Author: Ceren Kale, University and Major: Ankara University – Korean Language and Literature Graduate of 2024
To the Point
Femicide in Turkey is a persistent and brutal reality, but the crisis is amplified and distorted through the lens of mainstream media. Too frequently, media narratives on these murders adopt a corrosive formula of sensationalizing the violence while scrutinizing the victim’s history and romanticizing the motive, a toxic combination that prevents perpetrators from being held truly accountable. Instead of framing these murders as the ultimate expression of systemic gender inequality, news reports often reduce them to isolated “crimes of passion,” “jealousy disputes,” or “family tragedies.” This narrative focuses on salacious details of the crime or the victim’s personal life—her clothing, her relationships, her presence outside the home—implicitly shifting blame from the perpetrator to the woman he killed. Such coverage not only disrespects the victims and traumatizes their families but also reinforces the patriarchal norms that enable gender-based violence in the first place. In stark opposition to this harmful discourse, a robust feminist movement in Turkey relentlessly works to reframe the narrative. Through data collection, social media campaigns, courtroom monitoring, and public protests, activists demand that these deaths be recognized for what they are: femicides. The central conflict, therefore, is not merely about crime, but about the control of the narrative—a struggle between a media that often perpetuates misogyny and a feminist response that fights for dignity, justice, and accountability.
Abstract
This article critically examines the intersection of femicide, media representation, and feminist activism in Turkey. It analyzes how Turkish mainstream media outlets frequently employ sensationalist frames and victim-blaming rhetoric in their coverage of femicide cases, thereby normalizing gender-based violence and undermining legal accountability. The paper investigates the prevailing journalistic practices that construct femicide as a private, passionate, or provoked crime, rather than a systemic social issue rooted in gender inequality. It explores the Turkish legal framework, including the Turkish Penal Code’s failure to recognize “femicide” as a standalone crime and the controversial application of sentencing reductions for “unjust provocation” and “good conduct.” The analysis is contextualized by Turkey’s significant 2021 withdrawal from the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (the Istanbul Convention), a move that has emboldened patriarchal narratives. In contrast, the article highlights the crucial counter-hegemonic work of feminist organizations, such as the We Will Stop Femicide Platform, which meticulously document femicides and advocate for rights-based legal and media reforms. Ultimately, this paper argues that responsible, ethical journalism is an indispensable component in the broader struggle to prevent femicide and achieve gender justice in Turkey.
Use of Legal Jargon
The legal discourse surrounding femicide in Turkey is fraught with terminology that often works against the victim. While perpetrators are prosecuted under the Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu – TCK), specifically Article 82 for aggravated homicide (e.g., killing a spouse), the law lacks a specific crime of “femicide.” This omission prevents the legal system from formally recognizing the gendered motivation behind these killings. Consequently, perpetrators’ lawyers frequently exploit legal loopholes to mitigate sentences. A primary tool is the defense of unjust provocation (haksız tahrik) under TCK Article 29. This provision allows for sentence reduction if the defendant claims the victim’s actions—such as seeking a divorce, infidelity, or even wearing certain clothes—provoked the crime. Feminist legal scholars argue this effectively puts the victim on trial. Similarly, courts often grant discretionary good conduct reductions (takdiri indirim nedenleri) under TCK Article 62, rewarding defendants for superficial courtroom decorum, like wearing a suit and tie, which is seen as a sign of remorse. A pivotal shift in the legal environment came with Turkey’s decision to formally withdraw from the Istanbul Convention. While not directly incorporated into the TCK, the Convention had prompted the enactment of Law No. 6284 to Protect Family and Prevent Violence Against Women, which provides for restraining orders and other protective measures. The Convention established a comprehensive framework obligating the state to prevent violence, protect victims, and prosecute offenders, establishing an international erga omnes obligation. Its renunciation signaled a significant regression, weakening the normative pressure on the judiciary and law enforcement to adhere to international standards and lending legitimacy to narratives that frame gender-based violence as a private “family matter.”
The Proof
The assertion that flawed media coverage and exploitable gaps in the legal system help perpetuate femicide is supported by substantial, verifiable proof. Statistics from independent monitors provide a stark picture that national data often obscures. The We Will Stop Femicide Platform (Kadın Cinayetlerini Durduracağız Platformu), a leading watchdog, reported that in 2023, at least 315 women were killed by men in femicides, with another 248 suspicious female deaths recorded. This data reveals a much grimmer reality than the frequently understated figures issued by state bodies. Content analyses of media reports reveal deeply ingrained patterns of problematic reporting. A study by Turkish communication foundation Bianet consistently finds that a majority of news reports on femicide employ language that mitigates the perpetrator’s guilt. For example, an analysis of 2022 reports showed that over 50% of articles mentioned “jealousy” or a “dispute” as the primary motive, framing the murder as a relational conflict rather than a gender-based crime. Headlines often read like “Husband’s Frenzy of Jealousy” or “Love Murder,” effectively romanticizing the violence. Furthermore, reports frequently include irrelevant and prejudicial details about the victim—if she was recently divorced, if she was out at night, or if she had rejected the perpetrator’s advances—subtly constructing a narrative of culpability. The real-world impact of these narratives is visible in courtrooms. The defense arguments in high-profile femicide cases directly mirror the language used in the media. Perpetrators who have murdered women for seeking a divorce routinely claim they were “provoked” by the victim’s assertion of her independence. The societal normalization of this logic, amplified by media coverage, creates a permissive environment for judges to accept such defenses. Functioning as a potent act of remembrance and public opposition, the digital memorial Anıt Sayaç (Monument Counter) creates its own form of evidence by meticulously documenting the name and story of each victim.
Case Laws
While Turkey operates under a civil law system where judicial precedent is not strictly binding, certain landmark cases have become critical reference points in the public and legal struggle against femicide.
- The Murder of Özgecan Aslan (2015): The 2015 case of Özgecan Aslan, a 20-year-old student, marked a grim turning point in the national conversation about male violence following her brutal rape and murder. The sheer horror of the crime, combined with the perpetrators’ attempt to burn her body, ignited unprecedented nationwide protests. Initial media reports were criticized for their graphic details, but the scale of public outrage forced a shift in discourse, compelling media and politicians to address the systemic nature of violence against women. The case brought the concepts of femicide and the “unjust provocation” defense into the mainstream public debate, with millions demanding an end to sentencing reductions for perpetrators of such crimes.
- The Case of Şule Çet (2018): Şule Çet, a 23-year-old university student, died after falling from the 20th floor of a plaza in Ankara. The perpetrators claimed it was suicide. Early media reports reflected this ambiguity. However, a relentless social media campaign under the hashtag #ŞuleÇetİçinAdalet (Justice for Şule Çet), led by feminist groups and lawyers, challenged the official narrative. They highlighted inconsistencies in the defendants’ stories and forensic evidence suggesting sexual assault and murder. The public pressure forced a thorough investigation, leading to the conviction of two men for murder and sexual assault. The case exemplified the power of feminist counter-surveillance in holding both the media and the justice system accountable.
- The Murder of Emine Bulut (2019): The 2019 murder of Emine Bulut forced an unavoidable national reckoning with the ethics of media representation. Her ex-husband murdered her in a café in front of her 10-year-old daughter. A video capturing her final moments, where she screamed, “Ben ölmek istemiyorum” (I don’t want to die), was shared widely online and broadcast by some news channels. The public outcry was twofold: immense grief and anger over the murder, and fierce condemnation of the media for broadcasting a woman’s death. The incident triggered official investigations by Turkey’s media watchdog (RTÜK) and sparked a national conversation on the trauma inflicted by the graphic and sensationalist portrayal of violence.
- The Murder of Pınar Gültekin (2020): The killing of 27-year-old Pınar Gültekin became a symbol of the judiciary’s failings. The perpetrator admitted to the shocking details of the crime, confessing he had strangled her before burning her remains and encasing the body in concrete. In court, he attempted to claim “unjust provocation,” alleging a financial dispute and jealousy. An initial court ruling in 2022 accepted this defense, reducing his sentence from aggravated life imprisonment to 23 years. The decision sparked massive protests and was seen as a judicial betrayal. The media extensively covered the legal battle, and following a strong public and feminist campaign, an appellate court overturned the provocation defense in 2023, restoring the aggravated life sentence. This case starkly illustrates the ongoing battle within the courts over the legitimacy of patriarchal defenses.
Conclusion
The narrative battle surrounding femicide in Turkey is a critical frontier in the fight for women’s rights. The manner in which these crimes are reported is not a peripheral issue; it is central to how society understands, judges, and ultimately tolerates gender-based violence. The prevalent media practices of sensationalism, romanticizing perpetrators’ motives, and scrutinizing victims’ lives actively contribute to a culture of impunity. This is dangerously synergistic with a legal system that permits patriarchal defenses like “unjust provocation” and offers “good conduct” reductions, thereby failing to deliver meaningful justice. These backward-looking trends have been dangerously accelerated by the state’s abandonment of the Istanbul Convention, an act that communicates a clear reversal of its pledge to protect women. However, the darkness of this reality is met with the fierce and organized light of the feminist response. Through meticulous data collection, powerful advocacy, and unwavering solidarity, Turkish feminists and their allies have successfully challenged distorted narratives, held institutions to account, and carved out a public space for truth and dignity. They have proven that change is possible, case by case, hashtag by hashtag. For lasting progress, a systemic overhaul is imperative. This must include legal reform to explicitly recognize femicide and eliminate biased sentencing reductions, coupled with a profound ethical transformation in Turkish journalism toward a rights-centered, gender-sensitive, and restorative approach to reporting violence against women.
FAQs
Q1. What is femicide, and why is it not a specific crime in the Turkish Penal Code?
A: Femicide is a term for gender-based hate crimes where women and girls are killed simply because they are female. It covers a range of murders where the perpetrator’s actions are informed by a sense of superiority, possession, or hatred toward women. Critics argue the lack of a specific crime of “femicide” in the Turkish Penal Code prevents the state from officially acknowledging this gendered motivation, making it harder to design targeted prevention policies.
Q2. How does the Turkish media typically report on femicide cases?
A: Reporting is often problematic. Many outlets focus on sensationalist details, using headlines like “Jealousy Killing” or “Love Tragedy.” This frames the murder as a crime of passion rather than an act of gender-based violence. Furthermore, reports often include details about the victim’s lifestyle, clothing, or relationship status, which can implicitly blame her for the violence she suffered.
Q3. What is the “unjust provocation” defense, and why is it controversial?
A: “Unjust provocation” (haksız tahrik) is a provision in the Turkish Penal Code (Article 29) that allows for a reduced sentence if the defendant can argue they were provoked by the victim’s wrongful act. In femicide cases, perpetrators controversially use this defense by claiming the woman’s desire for a divorce, her refusal to reconcile, or alleged infidelity “provoked” them. Feminist groups argue this is a misogynistic loophole that effectively blames the victim for her own murder and results in unjustly light sentences.
Q4. What was the Istanbul Convention, and why was Turkey’s withdrawal significant?
A: The Istanbul Convention is a comprehensive treaty drafted by the Council of Europe, widely hailed as a landmark legal instrument for preventing and combating violence against women. Notably, Turkey took the lead by becoming the initial country to formally adopt the convention in 2012, with its framework providing the direct inspiration for Turkey’s own domestic Law No. 6284. However, in 2021, Turkey became the first and only country to withdraw, a move seen as a major blow to women’s rights that weakened legal protections and emboldened groups opposing gender equality.
Q5. What can be done to improve media reporting on femicide in Turkey?
A: Improvement requires a multi-faceted approach. Media organizations need to adopt and enforce ethical guidelines for reporting on gender-based violence, focusing on the systemic nature of the crime rather than sensational details. Journalists should be trained to avoid victim-blaming language and to provide context, including information on resources for victims of domestic abuse. Furthermore, civil society and feminist groups can continue to monitor media coverage, publicly call out irresponsible reporting, and promote counter-narratives that honor victims and demand justice.
