Journalists Şule Aydın, Barış Pehlivan, Murat Ağırel, and Timur Soykan are being prosecuted for criticizing trade with Israel in a program they aired on the first anniversary of the attacks on Gaza. In the indictment of the quietly ongoing trial, the phrase “Islamists worship green” is included under the scope of “insulting religious values,” thereby elevating a political ideology to a “sacred” status.
Semra Pelek
The judiciary in Turkey is defining new “sacred” values. Four journalists who questioned trade with Israel on the first anniversary of the Gaza attacks are now standing trial for opening up a political ideology to debate. In the indictment, the phrase “Islamists worship green” was interpreted as “insulting religious values adopted by a segment of the public,” and thus a political ideology has been moved into a legally untouchable category.
The fourth hearing of the case was held last week at the Bakırköy 34th Criminal Court of First Instance. A striking aspect between the lines of the prosecution process, which has been quietly ongoing for months, is the definition of a political view—which legally is not a matter of belief or freedom of worship—as a “religious belief.”
Prosecutor launched investigation without waiting for a complaint
The broadcast that led to the case being filed was the program “Record It with Şule Aydın,” aired on Halk TV on Oct. 8, 2024. At that time, tens of thousands of civilians, including thousands of children, had been killed in Gaza. In the program, after the journalists described how the bombardment had continued for 368 days and how Gaza was facing shortages of medicine, food, and clean water, Murat Ağırel shared figures from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) showing trade volumes from Turkey to Israel and Palestine.
While criticizing this trade, the journalists especially pointed out that the trade conducted with Israel contradicted the political rhetoric of officials from the nationalist-islamist Great Unity Party (BBP). The program also addressed, with legal documents, allegations of smuggling conducted through the VIP lounge at Istanbul Airport.
Following this broadcast, the Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office Press Crimes Bureau launched an investigation without waiting for any complaint; the prepared indictment was accepted by the court, and a trial began against Şule Aydın, Barış Pehlivan, Murat Ağırel, and Timur Soykan.
In the indictment, the journalists were charged with “publicly disseminating misleading information” under Turkish Penal Code Article 217/A—a provision press professional organizations call the “Censorship Law” and the government calls the “Disinformation Law”—as well as with “violation of confidentiality” under Article 285/2.
Political ideology transformed into “religious value”
In the indictment, Murat Ağırel and Timur Soykan were additionally charged under Turkish Penal Code Article 216/3—“publicly degrading the religious values adopted by a segment of the public”—for their words: “Islamists worship green.” Thus, a term referring to a political ideology was defined in the indictment as if it were part of the religion of Islam itself, and was considered a “religious value.”
This approach means that the judicial mechanism has moved a political ideology into a sphere that is “sacred” and “immune to criticism,” and that the political view being criticized has been placed under a legal shield of protection. However, the trial is ongoing; no verdict has yet been issued.
What does the European Court of Human Rights say?
The concept of “political Islam” is defined in literature as a political ideology and movement based on the religion of Islam. Political movements fall within the category of ideas that can be criticized. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates that expressions contributing to political criticism and public debate must be protected to the broadest extent.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case law also clearly states that harsh, exaggerated, or disturbing expressions—especially those targeting government policies—fall under the scope of freedom of expression. The Court has emphasized that political criticism should be protected “even if it shocks, offends, or disturbs” (Handyside v. United Kingdom, 1976; Lingens v. Austria, 1986).
