Usually when I write about trademark disputes, it’s at least the case that if I really squint at an accuser’s claims, or perhaps hit myself in the head with a hammer for several minutes, I can at least see their perspective in a dispute. I may still call the whole thing very stupid, as is my habit, but I can see why the whole thing started.
But then there are times when I’m at a complete loss. Such is the case with luxury brand Hermes suing a small used bookstore in Turkey simply because it’s called “Hermes Sahaf.”
The legal saga began when bookstore owner Ümit Nar applied to trademark the name “Hermes Sahaf” in December 2021. Turkey representatives of Hermés wanted to ban Nar from using the name for commercial purposes.
Company lawyers claimed that the two brands were similar and could be confused with one another, even though they belonged to different sectors. The first hearing of the case took place in January 2024.
I won’t claim to be an expert on trademark laws in Turkey specifically, but traditionally trademark laws are designed to keep the general public from being confused as to the source or affiliation of goods and services. How in the world any member of the Turkish public is going to be confused between a company that makes expensive accessories and the like and a second-hand bookstore is absolutely beyond me. It’s not going to happen, Hermes has to know it’s not going to happen, all of which leaves us in a place where the company looks like a bully trying to wield the name of a Greek god as though it alone controls all such uses.
And with Nar taking the fight public, it’s at best a bad PR look on the part of Hermes.
The shop owner also found the claim of similarity made by Hermes lawyers absurd. He said, “I could understand the complaint if I was selling shoes or clothing under the name Hermes. But our sectors are simply too different. Hermès sells luxury leather bags worth thousands of Euros, whereas I sell second-hand books worth 15 Turkish liras, or 45 Euro cents.” He suggested the brand insulted its customers by claiming they could confuse the two brands.
Nar continued, “It is absurd for an international company to hold ownership over a cultural figure. I am fighting this absurdity.”
Here’s hoping he gets what he needs to fight the good fight on this one, because I can’t even begin to see how this lawsuit isn’t plainly absurd.
They say that if you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything. So today, I’m drawing a line in the sand and standing up for free speech. Let every enemy of freedom know, let every would-be tyrant be warned, and let every petty dictator take notice: If you want Twitter to censor its users, just send me an email.
From the very beginning of Elon Musk’s foray into being a social media magnate, we pointed out that he had no fucking clue what it meant to support free speech on such a site. Supporting free speech does not mean simply “allowing troll accounts I like that were suspended for violating the rules back online.” But that seems to be Musk’s entire understanding of free speech.
For example, we’ve also noted, repeatedly, that this tweet a year ago from Musk shows someone who has not actually thought about what it means to stand up for actual free speech:
Because, that means that you’re willing to bow down to any censorial authoritarian country — something that the old Twitter (the one Musk insists did not support free speech) regularly fought back against.
And, so far, Musk has shown a willingness to bow down to authoritarian censors. Every time he’s had a chance to take a stand, he’s folded. Whereas old Twitter refused to take down any tweets from activists and journalists in India, filed a lawsuit against the government, and publicly resisted demands that it pull down criticism of President Modi, Elon caved immediately and blocked some content from activists and journalists worldwide, not just in India.
The latest is yet another example of that. Just as the Turkish election was about to take place, the government demanded that Twitter censor content critical of authoritarian strongman, gollum-lookalike, and world’s most thin skinned leader, Recep Erdogan. And Elon caved.
Now, the old Twitter actually had a history of pushing back against such demands, and even took the Turkish government to court after the government tried to fine the company for refusing to take down content. That wasn’t the only time. We had another story of the old Twitter refusing to block a newspaper’s feed, despite demands from the Turkish government. Back in 2014, Erdogan got so mad at Twitter that he officially blocked it from the entire country, but the citizenry got so angry that the ban was quickly reversed.
In other words, the old Twitter fought regularly over this stuff and went to court.
And Elon just folded.
And when people called him out on this, he (as per usual) got childish and defensive. Here he is insulting Matt Yglesias over this:
Yglesias is actually making a good point here. For all the talk of the Twitter Files, which Musk promised us would show the US government demanding Twitter censor people (when it showed nothing of the sort), here’s an example of a literal government demanding literal censorship, and Musk just rolls right over.
Musk’s response is nonsense. Again, the old Twitter had a long history of fighting exactly these cases as linked above. This is why we’ve pointed out over and over again that the old Twitter was one of the staunchest defenders of actual free speech and that Musk (on day one) fired the people who were the most avid free speech defenders at the company. They might have been able to tell him how to better deal with these situations.
And it’s not like people didn’t try to warn him. This issue was literally “Level Nine” of the speed run lesson plan I gave Elon. Except, even then, I thought that Elon would have the principles to first try to stand up against such authoritarian censors, but apparently I overestimated his willingness to actually fight for free speech.
Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales highlighted this as well, noting how Wikipedia had received similar orders, but fought them (and won):
Also, note the contrast when some other governments told Elon to remove Russian propagandists. Then he refused, claiming to be a free speech absolutist. Why is this different?
And, of course, Musk’s loudest fans are defending this move, because they have no principles at all. Free speech means having principles and pushing back when governments demand you pull down content that does not violate your policies. It means standing up to governments, not bowing down to them, and letting them push you around.
So, let me ask those defending this move by Musk: are you really suggesting that caving to authoritarian threats to censor content does more than fighting back against those threats? If you say, as Musk does above, that allowing some speech in Turkey is better than being blocked entirely, then how does that same argument not apply to other actions by Twitter to remove some content (such as abusive and harassing content) that might otherwise drive users away?
With this latest move, Musk has screamed loud and clear to any censorial government out there that they just need to threaten to block Twitter and he’ll fold like a cheap suit. Meanwhile, he’ll lie and insist that the US government was censoring content, even as the Twitter Files only showed reports about accounts that might have actually violated Twitter’s polices, and the company regularly pushed back on those and refused to remove the accounts.
But for some reason he was up in arms about that, whereas here he thinks someone’s “brain fell out of their head” for simply wondering when we’ll see the “Twitter Files” for Musk’s negotiations with the Turkish government.
Once again, don’t let anyone get away with suggesting that Musk supports free speech. He clearly does not. He supports accounts that he likes being able to use a website he owns. That’s it.
For a political leader who’s so transparently self-serving and incredibly thin-skinned, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan sure seems to have a knack for bending other parts of the world to his will.
Having criminalized pretty much any criticism of him, President Erdogan has managed to silence a lot of homegrown dissent. But it’s apparently not enough to have one nation under his (presumably elfin) jackboot. No, Erdogan is a censorial cosmopolitan — one willing to wield other nation’s laws to intimidate and silence critics residing outside of Turkey’s unfriendly confines.
That’s terrible enough. But for some reason, foreign governments have proven willing to do Erdogan’s bidding, enforcing local laws to punish people this tin pot crackpot doesn’t think should be allowed to insult him.
This silencing seldom lasts forever. Local laws get amended so Erdogan can’t abuse them to censor people who aren’t Turkish citizens. Even the most diplomatic of officials have a breaking point, and Erdogan’s constant pestering usually manages to test their limits, making each subsequent complaint less likely to receive any response at all, much less the one Erdogan desires.
After a period of relative silence, Erdogan is back to making foreign officials embarrass themselves on his behalf. He’s got Russia to thank for things breaking his way. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted nations with long-held neutrality stances to join NATO — something that seems like a more appealing option when there’s an aggressive nation on your doorstep.
Finland and Sweden are seeking to join NATO. And that has given Erdogan an opportunity to demand concessions from these prospective members since his nation has the ability to block the two applicants from being accepted.
Turkey is expected to seek to negotiate a compromise deal under which the two countries will crack down on the PKK and other groups in return for Turkish support of their joining NATO. A key demand is expected to be that they halt any support to a Syrian Kurdish group, the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, or YPG. The group is a Western ally in the fight against the Islamic State group in northern Syria but Turkey views it as an extension of the PKK.
I’m sure the list of Erdogan’s enemies looks like a set of encyclopedias at this point. Given that he claims all the journalists he’s locked up for criticizing him are actually “terrorists,” it’s extremely difficult to take his assertions about these groups at face value.
Finland and Sweden could say some noncommittal things about doing their best and hope Erdogan finds something else to be shitty about while rubberstamping their NATO applications. But Erdogan wants concessions now, and he’s going to be a pain in the ass about it while holding their unapproved NATO applications over their heads. So, this is how things are going in Sweden, where a moody autocrat has managed to make a top foreign politician apologize for Swedish citizens exercising their right to protest.
Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson on Friday denounced a protest by Kurds in central Stockholm, where an effigy of Turkey’s president was hung from a lamppost, as an act of “sabotage” against Sweden’s bid to join NATO.
Well, it definitely wasn’t “sabotage.” It appears locals were expressing their displeasure with the only person in NATO who seems willing to leverage his veto power to make the rest of the world behave the way he wants it to. Erdogan’s certainly not going to be any less likely to press this small advantage now that his displeasure has resulted in immediate capitulation by the Swedish PM.
And there’s more. PM Kirstersson wasn’t content with misrepresenting the actions of protesters as “sabotage.” That should have been more than enough to apply some lip service to Erdogan’s bruised ego, but the PM insisted on continuing.
“People tried to show their views on the Swedish NATO accession through a disgusting way of portraying president Erdogan in almost something looking like an execution.” Kristersson told reporters after a meeting with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. “That is bad in every sense.”
Kristersson said he understood why Turkey is outraged, saying “we would show the same reaction if this was aimed at a Swedish leader.”
Yeah, maybe. But I doubt Sweden would refuse to approve another country’s NATO application just because some foreign protesters engaged in a little bad taste to prove a point.
And, of course, Kristersson’s extensive apology has only emboldened Turkish government officials. They’re saying even stupider things about the incident, devolving even further into self-caricature by claiming the Erdogan effigy was a “hate crime” and a “racist act.” Turkey’s foreign minister also claimed the entire county was responsible for the act because, well, it happened there.
“This action took place in the center of the city, right in front of the municipality, in front of everyone,” Cavusoglu said. “Sweden has a responsibility here.”
All of this is exceedingly stupid. Chances are that Turkey’s just looking for reasons to keep Finland and Sweden out of NATO because it still thinks Russia’s going to win the long game. This is all performative and everyone knows it. But there’s absolutely no reason any foreign leader should agree to be a bit player in Erdogan’s stupid world theater productions. At best, all that needs to be said to Erdogan and his enablers is “I can see you’re upset. I suggest you get over it.” Being protested is part of the “world leader” job. All an extensive apology does is encourage a terrible person to be even worse.
Turkey continues to fall back in the freedom field. Or maybe it’s surging ahead in the oppression field! Maybe that’s the list it wants to top.
Whatever the case, Turkey’s government has followed the lead of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, converting critics to criminals and seizing control of a large percentage of the press apparatus so Erdogan and his government lackeys seldom have to hear a discouraging word.
The government’s “Communications Directorate” directly controls several press outlets. Those who haven’t been taken over are routinely hit in the pocketbook when the government pulls ad buys in response to reporting not deemed sufficiently “ethical.” Truly independent outlets are going extinct, thanks to the government’s insistence on jailing as many critical journalists as possible, all while pretending critical coverage is pretty much just terrorism.
The government has also gotten into the “fake news” business. It is combating disinformation in its own particularly brutish way. With elections on the way, the ruling party is doing what it can to ensure it stays in the ruling position. A recently-passed law targeting disinformation was just made much worse, tacking on jail time for those who share content the government has declared suddenly illegal.
Turkey criminalized the spread of what authorities describe as false information on digital platforms, giving the government new powers in the months remaining before elections.
The measure, proposed by the governing AK Party and its nationalist ally MHP, is part of a broader “disinformation” law that was adopted by parliament on Thursday. It mandates a jail term of one to three years for users who share online content that contains “false information on the country’s security, public order and overall welfare in an attempt to incite panic or fear.”
It’s nice that “in an attempt to incite panic” is tacked on at the end. It almost makes it appear as though Turkish prosecutors might have to prove intent. Somehow, I doubt that last phrase will matter much when the government starts enforcing this law. It will be the rest of it that matters most.
This will allow the government to jail anyone who contradicts the official narrative when discussing matters related to national security, public order, or “overall welfare.” Discussing terrorist attacks or document leaks? Security. Talking about protests against the Turkish government? Public order. Pointing out public utility problems or social services failures? Overall welfare
There’s enough in this vague wording to criminalize nearly any criticism of the government, especially if the government takes the step (and it will) of denying allegations are true. If the official response is ignored (or maybe even if it isn’t!), the content becomes “disinformation” and the government can start rounding people up.
Journalists will be the most natural target since everything covered by this vague wording is of public interest. Those sharing this content will be next. And the few brave souls who venture onto social media platforms to discuss their subjective experiences will be right there with them.
The Turkish government is little more than a bundle of chilling effects at this point. This latest law just converts implied threats into actual jail time.
The government of Turkey, headed by exceedingly thin-skinned President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has devolved into a corrupt, anti-democratic state that still respects the freedom of the press in theory, but, in practice, only respects the freedoms of its favored press outlets, which are free to write anything the government allows them to write.
Journalists who retain their independence tend not to retain their literal freedom. The Turkish government has jailed more journalists than any other government but China’s. The excuse for jailing people who write what the government doesn’t like is the same excuse used everywhere to justify unjustifiable encroachments on people’s freedoms: terrorism.
Jonathan Spicer’s investigative report for Reuters digs into the how of Turkey’s censorship regime, which starts with a government entity erected by Erdogan — one specifically designed to ensure his regime has an ongoing source for government-approved “reporting.”
Directions to newsrooms often come from officials in the government’s Directorate of Communications, which handles media relations, more than a dozen industry insiders told Reuters. The directorate is an Erdogan creation, employing some 1,500 people and headquartered in a tower block in Ankara. It is headed by a former academic, Fahrettin Altun.
Altun’s officials issue their instructions in phone calls or Whatsapp messages that sometimes address newsroom managers with the familiar “brother,” according to some of these people and a Reuters review of some of the messages.
The Communications Directorate does — what else? — directs communications. The Erdogan administration claims this means nothing more than the normal PR work of government: issuing statements, holding press briefings, and offering comments. But that’s not how it actually works.
There are independent press outlets in Turkey. They’re under constant attack by the government. Then there are the unofficial official press outlets — ones controlled by the Directorate but with a thin veneer of plausible deniability. The biggest media outlets in the country are owned by people close to Erdogan, providing a willing mouthpiece for the president’s version of current events.
If Erdogan’s government isn’t directly oppressing journalists by jailing them, it’s applying indirect pressure by pulling state-sponsored ads from publications the Directorate claims have “breached media ethics.” From 2019 to 2020, papers owned by Erdogan’s inner circle received less than 16 days of suspended advertising. The other five papers not controlled by the Turkish government? 554 days.
And, of course, government claims of media ethics breaches mainly targeted content critical of the government, such as investigative reporting on suspected corruption.
And while the Directorate is a home-grown government enterprise, its base of operations (if not its sphere of influence) is much broader.
The body employs media monitors, translators and legal and public relations staff inside and outside Turkey. It has 48 foreign offices in 43 countries worldwide. These outposts deliver to headquarters weekly reports on how Turkey is portrayed in foreign media, according to an insider.
When the government is this good at censorship and this dedicated to silencing critics, sooner or later those it wishes to silence will just start doing the work themselves. It’s not a chilling effect in Turkey. It’s a never-ending blizzard. And it even affects those working for press outlets the government likes.
Self-censorship is now mostly automatic in mainstream media, according to several industry sources. It has existed in some form for years.
The TRT editor said that when Orhan Pamuk won the Nobel Prize for literature in 2006 – the first Turk to do so – the state broadcaster did not mention the news until then-Prime Minister Erdogan offered his official congratulations. “It was such a relief that I remember to this day, because we would never have covered it if there were no congratulations,” the editor said.
And that was before Erdogan ascended to the presidency. Since then, things have gotten much worse. An independent press remains, but just barely. How long it will continue to survive seems to be almost entirely in the government’s hands.
The social network saw “record highs” in the number of account data requests during the July-December 2021 reporting period, with 47,572 legal demands on 198,931 accounts.
The worse news is targeting of journalists is also on the rise.
The media in particular faced much more pressure. Government demands for data from verified news outlets and journalists surged 103 percent compared to the last report, with 349 accounts under scrutiny.
The full report [PDF] (also available in web form) breaks down the countries targeting journalists the most. And it’s the countries you would expect.
This spike is largely attributed to legal demands submitted by India (114), Turkey (78), Russia (55), and Pakistan (48).
Demands from Russia will likely fall off precipitously now that Twitter is blocked in the country (along with Facebook), a move made shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine. Turkey has always had a thing for persecuting journalists, so business there should remain steady. India has its own problems with bringing Twitter in line with its aggressive censorship efforts. That number could fluctuate dramatically in the coming months, depending on the outcome of Twitter’s legal challenge of the country’s ridiculous content moderation demands.
The usual suspects are also involved in demands for content blocking, led by a somewhat surprising (but perennial) contender.
97% of the total global volume of legal demands originated from only five countries (in decreasing order): Japan, Russia, South Korea,Turkey, and India. These five countries have remained Twitter’s top requesting countries for legal demands over the past three years.
Apparently, Japan is fighting crime via Twitter, something it has done often enough to secure the top spot for three years running.
Japan continues to submit the highest volume of requests, and was responsible for half of all global legal demands received in this period. 96% of requests from Japan referred to laws regarding the prohibition of financial crimes, narcotics, and prostitution.
Either Japan has plenty of Twitter-using criminals or this is a cheap, but ultimately wasteful, effort that has done little to deter Japanese users from engaging in these crimes and posting about them on Twitter.
The good news is Twitter is pushing back where it can.
It denied 31 percent of US data requests, and either narrowed or shut down 60 percent of global demands. Twitter also opposed 29 civil attempts to identify anonymous US users, citing First Amendment reasons.
It’s also still fighting to be allowed to report US national security related requests in more detail, a legal battle it has been engaged in since 2014. In addition to challenged National Security Letter gag orders, Twitter is hoping to provide more information than the mostly meaningless “bands” that only allow the public to guesstimate how often the government targets Twitter with these orders.
As for user data demands, the US still leads the way — something that’s likely due to the relative convenience of Twitter being US-based and, therefore, easier to approach.
The United States submitted the most government information requests during this reporting period, accounting for 20% of the global volume, and 39% of the global accounts specified. The second highest volume of requests originated from India, comprising 19% of global information requests and 27% of the global accounts specified.
Japan (17%) and France (17%) and Germany (6%) round out the top five countries by volume. Combined, these five countries accounted for 79% of all global information requests during this reporting period. This is the second report in a row in which these countries represent the top five global requesters (in varying order).
The spike in demands doesn’t track with Twitter user base growth. Twitter only added about 33 million users worldwide last year, an increase of less than 10%. Governments are the real growth industry here. And that means Twitter will continue to spend more on compliance without the apparent ability to offset the costs with user growth or sustained profitability. Somehow an extremely online car salesman temporarily convinced himself he wanted to make these problems his own, which kind of demonstrates the difference between being smart and being wise.
In the past we’ve pointed out how western politicians’ attacks on social media are only serving to play into the hands of authoritarians around the globe, justifying their crackdowns on free speech and critics. And that doesn’t seem to be slowing down any time soon. The latest is Turkey’s President repeating the exact lines that US/EU politicians have been using to slam social media as “dangerous to democracy” in order to justify even more draconian crackdowns on speech and the press in his country.
We’ve written about Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for years — mostly covering his regular attacks on free expression. Erdogan has sued thousands of people for “insulting” him online. Even more serious is his regular practice of jailing journalists by falsely calling them terrorists. He’s also lead aggressive campaigns to ban any website that portrays him in an unflattering light.
So, you’d think that maybe US/EU politicians might recognize the problems of someone like Erdogan using their own words to further push his agenda. This weekend, Erdogan announced that social media is a “threat to democracy” and pushed for new laws that would criminalized “fake news” being spread on social media.
?Social media, which was described as a symbol of freedom when it first appeared, has turned into one of the main sources of threat to today?s democracy,? Erdogan said in a video message to a government-organised communications conference in Istanbul.
He added: ?We try to protect our people, especially the vulnerable sections of our society, against lies and disinformation without violating our citizens? right to receive accurate and impartial information.?
I mean, that sounds nearly identical to claims made by people like Senators Amy Klobuchar, Josh Hawley, Elizabeth Warren, or Ted Cruz. Of course, there is no actual democracy in Turkey right now, and Erdogan is just using these claims to justify even greater suppression of speech that criticizes him. As we’ve highlighted over and over again hate speech laws always turn into a mechanism for the government to punish people they don’t like.
As the article notes, Turkey has already moved to have much great control over social media companies, and this new move will ratchet up the pressure:
Turkey passed a law last year requiring social media platforms that have more than 1 million users to maintain a legal representative and store data in the country. Major social media companies, including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, have since established offices in Turkey.
The new legislation would make the dissemination of ?disinformation? and ?fake news? criminal offences punishable by up to five years in prison, according to pro-government media reports. It also would establish a social media regulator.
It seems like those US social media companies may want to reconsider their local offices.
But, even more to the point, US and EU politicians going out of their way to exaggerate and slam social media as a “threat to democracy” might want to think a bit more about how their words are being used, almost verbatim, as a justification around the globe to suppress free speech and political criticism.
Interpol has become a weapon. The international consortium of law enforcement does have a legitimate purpose. It’s there to prevent people from escaping justice just because they’ve left the country where they’ve committed crimes. It’s a worthy goal, but it’s an easily abused mechanism.
For instance, there’s Turkey’s government, which really wants to keep its top position on the “Most Journalists Jailed” list. It can’t do this without the help of Interpol. In 2018, Turkey sent “red alert” notices to Interpol seeking journalists accused of whatever bullshit the government made up in hopes of having police forces in other nations round up the two self-exiled writers the government wanted to punish.
Alongside the growth of [Interpol’s] most-wanted list, international legal experts say there has also been an alarming phenomenon of countries using Interpol for political gain or revenge – targeting nationals abroad such as political rivals, critics, activists and refugees. It is not known how many of roughly 66,000 active red notices could be based on politically motivated charges; Interpol does not release data on how many red notices it rejects. But a number of reports, including from the US Congress, the European parliament and academics have documented the misuse of Interpol in recent years. Bromund says: “I don’t think there’s any dispute that […] the number of abusive red notices is growing.”
Using Interpol’s alert system to hunt down political opponents and critics violates Interpol’s constitution. But constitutions get violated all the time (just look at ours!). But vetting is time-consuming and certain countries are more than willing to swamp the system in hopes of sneaking illegitimate requests through.
And there are certain countries that abuse the process more than others. Russia alone generates nearly 40% of all public red notices, which have been used to target people the government wants to punish for reasons other than what’s stated in the notice. Russia is also known to send more informal requests via another Interpol option called a “diffusion,” which allows national governments to connect directly with each other with information about wanted fugitives. The breadth of abuse this allows hasn’t been quantified but it leads to things like this:
A less-formal Interpol option for hunting fugitives, called “diffusions”, are often regarded as more vulnerable to misuse. Through these alerts, Interpol members can send arrest requests directly to each other. That is how Nikita Kulachenkov, a Russian-born Lithuanian refugee, spent several weeks imprisoned in Cyprus, after he was detained at the airport in 2016 en route to visit his mother.
Kulachenkov faced a five-year prison term in Russia for allegedly stealing a street artist’s drawing. His Interpol alert was issued after he began working on investigations for the Anti-Corruption Foundation in Russia, founded by the opposition politician Alexei Navalny, who was poisoned with the nerve agent novichok last year and is now imprisoned in Russia.
When governments straight up lie to Interpol, it can be difficult for Interpol’s vetting staff to disprove allegations or suss out the real reason for the notice. Things get past the filtering system all the time, like the case of Turkmen human rights activist, Annadurdy Khadzhiev, who was detained in Bulgaria after a notice was issued accusing him of embezzling money from Turkmenistan’s national bank. The problem was the accusations claimed the embezzlement took place four years after Khadzhiev had stopped working for the bank.
The other problem is known abusers are still allowed to use the system. The report notes Interpol rejected more than 700 of Turkey’s requests last year, and yet the country is still allowed to issue red alerts and diffusions. Known human rights horror show Syria has just had its access to Interpol reinstated, over the protests of several members. China is somehow in good standing despite using the system to hunt down Uighur activists who’ve left the country to avoid near-constant oppression by the government.
Is there an upside? Yes, but it’s limited given the number of countries with access to Interpol’s system and the abuse that’s been observed and documented over the years. Known bad actors are still being given access to the system, but hopefully the system is becoming better at weeding out bogus requests.
Under [Secretary General Jurgen] Stock, Interpol has strengthened its oversight body – the commission for the control of Interpol’s files (CCF), which reviews appeals and can delete red notices – and publishes more information about decisions on complaints. He has also bolstered the specialist squad that reviews notices before they are published. Critics have welcomed the changes, but some say the system is still not robust enough. Stock acknowledges that there is more work to be done. “I don’t have the silver bullet at [this] stage for what else we can do,” he says, but stresses that he is committed to further strengthening safeguards, where possible, during his final three years in the post.
More needs to be done, but at least it’s being helmed by a Secretary General who knows work needs to be done, and perhaps more importantly, has been open and direct about the challenges Interpol faces and where it has fallen short of its ideals.
There are no easy answers when it comes to limiting abuse of the red alert system. Interpol could kick out rogue states, but that may just encourage more use of completely extrajudicial measures, like extraordinary rendition or sending state agents to straight up murder political opponents and government critics. At least with Interpol, there’s a paper trail that can show how the system is being abused and who’s behind politically motivated alerts.
Sebnem Korur Fincanci, a forensic physician, and many other doctors had long insisted there was something dodgy about Turkey’s covid-19 figures. Excess deaths across the country far surpassed officially reported deaths from the virus. Case numbers seemed suspiciously low. Vindication came at the end of November, when the government revealed it had stopped reporting asymptomatic infections months earlier. Once it resumed doing so, the case-count rocketed from about 7,000 to over 30,000 a day. (The numbers later dropped, after new lockdowns were imposed.) For her troubles Dr Fincanci, who turned 61 last year, was labelled a terrorist by none other than Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The head of the Nationalist Movement Party, the president’s coalition partner, called for the group she heads, the Turkish Medical Association, to be disbanded.
That’s how the bearers of inconvenient facts are being handled in Turkey. And the government has a brand new weapon to deploy against anyone saying anything it doesn’t like. A law passed late last year gives the government direct control of civil rights organizations in the country, including local branches of worldwide groups like Amnesty International. The law allows the government to remove members facing bogus terrorism charges and seize their assets. It also allows the government to handpick replacements for organization members it has jailed. If that isn’t enough to silence these rights-protecting loudmouths, the government can ban the groups altogether.
All this is happening while Turkey continues to suffer from numerous violent attacks by actual terrorists. But the government has chosen to focus on multitudinous “terrorists” who do nothing more damaging than raise justifiable concerns or undercut the official narrative.
These latest arrests just add to the breathtaking number of people arrested and/or jailed by the Turkish government following a failed coup in 2016. Only a small percentage of those were participants or have engaged in actual terrorists acts. A majority of those arrested are opposition party leaders, teachers, journalists, members of civil rights groups, and dissidents. This may be making things simpler and easier for Erdogan and his acolytes. But it isn’t making his country any safer. With Erdogan in charge, the population’s threat matrix now includes a vengeful, thin-skinned leader.
If anyone’s to blame for this latest Erdogan related debacle, it’s the thin-skinned “leader” of Turkey, R.T. “Gollum” Erdogan. In fact, I’d be hard pressed to find anyoneelse to blame if the Dutch government hadn’t been an enabler of this bad behavior.
Back in 2018, the Dutch government, inexplicably, decided to prosecute one of its own citizens for “insulting” a world leader located in an entirely different country. For whatever reason, the Dutch government has yet to wipe its “insulting a foreign leader” law from its books and that’s the weapon Erdogan wielded to engage in extraterritorial protection of his easily bruised skin.
A law may be on the books, but there’s nothing compelling a country to enforce it, especially when the request comes from the Turkish consulate on behalf of an insulted foreign leader who, as the word “foreign” specifies, resides in another country altogether.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is suing Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders after the anti-Islam politician posted a series of tweets against the Turkish leader, including one that described him as a “terrorist.”
The state-run Anadolu Agency said Erdogan’s lawyer on Tuesday filed a criminal complaint against Wilders at the Ankara Chief Prosecutor’s office for “insulting the president” — a crime in Turkey punishable by up to four years in prison.
Wilders posted a cartoon depicting Erdogan wearing a bomb-resembling hat on his head, with the comment: “terrorist.”
Fortunately, at least one person is handling this latest Turkish broadside against free speech with all the respect it deserves.
Wilders, who leads the largest opposition party in the Dutch Parliament, shrugged off the Turkish criminal complaint and described Erdogan as a “loser.”
This is not to say Wilders is an upstanding individual without troubling views on foreigners and religions other than his own. But the insulted leader of a foreign country shouldn’t be able to do anything more than complain about it like normal people complain about things: to anyone willing to listen to someone complain about stuff. Involving courts and foreign governments shouldn’t be part of the equation. There’s no defamation here and nothing credibly, legally actionable. It’s just Erdogan being insulted, which is something that happens regularly.
If the Dutch government doesn’t meet this with a strong “why don’t you just go fuck yourself” statement, it will only encourage Erdogan to engage in more extraterritorial litigation over speech he doesn’t like. That’s something no one needs, especially now that Turkey has passed China in the number of journalists jailed and has prosecuted more than 29,000 people in the last half-decade for “insulting” the eminently insultable president.