The Wikipedia web site contains various untrue pieces of information based on reports taken from various Darwinist and left-wing publications. One of these is the claim that certain families that retracted their complaints stating that they had been forced, in the first place, to issue these complaints about the BAV community did so as a result of pressure and threats from that community.
The families in question were called to the Security Department when members of the BAV community were detained en masse by Adil Serdar Sacan, director of the Anti-Organized Crime Department of the time who is now on trial within the scope of the alleged Ergenekon terror organization case, and forced to sign the documents placed in front of them under the threat of "If you do not complain about Adnan Oktar you will never see your child again." Later on, the people in question renounced their complaints, stating in petitions presented to the Prosecutor's Office that the complaints were groundless. They later repeated this orally in court, in the PERSONAL PRESENCE OF THE JUDGE. In the same statements these people many times stated, both orally and in writing, that no pressure or threats was being employed against them. The renouncements in question have been put on record.
This is a very important point: In order for there to be a claim that the complaints were retracted under pressure, there also has to be a complaint on the subject or a damnification thereof. The fact is that THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE, A SINGLE INJURED PARTY OR A SINGLE PLAINTIFF regarding this claim. It is unclear on what basis such a claim appears on the Wikipedia web site.
Another point worthy of consideration regarding the claim that the complainants retracted their complaints under duress and pressure is that Mehmet Agar and Celal Adan were among those people who had first complained and subsequently retracted those complaints. It is very odd that such an imputation be made regarding these people. Mr. Mehmet Agar spent years fighting terror, mafia and criminal organizations, personally leading operations and taking part in shoot-outs. He served as Director General of Security and as Interior Minister of Turkey. Celal Adan spent years as a party administrator and member of Parliament. The idea that the BAV community pressurized and threatened such people is nothing more than suggesting that these people changed their statements out of a fear of a few young university graduates with spotless records. If anyone had any evidence of this, a complaint should have been made to the Prosecutor's Office and proceedings brought. In addition, in such an event, the people in question would also have pressed complaints. It is clear that such a state of affairs is unrealistic. Mr. Mehmet Agar and Mr. Celal Adan retracted their complaints in the presence of the judge. It is therefore a grave mistake for such a claim to appear on the Wikipedia web site as if it were true fact, and the issue needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency.
It also needs to be stated here that the only name put forward in connection with the claims of threats made by members of the BAV community is that of Fatih Altayli. But it has also been established through various court rulings that Fatih Altayli's claims regarding the BAV community are groundless, and all these claims have been expunged.
The Kartal 2nd Court of First Instance that heard the case in the light of Fatih Altayli's complaint concerning the BAV administrators established that the written threats addressed to Altayli had nothing to do with the BAV and issued an ACQUITTAL RULING, No. 1996/381 E. 1998/508 K dated 12.06.1998, regarding the foundation managers. The ruling has also been confirmed by the 4th Chamber of Supreme Court of Appeals.
Fatih Altayli also sued the BAV managers and members for libel at the Istanbul 6th Court of First Instance. That court received reports from a 3-member team of experts regarding the writings in question. The team of experts whose opinions were canvassed by the court determined, as a result of their inquiries, that these writings were completely unconnected to the BAV community. In the expert witness report, dated 28.01.2002 and given to the Istanbul 6th Court of First Instance by Prof. Dr. Kemal Yavuz, Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ozkan and Asst. Prof. Dr. Fatih Andi, Fatih Altayli's claims were explicitly described as groundless.
In addition to all this, contrary to what is maintained on the State Security Court (DGM) Considered Legal Opinion, Fatih Altayli told the Istanbul No. 1 DGM that members of the BAV community made no threats against him and there was no question of any material gain. In answer to questions on the subject from the president of the Istanbul No. 1 DGM, Fatih Altayli replied THERE WAS NO THREAT OR FINANCIAL INTEREST, AND I WAS SUBJECTED TO NO THREATS." Anyone interested in examining the relevant evidence should visit this address.
The claims in question have been definitively invalidated by judicial rulings. The groundless nature of the claim regarding threats being made by the BAV community has been established by judicial rulings, and all these claims are completely untrue.
Statements Regarding the Groundless Nature of the Claim That Some Families Were Threatened and Forced to Retract Their Complaints
Ebru Simsek is the Only Person to Slander with Sexual Allegations, but All Her Claims Were Nullified with the Acquittal Rulings Issued by the Courts
This is a huge and blatant defamation because there exists NOT A SINGLE INJURED PARTY, NOT A SINGLE PLAINTIFF AND NOT A SINGLE WITNESS to confirm the sexual allegations against the BAV community. The allegations in question are entirely based on one person, a former model by the name of Ebru Simsek. This person's slanders have been widely published by the Darwinist press, though it never mentions how the fact that Ebru Simsek's allegations against Mr. Oktar and the BAV community are utterly false has been established by a number of court rulings. Likewise, the Wikipedia web site does not carry these facts, merely contenting itself with carrying false allegations against the BAV community. This is one of the most familiar examples of the psychological war being waged by masons, atheists and Darwinists.
Judicial rulings showing that all of Ebru Simsek's claims are slanders:
1. The Chief Prosecutor's Office's considered acquittal opinion showing that Ebru Simsek's allegations in Case No. 2006/26, an extension of the BAV case, were slanders and the VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL No. 2007/7 dated 22.01.2007 by the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court.
2. The Istanbul Chief Prosecutor's Office's VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION of Ebru Simsek's fantastical claims (in 1999) under ruling No. 96/9848 Hz - 99/8409 K. dated 12.08.1999.
3. The Istanbul Chief Prosecutor's Office's VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION No. 05/27549 Hz. - 05/12003 K. dated 18.10.2005.
4. The Istanbul Public Prosecutor's Office's verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/60013 Hz. - 02/18838 K. dated 31.12.2002 and the Beyoglu 3rd High Criminal Court's VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/458 Mut. dated 28.04.2003 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
5. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/39606 Hz. - 03/8860 K. dated 30.06.2003 and the Beyoglu 2nd High Criminal Court's VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/333 Mut. dated 03.10.2003 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
6. The Bagcilar Public Prosecutor's Office's verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/21669 Hz. - 03/6120 K. dated 15.10.2003 and the Eyup 2nd High Criminal Court's VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/894 D.Is. dated 02.01.2004 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
7. The Uskudar Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's verdict of non-prosecution No. 04/7693 Hz. - 04/4749 K. dated 01.07.2004 and the Kadikoy 2nd High Criminal Court's VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 04/437 Mut. dated 09.09.2004 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
8. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 05/51724 Hz. - 06/2432 K. dated 27.03.2006.
9. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 05/51725 Hz.
10. Following the known images of Ebru Simsek in the press, an Istanbul University Medical School Department of Forensic Medicine expert carried out an inquiry in which IT WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER REPORT No. 2005/127765 dated 21.10.2005 that Ebru Simsek's claims were merely slanders.
11. Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court had the home in the allegations of Ebru Simsek and the home in the images examined by an official expert, accompanied by the court judges. This expert report revealed that THE HOME IN THE IMAGES DEFINITELY DID NOT BELONG TO THE BAV MEMBER.
12. Filiz Karatas, who shared a house with Ebru Simsek at the time she began issuing slanders against the BAV members, gave a witness statement to the court in Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court file No. 04/337 E. on 09.12.2004 and said that the BAV members were uninvolved in the matter and THAT THEY HAD ISSUED THIS IMAGINARY ALLEGATION TOGETHER TO SLANDER THE BAV.
13. Ten separate criminal complaints brought by those slandered by Ebru Simsek were examined by 10 different Public Prosecutors from different offices; these prosecutors concluded, as a result of their investigations, that Ebru Simsek's claims were slanderous.
Statements Regarding the Closure Rulings against Various Web Sites in Turkey and Overseas:
These circles have now set about directing the same feeble efforts aimed at Adnan Oktar by way of various reports raised on certain web sites in Turkey and abroad and have resorted to defamatory comments in articles and writings published on those sites. Having realized that they cannot neutralize the works of Adnan Oktar using scientific and scholarly evidence, they have resorted to defamation as the only possible solution.
It needs to be specifically made clear that people have a right to freely express their ideas and to enjoy freedom of thought. Nobody has to agree with anyone else's ideas, and has no right to impose his own ideas on others. Everyone has the right to criticize everyone else, within intellectual and moral boundaries. But nobody has the right to "insult" anyone else. It is of the greatest importance for everyone that this right be preserved; but defamation is a criminal offense and character rights are under legal protection. No civilized community recognizes the freedom to defame others.
The sites that were ordered to be banned were those that carried various defamatory statements in articles about Adnan Oktar or in their readers' comments sections. Warnings were issued by way of lawyers to the administrators of the sites in question time and time again, and legal requests were made that the defamatory expressions on the sites be removed, but the site administrators ignored these. In the light of this, legal measures were requisite. The judicial body concerned found the complaints justified and ruled that the sites in question be banned for a specific period because of these writings that breached the human rights. The ruling confirms the necessity for and appropriate nature of these measures.
Also Read:
Posts
