Baselessness of libels having sexual content against Mr. Adnan Oktar and his friends

New Humanist, an atheist and Darwinist magazine, amazingly cites some disproved claims against Mr. Adnan Oktar and thus becomes a part of an anti-propaganda. The line of the magazine in question, which is an atheist and Darwinist publication, clearly reveals its biased attitudes in its claims against Mr. Adnan Oktar. Like all atheist, Darwinist publications, this magazine also appears to be severely annoyed by the strong anti-Darwinist activities.
Libels with sexual content against Adnan Oktar and Science Research Foundation (SRF) have always been an important indicator of the unease felt by Darwinists. Whenever atheist and Darwinist parties sense their defeat, they lose no time resorting to libels having sexual content, which is the most delicate subject of the society. Consequently it is not surprising that such claims were revealed in New Humanist magazine. For the claim in question to be accepted, there should primarily be a complainant, an aggrieved party and a witness. Yet, for the claim in question to be accepted as true, there exists not a single witness, complainant or an aggrieved party. Furthermore, it is legally proven that the claim of hidden cameras referred to in New Humanist has no validity whatsoever. The verdicts of acquittal and dismissal of proceedings given by the Courts and public prosecutors totally disprove this claim. Indeed there exists not a single video camera or a recording that would verify this claim.
Tugce Doras and Seckin Piriler, two people New Humanist tries to show as witnesses, are the people who had to sign the testimonies put in front of them under duress in the police station. These people then stated that they were subjected to pressure in the police station and thus refused to accept their testimonies in police station. Furthermore, they declared before the judge that they do not accept their testimonies since they were subjected to pressure in the police station. They further added that they had not been oppressed or harmed either by Adnan Oktar or anyone from this community, and that there exists not an interest with sexual-content as claimed in question. The statements in question are available in court minutes. You can reach related detailed information and documents from here.
The claims stated here are based on the testimonies signed under duress and torture by all SRF members tried and taken under custody as a result of the plots hatched by the alleged Ergenekon terror organization in 1999. According to the law, police testimonies signed under torture and in the absence of advocates are utterly invalid. However, based on the invalid testimonies taken by police, the Court imposed a penalty on the SRF case. These testimonies illegally considered by the Court as a basis for the verdict, the very same explanations, are repeated in the New Humanist and presented to the readers as if they have any actuality.