Turkey's Endless Test with Artistic Freedom: The Case of Sezen Aksu

Deniz Polat

Ankara University

On New Year’s Day, Sezen Aksu, Turkey’s most famous composer/lyricist/singer artist, released a new version of an old song, “Living is a Wonderful Thing” on YouTube. The release antagonized pro-government religious groups in Turkey, and a huge debate erupted in the country. 

The reason for the controversy is the following lyrics:

“With its pain and sweetness / What a wonderful thing to experience / Hitting the bottom, standing upright / A thousand excuses, a thousand games / We are on an omen / We are going to the apocalypse / Say hello to that ignorant Eve and Adam”

Aksu is accused of insulting religious values due to the phrase in bold. In a speech delivered in a mosque in Istanbul, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that “nobody was allowed to speak badly of Prophet Adam and Mother Eve... It’s our duty to rip out these tongues if necessary.” 

The worrisome impact of the debate can be found in the wind of authoritarianism that has been blowing through Turkey for some time, including in the field of art. The debate over Sezen Aksu’s song exacerbated the tension between the government and the art world and was widely covered on social media. Moreover, a number of criminal complaints were filed against the artist. 

Times of crisis are like litmus papers for the constitutional and political system. The case of Sezen Aksu is a current example of this determination on behalf of the equilibrium of democracy and freedom in Turkey. The result – sadly – was not in favor of freedom. Therefore, the main issue to be addressed in this post is whether religious values are a legitimate ground for restricting artistic freedom. 

As a member of the Council of Europe, Turkey is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) considers artistic expression to fall within the scope of freedom of expression guaranteed in the Article 10 of the ECHR. Nevertheless, it is possible to exclude certain works of art from the protection of artistic freedom. The grounds of exclusion include obscenity, hate speech and religious expression. In this framework, freedom of religion and belief and artistic freedom can compete and even conflict in “hard cases” in which works of art containing religious expression are the subject.

Firstly, according to the ECtHR, it is necessary to distinguish between the concept of “blasphemy” and artistic expressions in which the person or his/her own belief group claims to be offended. The Venice Commission also drew attention to the importance of this distinction in its report on the subject. According to both the Court and the Commission, artistic expression that incites religious grudge and hatred and other expression that offends or insults religious or sacred values should be evaluated separately, and only artistic expression that encourages religious hatred should be sanctioned.

A work of art can be provocative, surprising, critical, sometimes even hurtful by its nature and the outcome may be considered “excessively shocking” by the majority. However, there may not be sufficient grounds for restricting that kind of an expression. Otherwise, as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has pointed out, we run the risk of legitimizing censorship. Indeed, art may also be used to evoke strong emotions without the intent to incite violence, discrimination, or hostility, as the ECtHR pointed out. In this respect, there is an inseparable link between music, politics, the right to political participation and, of course, democracy. Art is a living organism. It evolves, changes, surprises, disturbs, and often provokes. Therefore, it is possible to reverse the presupposition that artistic freedom needs democracy. Free art fosters the democratic process. Thus, each democracy needs art—especially challenging/provocative art—in order to secure its quality as a free society. In this way, we could test how close it is to the ideal. The idea that art and the artist should be free is the guardian of the spirit of democracy and the vital common sense of it. In this context, the ECtHR also stresses that artistic freedom is an absolutely necessary element for a democratic society.

The ECtHR follows a two-pronged approach when evaluating religious expression. The Court states that persons exercising their freedom to express their religious thoughts or beliefs are obliged to tolerate the rejection, criticism, or even hostile propaganda of their beliefs by others, regardless of whether that religion or belief is a minority or majority belief in the society in question. The Court also emphasizes that this acceptance is a requirement of a pluralist democratic society. Sanctions imposed by national authorities against people who have unorthodox ideas about religions or beliefs could have a “chilling effect” on people and may cause them to avoid expressing their views, contrary to the requirements of a pluralistic society. However, the Court has ruled that religious statements that could be viewed as a “cheap attack” should be avoided. Therefore, the sanctions imposed by the national authorities against such statements which were incompatible with the values of tolerance, denying or criticizing a religion or a belief system, and which turn into insults, humiliating expressions and hate speech against values considered sacred by some, are lawful and in line with Article 10 of the Convention.  In this framework, the mere claim that the person is offended, hurt or disturbed is inadequate to restrict artistic freedom. According to the Court, only expression that directly targets believers or insults certain values or religious symbols that are held sacred may be restricted. It’s worth noting that the Turkish Constitutional Court followed a similar approach in one of the rare cases regarding an anthem and stipulated that, only expressions which considers violence as a tool, instills hatred against individuals or encourages violence may be restricted. However, it is hardly predictable whether the Turkish Constitutional Court will adhere to this approach.

As a result, the crux of the matter is how to determine the scope of artistic freedom without interfering with the original nature of art. Political justifications for the restriction of artistic freedom in the political history of Turkey were mostly based on a common urge to prevent criticism of governments. However, especially after the 1980s, the main urge to restrict artistic freedom has been a worldview, known as the Turkish-Islamic synthesis. Thus, artists who expressed sensitivity to ethnicity, touched on religious issues, or whose works were stated to be obscene were banned and even punished. One should handle the Sezen Aksu debate and the reactions from the government within the framework of this synthesis. Although it is difficult to predict how this process will progress, the heart of the debate is that free art has received another blow in Turkey and the need for a tolerant society is increasing. In any case, something is clear: The song and its effects have been widely discussed and the discussions are far from being over. 

Dr Deniz Polat is a senior research associate at the Constitutional Law Department at Ankara University Faculty of Law
Suggested Citation, Deniz Polat, ‘Turkey's Endless Test with Artistic Freedom: The Case of Sezen Aksu’, IACL-AIDC Blog (15 December 2022) https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/new-blog-3/2022/12/15/turkeys-endless-test-with-artistic-freedom-the-case-of-sezen-aksu.