The common and communal indignation created by Özgecan’s brutal murder is not an ordinary reaction. It’s pointing at the innocence, randomness of brutality, the fact that such brutality is waiting around the corner, and more importantly, the ailing sexual view on women and the state of insecurity, worry and rage created by that view.

This nation, country had felt Özgecan in their hearts.

They shared the rage.

The “which women” and indirectly “which men” arguments, which started after the murder, or the instrumentalization of this death or violence within this frame is distorting the issue sideways.

The view on the body, women, the understanding of liberty and ethics will of course be debated in a political aspect.

The political and communal oppression, which is being created by some of these understandings, is surely one of the indirect instruments and beds of many problems and violence.

However, the issue is beyond that.

The Conservatives’ definition of women and view on women, and, the Seculars’ view on women and women definition, their understanding of protection, pointing at the value systems as being responsible for violence and brutality and accusing the value systems is only forming a part of the issue, only the secondary part of it.

Likewise, we are not only facing a culture issue.

There is a joint mentality issue towards all the different cultures.

The numbers in Turkey are obvious; “In 2013, men had killed 214 people. Out of every ten women, one of them had been heavily wounded, despite notifying the administrative heads, police forces and prosecutors countless times.

Women experienced violence from their husbands the most, 15 percent of them had been killed for wanting to divorce their husbands. As for the 52 percent of the rapists, they were men they knew. And 36 percent of the rape incidents had been actualized in the women’s house… According to the result of an investigation, which had been done on the directives of the Prime Ministry of Family Research Association, in 34 percent of the families in Turkey, physical damage is being inflicted, while in 53 percent of the houses verbal violence is being inflicted and in-door violence is being experienced intensely….”

The numbers in the world are similar; let’s read from open sources:

In the world, one out of every four families, from every race and country, is experiencing in-door violence.

“In the  world in general, one out of every four women are exposed to domestic violence in their lives.”

 (Council of Europe, 2002; BMA 1998; British Home Office Research Study, 1999).

Even just the witnesses are stating that the essence of this brutality and violence is not denominational; thus, it is not limited to a couple of communal segments.

Because, violence and brutality are sexist.

The difference among modern or conservative men is only in their moves, types, symbols and places.

The issue is a security issue.

The issue of humane security….

Since the day it was first used by the United Nations in 1994, the notion of “humane security”, which is standing against notions like “national security” and “security of the public” is sitting right in the center of the issue. In short, “humane security” can be identified as “being safe from fear”, “being safe from indigence” or “the right to live in wealth”.

“The right to be safe from fear” is pointing at living the daily life within that fear that is far from any violence in the world.

Men’s violence, sexist violence directed at women, is Turkey’s biggest issue.

Women are the unarmored targets of a husband, lover, the streets, the family and tribal violence.

This violence is way ahead of daily life violence, domestic security and national security and must be taken seriously as a threat to security.

What we need is a humane politics policy, not the National Security Policy document or Internal Security legislation.

Words are not enough….

It requires political, communal and judiciary mobilization.