Dijital Çağda Din veya İnanç Özgürlüğünün Güvenlikleştirilmesi

Abstract

Bu makale din veya inanç özgürlüğü ile güvenlik ilişkisinin dijital ve yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin etkisiyle uğradığı dönüşüme odaklanmaktadır. Foucault’nun iktidar kuramı ve Balzacq’ın güvenlikleştirmeyi uygulama rejimleri olarak yeniden kavramsallaştıran yaklaşımı teorik çerçeveyi oluşturmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda çalışma, uygulama rejimlerinin dört boyutu olan görünürlük, bilgi üretimi, müdahale ve özneleşme ekseninde Çin’in Uygurlu Müslümanlara yönelik dijital gözetimini, Fransa’nın terörle mücadele politikalarını ve devletler ile platformların dijital dini içeriğe müdahale biçimlerini incelemektedir. Araştırma bulgularına dayanarak dini kimlik ve pratiklerin güvenlikleştirilmesinin söyleme dayalı bir sürecin ötesinde taşındığı, dini alanın dijital altyapılar, yapay zekâ tabanlı veri işleme mekanizmaları ve algoritmik sınıflandırmalar üzerinden işleyen rutinleştirilmiş güvenlik pratiklerinin parçası haline geldiği ortaya konulmaktadır. Devletlerin yanı sıra dijital platformların da güvenlikleştirici aktörler haline gelmesi, dini pratik ve ifadeler risk parametrelerine, dindar bireyler de dijital izleri üzerinden kategorize edilen güvenlik öznelerine dönüşmesi din veya inanç özgürlüğün giderek veri-odaklı yönetişim mantığına göre şekillendiğini göstermektedir. Uluslararası insan hakları hukukuna göre belirli şartlar altında sınırlanabilen forum externum (dinin dışsal tezahürü) sürekli gözetim ve düzenleme konusu haline gelirken, dokunulmaz kabul edilen forum internum (içsel inanç alanı) üzerinde de dolaylı baskı mekanizmaları oluşmaktadır.

Keywords

• Din veya İnanç Özgürlüğü
• Veri-odaklı Yönetişim
• Güvenlikleştirme
• Dijital Gözetim
• Algoritmik İçerik Denetimi.

The Securitization of Freedom of Religion or Belief in The Digital Age

Abstract

This article investigates the transformation of the relationship between freedom of religion or belief and security through the effects of digitalization and artificial intelligence. Foucault’s power theory and Balzacq’s reconceptualization of securitization as regimes of practices form the theoretical basis. In this regard, the study examines China’s digital surveillance of Uyghur Muslims, France’s counter-terrorism policies and the ways in which states and digital platforms intervene in digital religious expression. The research findings indicate that the securitization of religious identity and practices has moved beyond a discursive process. The religious sphere is becoming part of routinized security practices operating through digital infrastructures, AI-based data processing mechanisms and algorithmic classifications. In this process, digital platforms have become securitizing actors alongside states, religious practices and expressions are being transformed into risk parameters and religious individuals into security subjects categorized based on their digital traces. In this manner, freedom of religion or belief is increasingly being reshaped based on data-driven governance logic. While forum externum (external manifestation of religion), which can be restricted under certain conditions according to international human rights law, has become the subject of continuous surveillance and regulation, indirect pressure mechanisms are also emerging on forum internum (internal belief), which is considered inviolable.

Keywords

• Freedom of Religion or Belief
• Data-driven Governance
• Securitization
• Digital Surveillance
• Algorithmic Content Moderation.

References

1. Amnesty International. (2017). Dangerously disproportionate: The ever-expanding national security state in Europe. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur01/5342/2017/en/
2. Amnesty International. (2021). “Like we were enemies in a war”: China’s mass internment, torture and persecution of Muslims in Xinjiang. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa17/4137/2021/en/
3. Anti-Defamation League, Avaaz, Decode Democracy, Mozilla ve New America’s Open Technology Institute. (t.y.). How artificial intelligence fuels online disinformation: Content moderation. https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/campaigns/trained-for-deception-how-artificial-intelligence-fuels-online-disinformation/content-moderation/
4. Ashraf, C. (2022). Exploring the impacts of artificial intelligence on freedom of religion or belief online. The International Journal of Human Rights, 26(5), 757-791. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1968376
5. Baker-Beall, C., ve Clark, R. (2021). A “Post-Copenhagen” analysis of China’s securitization of the Uyghur: A counterproductive securitization? Democracy and Security, 17(4), 427-454. https://doi.org/10.1080/17419166.2021.2020037
6. Balzacq, T. (2005). The three faces of securitization: Political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 171-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066105052960
7. Balzacq, T. (2019). Securitization theory: Past, present, and future. Polity, 51(2), 331-348. https://doi.org/10.1086/701884
8. Bhuiyan, J. (2021, 30 Eylül). ‘There’s cameras everywhere’: Testimonies detail far-reaching surveillance of Uyghurs in China. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/30/uyghur-tribunal-testimony-surveillance-china

9. Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives, 27(1), 63-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754020270S105
10. Birol, A. F. (2024). Güvenliğin biyopolitikası, immunitas ve uluslararası ilişkiler. İmgelem, 15, 387-412. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1479257
11. Bukovská, B. (2019). The European Commission’s Code of Conduct for Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online: An analysis of freedom of expression implications. Article 19. https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Bukovska.pdf Buzan, B., Wæver, O., ve de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
12. Byler, D. (2019, 11 Nisan). China’s hi-tech war on its Muslim minority. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/apr/11/china-hi-tech-war-on-muslim-minority-xinjiang-uighurs-surveillance-face-recognition
13. Cesari, J. (2021). Securitization and laïcité: The two main challenges of French Islam [Sempozyum sunumu]. Symposium on The State of Muslim Minorities in Contemporary Democracies, International Institute of Islamic Thought. https://iiit.org/en/securitization-and-laicite-the-two-main-challenges-of-french-islam/
14. Chandler, D. (2020). The rise of data-driven governance. Current History, 119(813), 3-8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48614495
15. Chen, G. (2022). How equalitarian regulation of online hate speech turns authoritarian: A Chinese perspective. Journal of Media Law, 14(1), 159-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2085013
16. Council of Europe. (1950). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_tur
17. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). SAGE.
18. Dencik, L., Redden, J., Hintz, A., ve Warne, H. (2019). The ‘golden view’: Data-driven governance in the scoring society. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1413
19. Dwyer, M. P., ve Patel, F. (2021a, 1 Kasım). Facebook’s new dangerous individuals and organizations policy brings more questions than answers. Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/77503/facebooks-new-dangerous-individuals-and-organizations-policy-brings-more-questions-than-answers/
20. Dwyer, M. P., ve Patel, F. (2021b, 20 Temmuz). So, what does Facebook take down? The secret list of ‘dangerous’ individuals and organizations. Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/78786/so-what-does-facebook-take-down-the-secret-list-of-dangerous-individuals-and-organizations/
21. Elnakhala, D. (2021). National counter-terrorism responses: France. P. Burke, D. Elnakhala ve S. Miller (Ed.), Global jihadist terrorism: Terrorist groups, zones of armed conflict and national counter-terrorism strategies içinde (ss. 253-276). Edward Elgar Publishing.
22. European Commission. (2016). Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/code-conduct-countering-illegal-hate-speech-online
23. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Çev.). Vintage Books. (Orijinal eserin yayın tarihi 1975)
24. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Pantheon Books.
25. Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-1976 (M. Bertani ve A. Fontana, Ed.; D. Macey, Çev.). Picador. (Orijinal eserin yayın tarihi 1997)
26. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-1978 (M. Senellart, Ed.; G. Burchell, Çev.). Palgrave Macmillan. (Orijinal eserin yayın tarihi 2004)
27. Freschi, R. (2022, 2 Mart). “We are beginning to spread terror”: The state-sponsored persecution of Muslims in France. CAGE International. https://www.cage.ngo/articles/we-are-beginning-to-spread-terror-the-state-sponsored-persecution-of-muslims-in-france
28. Gabon, A. (2024, 24 Ocak). France: State Islamophobia under President Emmanuel Macron. Bridge Initiative, Georgetown University. https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/france-state-islamophobia-under-president-emmanuel-macron/
29. George, A. L., ve Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
30. Ghanea, N. (2024). Hatred on the basis of religion or belief (A/HRC/55/47). United Nations Human Rights Council. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5547-hatred-basis-religion-or-belief-special-rapporteur-freedom
31. Gillespie, T. (2020). Content moderation, AI, and the question of scale. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720943234
32. Gollatz, K. (2018, 9 Ağustos). Removals of online hate speech in numbers. HIIG Digital Society Blog. https://www.hiig.de/en/removals-of-online-hate-speech-numbers/
33. Gorwa, R., Binns, R., ve Katzenbach, C. (2020). Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society, 7(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945
34. Greitens, S. C., Lee, M., ve Yazici, E. (2020). Counterterrorism and preventive repression: China’s changing strategy in Xinjiang. International Security, 44(3), 9-47. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00368
35. Hochmann, T. (2022). Hate speech online: The government as regulator and as speaker. Journal of Media Law, 14(1), 139-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2085014
36. Hoja, G. (2024, 18 Nisan). China bans Uyghurs from using social media apps. Radio Free Asia. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/app-ban-04182024145545.html
37. Human Rights Watch. (2018a). “Eradicating ideological viruses”: China’s campaign of repression against Xinjiang’s Muslims. https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/09/10/eradicating-ideological-viruses/chinas-campaign-repression-against-xinjiangs
38. Human Rights Watch. (2018b). Germany: Flawed social media law: NetzDG is wrong response to online abuse. https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/germany-flawed-social-media-law
39. Human Rights Watch. (2019a). China’s algorithms of repression: Reverse engineering a Xinjiang police mass surveillance app. https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/05/01/chinas-algorithms-repression/reverse-engineering-xinjiang-police-mass-surveillance-app
40. Human Rights Watch. (2019b). Interview: China’s “Big Brother” app. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/05/01/interview-chinas-big-brother-app
41. Kaye, D. (2019). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the freedom of opinion and expression (A/74/486). United Nations. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n19/308/13/pdf/n1930813.pdf
42. Khatchadourian, R. (2021, 5 Nisan). Surviving the crackdown in Xinjiang. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang
43. La Quadrature du Net. (2023, 5 Haziran). Criminalization of encryption: The 8 December case. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2023/06/05/criminalization-of-encryption-the-8-december-case/
44. Lahnait, F. (2021). Combatting radicalisation in France: From experimentation to professionalisation. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals, (128), 105-125.
45. Lavery, K. (2021). 2021 Factsheet: Protecting religious freedom online. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/2021%20Factsheet%20-%20Protecting%20Religious%20Freedom%20Online.pdf
46. Leffler, M. P. (1990). National security. The Journal of American History, 77(1), 143-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2078646
47. Leibold, J. (2020). Surveillance in China’s Xinjiang region: Ethnic sorting, coercion, and inducement. Journal of Contemporary China, 29(121), 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2019.1621529
48. Mavelli, L. (2013). Between normalisation and exception: The securitization of Islam and the construction of the secular subject. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 41(2), 159-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829812463655
49. Mayer-Schoenberger, V., ve K. Cukier. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. John Murray Publishers.
50. McDonald, M. (2008). Securitization and the construction of security. European Journal of International Relations, 14(4), 563-587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066108097553
51. Mchangama, J., ve Fiss, J. (2019). The digital Berlin Wall: How Germany (accidentally) created a prototype for global online censorship. Justitia.
52. Merriam, S. B., ve Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4. baskı). Jossey-Bass.
53. Mozur, P. (2018, 15 Ekim). A genocide incited on Facebook, with posts from Myanmar’s military. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html
54. OSCE/ODIHR. (2019). Freedom of religion or belief and security: Policy guidance. OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. https://cdn.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/e/2/429389.pdf
55. Oversight Board. (2024, 26 Mart). Referring to designated dangerous individuals as “Shaheed”. Meta Oversight Board. https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/pao-lopp03uk/
56. Oztig, L. I., ve Karluk, A. C. (2025). China’s high-tech repression against Uyghurs: Novel theoretical insights. Palgrave Macmillan.
57. Pagotto, T., ve Marcar, G. P. (2024). Introduction: From spaces of tension, to spaces of conversation: Freedom of religion or belief and national security. T. Pagotto, J. M. Roose ve G. P. Marcar (Ed.), Security, religion, and the rule of law: International perspectives içinde (ss. 1-8). Routledge.
58. Ragazzi, F. (2023). Counter-radicalization, Islam and Laïcité: Policed multiculturalism in France’s Banlieues. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 46(4), 707-727. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2022.2032248
59. Ranchordas, S., ve Klop, A. (2018). Data-driven regulation and governance in smart cities. A. Berlee, V. Mak ve E. Tjong Tjin Tai (Ed.), Research handbook on data science and law içinde (ss. 245-273). Edward Elgar.
60. Sander, B. (2020). Freedom of expression in the age of online platforms: The promise and pitfalls of a human rights-based approach to content moderation. Fordham International Law Journal, 43(4), 939-1002.
61. Scott, M. (2021, 25 Ekim). Facebook did little to moderate posts in the world’s most violent countries. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/25/facebook-moderate-posts-violent-countries-517050
62. Seawright, J., ve Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294-308.
63. Shaheed, A. (2019a). Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance: Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/74/358). United Nations General Assembly. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a74358-report-combating-antisemitism-eliminate-discrimination-and
64. Shaheed, A. (2019b). Freedom of religion or belief: Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/HRC/40/58). United Nations Human Rights Council. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc4058-freedom-religion-or-belief-report-special-rapporteur-freedom
65. Shaheed, A. (2021). Countering Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred to eliminate discrimination and intolerance based on religion or belief: Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/HRC/46/30). United Nations Human Rights Council. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc4630-countering-islamophobiaanti-muslim-hatred-eliminate
66. Şimşek, S. S. (2026). Gözlemsel egemenlik: Siyasi temsiliyet olarak algoritmik gözetim. İmgelem, 19, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1884657
67. Şirin, T., Duymaz, E., ve Yıldız, D. (2016). Türkiye’de din ve vicdan özgürlüğü: Sorunlar, tespitler ve çözüm önerileri. Türkiye Barolar Birliği.
68. Tréguer, F. (2021). Overview of France’s intelligence legal framework. Centre de recherches internationales. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01399548v2
69. U.S. Department of State. (t.y.). International Religious Freedom Reports. https://www.state.gov/international-religious-freedom-reports/
70. UN Human Rights Committee. (1993). CCPR General Comment No. 22: Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion). United Nations. https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/hrc/1993/en/13375
71. United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
72. United Nations. (t.y.). İnsan Hakları Evrensel Beyannamesi. https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/turkish-turkce
73. USCIRF. (2026). Annual Report 2026. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/USCIRF_2026_AR_3326_NEW.pdf
74. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197-208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776