cannot expect other people to be respectful. However, seeking justice has to be the result of a patient democratic effort that must be conducted with wisdom. Otherwise, tyranny will be in place and the legal system will collapse...
Secularism is not antagonism toward religion. This is accepted by everyone. But, in practice, secularism becomes a tool for oppression to be used by secularists. Those who seek hostage in the lies of neighborhood pressures tend to keep silent in the face of such events. Evidently, there is a violation of rights. A member of the judiciary cannot display a political stance during the performance of his or her duty and cannot exert pressure on citizens. Why do academics who provide the most absurd examples as proof for neighborhood pressure fail to make the same democratic reactions to such evidently committed legal violations?
The judge was so upset that she could actually bring herself to call the person knocking on the door of justice “ill-mannered, immoral and arrogant.” I have been waiting for days for the Fatih judge to refute the news circulating in newspapers and speak up in a way that relieves people, saying, “I didn't say anything to that effect.” Unfortunately, this is neither an apology, nor an explanation. If the narratives are correct, then the judge owes people an apology. The robe she wears, the position she holds and the job she has been handed all require her to issue an apology. Nobody has the right to create enmity among people, particularly if this person is responsible for administering justice.
