Turkey country assessment

Kurdish Language

6.230 As noted in the European Commission 2004 report
“In the field of broadcasting there has been significant progress and previously adopted measures were implemented. The first broadcasts in languages and dialects other than Turkish were aired on radio and television by state broadcasting corporation TRT in June 2004. Broadcasts in Bosnian, Arabic, Circasian and the Kurdish dialects of Kirmançi and Zaza are ongoing. These broadcasts consist of news headlines, documentary, music and sports programmes.” [71c] (p39)
6.231 The EC report 2004 continued
“A new regulation was published in January 2004 which established the possibility for private national television and radio channels, in addition to the state broadcaster TRT, to broadcast in languages other than Turkish. This regulation opens the decisions of the High Audio Visual Board (RTÜK) to judicial appeal and removes the requirement that presenters wear ‘modern’ clothing. Notwithstanding these improvements the regulation is still rather restrictive. It sets strict time limits for broadcasts in other languages (for television, four hours per week, not exceeding 45 minutes per day and for radio, five hours per week, not exceeding 60 minutes per day).” [71c] (p39)
6.232 Amnesty Internationals report ‘Europe and Central Asia Summary of Amnesty International’s Concerns in the Region January - June 2004 published 1 September 2004’ stated that:

“During this period a fundamental taboo was finally broken when state television and radio channels began broadcasts for the first time in languages other than Turkish, a measure of symbolic significance in signalling official acceptance that Turkish is not the only language belonging to citizens of the Turkish Republic. The much delayed implementation of the August 2002 law, which had provided for broadcasts in ‘different languages and dialects traditionally used by Turkish citizens in their daily lives’, came about in the week beginning 6 June when state television and radio channels began broadcasts in Bosnian, Circassian, Kırmançi, Zazaca and Arabic…. It is probable that in time the limited non-Turkish language broadcasts offered by the state broadcasting services will be supplemented by private and eventually local television channel broadcasts.” [12l] (p57)

6.233 As noted in the USSD 2004:
“While there were some improvements during the year, the Government maintained significant restrictions on the use of Kurdish and other ethnic minority languages in radio and television broadcasts and in publications… During the year, the HRF recorded fewer complaints that authorities prevented parents from registering their children under traditional Kurdish names.” [5c] (Section 5)
6.234 The Freedom House report ‘Countries at the Crossroads 2005 – Turkey, published in December 2004 noted that “The legalization of these [non-Turkish language] broadcasts was a major step for Kurdish rights and freedom of expression…The broadcasts have been criticized for being too short and being limited to the national station, and liberalization still has a long way to go.11 However, the significance of the changes cannot be overstated. [62c] (p5)
6.235 As outlined in the Human Rights Watch (HRW) World Report 2005 published in January 2005:
“In June 2004 state television began broadcasts in Kurdish, Bosnak, Circassian, Arabic, and Zaza. The programs were short with uninspiring content, but represented a significant change in official attitudes to minority languages. Private radio stations in southeastern Turkey applied to the High Council for Radio and Television for permission to broadcast in Kurdish, but had not received permission by the end of 2004.” [9e] (p2)

Teaching in Kurdish

6.236 The European Commission 2004 noted that:
“A Regulation entitled Teaching in Different Languages and Dialects Traditionally Used by Turkish Citizens in their Daily Lives entered into force in December 2003. This allowed for the first time private courses in Kurdish. Six private schools started teaching Kurdish (Kirmanci dialect) in Van, Batman and Şanliurfa in April 2004, in Diyarbakir and Adana in August 2004 and in Istanbul in October 2004. These schools do not receive financial support from the state and there are restrictions concerning, in particular, the curriculum, the appointment of teachers, the timetable and the attendees. Notably, students must have completed basic education and therefore will be older than 15.” [71c] (p49)
6.237 According to a report by MRGI published July 2004
“In Adan, Batman, Þanlýurfa and Van, the Ministry of National Education, General Directorate of the Private Teaching Institutions, has permitted Kurdish courses. However, at least four other applications (Circassion and Kurdish) have not been finalised for more than a year due to bureaucratic delays and the strict requirements about establishing the courses. Further, the use of minority languages in schools, or even requesting their use, continues to lead to punishment.” [57b] (p10-11)
6.238 As noted in the USSD 2004 “During the year, private Kurdish language instruction courses were opened in Istanbul and six southeastern cities (Van, Batman, Sanliurfa, Diyarbakir, Kiziltepe, and Adana) pursuant to legislation adopted in 2002. According to observers, officials had delayed the courses by raising bureaucratic obstacles.” [5c] (Section 5)
6.239 An Amnesty International public statement dated 21 January 2005 stated that: “The largest trade union in Turkey, the Education Workers' Union (Egitim Sen) is at risk of closure in an ongoing trial because of a statement in its statute that it will work for the right of individuals to receive education in their mother tongue. Meanwhile, peaceful protests against the trial have been dispersed with excessive force and their organizers have been prosecuted.” [12p] (p1)
6.240 On 22 February 2005 it was reported on the website of Education International that: “The sentence pronounced yesterday, on 21 Feb 2005, acquitted Egitim Sen of the charge of violating the Turkish constitution. The judge insisted on his former decision ruled in favour of Egitim Sen, and did not find any legal ground for closing down the union. “ [6]