Evaluation of the Hate Speech Report

Evaluation of the Hate Speech Report

(Hrant Foundation’s Report Evaluated)

Hate speech is a circumstance that both we and the state of the Republic of Turkey and the Anatolian society argue against. It is the order of our tradition to give love and forbearance prominence instead of hate. We, the owners of Anatolia, are those who will argue against first to the hate speeches in the press and social media.

While struggling with hate speech, it is really misery to make discrimination and hate speech by using human such as Hrant Dink who committed himself to struggle with hate. If Mr. Dink was alive, he would be the one who will object to this report as well.

The “Hate Speech” report also includes willful distortions as well as it is full of contradictions. We would like to reveal the errors and examples which attract the attention first in the report. An open hate speech was generated by turning the identification of a person, who proudly identifies himself as LGBT, as the LGBT member into a hate speech.

Hrant Dink was a man who represented the forbearance of the Anatolian people and expressed that the world peace will be based on forbearance. I wish that they had evaluated Hrant Dink report with the principles of Dink and had contributed to the country peace. Although the evaluation increased the number of hate speeches, neither the Armenians nor the Kurds nor the other races nor the Turks will give up loving each other.

We can proceed to the evaluation of the report which will make Hrant Dink turn in his grave. We will complete the subject with examples.

• The report shows how it drifts away from objectivity in the first sentence. It’s trying to direct the reader instead of the reader’s deciding himself is the indicator that there are similar directions of the continuation of the letter: “We witness to that the media in Turkey often uses biased, prejudiced and discriminative language. The provocative, racist and discriminative language that is used in the news, in particular in the catch lines and headlines is turning into a tool that triggers the hostility in the society and the discriminative sensations and strengthens the stereotypes”
• The possibilities are presented as reality instead of giving a basis: “it may result in attacks to the members or the spaces of the groups which are made hostile and marginalised from time to time”
• Hrant Foundation hides how it makes concessions to the principles of Hrant Dink in this sentence. Although it is known that why and by whom the hateful homicide was committed, the expressions of the type supporting the purpose of the homicide were preferred. “Unfortunately, the Turkish media has become one of the effective sources of nationalist and discriminative speech for many years. This journalism type had a significant effect on the polarization in the society”
• The methodology was incorrectly built from the very beginning of the study. The words were focused on instead of evaluating the entire text: “it is being scanned via the media monitoring center over the pre-defined key words”
• The weakness of the method was confessed: “Even though a systematical scanning is not made”
• It is not certain of which part of the study was carried out by the professional team: “We thank them due to the support that they gave to the university students and our volunteers”
• The part where the crimes of ASALA terrorist organization are tried to be hidden: “PKK and ASALA were mentioned together and assimilated with “terrorism””
• The presentation of the mentioning of the nationalities of those who committed the criminal acts as hate speech: “It was systematically mentioned with the criminal events such as homicide, theft, harassment”
• The inclusion of the detection of the demographical change into hate category: “It was labelled as a threat to the demographical structure of Turkey and generally as a source of ‘distemper’”
• The inclusion of the news regarding the marriages with those of Syrian origin into the hate speech category: “Particularly, the Syrian female refugees were presented as a threat to family and society”
• The expression of the Koran reference as a hate speech against Christianity: “It was made hostile by giving reference to the current events addressed with a negative framework and the Koran verses”
• The demonstration of the expression of the issues the framework of which was defined with international law as hate speech: “It was shown as a target due to the rejection of the return of the soldiers who took refugee in Greece after the 15th July coup attempt to Turkey”
• Terrorizing a word which means non-Muslim: The word “Infidel’ was frequently used while mentioning about the crises experienced with the European countries”
• The news in which the expression of the rejection of the proposed recommendations by the Greek side was considered as hate speech http://bit.ly/2zSOvny
• The news in which a symbolic movement made within the framework of reciprocity was presented as hate speech http://bit.ly/2zRp46l
• The news in which the expression of a historical event was presented as hate speech http://bit.ly/2jFun2g
• The news in which the news that was made in order to prevent hate speech was presented as hate speech http://bit.ly/2AXWFs9
• The news in which the news that condemned the fascistic speeches containing hate was presented as hate speech http://bit.ly/2z0XLmm
• The news in which the detection of a simple circumstance was presented as hate speech http://bit.ly/2hEJbty