The claim that "he criticises the government only because of his own grievance"
Unfounded
Claim
Fact
The statements this answer rests on come from what Kuytul said in his TV5 interview of 13 December 2019, after his release on 5 December 2019. The same claim was put to him there, and his answer was the calendar.
The sequence the claim sets up is this: first his conferences were obstructed, then he began to criticise the government. The real sequence is the reverse.
The conference cancellations began in 2014. His objections, however, go back much further: in 2003 he opposed the support given to the invasion of Iraq, and from 2011 onwards Syria policy.
"It is not only because 'the conference halls were cancelled and were not given to us'. The cancelling of our conference happened in 2014. But since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and after that the Syria matter of 2011, the starting of the war in Syria, I have been objecting ever since then."
The criticism, then, began eleven years before the event the claim counts as its cause. He himself gives the reason it was not widely heard in those years: his words stayed within the audience in the conference hall, and the internet was not yet used as it is today. A statement being heard late does not mean it was made late.
There is a second point as well: the target of the criticism is not a party but particular decisions — the support given to the invasion of Iraq, Syria policy, the downing of the Russian plane. Saying that a decision has harmed the country does not require having a personal score to settle with whoever made it.
A closely related subject: the claim that he is "on the side of a party or the opposition".
What does the claim rest on?
The logic of the claim is simple and at first sight convincing: if a person only began to speak once they were touched themselves, what they are speaking about is not a principle but their own loss. Here too, the conferences that began to be cancelled in 2014 are given as the starting point of Kuytul's objections to the government.
Though this looks like a claim about intention, it is in fact a claim about dates — and it can be tested against the dates.
The calendar does not confirm the claim
Kuytul's first open objection to government policy dates from 2003: the support given to the United States' invasion of Iraq.
"If you look at the root of it, from the founding of the AK Party onwards, in 2003 the AK Party helped America's invasion of Iraq, it helped through İncirlik even though the motion had not passed; I have been reacting ever since then. You cannot help an unbeliever to kill Muslims. But at that time there was hardly any internet, it was not in use; that is why that voice of mine was not much heard."
His second objection, in 2011, is directed at the policies at the beginning of the war in Syria. The conference cancellations, meanwhile, begin in 2014. The gap between them is eleven years: what the claim counts as the "effect" appeared eleven years before what it counts as the "cause".
"Then why was it not heard at the time?"
That is the reasonable question that comes to mind, and its answer lies at the end of the sentence above: in 2003 the internet was not used on today's scale. The talks of those years reached the audience in the conference hall and rarely went beyond it. The recordings becoming openly available to everyone came much later.
This distinction matters, because the claim in fact confuses two different things: when a view was stated and when it was heard. The recordings show the first.
His first reaction was not to accuse but to give the benefit of the doubt
The conference to be held in Bağcılar, Istanbul on 29 May 2014 was cancelled one or two days before the event. Kuytul says that at the time he did not believe this came from the government; he went to Istanbul despite the cancellation and asked those gathered in front of the hall, "Why would the AK Party do this?" His attitude changed only when the cancellations continued and the minister of the time answered, "such a decision was taken".
Someone acting out of enmity would have found the side to blame at the very first cancellation.
The target is not a party but a decision
The list of his criticisms is not personal either: the support given to the invasion of Iraq, Syria policy, the downing of the Russian plane. On the last of these the question he asks is: "Why did the Turkish state apologise? Just because it felt like it?" In his view that decision was a political mistake and its harm fell on the country. In none of these subjects is the matter the Furkan Foundation or his own conferences.
Injustices that did not touch him
There is another measure he recalls in the same programme: a significant part of the grievances he has defended are not his own. When he spoke for those dismissed from their posts by a decree with the force of law, nothing had touched him.
"Had they done it to me? Was I the one dismissed by a KHK?"
The same measure has worked for circles that are not close to him either. He has also objected to an entire community being left under suspicion because of a crime committed by one person at a foundation known for its closeness to the government. Someone who speaks for their own grievance does not defend the side that has targeted them for years when it is wronged.
Conclusion
If the claim were true, the validity of Kuytul's words would be confined to his own loss. But the dates do not fit: the objections of 2003 and 2011 come before the 2014 the claim counts as the cause. What is more, part of the injustices he has defended never belonged to him at all. That is why the label is "Unfounded".