​Open Letter to Judge Jeremy Johnson from a Turkish Judge

​The honorouble Mr. Justice Jeremy Johnson,

I regret to say that the door opened by your ruling in the "Filton 4" case signifies the implementation—at the hands of a judge—of a permanent and systemic threat to the rights and freedoms of your fellow citizens. Yet, the deliberations on the 1937 Geneva Conventionfor the prevention and the punishment of terrorizm had left behind a lesson that ought to be borne in mind at all times.. During those proceedings, the United Kingdom’s representative argued that the proposed convention regarding the link between terrorism and crime carried the risk of "destroying the freedoms that the United Kingdom jealously guards," and consequently refrained from signing the agreement.

This crucial foresight, articulated by British diplomacy nearly a century ago, appears—regrettably—to have been vindicated once again by the "Filton 4" desicion Moreover, this decision marks the crossing of a historical threshold far more serious than the "danger" that was originally foreseen. While citizens are being dragged toward an uncertain and insecure future by arbitrary decisions, the courts are simultaneously being transformed into instruments for for legalising unlawfullness. The ruling is alarming, above all, because it sets in motion these two grave dangers.

Your Honour

I am writing to you as a colleague who has served as a judge for 26 years in a country—Turkey—that has long since crossed the threshold into authoritarianism. My country is a prime example of a place where tens of thousands of citizens have been imprisoned on terrorism charges for decades—a practice that continues to this day. The situation had become so dire that, a few years ago, I even wrote a newspaper article titled "How Did We All Become Terrorists?" Just a few days ago, members of a foundation dedicated to combating soil erosion and reforestation—which uses the slogan "Let Turkey Not Turn into a Desert"—were arrested on terrorism charges. The prosecutor alleged that the foundation members were "preparing for a terrorist act," and the court ordered the arrest of individuals whose only actual activity had been attending a picnic at a bird sanctuary. You might initially find this decision utterly unbelievable and absurd. If so, it indicates that you still view the world with a degree of good will—which is, in itself, very promising. Yet, this decision handed down in Turkey just days ago is not a figment of the imagination; it is reality. Just as the "Filton 4" ruling was a reality. Indeed, this indiscriminate use of terrorism charges fosters a catastrophic judicial culture in which the absurd and the real become inextricably intertwined.

Your Honour

Efforts to incorporate the concept of terrorism—a category that is highly ambiguous and open to arbitrary application—into criminal law have initiated a process that erodes the citizen and their rights, just as British diplomacy warned decades ago. Indeed, as P. Hillyard aptly emphasized, because the discourse on terrorism leads to the creation of a "community" within the country labelled as "terrorist"—distinct from that of the "citizen"—the danger threatens not merely specific groups but all citizens of the United Kingdom. In this way, the legal sphere is fractured between "citizen" and "terrorist," and the profound ambiguity between the two is filled with arbitrary interpretations.

We must recognize this reality and take urgent measures: since the 1970s, a new type of regime—along with a corresponding institutional and cultural structure—has been under construction through anti-terrorism rhetoric; yet, regrettably, neither politicians, legal professionals, nor the academic community have adequately grasped the threats posed by these developments.

Your Honour

​The "Filton 4" ruling demonstrates that we need to recall—and remind others of—the lesson British diplomacy learned back in 1937. Otherwise, we risk reviving, through a misunderstanding, an ancient practice of the British judicial tradition that ought to remain forgotten: William the Conqueror introduced "trial by battle" to England as a judicial custom. We now face the danger of transforming this into a formula of "battle by trial."

I hope you will ensure that the United Kingdom “continues to jealously guard its freedoms” by revisiting the Filton 4 decision…

Please accept my respects. I wish you success in your judicial work.

Dr. Orhan Gazi ERTEKİN

Judge (retired)

0 5052749158

[email protected]