Güray Öz in detention for nine months for ordering pita

KEMAL GÖKTAŞ / CANAN COŞKUN
 
Our newspaper’s ombudsman, Güray Öz, has asked with reference to one of the allegations raised against him of entering communications with a FETO suspect, ‘The person I am alleged to have entered into communications with is a pita vendor in Çankaya. How could I possibly have known that the pita vendor from whom I occasionally ordered a pita was a person under investigation?’
Öz started his defence with the words, ‘I cannot stand coupists. I did not like coups one bit on 12 March and 12 September. Hence, I reject the accusations levelled against me.’ Öz stressed that he had never been a member of a terrorist organisation, had never engaged in any act that could be deemed assisting a terrorist organisation and there was not a single piece of concrete evidence to this effect in the indictment.

How did I carry out a purge before being elected?
Öz replied as follows to the assertion raised against him that foundation executive board members were purged: ‘How could I have purged people who resigned and left the executive and have taken part in such a non-existent act before I had been elected as a member of the foundation executive board? Could I have participated in the act of ‘purging’ people who had resigned and left the executive before this election? There is talk of a board of which I was not yet a member and, secondly, resignations, not purges, were involved. This allegation is not an allegation that bears contemplation with reference to me.

Journalism on trial
The speaking by prosecutors of a change in editorial policy is concrete evidence that what is at issue in this trial is articles, news reports and columns, in short, journalism. In fact, because journalism is on trial, the prosecutors speak of nothing but news, articles and headlines by way of evidence. As a Cumhuriyet columnist and the newspaper’s ombudsman - reader representative, I stand as one who has knowledge of newspapers’ publishing policies and Cumhuriyet’s publishing policy. Newspapers may change their editorial policies from time to time. I am of the view that this cannot be deemed to be a crime that warrants punishment under the Turkish Penal Code.

We are beyond reproach
Were an example of the change in editorial police to be called for, it will be recalled that until a very recent time, that is until FETO’s game was exposed, many members of the media community could not go far enough in their praise for the Fethullah brotherhood. Critics were viewed with askance and the need was impressed on embassies for them to assist the brotherhood. Then, editorial policies naturally enough immediately changed and this time FETO’s true face began to appear in newspapers, accompanied this time, too, by a reformulation of editorial policies that accused, attempted to eliminate and singled out circles, journalists and academics who stood up for the left and secularism. As to Cumhuriyet newspaper, it is one of the papers that is beyond reproach in this matter. Both before and after, the paper warned those following in the wake of a zealot, cautioned over the hiding of true intentions and maintained the consistency of its editorial policy. For this reason, its columnists and writers were put in the dock in Ergenekon trials.’
Öz, responding to the allegation in the indictment that Cumhuriyet had ignored the wishes of its readers, said that the precise contrary was the case, Cumhuriyet newspaper’s publishing principles precluded it from neglecting these duties and it had not breached this rule. Öz, noting that the prosecutor was basing this charge on allegations by Namık Kemal Boya, who had appointed himself Cumhuriyet Readers’ Coordinator, said, ‘The demands of the newspaper by this person of self-proclaimed merit who has named himself coordinator and the 330 people he says have approved the announcement in question are without doubt not requests that can warrant serious consideration. Requests such as for the dismissal of this columnist, for that columnist not to write in such a manner and for another columnist to be censured are unacceptable at any time and in any place. Ataturkists, social democrats, socialists, democrats, neo-nationalists and liberals have always found a place for themselves at Cumhuriyet newspaper. It is sufficient that they do not compromise on the basic principles: the principles of secularism, the Republic and democracy.’

Close to 1,000 messages
Öz, stressing that the allegation that Cumhuriyet had ignored the wishes of its readers was devoid of merit, submitted to the court close to 1,000 messages that had been included in his column that is published every Monday and said, ‘I must state that these messages constitute a mere fragment of the relations I have established with readers and, apart from these, I have large numbers of readers who I have been unable to include due to space constraints and this does not include the large number of readers who get through to me by post and telephone, either.’

Investigation turns out to be for theft, not FETO
Öz responded as follows to the claim that in the HTS report he had entered communications with a person who was a ByLock user and was under investigation for FETO affiliation:
‘I wish to say briefly and bluntly that I have not phoned a ByLock user. The said telephone number in the record pertained to the subscriber before me. It was a communication by the former holder of the number to which I subscribed after 2015. It has absolutely nothing to do with me. But, the second point is even more comical. The claim that I had entered communications with a person who was under investigation for FETO affiliation is a bit, or maybe more than a bit, comical. The person I am alleged to have entered into communications with is a pita vendor in Çankaya. How could I possibly have known that the pita vendor from whom I occasionally ordered a pita was a person under investigation? I occasionally ordered a pita, most recently on my birthday. Also, what I have most recently learnt is that the person in question is under investigation for theft, not FETO affiliation.’

‘Even if it succeeds today, it will not last until tomorrow’
Öz reiterated the words contained in Hürriyet newspaper’s reader representative Faruk Bildirici’s article about him, ‘Prosecutors are now themselves deciding on and prosecuting over how journalism should be conducted.’ Öz concluded his defence with the words, ‘But, journalism cannot be tried and convicted and people’s freedom impeded. Even if it succeeds today, it will not last until tomorrow.’

Provocative question from judge
Following the defence, the presiding judge Abdurrahman Orkun Dağ asked Öz, ‘The basic question that needs to be asked in this trial is, “Brother, did the Cumhuriyet we know become FETOist? Did it support various terrorist organisations?” What does the reader say? Do they say, “Friend, why have you published in a way that supports these things recently?’ Öz, saying that readers send their letters to him, commented, ‘Readers may not be of the same opinion as columnists. Had this been so, we would have copied one columnist and continued with a single columnist. In Turkey, Cumhuriyet’s circulation increases at times when political tension increases. The Cumhuriyet reader splits hairs. It is not an ordinary readership. A storm of criticism blows in the paper on Mondays. This is the first thing to be read. These are the first things to be spoken of at meetings where editorial meetings are conducted on Mondays. It is not true that these things are not conveyed to the paper. Nobody believes the allegation that Cumhuriyet has become FETOist or has assisted other terrorist organisations. I think the prosecutor himself does not believe this. If he is human, he will hunt down evidence. Can headlines serve as evidence?’

Ugly insinuation
One of the judges on the bench then intervened and asked, ‘Did a reaction ensue over the reports, “They do not even throw rubbish on the ground,” “They call my humble abode a mansion,” and “This action is a method we have been forced to resort to”?’ Öz stressed that they had received absolutely no reaction over these reports and no interference was made with the views of columnists or interviewers. The court bench’s final question came from the other judge on the bench. The junior member of the bench asked in a provocative manner, ‘I saw your right hand trembling. Do you have a chronic complaint? Would you like to account for this at the hearing?’ Öz first asked why this question was posed and then replied, ‘I do not wish to. The report before you suffices.’

He did not manage to get sufficient votes
Then the hearing prosecutor Hacı Hasan Bölükbaşı asked whether Eser Sevinç’s election in place of Mustafa Balbay at the 18 February 2014 Cumhuriyet Foundation executive board meeting, one of the counts in the indictment, was at Balbay’s wish. Öz, recalling that Balbay had assumed an active duty in the CHP and was a candidate for chairship, said, ‘His duty was not ended due to his being in detention as part of Ergenekon. It is incorrect for people who assume duties in any political party to have an executive function. He did not manage to get sufficient votes and was not elected.’ At this point, our Executive Board Chair Akın Atalay, stating that foundation members undergo reselection every two years in accordance with the foundation deeds, said, ‘The prosecutor’s question diverges from the official deed and is tantamount to saying there is lack of change and unchangeability for other people, too. My period of duty is also two years. All members of the executive board will change. The question, “Why didn’t you elect Balbay?” is a little strange. This is contrary to the essence of the matter.’ The hearing prosecutor then asked Atalay, ‘How many years have you been a member of the foundation?’ Atalay replied, ‘I have been a member of the executive board for ten years but those who are complaining because they didn’t manage to get elected were members for twenty years.’