Brazen defense from Ahmet Bostancı, who insulted Atatürk…

20-year-old Ahmet Bostancı, who reacted to prayers for Atatürk during the Friday prayer on the 85th anniversary of the passing of the Great Leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Gayrettepe, Istanbul, came out of the mosque and insulted Atatürk with a post on his social media account, saying “Atatürk” He appeared before the judge in the case where he was tried for the crime of “publicly insulting the memory of fame” and requested a prison sentence of 1 year and 6 months to 4 years and 6 months.

The defendant Ahmet Bostancı and his lawyers attended the first hearing at the Anatolian 13th Criminal Court of First Instance.


Defendant Ahmet Bostancı, who made his defense at the hearing after his identification, stated that he made posts containing abusive swear words on his own social media account and said:

“I got angry because a person who introduced himself as an Ataturkist swore at God and the Prophet and said, ‘I’ll fuck that up too.’ I shared as follows. I wrote this insult considering the anonymous account that blasphemed Allah and the Prophet.

Because my religious values ​​were insulted. ‘Die Jew bastard.’ I wrote the comments like, and I wrote the other comments. I later regretted it and deleted it. I wrote such an article in a moment of anger.

The whole incident happened after I shared the video. I had 300 followers, and after the video I had 4,500 followers. My goal was not to become famous.

Even though there was no commemoration of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the sermon, when the imam said ‘Let’s read the Quran to his soul’, I got angry and shot the video. “When the video became known, they started to examine my old posts and the insulting posts came out from there.”


Arguing that he closed his account as a regret, the defendant Ahmet Bostancı continued his statement as follows:

“I know that these insults are not accepted in Islam. Islam is based on good morals. That’s why I regret it. I also regret it in the eyes of the law. I also want to continue my social life.

When I said ‘infidel’, I did not mean Atatürk. The fact that the post coincided with November 10 was not something I planned. I was sharing this kind of posts before that too. I didn’t want to provoke any group.

I just wanted the oppressed Palestinian people to be on the agenda. I targeted Atatürk in my post saying ‘How tormented the people of Salonika must be going through’.

‘Die Jew, you bastard.’ The person I was talking about was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. When I said ‘his statues will crawl like a dog carcass’, I did not mean Ataturk. “I talked about sculptures in general.”


Defendant lawyer Nasip Yıldırım took the floor and stated that all of the posts in question fell within the scope of freedom of expression and that he later deleted many of the posts. In his defense, the defendant’s lawyer said, “As a result of sharing the deleted posts by taking screenshots, he was arrested and his rights were violated, even though they were not among the catalog crimes, due to social media pressure. When his posts are examined, the most disturbing and striking one is ‘Die, Jew, bastard.’ p in the expression. The concept has many meanings when looking at TDK, one of which is ‘unreliable’. “In the meeting I had with my client in prison, my client said that he intended to post as ‘unreliable’,” he said.

The defendant’s lawyers demanded the acquittal and release of their clients.

The public prosecutor, who spoke at the hearing, also stated that the defendant confessed his action, and requested the continuation of his detention, citing the outrage that this crime, which is the subject of the confession, would arouse in the society and the defendant’s existing suspicion of escaping.

Nasip Yıldırım, the defendant’s lawyer who was given the floor again, said, “Some people swear at Allah and the Prophet, but they are not arrested. There is no outrage in anyone. Should there be outrage because it was told to Atatürk? Türkiye belongs to everyone. “The incident should be evaluated within the scope of legal values,” he said.


The court decided to continue the detention of the defendant, taking into account the nature and nature of the crime charged against him, and the moral sensitivity and indignation it caused in the society.