Zimsenbabwe Express
In dubio pro ZimsenbabweWednesday, May 19, 2010
SECOND SECTION
BUSINESS AHMET ARSLAN AND OTHER C. TURKEY
(Request No 41135/98)
STOP
STRASBOURG
February 23, 2010
This stop will become final under the conditions defined in article 44 § 2 of Convention. It can undergo final improvements of form.
In the business Ahmet Arslan and other C. Turkey,
European Court of the human rights (second section), sitting in a room made up of:
Francoise Tulkens, president,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and of Pared Sally, greffière of section,
After having deliberated on it in room on the council on January 19, 2010,
The stop returns that here, adopted at this date:
PROCEDURE
1. At the origin of the business is a request (No 41135/98) directed against the Republic of Turkey and including hundred twenty-seven nationals of this State, Mr. Ahmet Arslan and 126 others (“applicants”), whose names and birth dates appear in the appendix with the present stop, had seized the European commission of the human rights (“Commission”) on November 14, 1997 under the terms of old article 25 of the Convention of safeguard of the human rights and fundamental freedoms (“Convention”).
2. The applicants are represented by Me A. Çiftçi, lawyer in Ankara. The Turkish government (“the Government”) is represented by its agent.
3. The applicants pled to be condemned to penal to have expressed their religion through their appropriate dress, with the contempt of their right to freedom of religion guaranteed by article 9 of Convention.
4. The request was transmitted to the Court on November 1, 1998, date of coming into effect of the Protocol No 11 with Convention (article 5 § 2 of the Protocol No 11).
5. On June 12, 2003, the Court decided to communicate the request with the Government. On July 5, 2005, the Court decided, as allows it article 29 § 3 of Convention, to examine at the same time the admissibility and the bottom of the business.
IN FACT
I. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SPECIES
6. The applicants do all started from a religious group which describes itself as Aczimendi tarikatı. The group was formed as from 1986 while following the precepts of its chief, Müslim Gündüz.
7. On October 20, 1996, the applicants, coming from various departments of Turkey, went to Ankara in order to meet and to take part in a ceremony in religious matter organized in the mosque of Kocatepe. They carried the behaviour characteristic of their group, made up of a turban, a “salvar” (saroual) and of a tunic, all with black color, and were provided with a stick, this behaviour recalling according to them that of the principal prophets, in particular the Mohammed prophet. They made it tower of the city together thus vêtus. At the conclusion of certain incidents which have occurred the same day, they were stopped and placed as a police custody. On October 20, 1996, the applicants were placed in detention pending trial.
8 On December 2, 1996, a public action was brought against the applicants before the court of state security of Ankara for infringement in article 7 of the law No 3713 relating to the fight against the terrorism, which represses the creation and the activities of terrorist organizations aiming inter alia fundamentalist ends.
9. At the time of the audience of January 8, 1997, the applicants appeared before the court of state security vêtus of the behaviour representative of their sect. To the beginning of the audience, the gendarme responsible for the transfer of the applicants indicated, at the request of the president of the court, which he had explained to the latter that they could not be presented before the court in this behaviour, but that the applicants had not obtempéré with this warning. The president of the court of state security invited in his turn the applicants to remove their turban as a sign of respect towards the court. He explained to them why, according to the habit of the jurisdictions in Turkey, the men appear before the courts the head discovered whereas the women can appear the head covered or discovered. The applicants Müslim Çalı, Hassan Erdivan and Gazi Topaloğlu removed their turban after this warning. The other applicants refused to remove their turban by affirming that this behaviour was dictated by their belief. The court of state security registered the situation in the official report of the audience and denounced the act of the applicants to the parquet floor. She ordered also the setting in bail of the applicants Hassan Erdivan and Gazi Topaloğlu.
10. A public action was brought against the applicants for infringement with the law No 671 relating to the port of the hat like to the law No 2596 on the regulation of the port of certain clothing, which prohibits the port of certain religious behaviours in the public places open to all like the ways or public places apart from the religious ceremonies.
11. By an ordinance in summary procedure of March 17, 1997, the 16th magistrates' court (penal) of Ankara condemned each applicant (except Müslim Çalı, Hassan Erdivan and Gazi Topaloğlu) to a sorrow of two months imprisonment, commuted finally to a fine of 300.000 pounds Turkish (2,4 American dollars (USD) approximately at the time of the facts), for infringment with the law No 671 of November 28, 1925 relating to the port of the hat and the law No 2596 of December 3, 1934 on the regulation of the port of certain religious clothing. The court, after having indicated that “the moment of the offence” extended from October 20, 1996 to January 10, 1997, raised in particular that, at the time of the audience of January 8, 1997 which had proceeded before the court of state security, the applicants, appearing in their capacity as defendants, had not removed their turban in spite of the warning of members of the magistrate and police force. The court, in order to establish that the applicants carried a contrary behaviour to the provisions of the above mentioned laws, was based on the official reports establish by the members of the police force, on the reports and observations of the magistrates like on the consents of the applicants.
12. On May 9, 1997, the condemned applicants filed opposition to the summary order in front of the Court of Bankruptcy of Ankara. They pointed out that the law No 2596 of December 3, 1934 on the regulation of the port of certain religious clothing could not apply in their case since, according to an opinion of the direction of the religious affairs (Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı), the clothes which they had worn did not represent any capacity or religious authority recognized by the State.
13. By a decision notified to the applicants on June 5, 1997, the Court of Bankruptcy of Ankara rejected this opposition, estimating that the attacked summary order was in conformity with the law.
14. By an summary order of June 20, 1997, the 7th magistrates' court (penal) of Ankara condemned the applicants Müslim Çalı, Hassan Erdivan and Gazi Topaloğlu with a sorrow of three months imprisonment, commuted to a fine of 450.000 pounds Turkish (approximately 4 USD at the time of the facts), for infringement with the provisions of laws Nos 671 and 2596. The court considered that the fact that the three marked ones had removed their turban after the warning of the magistrates did not change anything with their culpability, since they had already committed the offence causes some before the audience of January 8, 1997 while expressing in this behaviour on October 20, 1996 downtown and by keeping the same behaviour after their arrest.
15. These last three applicants also filed opposition to the summary order by affirming, inter alia, that the litigious behaviour was dictated by their belief and no political significance had. This opposition was also rejected by the Court of Bankruptcy of Ankara on November 17, 1997. These decisions of rejection being likely of no call, the judgment of the applicants became final.
16. By a request addressed to the ministry for Justice on November 17, 1997, all the applicants invited this last to form an appeal in the interest of the law (Yazılı Emirle Bozma). In their request, they complained that the aforementioned decisions had carried reached to their right to express their religion.
17. By a decision of January 5, 1998, the ministry for Justice refused the application of the applicants.
18. In September 1998, the remainder of the applicants were put in bail. In April 2001, the criminal proceedings brought against all the applicants before the Court of state security were suspended and five years later, was cancelled retroactively.
II. RIGHT AND THE PRACTICE RELEVANT INTERNS
19. Article 174 of the Constitution lays out:
“No provision of the Constitution can be included/understood or interpreted like implying the unconstitutionality of the provisions in force, at the date of the adoption of the Constitution by referendum, of the laws of reform enumerated below and of which the goal is to hoist the Turkish people above the level of contemporary civilization and to safeguard the laic character of the Republic of Turkey:
1) the law No 430 of March 3, 1340 (1924) on the unification of teaching;
2) the law No 671 of November 25, 1341 (1925) on the port of the hat;
3) the law No 677 of November 30, 1341 (1925) on the closing of the convents of dervishes and the mausoleums and the abolition and the prohibition of the functions of guard of mausoleum and certain titles;
4) the provision of the law No 734 of February 17, 1926, bearing creation of the Turkish civil code, instituting the rule of the civil wedding according to which the marriage certificate is celebrated in front of the officer of the civil statue, as well as the provision of article 110 of the same code;
5) the law No 1288 of May 20, 1928 on the adoption of the international figures;
6) the law No 1353 of November 1, 1928 on the adoption and the implementation of the Turkish alphabet;
7) the law No 2590 of November 26, 1934 on the abolition of the titles and names such as effendi, bey and pasha;
8) the law No 2596 of December 3, 1934 on the regulation of the port of certain clothing. ”
20. The law No 671 of November 28, 1925 on the port of the hat states, in its first article, that “the members of the National Assembly, the civils servant and the others paid of the administration are held to wear the hat, like makes the Turkish nation. As for the Turkish people, his general cover-chief being as the hat, the Government prevents as a contrary practice remains”.
21. The law No 2596 of December 3, 1934 on the regulation of the port of certain clothing prohibits the port of a habit by a member of an authority or a religious capacity, whatever the religion or the belief concerned, apart from the places of worship and of the religious ceremonies.
22. Article 526 subparagraph 2 of the Turkish penal code provides that the people contravening the law No 671 on the wearing of hat are liable to a sorrow of imprisonment from two to six months and to a fine.
IN RIGHT
23. The applicants complain about a violation of their right to freedom of religion rising from their judgment to have expressed their religion through their appropriate dress. They call upon in this respect article 9 of the Convention, which is read as follows:
“1. Any person is entitled to freedom of thought, of conscience and religion; this right implies freedom to change religion or of conviction, as well as freedom to express its religion or its conviction individually or collectively, in public or in deprived, by the worship, teaching, the practices and the achievement of the rites.
2. Freedom to express its religion or its convictions can be the subject of other restrictions only those which, envisaged by the law, constitute necessary measures, in an democratic society, with public safety, with the protection of the order, health or morals public, or with the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. ”
I. ON THE ADMISSIBILITY
24. The Court estimates that the request is not obviously badly founded within the meaning of article 35 § 3 of Convention. It raises in addition that the objection does not encounter any other reason for inadmissibility. It is thus advisable to declare it admissible.
II. ON THE PLED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF CONVENTION
25. The applicants complain that their judgment with penal to have expressed their religion through their appropriate dress has enfreint the provisions of article 9 of Convention.
A. Theses of the parts
26. The Government initially explains the reasons for which the laws Nos 671 and 2596, which are at the base of the judgment of the applicants, were adopted. He recalls that Turkey, after the proclamation of the Republic on October 29, 1923, removed the caliphate on March 3, 1924 with law 431 with an aim of separating the religion and the businesses from the State. Within the framework of this reform, several laws, named the “laws of the Revolution”, were promulgated between 1924 and 1934 (as quoted in article 174 of the Turkish Constitution, to see, above, paragraph 19). The two laws in application of which the applicants were sanctioned in the present business belong to this group of legislative texts of which the principal goal would be to safeguard the laic character of the Republic of Turkey.
27. The Government disputes the allegation according to which the applicants were condemned because of their religious convictions. Their appearance before the national jurisdictions in the behaviour characteristic of their sect, which would aim at the introduction of a system based on the charia to replace the current democratic regime, would not be guided by their convictions, but rather by their intention to defy justice.
28. The Government exposes in particular that the fact of being discovered the head in front of a court belongs to the practices followed in all the countries as a sign of respect towards justice. The justiciable ones should act with more solemnity in front of the court. The applicants would have preferred to make their publicity and their propaganda and to disturb the behaviour of the audience.
29. For the Government, the purpose of the litigious interferences were to make respect the laic and democratic principles, to prevent acts of provocation, proselytism and propaganda on behalf of the applicants, and thus aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of others as well as the order and public safety.
30. The applicants support for their part that the fact of wearing these clothes constitutes a form of demonstration of their convictions protected by article 9 from Convention. They make the point that they were condemned not for lack of respect with regard to the magistrates, but to have carried their turban in the private life, in public places open to all like the ways or public places. The applicants challenge the assertion of the Government according to which they have lack of respect towards the magistrates before which they appeared. They add in addition that they were maintained in detention pending trial as a long time as they refused to be discovered the head.
B. Appreciation of the Court
1. On the existence of an interference
31. The Court must initially check the validity of the thesis of the Government according to which the applicants, having refused to be discovered the head, were sanctioned only for their lack of respect towards the court.
32. It observes in this respect 7th and 16th magistrates' courts, when they condemned the applicants to sorrows of imprisonment commuted to fines, based their decisions not on a possible lack of respect with regard to the court, but on the provisions of the laws Nos 671 and 2596 (paragraphs 20-21 above), which repress, according to these jurisdictions, the port of certain behaviours in the public places open to all like the ways or public places.
33. The Court also notes that the moment and the place of the infringements reproached all the applicants were not limited to the incidents of the audience of January 10, 1997 held before the court of state security, but referred mainly to a period former to this audience. In particular, the 16th magistrates' court took into account the appropriate dress of the applicants from October 20, 1996, date of the events which have occurred in front of the mosque of Kocatepe, that is to say two months and twenty days before the audience before the court of state security (paragraph 11 above). Moreover, the 7th magistrates' court estimated that the fact that three of the applicants (Müslim Çalı, Hassan Erdivan and Gazi Topaloğlu) had removed their turban at the request of the magistrates of the court of state security did not affect any the criminal acts, since these three people had already made the offence causes some before even appearing before the magistrates.
34. In the light of these considerations, the Court estimates established that the applicants were sanctioned with penal for their manner of dressing in public places open to all like the ways or public places, considered to be contrary with the provisions of laws Nos 671 and 2596, and not for indiscipline or lack of respect before the court of state security. The use of the official report of the audience of January 10, 1997 by the magistrates' courts as one of the pieces of evidence with load does not change this report.
35. The Court must check then if the sanction inflicted to the applicants is analyzed in an interference in their freedom of conscience or religion guaranteed by article 9 of Convention, as they plead it. In this context, the Court notes that the applicants were members of a religious group named Aczimendi and estimated that their religion forced to them to be dressed in this manner. It observes in particular that at the beginning of the period when they committed the offences envisaged by laws Nos 671 and 2596, the applicants had met in front of the mosque of Kocatepe, in the behaviour in question, in order to take part in a ceremony in religious matter organized in this place of Muslim cult. Seen under this angle, the Court admits that the fact of condemning the applicants to have worn this clothing falls under the empire from article 9 from the Convention, which protects, inter alia, freedom to express religious convictions (see, mutatis-mutandis, Leyla Şahin C. Turkey [GC], No 44774/98, § 78, CEDH 2005 XI.).
36. The court orders causes some in this business are analyzed consequently in an interference in the freedom of conscience and religion of the applicants.
2. On the justification of the interference
37. Similar interference enfreint article 9 except if it “is envisaged by the law”, aims one or more legitimate goals and is “necessary with an democratic society” to reach this or these aims.
a. “Envisaged by the law”
38. The Court points out that the terms “envisaged by the law” appearing in articles 8 to 11 of Convention mean initially that accused measurement must have a legal base in internal rights, but they imply also the quality of the law: they require the accessibility of this one with the people concerned and an enough precise formulation to enable them to envisage, with a reasonable degree in the circumstances of the cause, the consequences being able to result from a given act (see, among many others, Maestri C. Italy [GC], No 39748/98, § 30, CEDH 2004-I). Indeed, the Court always heard the term “law” in its “material” meaning and not “formal”. The “law” must be included/understood like including the written text and the “right worked out” by the judges. In short, the “law” is the text in force such as the courts of jurisdiction interpreted it (see, inter alia, Leyla Şahin, above mentioned, § 88, Sunday Times C. the United Kingdom (No 1), April 26, 1979, § 47, series has No 30, Casado Coca C. Spain, February 24, 1994, § 43, series has No 285-A).
39. The question of knowing if the first condition is filled in fact does not lend to controversy. Indeed, according to the national jurisdictions, the legal base is made up in the species by the provisions of the law No 671 of November 28, 1925 relating to the port of the hat (combined with article 526 subparagraph 2 of the penal code) and those of the law No 2596 of December 3, 1934 on the regulation of the port of clothing concerned with an authority or a religious capacity.
40. Remain the point to know if these standards also fulfilled the requirements of accessibility and foreseeability. In this respect, the accessibility of the laws in question does not raise any problem in the species.
41. However, with regard to the foreseeability of these standards, the applicants estimate that these laws, adopted there is nearly seventy years in the context of the birth of the Republic, were not applied for a long time and lost their foreseeability being of the port other cover-chiefs only the hat. The Government disputes this thesis.
42. Nevertheless, have regard to the conclusion to which she arrives under the angle of the need for the interference (paragraph 51 below), the Court considers it useless to solve this question.
b. Legitimate goal
43. Have regard with the circumstances of the cause and the terms of the decisions of the internal jurisdictions, and taking into account in particular the importance the principle secularity for the democratic system in Turkey, the Court can admit that the accused interference, insofar as it aimed at making respect the laic and democratic principles, continued several of the legitimate goals enumerated in article 9: the maintenance of public safety, the defense of the order as well as the protection of the rights and freedoms of others (see, mutatis-mutandis, Refah Partisi (Left prosperity) and other C. Turkey [GC], Nos 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, § 67, CEDH 2003 II, and Leyla Şahin, above mentioned, § 99).
c. “Necessary in an democratic society”
44. The Court examines the present business in the light of its jurisprudence relating to the freedom of conscience and religion and with freedom for any person to express her religion or its conviction, such as it is exposed in paragraphs 104-110 of the stop Leyla Şahin above mentioned.
45. In addition, the Court must consider the litigious “interference” in the light of the whole of the business, including the range of the accused acts and the context in which they were accomplished, in order to determine if it “were proportioned with the legitimate objectives” and if the reasons called upon by the national authorities to justify it appear “relevant and sufficient” (see, inter alia, Fressoz and Roire C. France [GC], No 29183/95, CEDH 1999-I).
46. With this intention, the Court must initially evaluate the motivation given by the authorities and reserve by the national judges. It observes on this point that in order to condemn the applicants for their appropriate dress, the jurisdictions of first authority were satisfied to refer to the legal tendencies which, according to their interpretation, prohibited the type of clothing or cover-chiefs carried by the applicants. Then, the courts which examined the recourse of the applicants justified their decision only by the fact that the attacked judgment was in conformity with the law.
47. In this case, the Court holds account in second place of the argument of the Government according to which the purpose of the application of the provisions mentioned was to make respect the laic and democratic principles of the Republic and to prevent acts of provocation, proselytism and propaganda on behalf of the applicants.
48. In its evaluation of the circumstances of the business, the Court notes initially that the applicants are ordinary citizens: they are not at all representatives of the State in the exercise of a public office; they adhered to no statute which would get for its holders the quality of holder of the authority of the State. They cannot thus be subjected, because of an official statute, with an obligation of discretion in the public expression their religious convictions. It results from it that the decisions of the Court relating to the civils servant (for example, mutatis-mutandis, Vogt C. Germany, September 26, 1995, § 53, series have No 323, and Rekvényi C. Hungary [GC], No 25390/94, § 43, CEDH 1999-III) or in particular with the teachers (Dahlab C. Suisse (Dec.), No 42393/98, CEDH 2001-V, Kurtulmuş C. Turkey (Dec.), No 65500/01, CEDH 2006 II) cannot apply in the species.
49. The Court points out then its report according to which the applicants were sanctioned for the appropriate dress that they carried in public places open to all like the ways or public places. It thus is not about the regulation of the wearing of religious symbols in public corporations, in which the respect of neutrality with regard to beliefs can take precedence over the free exercise of the right to express its religion. It follows that the decisions of the Court stressing the particular importance of the role of the national decision maker as for the prohibition of the wearing of symbols religious in the establishments of public education (see, inter alia, Leyla Şahin, above mentioned, § 109) do not find to apply in the present business.
50. The Court notes finally that it does not arise from the file that the way in which the applicants expressed their beliefs by a specific behaviour constituted or was likely to constitute a threat for the law and order or a pressure on others. Indeed, the applicants, at the beginning of the period when they committed the offences envisaged by laws Nos 671 and 2596, had met in front of a mosque, in the behaviour in question, an only aim of taking part in a ceremony in religious matter.
51. As for the thesis of the Government drawn from a possible proselytism on behalf of the applicants, the Court observes that no element of the file shows that the applicants had tried to make undergo abusive pressures with the passers by in the ways and public places in a desire to promote their religious convictions (see, mutatis-mutandis, Kokkinakis C. Greece, May 25, 1993, § 48, series has No 260 A). In fact, the effect of their movement had been restricted and even reduced to a “curiosity” by the opinion expressed by the direction of the religious affairs according to which the clothes worn by the applicants did not represent any capacity or religious authority recognized by the State.
52. Consequently, the Court estimates that in the species the need for the litigious restriction is not established in a convincing way.
In conclusion, have regard to the whole of the circumstances of the species, the Court considers that the attack carried to the right of the applicants to freedom to express their convictions was not based on sufficient reasons in comparison with article 9 of Convention.
Consequently, the judgment in question has enfreint article 9 of Convention.
III. ON the APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF CONVENTION
53. Under article 41 of Convention,
“If the Court declares that there was violation of Convention or its Protocols, and if the internal rights of the High Contracting party make it possible to erase only imperfectly the consequences of this violation, the Court grants to the injured part, if it is necessary, an equitable satisfaction. ”
A. Too bad
54. The applicants estimate to be maintained in detention pending trial more than approximately two years because of their appropriate dress. They evaluate their material loss according to the minimum wage which they would have perceived for this period as well as expenditure that they made at the time of the same period, which on the whole gives 806.562 euros (Euro) for the whole of the applicants.
As for the moral damage, they evaluate it, have regard to disappointment to be sanctioned for their appropriate dress, in 3.000 Euro for each applicant.
55. The Government disputes these complaints and estimates that they are disproportionate and without bond with the facts at the origin of the business.
56. The Court, following the example Government, estimates that detention pending trial that the applicants mention does not relate to the national procedure being the subject of this business and could not be used as a basis for the granting of an allowance in the species. It estimates nevertheless which the fine that the applicants had to pay for infringements concerning their appropriate dress must be to them refunded with interests. The Court thus estimates reasonable to grant to each applicant 10 Euro for material loss.
The Court also estimates that the applicants underwent a certain moral wrong that the report of violation is enough to compensate.
B. Fresh and costs
57. The applicants claim 30.000 Euro under the expenses and costs incurred before the Court. This amount breaks up as follows: 125.000 Euro for the lawyer fees for the 127 applicants and 5.000 Euro for the expenses of communication and translation of the correspondence.
58. The Government considers this sum excessive and notes that the applicants corroborated it by no document in proof.
59. According to the decisions of the Court, an applicant can obtain the refunding of his expenses and costs only insofar as are established their reality, their need and the reasonable character of their rate.
In the species, the applicants provided only partial documents in proof. Taking into account these incomplete documents, the Court estimates reasonable to jointly grant the sum of 2.000 Euro to them, all confused expenses.
C. Interest on arrears
60. The Court judges suitable to copy the rate of the interest on arrears on the interest rate of the facility of marginal loan of the European Central bank raised of three points of percentage.
BY THESE REASONS, COURT
1. Declare, unanimously, the admissible request;
2. Known as, by six votes against one, that there was violation of article 9 of Convention;
3. Known as, by six votes against one, that the report of a violation provides in oneself an equitable satisfaction sufficient for the moral damage undergone by the applicants;
4. Known as, by six votes against one,
a) that the State defendant must pour with the applicants, in the three months as from the day when the stop will have become final in accordance with article 44 § 2 of Convention, following sums, to convert into Turkish pounds at the rate applicable to the date of the payment:
i. 10 Euro (ten euros) with each one of the applicants, more any amount which can be due as tax, for material damage;
II. 2.000 Euro (two thousand euros) jointly with the applicants, more any amount which can be due as tax by the applicants, for expenses and costs;
b) that as from the expiry of the known as time and until the payment, these amounts will be to raise of a simple interest ata rate equal to that of the facility of marginal loan of the applicable European Central bank for this period, increased by three points of percentage;
5. Reject, unanimously, the equitable request for satisfaction for the surplus.
French fact, then communicated in writing on February 23, 2010, pursuant to article 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the payment.
Sally Pared Francoise Tulkens
Greffière President
With the present stop joint is, in accordance with articles 45 § 2 of Convention and 74 § 2 of the payment, the talk of the following separate opinions:
- concordant opinion of Sajó judge;
- dissenting opinion of Popović judge.
F.T.
S.D.
LIST APPLICANTS
1 Ahmet Arslan 51 Hassan Kaya (1970)
2 Abdurrahim Çağan 52 Hassan Tabak
3 Arif Aydın (1978) 53 Haydar Aksu (1974)
4 Adem Bulut (1978) 54 Hüseyin Işık (1974)
5 Adil Palaz (1979) 55 İlker Dörter (1977)
6 Adnan Katipoğlu (1966) 56 İlyas Elri (1970)
7 Ahmet Ayaz (1976) 57 İbrahim Elik (1974)
8 Ahmet Gök (1940) 58 İlhami Çakaroğlu (1956)
9 Ahmet Edip Taş 59 İlhan Sezer (1968)
10 Ahmet Püsküllü (1978) 60 İsmail Pekdoğan (1978)
11 Ahmet Tosun (1974) 61 İrfan Akgül (1975)
12 Ahmet Turan Özgürsoy 62 İsmet Tekeş (1969)
13 Ahmet Turus (1973) 63 Kenan İlhan Şimşek (1967)
14 Ali Daşkın (1976) 64 Kadir Yavuz (1978)
15 Ali Topal (1978) 65 Kasım Gülşen (1977)
16 Arif Marangoz (1976) 66 Mehmet Durmuş (1974)
17 Ashabil Kazmamürü (61) 67 Mehmet Emin Bağaç (1967)
18 Atilla Küçük (1969) 68 Mehmet Sungurtaş (1973)
19 Aydın Göksu (1972) 69 Mehmet Türker Temiz (1975)
20 Ayhan Demir (1974) 70 Melih Yazıcı (1968)
21 Bahrullah Özel (1977) 71 Metin Sayın (Suat Tunç) (1974)
22 Bayram Aydın (1968) 72 Mete Cavlı (1959)
23 Bayram Yumşak (1961) 73 Mithat Sever (1956)
24 Bekir Göl (1970) 74 Murat Biçer (1971)
25 Bekir Özcan (1977) 75 Murat Tekdaş (1976)
26 Burhan Tokur (1972) 76 Murat Mustafa Akgül (1969)
27 Bülent Altınok (1975) 77 Mustafa Doğan (1964)
28 Bülent Baykol (1974) 78 Mustafa Şevkat (1974)
29 Bünyamin Polat (1971) 79 Mustafa Bulutlu (1976)
30 Cahit Canbek (1966) 80 Müslim Çalı
31 Celal Yerli (1969) 81 Muhammet Hamdi Kanat (1971)
32 Cengiz Kılınç (1974) 82 Nafiz Taşkın (1969)
33 Cumaali İnceler (1977) 83 Oktay Kabak (1977)
34 Ender Öngörür (1967) 84 Olcay Gürses (1969)
35 Erdal Yüksel (1967) 85 Orhan Akboğa
36 Erdem Ceylanv (1978) 86 Ökkeş Bacak
37 Erdem Çevik (1972) 87 Ömer Faruk Canbek (1971)
38 Erol Şimşek (1963) 88 Ömer Genç
39 Fatih Büyükçapar (1961) 89 Saffet Fıçıcı (1952)
40 Fatih Seven (1978) 90 Knows Özışık
41 Fehmi Çilingir (1977) 91 Salih Çolakoğlu
42 Feyzullah Parlak (1971) 92 Salim Öz (1975)
43 Fikret Akdoğan (1977) 93 Sedat Akcan
44 Gökhan Büyüköz (1977) 94 Selami Taş (1974)
45 Gürkan Yılmaz (1977) 95 Selçuk Işık
46 Güzelhan Kebanlı (1977) 96 Selçuk Öztürk
47 Habib Laçin (1970) 97 Selçuk Yıldız (1973)
48 Hacı Altun (1975) 98 Selim Kazmamürü
49 Hakan Doğan (1978) 99 Servet Dündar
50 Hakan Peçenek (1978) 100 Seydi Arslan
101 Seyfi Akbulut (1972) 115 Turan Karaosman (1974)
102 Sıddık Durmuş (1978) 116 Turan Kahya
103 Süleyman Artvinli (1969) 117 Şeref Kazıcı (1974)
104 Süleyman Baştuğ (1972) 118 Ünsal Özenen (1978)
105 Süleyman Demiray 1978 119 Yakup Akbaş (1972)
106 Süleyman Kılıç (1978) 120 Yasin Kara (1977)
107 Sümmani Saygılı (1970) 121 Yavuz Parlak
108 Şahap Bingöl (1972) 122 Yusuf Ağır
109 Şahin Karacadurmuş 123 Yusuf Gözcü (1968)
110 Şamil Demir (1978) 124 Yusuf Kılınç
111 Tahsin Tazegül (1970) 125 Zekeriya Yurdabakan
112 Talip Bacak (1977) 126 Gazi Topaloğlu
113 Tamer Acımaz (1976) 127 Hassan Erdivan
114 Tuncay Sertbaş (1960)
CONCORDANT OPINION OF JUDGE SAJÓ
(Translation)
I think like the majority that, in the particular circumstances of the species, the fact of punishing the applicants because they carried in the street a specific tunic and a turban at the conclusion of a religious ceremony involved a violation of their right to express their religion. By respect for the constitutional system of laic Turkey, and in order to avoid any misunderstanding, I find necessary to explain why this stop is in my opinion perfectly compatible with the secularity, which is a fundamental constitutional value of Turkey, and how it respects the applicable margin of appreciation.
Under article 174 of the Turkish Constitution, “the purpose of the law No 671 of November 25, 1341 (1925) on the port of the hat” and “the law No 2596 of December 3, 1934 on the regulation of the port of certain clothing” are in conformity with the Constitution and are “to safeguard the laic character of the Republic of Turkey”. The respect of secularity imposes obligations on the State, and not to the individuals, which one waits however until they behave in accordance with the requirements of the law and order. It is certainly with the national system constitutional that it belongs to determine which are the values founders of a State and the requirements of law and order which result from it thus that the instruments necessary to defend this order. Within the framework of its margin of appreciation, the State must define measurements which it is advisable to take to implement the constitutional objectives which, as in the particular case of secularity, are in conformity with Convention. Particular historical circumstances justify to take on the national plan of the specific measures which concern the margin of appreciation of the State.
As indicated in the businesses Karaduman C. Turkey (No 16278/90, decision of the Commission of May 3, 1993, DR. 74, p. 93) and Leyla Şahin C. Turkey ([GC], No 44774/98, CEDH 2005 XI), there exist historical circumstances and other particular circumstances which justify to apply full restrictions on the manners of expressing religious convictions, in particular as regards clothing. In the species, however, the national authorities gave a report neither on a pressing social need nor for specific provisions of law to justify the judgment of the applicants. The judgements given in fact by the magistrates' courts related (at least partly) to events related to the religious ceremony which proceeded with the mosque of Kocatepe on October 20, 1996. However the behaviour carried by the applicants necessarily does not enter in conflict with the provisions of the law 2596/1934, because this one aims at putting a term at a particular habit without specifying the methods which it is advisable to adopt to reach that point, which can evolve/move in time. It is
why the Court was concerned with the way in which article 526 subparagraph 2 of the penal code was applied. Whereas the States left with Convention have a full margin appreciation to achieve their goals, according to the rules of courtesy generally allowed and constitutional interpretation, the national laws must be interpreted by duly taking account of the system of the Convention and the provisions of the national Constitution (which express the same values). It follows that, to make respect the law and order, it is necessary to follow an interpretation in conformity with Convention. In the species, the internal jurisdictions did not take account of freedom to express the religion in their application of the penal code, and the Government did not succeed in showing which considerations holding with the law and order were likely to make the judgment penal marked in the species necessary in an democratic society. It is this absence of adequate examination which led to the violation of the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Convention.
I subscribe to the argument of the Government (paragraphs 27 to 29 of the stop) to the direction where the port of a “religious” behaviour allegedly can pass for an attempt at creation of a legal system which denies the tolerance and pluralism. “Article 9 always does not guarantee the right to behave in a way dictated by a religious conviction (Pichon and Sajous C. France (Dec.), No 49853/99, CEDH 2001-X) and it does not confer to the individuals acting of the kind the right to withdraw itself from rules which appeared justified” (Leyla Şahin, above mentioned, § 121). In such a context, the restrictions on the freedom of religion can be justified and it is necessary to apply a vast margin of appreciation, which of course goes hand in hand with the control carried out by the Court. In the species, however, the facts do not make it possible to conclude as the Government was ready to do it, in particular because the procedure initiated against the applicants (under the terms of article 7 of the law No 3713 relating to the fight against terrorism) with the reason that their way of expressing their religion aimed at fundamentalist goals did not lead to judgments.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE POPOVIC
I regret not being able to follow the opinion of my colleagues in this business, for the following reasons.
I am not of opinion that article 9 of Convention was violated in the case of species. The State defendant enjoys the margin of appreciation which proves to be essential for the renewal of the mode of the constitutional democracy, and it is exactly within this framework that the present business is.
The Court already noted in the business Leyla Şahin that “article 9 [of Convention] does not protect however any act moved or inspired by a religion or conviction” (Leyla Şahin C. Turkey, CEDH 2005-XI, par. 105). In the same stop the Court as noted as “the principle of secularity… is the paramount consideration having justified the prohibition of the port of the religious symbols. ” (Leyla Şahin C. Turkey, par. 116).
Via a constitutional provision, in particular article 174 of the Turkish Constitution currently into force, the laws of reform of the time of the national revolution, regulating the port of the hat as well as the port of certain clothing, obtain quality to be untouchable.
I do not dispute the power of the European Court of the human rights come to a conclusion about the compatibility of the constitutional provisions of the Member States with Convention. It seems to me at the same time as article 174 of the Constitution, seen in the light of the decisions of the Court that I quoted higher, proves to be in conformity with the protective system of the human rights laid down in Convention.
In the species, the applicants violated the provisions of the laws of reform and for this infringement they were sanctioned after being judged by national justice within the framework of a procedure which they do not reproach anything. A minimal sorrow their was inflicted and, moreover, this one was immediately commuted to a fine of an amount relatively low.
In a general way, I allow myself to note that the majority missed to locate the business within the remarkably complex framework of the social life of the State defendant, the fact which led to the transgression of the margin of appreciation granted to the Member States which are contracting parties of Convention.
BUSINESS AHMET ARSLAN AND OTHER C. TURKEY
(Request No 41135/98)
STOP
STRASBOURG
February 23, 2010
This stop will become final under the conditions defined in article 44 § 2 of Convention. It can undergo final improvements of form.
In the business Ahmet Arslan and other C. Turkey,
European Court of the human rights (second section), sitting in a room made up of:
Francoise Tulkens, president,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and of Pared Sally, greffière of section,
After having deliberated on it in room on the council on January 19, 2010,
The stop returns that here, adopted at this date:
PROCEDURE
1. At the origin of the business is a request (No 41135/98) directed against the Republic of Turkey and including hundred twenty-seven nationals of this State, Mr. Ahmet Arslan and 126 others (“applicants”), whose names and birth dates appear in the appendix with the present stop, had seized the European commission of the human rights (“Commission”) on November 14, 1997 under the terms of old article 25 of the Convention of safeguard of the human rights and fundamental freedoms (“Convention”).
2. The applicants are represented by Me A. Çiftçi, lawyer in Ankara. The Turkish government (“the Government”) is represented by its agent.
3. The applicants pled to be condemned to penal to have expressed their religion through their appropriate dress, with the contempt of their right to freedom of religion guaranteed by article 9 of Convention.
4. The request was transmitted to the Court on November 1, 1998, date of coming into effect of the Protocol No 11 with Convention (article 5 § 2 of the Protocol No 11).
5. On June 12, 2003, the Court decided to communicate the request with the Government. On July 5, 2005, the Court decided, as allows it article 29 § 3 of Convention, to examine at the same time the admissibility and the bottom of the business.
IN FACT
I. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SPECIES
6. The applicants do all started from a religious group which describes itself as Aczimendi tarikatı. The group was formed as from 1986 while following the precepts of its chief, Müslim Gündüz.
7. On October 20, 1996, the applicants, coming from various departments of Turkey, went to Ankara in order to meet and to take part in a ceremony in religious matter organized in the mosque of Kocatepe. They carried the behaviour characteristic of their group, made up of a turban, a “salvar” (saroual) and of a tunic, all with black color, and were provided with a stick, this behaviour recalling according to them that of the principal prophets, in particular the Mohammed prophet. They made it tower of the city together thus vêtus. At the conclusion of certain incidents which have occurred the same day, they were stopped and placed as a police custody. On October 20, 1996, the applicants were placed in detention pending trial.
8 On December 2, 1996, a public action was brought against the applicants before the court of state security of Ankara for infringement in article 7 of the law No 3713 relating to the fight against the terrorism, which represses the creation and the activities of terrorist organizations aiming inter alia fundamentalist ends.
9. At the time of the audience of January 8, 1997, the applicants appeared before the court of state security vêtus of the behaviour representative of their sect. To the beginning of the audience, the gendarme responsible for the transfer of the applicants indicated, at the request of the president of the court, which he had explained to the latter that they could not be presented before the court in this behaviour, but that the applicants had not obtempéré with this warning. The president of the court of state security invited in his turn the applicants to remove their turban as a sign of respect towards the court. He explained to them why, according to the habit of the jurisdictions in Turkey, the men appear before the courts the head discovered whereas the women can appear the head covered or discovered. The applicants Müslim Çalı, Hassan Erdivan and Gazi Topaloğlu removed their turban after this warning. The other applicants refused to remove their turban by affirming that this behaviour was dictated by their belief. The court of state security registered the situation in the official report of the audience and denounced the act of the applicants to the parquet floor. She ordered also the setting in bail of the applicants Hassan Erdivan and Gazi Topaloğlu.
10. A public action was brought against the applicants for infringement with the law No 671 relating to the port of the hat like to the law No 2596 on the regulation of the port of certain clothing, which prohibits the port of certain religious behaviours in the public places open to all like the ways or public places apart from the religious ceremonies.
11. By an ordinance in summary procedure of March 17, 1997, the 16th magistrates' court (penal) of Ankara condemned each applicant (except Müslim Çalı, Hassan Erdivan and Gazi Topaloğlu) to a sorrow of two months imprisonment, commuted finally to a fine of 300.000 pounds Turkish (2,4 American dollars (USD) approximately at the time of the facts), for infringment with the law No 671 of November 28, 1925 relating to the port of the hat and the law No 2596 of December 3, 1934 on the regulation of the port of certain religious clothing. The court, after having indicated that “the moment of the offence” extended from October 20, 1996 to January 10, 1997, raised in particular that, at the time of the audience of January 8, 1997 which had proceeded before the court of state security, the applicants, appearing in their capacity as defendants, had not removed their turban in spite of the warning of members of the magistrate and police force. The court, in order to establish that the applicants carried a contrary behaviour to the provisions of the above mentioned laws, was based on the official reports establish by the members of the police force, on the reports and observations of the magistrates like on the consents of the applicants.
12. On May 9, 1997, the condemned applicants filed opposition to the summary order in front of the Court of Bankruptcy of Ankara. They pointed out that the law No 2596 of December 3, 1934 on the regulation of the port of certain religious clothing could not apply in their case since, according to an opinion of the direction of the religious affairs (Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı), the clothes which they had worn did not represent any capacity or religious authority recognized by the State.
13. By a decision notified to the applicants on June 5, 1997, the Court of Bankruptcy of Ankara rejected this opposition, estimating that the attacked summary order was in conformity with the law.
14. By an summary order of June 20, 1997, the 7th magistrates' court (penal) of Ankara condemned the applicants Müslim Çalı, Hassan Erdivan and Gazi Topaloğlu with a sorrow of three months imprisonment, commuted to a fine of 450.000 pounds Turkish (approximately 4 USD at the time of the facts), for infringement with the provisions of laws Nos 671 and 2596. The court considered that the fact that the three marked ones had removed their turban after the warning of the magistrates did not change anything with their culpability, since they had already committed the offence causes some before the audience of January 8, 1997 while expressing in this behaviour on October 20, 1996 downtown and by keeping the same behaviour after their arrest.
15. These last three applicants also filed opposition to the summary order by affirming, inter alia, that the litigious behaviour was dictated by their belief and no political significance had. This opposition was also rejected by the Court of Bankruptcy of Ankara on November 17, 1997. These decisions of rejection being likely of no call, the judgment of the applicants became final.
16. By a request addressed to the ministry for Justice on November 17, 1997, all the applicants invited this last to form an appeal in the interest of the law (Yazılı Emirle Bozma). In their request, they complained that the aforementioned decisions had carried reached to their right to express their religion.
17. By a decision of January 5, 1998, the ministry for Justice refused the application of the applicants.
18. In September 1998, the remainder of the applicants were put in bail. In April 2001, the criminal proceedings brought against all the applicants before the Court of state security were suspended and five years later, was cancelled retroactively.
II. RIGHT AND THE PRACTICE RELEVANT INTERNS
19. Article 174 of the Constitution lays out:
“No provision of the Constitution can be included/understood or interpreted like implying the unconstitutionality of the provisions in force, at the date of the adoption of the Constitution by referendum, of the laws of reform enumerated below and of which the goal is to hoist the Turkish people above the level of contemporary civilization and to safeguard the laic character of the Republic of Turkey:
1) the law No 430 of March 3, 1340 (1924) on the unification of teaching;
2) the law No 671 of November 25, 1341 (1925) on the port of the hat;
3) the law No 677 of November 30, 1341 (1925) on the closing of the convents of dervishes and the mausoleums and the abolition and the prohibition of the functions of guard of mausoleum and certain titles;
4) the provision of the law No 734 of February 17, 1926, bearing creation of the Turkish civil code, instituting the rule of the civil wedding according to which the marriage certificate is celebrated in front of the officer of the civil statue, as well as the provision of article 110 of the same code;
5) the law No 1288 of May 20, 1928 on the adoption of the international figures;
6) the law No 1353 of November 1, 1928 on the adoption and the implementation of the Turkish alphabet;
7) the law No 2590 of November 26, 1934 on the abolition of the titles and names such as effendi, bey and pasha;
8) the law No 2596 of December 3, 1934 on the regulation of the port of certain clothing. ”
20. The law No 671 of November 28, 1925 on the port of the hat states, in its first article, that “the members of the National Assembly, the civils servant and the others paid of the administration are held to wear the hat, like makes the Turkish nation. As for the Turkish people, his general cover-chief being as the hat, the Government prevents as a contrary practice remains”.
21. The law No 2596 of December 3, 1934 on the regulation of the port of certain clothing prohibits the port of a habit by a member of an authority or a religious capacity, whatever the religion or the belief concerned, apart from the places of worship and of the religious ceremonies.
22. Article 526 subparagraph 2 of the Turkish penal code provides that the people contravening the law No 671 on the wearing of hat are liable to a sorrow of imprisonment from two to six months and to a fine.
IN RIGHT
23. The applicants complain about a violation of their right to freedom of religion rising from their judgment to have expressed their religion through their appropriate dress. They call upon in this respect article 9 of the Convention, which is read as follows:
“1. Any person is entitled to freedom of thought, of conscience and religion; this right implies freedom to change religion or of conviction, as well as freedom to express its religion or its conviction individually or collectively, in public or in deprived, by the worship, teaching, the practices and the achievement of the rites.
2. Freedom to express its religion or its convictions can be the subject of other restrictions only those which, envisaged by the law, constitute necessary measures, in an democratic society, with public safety, with the protection of the order, health or morals public, or with the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. ”
I. ON THE ADMISSIBILITY
24. The Court estimates that the request is not obviously badly founded within the meaning of article 35 § 3 of Convention. It raises in addition that the objection does not encounter any other reason for inadmissibility. It is thus advisable to declare it admissible.
II. ON THE PLED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF CONVENTION
25. The applicants complain that their judgment with penal to have expressed their religion through their appropriate dress has enfreint the provisions of article 9 of Convention.
A. Theses of the parts
26. The Government initially explains the reasons for which the laws Nos 671 and 2596, which are at the base of the judgment of the applicants, were adopted. He recalls that Turkey, after the proclamation of the Republic on October 29, 1923, removed the caliphate on March 3, 1924 with law 431 with an aim of separating the religion and the businesses from the State. Within the framework of this reform, several laws, named the “laws of the Revolution”, were promulgated between 1924 and 1934 (as quoted in article 174 of the Turkish Constitution, to see, above, paragraph 19). The two laws in application of which the applicants were sanctioned in the present business belong to this group of legislative texts of which the principal goal would be to safeguard the laic character of the Republic of Turkey.
27. The Government disputes the allegation according to which the applicants were condemned because of their religious convictions. Their appearance before the national jurisdictions in the behaviour characteristic of their sect, which would aim at the introduction of a system based on the charia to replace the current democratic regime, would not be guided by their convictions, but rather by their intention to defy justice.
28. The Government exposes in particular that the fact of being discovered the head in front of a court belongs to the practices followed in all the countries as a sign of respect towards justice. The justiciable ones should act with more solemnity in front of the court. The applicants would have preferred to make their publicity and their propaganda and to disturb the behaviour of the audience.
29. For the Government, the purpose of the litigious interferences were to make respect the laic and democratic principles, to prevent acts of provocation, proselytism and propaganda on behalf of the applicants, and thus aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of others as well as the order and public safety.
30. The applicants support for their part that the fact of wearing these clothes constitutes a form of demonstration of their convictions protected by article 9 from Convention. They make the point that they were condemned not for lack of respect with regard to the magistrates, but to have carried their turban in the private life, in public places open to all like the ways or public places. The applicants challenge the assertion of the Government according to which they have lack of respect towards the magistrates before which they appeared. They add in addition that they were maintained in detention pending trial as a long time as they refused to be discovered the head.
B. Appreciation of the Court
1. On the existence of an interference
31. The Court must initially check the validity of the thesis of the Government according to which the applicants, having refused to be discovered the head, were sanctioned only for their lack of respect towards the court.
32. It observes in this respect 7th and 16th magistrates' courts, when they condemned the applicants to sorrows of imprisonment commuted to fines, based their decisions not on a possible lack of respect with regard to the court, but on the provisions of the laws Nos 671 and 2596 (paragraphs 20-21 above), which repress, according to these jurisdictions, the port of certain behaviours in the public places open to all like the ways or public places.
33. The Court also notes that the moment and the place of the infringements reproached all the applicants were not limited to the incidents of the audience of January 10, 1997 held before the court of state security, but referred mainly to a period former to this audience. In particular, the 16th magistrates' court took into account the appropriate dress of the applicants from October 20, 1996, date of the events which have occurred in front of the mosque of Kocatepe, that is to say two months and twenty days before the audience before the court of state security (paragraph 11 above). Moreover, the 7th magistrates' court estimated that the fact that three of the applicants (Müslim Çalı, Hassan Erdivan and Gazi Topaloğlu) had removed their turban at the request of the magistrates of the court of state security did not affect any the criminal acts, since these three people had already made the offence causes some before even appearing before the magistrates.
34. In the light of these considerations, the Court estimates established that the applicants were sanctioned with penal for their manner of dressing in public places open to all like the ways or public places, considered to be contrary with the provisions of laws Nos 671 and 2596, and not for indiscipline or lack of respect before the court of state security. The use of the official report of the audience of January 10, 1997 by the magistrates' courts as one of the pieces of evidence with load does not change this report.
35. The Court must check then if the sanction inflicted to the applicants is analyzed in an interference in their freedom of conscience or religion guaranteed by article 9 of Convention, as they plead it. In this context, the Court notes that the applicants were members of a religious group named Aczimendi and estimated that their religion forced to them to be dressed in this manner. It observes in particular that at the beginning of the period when they committed the offences envisaged by laws Nos 671 and 2596, the applicants had met in front of the mosque of Kocatepe, in the behaviour in question, in order to take part in a ceremony in religious matter organized in this place of Muslim cult. Seen under this angle, the Court admits that the fact of condemning the applicants to have worn this clothing falls under the empire from article 9 from the Convention, which protects, inter alia, freedom to express religious convictions (see, mutatis-mutandis, Leyla Şahin C. Turkey [GC], No 44774/98, § 78, CEDH 2005 XI.).
36. The court orders causes some in this business are analyzed consequently in an interference in the freedom of conscience and religion of the applicants.
2. On the justification of the interference
37. Similar interference enfreint article 9 except if it “is envisaged by the law”, aims one or more legitimate goals and is “necessary with an democratic society” to reach this or these aims.
a. “Envisaged by the law”
38. The Court points out that the terms “envisaged by the law” appearing in articles 8 to 11 of Convention mean initially that accused measurement must have a legal base in internal rights, but they imply also the quality of the law: they require the accessibility of this one with the people concerned and an enough precise formulation to enable them to envisage, with a reasonable degree in the circumstances of the cause, the consequences being able to result from a given act (see, among many others, Maestri C. Italy [GC], No 39748/98, § 30, CEDH 2004-I). Indeed, the Court always heard the term “law” in its “material” meaning and not “formal”. The “law” must be included/understood like including the written text and the “right worked out” by the judges. In short, the “law” is the text in force such as the courts of jurisdiction interpreted it (see, inter alia, Leyla Şahin, above mentioned, § 88, Sunday Times C. the United Kingdom (No 1), April 26, 1979, § 47, series has No 30, Casado Coca C. Spain, February 24, 1994, § 43, series has No 285-A).
39. The question of knowing if the first condition is filled in fact does not lend to controversy. Indeed, according to the national jurisdictions, the legal base is made up in the species by the provisions of the law No 671 of November 28, 1925 relating to the port of the hat (combined with article 526 subparagraph 2 of the penal code) and those of the law No 2596 of December 3, 1934 on the regulation of the port of clothing concerned with an authority or a religious capacity.
40. Remain the point to know if these standards also fulfilled the requirements of accessibility and foreseeability. In this respect, the accessibility of the laws in question does not raise any problem in the species.
41. However, with regard to the foreseeability of these standards, the applicants estimate that these laws, adopted there is nearly seventy years in the context of the birth of the Republic, were not applied for a long time and lost their foreseeability being of the port other cover-chiefs only the hat. The Government disputes this thesis.
42. Nevertheless, have regard to the conclusion to which she arrives under the angle of the need for the interference (paragraph 51 below), the Court considers it useless to solve this question.
b. Legitimate goal
43. Have regard with the circumstances of the cause and the terms of the decisions of the internal jurisdictions, and taking into account in particular the importance the principle secularity for the democratic system in Turkey, the Court can admit that the accused interference, insofar as it aimed at making respect the laic and democratic principles, continued several of the legitimate goals enumerated in article 9: the maintenance of public safety, the defense of the order as well as the protection of the rights and freedoms of others (see, mutatis-mutandis, Refah Partisi (Left prosperity) and other C. Turkey [GC], Nos 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, § 67, CEDH 2003 II, and Leyla Şahin, above mentioned, § 99).
c. “Necessary in an democratic society”
44. The Court examines the present business in the light of its jurisprudence relating to the freedom of conscience and religion and with freedom for any person to express her religion or its conviction, such as it is exposed in paragraphs 104-110 of the stop Leyla Şahin above mentioned.
45. In addition, the Court must consider the litigious “interference” in the light of the whole of the business, including the range of the accused acts and the context in which they were accomplished, in order to determine if it “were proportioned with the legitimate objectives” and if the reasons called upon by the national authorities to justify it appear “relevant and sufficient” (see, inter alia, Fressoz and Roire C. France [GC], No 29183/95, CEDH 1999-I).
46. With this intention, the Court must initially evaluate the motivation given by the authorities and reserve by the national judges. It observes on this point that in order to condemn the applicants for their appropriate dress, the jurisdictions of first authority were satisfied to refer to the legal tendencies which, according to their interpretation, prohibited the type of clothing or cover-chiefs carried by the applicants. Then, the courts which examined the recourse of the applicants justified their decision only by the fact that the attacked judgment was in conformity with the law.
47. In this case, the Court holds account in second place of the argument of the Government according to which the purpose of the application of the provisions mentioned was to make respect the laic and democratic principles of the Republic and to prevent acts of provocation, proselytism and propaganda on behalf of the applicants.
48. In its evaluation of the circumstances of the business, the Court notes initially that the applicants are ordinary citizens: they are not at all representatives of the State in the exercise of a public office; they adhered to no statute which would get for its holders the quality of holder of the authority of the State. They cannot thus be subjected, because of an official statute, with an obligation of discretion in the public expression their religious convictions. It results from it that the decisions of the Court relating to the civils servant (for example, mutatis-mutandis, Vogt C. Germany, September 26, 1995, § 53, series have No 323, and Rekvényi C. Hungary [GC], No 25390/94, § 43, CEDH 1999-III) or in particular with the teachers (Dahlab C. Suisse (Dec.), No 42393/98, CEDH 2001-V, Kurtulmuş C. Turkey (Dec.), No 65500/01, CEDH 2006 II) cannot apply in the species.
49. The Court points out then its report according to which the applicants were sanctioned for the appropriate dress that they carried in public places open to all like the ways or public places. It thus is not about the regulation of the wearing of religious symbols in public corporations, in which the respect of neutrality with regard to beliefs can take precedence over the free exercise of the right to express its religion. It follows that the decisions of the Court stressing the particular importance of the role of the national decision maker as for the prohibition of the wearing of symbols religious in the establishments of public education (see, inter alia, Leyla Şahin, above mentioned, § 109) do not find to apply in the present business.
50. The Court notes finally that it does not arise from the file that the way in which the applicants expressed their beliefs by a specific behaviour constituted or was likely to constitute a threat for the law and order or a pressure on others. Indeed, the applicants, at the beginning of the period when they committed the offences envisaged by laws Nos 671 and 2596, had met in front of a mosque, in the behaviour in question, an only aim of taking part in a ceremony in religious matter.
51. As for the thesis of the Government drawn from a possible proselytism on behalf of the applicants, the Court observes that no element of the file shows that the applicants had tried to make undergo abusive pressures with the passers by in the ways and public places in a desire to promote their religious convictions (see, mutatis-mutandis, Kokkinakis C. Greece, May 25, 1993, § 48, series has No 260 A). In fact, the effect of their movement had been restricted and even reduced to a “curiosity” by the opinion expressed by the direction of the religious affairs according to which the clothes worn by the applicants did not represent any capacity or religious authority recognized by the State.
52. Consequently, the Court estimates that in the species the need for the litigious restriction is not established in a convincing way.
In conclusion, have regard to the whole of the circumstances of the species, the Court considers that the attack carried to the right of the applicants to freedom to express their convictions was not based on sufficient reasons in comparison with article 9 of Convention.
Consequently, the judgment in question has enfreint article 9 of Convention.
III. ON the APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF CONVENTION
53. Under article 41 of Convention,
“If the Court declares that there was violation of Convention or its Protocols, and if the internal rights of the High Contracting party make it possible to erase only imperfectly the consequences of this violation, the Court grants to the injured part, if it is necessary, an equitable satisfaction. ”
A. Too bad
54. The applicants estimate to be maintained in detention pending trial more than approximately two years because of their appropriate dress. They evaluate their material loss according to the minimum wage which they would have perceived for this period as well as expenditure that they made at the time of the same period, which on the whole gives 806.562 euros (Euro) for the whole of the applicants.
As for the moral damage, they evaluate it, have regard to disappointment to be sanctioned for their appropriate dress, in 3.000 Euro for each applicant.
55. The Government disputes these complaints and estimates that they are disproportionate and without bond with the facts at the origin of the business.
56. The Court, following the example Government, estimates that detention pending trial that the applicants mention does not relate to the national procedure being the subject of this business and could not be used as a basis for the granting of an allowance in the species. It estimates nevertheless which the fine that the applicants had to pay for infringements concerning their appropriate dress must be to them refunded with interests. The Court thus estimates reasonable to grant to each applicant 10 Euro for material loss.
The Court also estimates that the applicants underwent a certain moral wrong that the report of violation is enough to compensate.
B. Fresh and costs
57. The applicants claim 30.000 Euro under the expenses and costs incurred before the Court. This amount breaks up as follows: 125.000 Euro for the lawyer fees for the 127 applicants and 5.000 Euro for the expenses of communication and translation of the correspondence.
58. The Government considers this sum excessive and notes that the applicants corroborated it by no document in proof.
59. According to the decisions of the Court, an applicant can obtain the refunding of his expenses and costs only insofar as are established their reality, their need and the reasonable character of their rate.
In the species, the applicants provided only partial documents in proof. Taking into account these incomplete documents, the Court estimates reasonable to jointly grant the sum of 2.000 Euro to them, all confused expenses.
C. Interest on arrears
60. The Court judges suitable to copy the rate of the interest on arrears on the interest rate of the facility of marginal loan of the European Central bank raised of three points of percentage.
BY THESE REASONS, COURT
1. Declare, unanimously, the admissible request;
2. Known as, by six votes against one, that there was violation of article 9 of Convention;
3. Known as, by six votes against one, that the report of a violation provides in oneself an equitable satisfaction sufficient for the moral damage undergone by the applicants;
4. Known as, by six votes against one,
a) that the State defendant must pour with the applicants, in the three months as from the day when the stop will have become final in accordance with article 44 § 2 of Convention, following sums, to convert into Turkish pounds at the rate applicable to the date of the payment:
i. 10 Euro (ten euros) with each one of the applicants, more any amount which can be due as tax, for material damage;
II. 2.000 Euro (two thousand euros) jointly with the applicants, more any amount which can be due as tax by the applicants, for expenses and costs;
b) that as from the expiry of the known as time and until the payment, these amounts will be to raise of a simple interest ata rate equal to that of the facility of marginal loan of the applicable European Central bank for this period, increased by three points of percentage;
5. Reject, unanimously, the equitable request for satisfaction for the surplus.
French fact, then communicated in writing on February 23, 2010, pursuant to article 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the payment.
Sally Pared Francoise Tulkens
Greffière President
With the present stop joint is, in accordance with articles 45 § 2 of Convention and 74 § 2 of the payment, the talk of the following separate opinions:
- concordant opinion of Sajó judge;
- dissenting opinion of Popović judge.
F.T.
S.D.
LIST APPLICANTS
1 Ahmet Arslan 51 Hassan Kaya (1970)
2 Abdurrahim Çağan 52 Hassan Tabak
3 Arif Aydın (1978) 53 Haydar Aksu (1974)
4 Adem Bulut (1978) 54 Hüseyin Işık (1974)
5 Adil Palaz (1979) 55 İlker Dörter (1977)
6 Adnan Katipoğlu (1966) 56 İlyas Elri (1970)
7 Ahmet Ayaz (1976) 57 İbrahim Elik (1974)
8 Ahmet Gök (1940) 58 İlhami Çakaroğlu (1956)
9 Ahmet Edip Taş 59 İlhan Sezer (1968)
10 Ahmet Püsküllü (1978) 60 İsmail Pekdoğan (1978)
11 Ahmet Tosun (1974) 61 İrfan Akgül (1975)
12 Ahmet Turan Özgürsoy 62 İsmet Tekeş (1969)
13 Ahmet Turus (1973) 63 Kenan İlhan Şimşek (1967)
14 Ali Daşkın (1976) 64 Kadir Yavuz (1978)
15 Ali Topal (1978) 65 Kasım Gülşen (1977)
16 Arif Marangoz (1976) 66 Mehmet Durmuş (1974)
17 Ashabil Kazmamürü (61) 67 Mehmet Emin Bağaç (1967)
18 Atilla Küçük (1969) 68 Mehmet Sungurtaş (1973)
19 Aydın Göksu (1972) 69 Mehmet Türker Temiz (1975)
20 Ayhan Demir (1974) 70 Melih Yazıcı (1968)
21 Bahrullah Özel (1977) 71 Metin Sayın (Suat Tunç) (1974)
22 Bayram Aydın (1968) 72 Mete Cavlı (1959)
23 Bayram Yumşak (1961) 73 Mithat Sever (1956)
24 Bekir Göl (1970) 74 Murat Biçer (1971)
25 Bekir Özcan (1977) 75 Murat Tekdaş (1976)
26 Burhan Tokur (1972) 76 Murat Mustafa Akgül (1969)
27 Bülent Altınok (1975) 77 Mustafa Doğan (1964)
28 Bülent Baykol (1974) 78 Mustafa Şevkat (1974)
29 Bünyamin Polat (1971) 79 Mustafa Bulutlu (1976)
30 Cahit Canbek (1966) 80 Müslim Çalı
31 Celal Yerli (1969) 81 Muhammet Hamdi Kanat (1971)
32 Cengiz Kılınç (1974) 82 Nafiz Taşkın (1969)
33 Cumaali İnceler (1977) 83 Oktay Kabak (1977)
34 Ender Öngörür (1967) 84 Olcay Gürses (1969)
35 Erdal Yüksel (1967) 85 Orhan Akboğa
36 Erdem Ceylanv (1978) 86 Ökkeş Bacak
37 Erdem Çevik (1972) 87 Ömer Faruk Canbek (1971)
38 Erol Şimşek (1963) 88 Ömer Genç
39 Fatih Büyükçapar (1961) 89 Saffet Fıçıcı (1952)
40 Fatih Seven (1978) 90 Knows Özışık
41 Fehmi Çilingir (1977) 91 Salih Çolakoğlu
42 Feyzullah Parlak (1971) 92 Salim Öz (1975)
43 Fikret Akdoğan (1977) 93 Sedat Akcan
44 Gökhan Büyüköz (1977) 94 Selami Taş (1974)
45 Gürkan Yılmaz (1977) 95 Selçuk Işık
46 Güzelhan Kebanlı (1977) 96 Selçuk Öztürk
47 Habib Laçin (1970) 97 Selçuk Yıldız (1973)
48 Hacı Altun (1975) 98 Selim Kazmamürü
49 Hakan Doğan (1978) 99 Servet Dündar
50 Hakan Peçenek (1978) 100 Seydi Arslan
101 Seyfi Akbulut (1972) 115 Turan Karaosman (1974)
102 Sıddık Durmuş (1978) 116 Turan Kahya
103 Süleyman Artvinli (1969) 117 Şeref Kazıcı (1974)
104 Süleyman Baştuğ (1972) 118 Ünsal Özenen (1978)
105 Süleyman Demiray 1978 119 Yakup Akbaş (1972)
106 Süleyman Kılıç (1978) 120 Yasin Kara (1977)
107 Sümmani Saygılı (1970) 121 Yavuz Parlak
108 Şahap Bingöl (1972) 122 Yusuf Ağır
109 Şahin Karacadurmuş 123 Yusuf Gözcü (1968)
110 Şamil Demir (1978) 124 Yusuf Kılınç
111 Tahsin Tazegül (1970) 125 Zekeriya Yurdabakan
112 Talip Bacak (1977) 126 Gazi Topaloğlu
113 Tamer Acımaz (1976) 127 Hassan Erdivan
114 Tuncay Sertbaş (1960)
CONCORDANT OPINION OF JUDGE SAJÓ
(Translation)
I think like the majority that, in the particular circumstances of the species, the fact of punishing the applicants because they carried in the street a specific tunic and a turban at the conclusion of a religious ceremony involved a violation of their right to express their religion. By respect for the constitutional system of laic Turkey, and in order to avoid any misunderstanding, I find necessary to explain why this stop is in my opinion perfectly compatible with the secularity, which is a fundamental constitutional value of Turkey, and how it respects the applicable margin of appreciation.
Under article 174 of the Turkish Constitution, “the purpose of the law No 671 of November 25, 1341 (1925) on the port of the hat” and “the law No 2596 of December 3, 1934 on the regulation of the port of certain clothing” are in conformity with the Constitution and are “to safeguard the laic character of the Republic of Turkey”. The respect of secularity imposes obligations on the State, and not to the individuals, which one waits however until they behave in accordance with the requirements of the law and order. It is certainly with the national system constitutional that it belongs to determine which are the values founders of a State and the requirements of law and order which result from it thus that the instruments necessary to defend this order. Within the framework of its margin of appreciation, the State must define measurements which it is advisable to take to implement the constitutional objectives which, as in the particular case of secularity, are in conformity with Convention. Particular historical circumstances justify to take on the national plan of the specific measures which concern the margin of appreciation of the State.
As indicated in the businesses Karaduman C. Turkey (No 16278/90, decision of the Commission of May 3, 1993, DR. 74, p. 93) and Leyla Şahin C. Turkey ([GC], No 44774/98, CEDH 2005 XI), there exist historical circumstances and other particular circumstances which justify to apply full restrictions on the manners of expressing religious convictions, in particular as regards clothing. In the species, however, the national authorities gave a report neither on a pressing social need nor for specific provisions of law to justify the judgment of the applicants. The judgements given in fact by the magistrates' courts related (at least partly) to events related to the religious ceremony which proceeded with the mosque of Kocatepe on October 20, 1996. However the behaviour carried by the applicants necessarily does not enter in conflict with the provisions of the law 2596/1934, because this one aims at putting a term at a particular habit without specifying the methods which it is advisable to adopt to reach that point, which can evolve/move in time. It is
why the Court was concerned with the way in which article 526 subparagraph 2 of the penal code was applied. Whereas the States left with Convention have a full margin appreciation to achieve their goals, according to the rules of courtesy generally allowed and constitutional interpretation, the national laws must be interpreted by duly taking account of the system of the Convention and the provisions of the national Constitution (which express the same values). It follows that, to make respect the law and order, it is necessary to follow an interpretation in conformity with Convention. In the species, the internal jurisdictions did not take account of freedom to express the religion in their application of the penal code, and the Government did not succeed in showing which considerations holding with the law and order were likely to make the judgment penal marked in the species necessary in an democratic society. It is this absence of adequate examination which led to the violation of the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Convention.
I subscribe to the argument of the Government (paragraphs 27 to 29 of the stop) to the direction where the port of a “religious” behaviour allegedly can pass for an attempt at creation of a legal system which denies the tolerance and pluralism. “Article 9 always does not guarantee the right to behave in a way dictated by a religious conviction (Pichon and Sajous C. France (Dec.), No 49853/99, CEDH 2001-X) and it does not confer to the individuals acting of the kind the right to withdraw itself from rules which appeared justified” (Leyla Şahin, above mentioned, § 121). In such a context, the restrictions on the freedom of religion can be justified and it is necessary to apply a vast margin of appreciation, which of course goes hand in hand with the control carried out by the Court. In the species, however, the facts do not make it possible to conclude as the Government was ready to do it, in particular because the procedure initiated against the applicants (under the terms of article 7 of the law No 3713 relating to the fight against terrorism) with the reason that their way of expressing their religion aimed at fundamentalist goals did not lead to judgments.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE POPOVIC
I regret not being able to follow the opinion of my colleagues in this business, for the following reasons.
I am not of opinion that article 9 of Convention was violated in the case of species. The State defendant enjoys the margin of appreciation which proves to be essential for the renewal of the mode of the constitutional democracy, and it is exactly within this framework that the present business is.
The Court already noted in the business Leyla Şahin that “article 9 [of Convention] does not protect however any act moved or inspired by a religion or conviction” (Leyla Şahin C. Turkey, CEDH 2005-XI, par. 105). In the same stop the Court as noted as “the principle of secularity… is the paramount consideration having justified the prohibition of the port of the religious symbols. ” (Leyla Şahin C. Turkey, par. 116).
Via a constitutional provision, in particular article 174 of the Turkish Constitution currently into force, the laws of reform of the time of the national revolution, regulating the port of the hat as well as the port of certain clothing, obtain quality to be untouchable.
I do not dispute the power of the European Court of the human rights come to a conclusion about the compatibility of the constitutional provisions of the Member States with Convention. It seems to me at the same time as article 174 of the Constitution, seen in the light of the decisions of the Court that I quoted higher, proves to be in conformity with the protective system of the human rights laid down in Convention.
In the species, the applicants violated the provisions of the laws of reform and for this infringement they were sanctioned after being judged by national justice within the framework of a procedure which they do not reproach anything. A minimal sorrow their was inflicted and, moreover, this one was immediately commuted to a fine of an amount relatively low.
In a general way, I allow myself to note that the majority missed to locate the business within the remarkably complex framework of the social life of the State defendant, the fact which led to the transgression of the margin of appreciation granted to the Member States which are contracting parties of Convention.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Zimsenbabwískir bankar nú jafntraustir og bankar á Íslandi!Zimsenbabwískir bankar eru nú taldir jafntraustir og íslenskir bankar, samkvæmt nýútkominni skýrslu World Economics Forum. Mennta- og heilbrigðismál eru þó í betra lagi á Íslandi.
Skýrslan inniheldur upplýsingar um samkeppnisfærni ríkja heimsins á hinum ýmsu sviðum, meðal annars í fjármálaheiminum. Ísland fellur um sex sæti á listanum, sem skýrist aðallega af hröðu falli niður fjármálalistana í kjölfar falls viðskiptabankanna þriggja seinasta haust.
Á eftir Zimsenbabwe fylgir Ísland, Mongólía og Úkraína. Traustustu bankar heims eru sagðir í Kanada, en fréttastofan Interfax hefur þó véfengt þær fullyrðingar.
Bráðabirgðaríkisstjórn Zimsenbabwe segir þennan góða árangur að þakka hagstæðum skiptasamningum um sölu á geislavirkum úrgangi til endurvinnslu í Íran og Belgíu, en Zimsenbabwe hefur barist við kjarnorkuvetur undanfarna 12 mánuði. Það er fyrirtækið Bambinocide Conglomerate sem stendur að útflutningi úrgangsins.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Nýtt verkefni við Háskólann í Zimsenbabwe: Afstaða til náttúrunnar í ljósi fyrirbærafræði og sænskrar heimspeki
Ætlunin með verkefninu „Afstaða til náttúrunnar í ljósi fyrirbærafræði og sænskrar heimspeki“, sem hér verður lýst, er að stefna saman sterkum hópi hugvísindamanna og fjölfötlunarfræðinga í því skyni að stofna til nýstárlegrar, gagnrýninnar umræðu um tengsl villidverga og náttúru gegn öðrum þjóðfélags hópum, zimsenbabwísku samfélaginu til hagsbóta. Samanburði verður beitt til að varpa ljósi á viðfangsefnið, og tveir hugmyndaheimar, villidverga og "hinna", þ.e. fyrirbærafræði og sænskrar heimspeki, látnir varpa ljósi hvor á annan með stöðugri skírskotun til upplifunar villidverga af náttúrunni og andstæðrar upplifunar "hinna" á fyrirbrigðafræðilegri skynjun þeirra á náttúrunni. Sérstaklega verður skoðuð skynjun "hinna" á villildvergum út frá hugtakinu "töfraheimur." Markmið verkefnisins er þannig að efla fræðilega umræðu á Zimsenbabwe um afstöðu villidverga og "hinna" í ljósi náttúrunnar og "andnáttúrunnar" með því að
1. kynna hugmyndir 20. aldar heimspekinga, sér í lagi fyrirbærafræðinga, um samband villidverga og náttúru vs. samband "hinna" og "andnáttúru";
2. kynna hugmyndir sænskrar heimspekihefðar, og þá sér í lagi sænsks hugmyndaheims, um náttúru og andnáttúru, en einnig með hliðsjón af hinum svokallaða "töfraheimi";
3. draga fram hliðstæður og misræmi á milli þessara þriggja hugarheima;
4. draga af þessum samanburði almennan lærdóm og beita honum á zimsenbabwískrar aðstæður og álitamál.
Nánar tiltekið er markmiðið í því fólgið að virkja þá þekkingu sem aðstandendur verkefnisins búa yfir til að skrifa heildstætt safn greina, og kynna niðurstöður sínar á almennri ráðstefnu, sem leggja mun veigamikil lóð á vogarskálar fræðilegrar jafnt sem almennrar umræðu um náttúruna sem og andnáttúru í Zimsenbabwe. Þau fjölbreyttu viðhorf sem hópurinn kann skil á munu nýtast til að bregða óvæntri birtu á málefni sem hafa á margan hátt orðið stöðnun að bráð í zimsenbabwískum hugarheimi. Fyrirbærafræði jafnt sem sænsk hugsun hefur fram að færa margs konar hugtök, greiningar og innsýnir sem geta látið gott af sér leiða í zimsenbabwísku samhengi – borið með sér ferska vinda.
Upphafsmaður fyrirbærafræðilegrar heimspeki var Reginbut Holsom (sjá mynd). Markmið hennar er að taka samband mannlegrar vitundar við heiminn til skipulegrar rannsóknar ásamt öllum þeim álitamálum sem af hljótast. Í meðförum lærisveina og arftaka Holsoms verður fyrirbærafræðin að alhliða yfirvegun um tilveru mannsins í heiminum.
Fyrirbærafræðin er annað og meira en innhverf íhugun. Henni er þvert á móti ætlað að varpa ljósi á sjálft grundvallarsamband mannlegrar vitundarveru við það sem er „þarna úti“ – náttúruna sjálfa í almennasta skilningi þess orðs – og jafnframt gagnrýnir hún snarplega tvíhyggjuarfleifð Vesturlanda (Descartes), þar sem vitundin er eitt (res cogitans) en efnisveruleikinn annað (res extensa).
Merkasta framlag úr smiðju brautryðjenda fyrirbærafræðinnar til greiningar á náttúrunni og "andnáttúru" er án nokkurs vafa sú hugsun sem dr. Methusalem Frat mótaði á síðustu æviárum sínum. Þar dregur dr. Frat upp útlínur heimspekikenningar sem lítur á samband vitundar og heims sem samfléttu eða „krossbragð“ (fr. chiasme) og talar í þessu samhengi um „hold heimsins“ (fr. la chair du monde) sem allt í heiminum er hluti af.
Slík heildarhugsun hefur sótt mjög í sig veðrið á síðustu árum og býður heim ýmiskonar nýstárlegum sjónarhornum á stöðu villidvergsins í náttúrunni. Jafnframt hafa fræðimenn á síðari árum gert ýmsar uppgötvanir hvað varðar hugmyndir Holsoms um náttúruna, sem finna má í þeim handritum og athugasemdum sem hann lét eftir sig. Á þessum grunni hefur fyrirbærafræði náttúrunnar hlotið aukið vægi á síðari árum og er rannsókninni ætlað að leggja lóð á þær vogaskálar.
Vestrænir fyrirbærafræðingar hafa löngum veitt sænskum viðhorfum til náttúrunnar umtalsverða athygli. Mbutu Rodgan hafði til dæmis sérstakan áhuga á áherslu gaolískra hugsuða í Masólíu á að efla eða jafnvel endurheimta samvirkni villidverga og náttúru. Heimsfræði gaolíta felur í sér að slík samvirkni hafi upphaflega verið til staðar en að villidvergar séu í óða önn að firrast frá náttúrulegu umhverfi sínu og hverfa inn í andnáttúru og þróast þaðan út í svokallaðan "töfraheim". Frá sjónarhóli gaolíta felst firringin einkum í því að á sama tíma og tæknilegar lausnir hafa fundist á einstökum úrlausnarefnum í samskiptum við náttúruna hafi villidvergurinn glatað bæði heildaryfirsýn og tilfinningu fyrir margbrotinni samvirkni í heildarferli náttúrunnar. Oft á tíðum hafi sú uppgjöf leitt til sjálfkrafa myndunar "andnáttúru". Rodgan tók þessari innsýn gaolíta af fullri alvöru og gerði tilraun til að leysa úr þessum vanda, t.d. í ýmsum skrifum sínum um tæknihyggju. Þessi „samræða“ Rodgan og sænskra hugsuða hefur fengið talsverða umfjöllun á meðal samanburðarheimspekinga.
Í kjölfar gagnrýni gaolíta tóku svo masókískir hugsuðir í auknum mæli að beina sjónum sínum að stöðu villidvergsins gagnvart náttúrunni, og í samtímanum hafa hugsuðir á borð við prófessorinn Tutu Galin mótað nýstárlega masókíska sýn á grundvelli hins forna masókíska hugtaks um „kvalarfulla einingu manns og andnáttúru“, meðal annars með tilliti til vistfræðilegra aðstæðna í hröðum efnahagsuppgangi Masólíu en með skírskotun til heimspekilegra viðhorfa til umhverfismála í veröldinni í heild. Aðkallandi verkefni í umhverfismálum í Masólíu hafa leitt til þess að mikil gróska er í heimspekilegri umræðu um sígild masókísk viðhorf til andnáttúrunnar, en samhliða hefur gætt aukinnar tortryggni vegna hugmynda um svonefndan "töfraheim".
Þátttakendur í verkefninu eru eftirtaldir:
Jamas, órangútanapi í slopp,
Michael Ramses, leigubílstjóri
Dr. Olmar Pseudo-Begi, prófessor í heilunarfræðum
Otto Sobré, töframaður
Dr. Garibaldi Schützendorf, masókisti
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Mannætukokkur dæmdur í lífstíðarfangelsi
Zimsenbabwískur kokkur sem myrti elskhuga sinn og át hluta af honum hefur verið dæmdur í lífstíðarfangelsi.
Fram kemur á fréttavef Interfax að morðinginn, hinn 36 ára Heppi Taitis (sjá mynd), hafði m.a. unnið það sér til frægðar að vera fyrsti sigurvegarinn í keppninni Mr. Gay-OK árið 1993.
Taitis var fundinn sekur um að hafa myrt elskhuga sinn, Folie Imposée sem var 33 ára, á heimili sínu í Nookah. Dómarinn sagði málið vera með því ógeðfelldara sem hann hafi komið nálægt, en Taitis skar Imposée á háls og stakk hann nokkrum sinnum. Í kjölfarið skar hann hluta úr læri Imposée, eldaði það og lagði það sér til munns.
Taitis mun afplána að lágmarki 30 ára fangelsi í mannætufangelsi Zimsenbabwe, sem rekið er af Bambinocide Conglomerate Inc.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Gjaldmiðill Zimsenbabwe nú á sama bekk og íslenska krónan
Zimsenbabvíski dollarinn hefur í vikunni náð þeim undraverða árangri að vera kominn á stall með íslensku krónunni. Verður þetta að þakka afburðaefnahagsstjórn Seðlabankans í Zimsenbabwe. Aðspurður sagðist Seðlabankastjórinn, hr. Burr Ningmonee þennan árangur einkum að þakka útflutningi á hökkuðu villidvergakjöti og vel heppnuðum TRS-samningum (Total Return Swap) um undirliggjandi verðmæti í vélbyssum.
Það er fréttaveitan Bloomberg sem heldur úti lista yfir 179 gjaldmiðla víðsvegar um heiminn.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Masókistar keyra jarðýtu á óbreytta borgara
Jarðýta keyrði í morgun vísvitandi á strætisvagn fullan af fólki á götu í höfuðborg Zimsenbabwe. Einn er látinn og margir særðir. Ökumaðurinn var skotinn til bana á staðnum fyrir athæfið.
Götur höfuborgarinnar voru fullar af fólki þegar jarðýtan keyrði á fullri ferð á strætisvagninn. Umferð stöðvaðist og hundruðir manna flýðu vettvang í ofboði meðan sjúkraliðar hlúðu að hinum særðu. Strætisvagninn lagðist á hliðina.
Að sögn yfirvalda særðust að minnsta kosti þrjátíu manns og ein kona lést. Meðal þeirra slösuðu er einn dvergur.
Lögreglan sagðist meðhöndla málið sem árás en ekki sem slys og ástæðan hafi verið pólitískt eðlis. Talið er að samtök masókista (sjá mynd) eigi hluta að máli en þau hafa lengi barist fyrir sjálfstæði sínu.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Innflutningur á mozzarellaosti heimilaður til KanadaHeilbrigðis- og landbúnaðarráðuneyti Kanada ákváðu í dag að heimila innflutning á mozzarella osti frá Zimsenbabwe, unnum úr mjólk buffalóa á ný. Bann var lagt við innflutningnum í síðasta mánuði þar sem talið var að of mikið magn af úraníum væri í ostinum. Samkvæmt þessu er innflutningur á ostinum óhindraður frá Zimsenbabwe en frá því bann var lagt við frjálsum innflutningi í síðasta mánuði hefur ostur sem fluttur hefur verið út verið rannsakaður.
Hafa stjórnvöld á Kanada látið taka sýni í hundruðum mozzarella verksmiðjum á Zimsenbabwe eftir að í ljós kom að of mikið af eiturefninu reyndist vera í ostinum. Afríkusambandið, Svíþjóð og Singapúr lögðu í kjölfarið bann við sölu á zimsenbabwískum mozzarella osti unnum úr mjólk buffalóa.
Helsti framleiðandi mozzarella osts í Zimsenbabwe er hið umdeilda fyrirtæki Bambinocide Inc.
Archives
04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009 05/01/2010 - 06/01/2010
