Pınar Selek is a sociologist who has been accused to be the main reason of the bombing in “Mısır Çarşısı” which killed seven people. The irritating and disturbing side about the case is that, she was arrested for being a terrorist and kept in prison for two and a half years. Fake reports were presented against her, and even though the accusation against her was not yet proven she was named a terrorist. The amount of torture she had in the prison is also disturbing. Now she lives in Switzerland where they had seen the violation against her human rights and allowed her to live there. The trial is still unsolved…
Looked from any perspective it is clear that there is an obvious case of human rights violation. The first point of view that is relevant to the mind is libertarianism. Since libertarianism is based upon the idea that liberty has the highest political value, in this case the point of view of Nozick is strictly disregarded and violated. In Pınar Selek’s case, although the main problem is misleading a crime and dooming an innocent person, the real deal is that Selek is not able to have her own rights of liberty as a human! Nozick would have strongly defended Selek and would have presented counter arguments to the state, first being that one’s right of speech, right of freedom to speech is being violated and therefore one’s basic right to live is being violated.
On the other hand Mill’s and Bentham’s point of view is far from this standpoint. In their perspective, the result is the most important thing. Trying to relate this perspective to the case of Selek’s, the assumption that can be made is that, this case supports and symbolizes how the authority disregards so many important violations against human rights. The fact that the law in place can disregard and manipulate this case is a conscious choice made by the officers to satisfy the greater desire of the system.
Ideologies, philosophies and even law can have perspectives and can be used by different sides. The ones who support human rights and freedom, no matter what, would have the same point of view of Nozick, defending the highest political value for a human life. On the other hand Mill and Bentham’s supporters would vouch for the greater value of the majority rather than one’s individual rights.