The topic of discussion is the closure case against the Justice and Development Party (AK Party). Although the case was opened by the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals, we now know that he collected almost all the material used in his indictment from newspapers and TV stations of the Doğan Media Group (DMG). When I became aware of this reality for the first time, I somehow thought it was a matter of convenience. It is easy to wrap up a case by gathering all the material available in the dailies with the largest circulation or from TV news bulletins read and watched by the majority of people.

I have developed doubts about this convenience thesis, since it cannot explain why the same newspapers and news programs are openly defending the indictment's integrity and calling for closure of the AK Party at the expense of their journalistic credibility.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso visited Turkey recently and spoke with all the relevant parties. When he returned to Brussels, Barroso started giving his opinion on the party closure case in Turkey, and his method of criticism has alarmed the pundits in Turkey who were pushing the case to its final destination in their writings. In a country where the chief prosecutor kept his silence, the columnists holding positions at DMG are doing everything in their power to support the official line, and the articles they write are presenting new material for use by the chief prosecutor in his prospective addenda to the indictment.

This is indeed a shameful act.

The pundits have chosen two other targets in addition to Barroso in their diatribes -- Olli Rehn and Joost Lagendijk -- and both are outspoken critics of the closure case in Turkey. Rehn is the person responsible for EU enlargement and in this capacity is a frequent visitor to Turkey, while Lagendijk is the co-chairman of the Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Commission.

They both know almost all there is to know about Turkey.

I have no idea when they first became suspicious that this was an old act by certain intellectuals who always use the secularism issue as leverage whenever they feel their public positions are being threatened. Even the simplest act of religiosity can be condemned as an act against the secularist pillar of Turkey. Last week for example, in one of the papers belonging to the DMG, there were stories of people visiting their religious elder in his home outside İstanbul. Reporters were sent to snoop on the visit and they took pictures of people even after being warned it was private property. The next day the paper printed both pictures of people visiting with long costumes and prayer caps together with pictures of beaten reporters who didn't heed warnings.

With this journalistic fanfare, the media group had scored another victory for its case against the AK Party, although the party had nothing to do with that particular religious community.

Religious groups with their full regalia are a common sight in many Western countries, since the principle of secularism also guarantees the rights of devout people. The idea that secularism can be used to justify suppressing religiously minded people and urging them to live in contradiction to their beliefs is anathema in the Western world.

The same pundits who write unbelievable stories about three prominent European Union politicians and bureaucrats are the ones who have been condemning any act of religiosity as a reactionary rebellion for years. Some of them have been in journalism longer than half a century.

None of them has any democratic credibility and they don't care for democratic standards in the slightest. Many of them have supported every military intervention, and even the leader of the Sept. 12, 1980, military coup, Gen. Kenan Evren, wrote a book labeling them people without backbones since they change their positions so easily. Not long after the military takeover of 1980 they slapped the military rulers on the back and condemned the politicians in their columns, but when the military rulers decided to lift the ban on politicians, they took a position on the side of the politicians whom they had previously condemned.

They do it every time: They accuse politicians of betraying secularist principles, call for instant action and praise the coup-plotters. When democracy returns they discover their raison d'être at some point and start doing the rounds all over again.

We know who they are and they have no credibility whatsoever in Turkey. Now it's time for our friends in the West to make their acquaintance.  

Better late than never.