BDP MP demanded removal of Kurdish ban
BDP MP demanded removal of Kurdish ban
BDP Hakkari MP Adil Kurt presented a bill of law in which he demanded the removal of the Kurdish ban in the Press Law and legalization of freedom in Kurdish broadcast.
Demanding the amendment of the Press Law No 5187 and removal of the obstacles to freedom of the press, Kurt expressed the reason for the bill of law as the need for freedom of press which serves as icebreaker in the development of democracy, rights and freedoms. Kurt noted that the right of language in press activities was a basic human right widely recognized by international law as well.
Kurt identified constraints on the Kurdish language with the “language genocide” concept in international literature and summarized the practices of this genocide as “completely or partially exterminate a language or a dialect and to prevent the language’s natural development”. Kurt defined the concept of “language genocide” as follows;
* Obstructing the cultural development circumstances of a bilingual society with the aim of domination a single language.
* Despite the demands of an ethnic group with a different language, Not granting the right to the use of this language in mass communication instruments and to teach this language at public schools.
* Despite the demands of an ethnic group with a different language, refusing to give a moral and material support to the cultural works and efforts this group practices to keep their language alive.”
Kurt demanded the organization of terms and conditions to enable the development and transfer of all languages and dialects to the next generations.
Mentioning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was signed by Turkey as well, Kurt remarked that the Article 3 of the mentioned convention granted everyone the right to use mother-tongue, reminding of the convention’s Article 39 which rules that citizens with a different language other than Turkish have the right to verbally use their language in all kinds of commercial relations and publications, open meetings and in the fields of religion and press.
Kurt reminded of a research made by KONDA Research Center in 2006 which showed the rates of mother languages of Turkey’s population -84.5 percent Turkish, 12.9 percent Turkish and 1.3 percent Arabic- and called attention to Kurdish, Arabic, Laz language, Syriac, Circassian and other minority languages in Turkey which have survived so far despite not being supported in public areas. Kurt noted that Kurdish and other languages had not been allowed in turkey for long years and indicated that the Article 25 of the Press Law and the Turkish Criminal Code represent an obstacle to the freedom of language.
Kurt also commented the Kurdish broadcast on state channel TRT-6 and the prohibition of Kurdish broadcasting on the Press Law as a contradiction owing to the ban on using non-Turkish letters and characters which are seen in Kurdish as well.
Demanding the amendment of the Press Law No 5187 and removal of the obstacles to freedom of the press, Kurt expressed the reason for the bill of law as the need for freedom of press which serves as icebreaker in the development of democracy, rights and freedoms. Kurt noted that the right of language in press activities was a basic human right widely recognized by international law as well.
Kurt identified constraints on the Kurdish language with the “language genocide” concept in international literature and summarized the practices of this genocide as “completely or partially exterminate a language or a dialect and to prevent the language’s natural development”. Kurt defined the concept of “language genocide” as follows;
* Obstructing the cultural development circumstances of a bilingual society with the aim of domination a single language.
* Despite the demands of an ethnic group with a different language, Not granting the right to the use of this language in mass communication instruments and to teach this language at public schools.
* Despite the demands of an ethnic group with a different language, refusing to give a moral and material support to the cultural works and efforts this group practices to keep their language alive.”
Kurt demanded the organization of terms and conditions to enable the development and transfer of all languages and dialects to the next generations.
Mentioning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was signed by Turkey as well, Kurt remarked that the Article 3 of the mentioned convention granted everyone the right to use mother-tongue, reminding of the convention’s Article 39 which rules that citizens with a different language other than Turkish have the right to verbally use their language in all kinds of commercial relations and publications, open meetings and in the fields of religion and press.
Kurt reminded of a research made by KONDA Research Center in 2006 which showed the rates of mother languages of Turkey’s population -84.5 percent Turkish, 12.9 percent Turkish and 1.3 percent Arabic- and called attention to Kurdish, Arabic, Laz language, Syriac, Circassian and other minority languages in Turkey which have survived so far despite not being supported in public areas. Kurt noted that Kurdish and other languages had not been allowed in turkey for long years and indicated that the Article 25 of the Press Law and the Turkish Criminal Code represent an obstacle to the freedom of language.
Kurt also commented the Kurdish broadcast on state channel TRT-6 and the prohibition of Kurdish broadcasting on the Press Law as a contradiction owing to the ban on using non-Turkish letters and characters which are seen in Kurdish as well.
