Yeneroğlu's harsh reaction to Göktaş's detention: There is intimidation against humor

Deputy and legal scholar Mustafa Yeneroğlu reacted sharply to the images of comedian Deniz Göktaş being detained at the airport and handcuffed from behind within the scope of the investigation launched due to his stage shows. Arguing that the incident was used as a tool for delivering a social message rather than a legal process, Yeneroğlu stated that the events created a worrying picture for humor and freedom of expression. He expressed that despite Göktaş returning to Turkey of his own free will, the language used by the authorities and the display of force created a perception that damages the sense of justice.

One of the points Yeneroğlu criticized most was the statement made by the prosecutor's office regarding the detention process, where the expression “caught” was used for Göktaş. Yeneroğlu said that this expression ignored the fact that Göktaş’s return to the country was not an escape attempt but took place with the aim of participating in the legal process. He emphasized that this language, which is incompatible with human dignity, tried to present a legal situation as if it were a major operation and aimed to create a false perception in the public eye. He stated that this situation was incompatible with the principles of the rule of law and violated the presumption of innocence.

Yeneroğlu also expressed his discomfort regarding the release of the images of him being handcuffed from behind to the press, claiming that this practice was used not only as a physical force but also as a tool of psychological pressure. Arguing that individuals should not be executed in front of society before being declared guilty, Yeneroğlu pointed out that sharing such visual material revealed that the aim was deterrence rather than justice. He stated that the artist being subjected to such treatment solely for his stage performance was the product of a mentality that wants to strike a blow at freedom of expression.

Yeneroğlu said that the issue was not limited to Göktaş's personal situation but set a precedent for society as a whole, and therefore the political and legal dimensions of the process needed to be well analyzed. He stated that humor is one of the most effective ways of addressing social problems, but trying to silence artists and intellectuals with such pressures is contrary to democratic social order. He argued that although the investigation stemmed from a funny show, the reaction was disproportionate, and this was an indicator of how sensitive the government had become to tolerating criticism.

Consequently, Yeneroğlu stated that the logic behind the incident was “to declare guilty first and then look for elements of crime,” emphasizing that in states governed by the rule of law, crime and punishment must be processed according to predetermined laws, and arbitrary practices are intolerable. He called for an end to such intimidating applications, stating that the process of taking Göktaş's statement and releasing him needs to be followed meticulously for the supremacy of law. He expressed that the criticisms made were a necessary step to be taken for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms and that the legal community should be sensitive to this issue.