The Homeland Security Package will be discussed thoroughly in the Parliament very soon. There are people defending it, as much as others objecting to it. The first salient matter is that the ones, who are objecting to it, are the members of the political and ideological opposition front. They are frequently referring to the Gezi Incidents, and accept the happenings positively as the natural implementation of civil rights and liberties. Also, they are alleging that if the package becomes a law, their “right and liberty movements” will be prevented.

As it’s known, the Gezi incidents started as an innocent demand and protest at first, and it was thought to be directed at the objective of protecting nature. The protesters were trying to conserve Gezi Park, keeping it from passing to the hands of developers. Later on, when their tents were burnt by a squad, whose objectives and identities were revealed afterwards, all hell broke loose, the owners of that innocent demand had been kept in the background, and the people, who wanted to overthrow the government with street demonstrations and armed riots, ravaged everywhere, attempted to invade the Prime Ministry offices, and dealt great harm on the nation and country. Now, the ones objecting to this package are backing up those rebels and state that if they do it again, they will be walking ahead of them.

Some clauses of the Homeland Security Package, or all of it, can be objected to or argued. It could be discussed in the Parliament, the rulership and opposition party will express their thoughts on the matter and defend it, and in the end it will be partially or completely accepted or rejected. Up until now, it has been natural in democracies; it’s not against the law. However, when the point in question is about objecting to the package “due to the possibility of preventing such incidents”, by making a reference to the Gezi incidents, things do change. At that point, it’s being understood that the desire is to get a result by exploiting rights and liberties, and, hiding bad intentions behind those values.

There is also another thing being understood:

It seems that the opposing party had given up hope on becoming the rulership through democratic ways, legitimately and juristically. If this had happened in the old days, they would have stirred up the streets and universities, activated the syndicates, had the people worry about their lives and belongings, saluted the military for a while; then they would have taken the rulership from them. However, when the nation had had the chance, they would have been stationed back to the opposition party position, which they got accustomed to, by the nation and that nation would have composed the personnel and party, who represent them (the majority), the rulership.

Now, it’s as if some of those toys had been taken out of their hands, and all that’s left for them is the hope to overthrow the rulership via the rebels, whom they let loose in the streets by saying rights and liberties. In Istanbul and some Eastern cities and provinces, they are attempting this anti-democratic way.

Who, with an inner conscience and love for his/her nation and country, would approve, praise and support the things done against the nation and country during the anarchy and terror incidents that took place in the Gezi Incidents and the East ?! How could people, who lost their temper with the passion to become the rulership, have the right to hurt the nation and country this much? Which democracy, civil rights and liberties, will legitimize the happenings during those incidents?

The most important duties of the government are to protect the country’s independence from foreign powers and the land unity, to preserve the security of life and property and ensure tranquility and safety. No democracy or claim (case) of civil rights and liberty can constitute a justification and abutment to damaging the civil rights and liberties of the others, especially the majority of people’s, or the nation’s wealth and values.

The following are the clauses of the package that were objected to the most:

           The people, who participate in demonstrations with weapons, sticks, stones, slingshots, metal balls, fireworks, flammable or hurtful materials, can be given prison sentence between 2.5 years to 4 years.

            With the regulation, punishments towards the people, who wear masks, carry weapons, carry Molotov cocktails and similar explosive materials, will be increased.

            For certain crimes, the police force will be given the authority to keep anyone in custody up to 24 hours without the prosecutor’s decision. This can be prolonged up to 48 hours for collective crimes.

            The people, their belongings and vehicles can be searched by the order of the chief of police. The search warrant will be submitted for the judge’s approval within 24 hours…

Good people, good citizens will not feel uncomfortable with these clauses; for the people who are demanding rights in the civil chamber and demonstrate in accordance with the procedure, they are open to do so. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Domestic Affairs, Mr. Ala, is stating this briefly:

“If they are not going to carry Molotovs, if they are going to walk in a predestined route, if they are not going to carry a slingshot or metal marble, if they are not going to mask their face in order to commit crimes, if they are not going to carry illegal instruments and not going throw things at the police or nation, then walk, and we will ensure your safety.”