Tweet
Columns
Turkish Daily News
Jul 13, 2006
Article 301 should be changed
Radikal's Ismet Berkan yesterday talks about the infamous Article 301
of the Turkish Penal Code, responsible for many court cases against
writers and journalists. Berkan says Hrant Dink, editor in chief of
Armenian-language daily Agos, was the most recent victim of 301,
having been given a suspended sentence of six years in prison for
"denigrating Turkishness." Berkan quickly notes that this was the
first jail sentence in a case of "denigrating Turkishness."
Berkan recalls earlier discussions on Article 301 in his column when
Berkan himself, along with a number of other journalists, was tried
for having denigrated Turkishness under Article 301, citing a statement
by Justice Minister Cemil Cicek in those days: "We should see how the
Supreme Court of Appeals will interpret the article. We'll change it
if the law happens to limit the right to freedom of expression." Berkan
contends that now how the law is being applied has become apparent.
Berkan compares Article 301 of the new penal code to Article 159 of the
old code and emphasizes that while the old version of 301 criminalized
"openly insulting" Turkish identity, "denigrating" is enough to be
considered a crime under the new article. Berkan says, insulting or
denigrating Turkish identity should be removed altogether from the
penal law. Although the justice minister assures that many countries
in Europe have the same crime in their penal codes, Berkan wonders
how many people have been tried for this crime in these countries
versus the number of those taken before the court in Turkey.
Another point Berkan makes is that the institutions being protected
>From insult under Article 301 can go to court and defend themselves
without this article. "Why threaten with a jail sentence?" asks
Berkan. If the article should remain in the penal code at least its
wording should be changed back to "openly insulting" as it was in
the previous version, Berkan suggests.
Another problem Berkan sees with the article is the definition of
"Turkishness" as mentioned in this law. The word is dangerous in a
multi-ethnic society, Berkan asserts, and concludes by reiterating
his suggestion that Parliament should move to change Article 301.
Let them talk:
Yeni Safak's Fehmi Koru yesterday in his column wrote about Turkey's
decades-old problem with the Islamic headscarf. Wearing the headscarf
is banned on university campuses, which forces certain female religious
believers to choose between going to school and dressing as dictated
by their beliefs.
We will be seeing coverage of news regarding the headscarf for a long
time, says Koru, who recalls the justice minister's complaint about
members of the judiciary making political statements on the headscarf.
Koru argues that the principle of separation of powers does not mean
a thing in Turkey. The executive branch and the legislative branch
intersect, he asserts, adding that the judicial branch has become
obsessed with separating itself as far as possible from these two
powers. The media, or the so-called fourth power, on the other hand,
is struggling to leave its mark on the country's political agenda,
purposefully keeping the "headscarf" issue hot in an attempt to debase
the government.
Koru then refers to "an institution that should remain outside
of politics," implying the military, and argues that the judiciary
should refrain from giving the impression that its actions are under
the influence of the army. Koru says recent political statements from
top judges do not give that impression, and if the distance between
the three powers can be maintained in this manner, the media will
also be forced to act within its own sphere of activity. The habit of
newspapers and TV channels to turn every issue into an instrument of
political-bashing is a "disease" that can only be cured if all powers
act within their own boundaries.
Koru says the media uses the "headscarf" issue in order to create
tension in society. The government simply has to tolerate the media
getting its hand on the headscarf issue at every opportunity and
political statements from the judiciary. The wisest course of action
would be to turn a deaf ear to news reports on the headscarf, which
the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has nothing to do with, and
listen to objections of the judiciary with utmost respect without
grieving too much for when politics overstates the importance of an
issue, when tension in society rises unnecessarily. The government
should simply "let them talk" and not react.
Koru concludes by asserting that if politicians act wisely, the
principle of separation of powers could be fully established in
the system.
AKP forgot about promises to change the election law:
Prime Minister Erdogan said his government would work to lower the
age of being eligible to be elected to Parliament to 25 before the
next general elections. Asik notes that, according to Turkish law,
amendments made to the election law need to go into force at least one
year before the next elections to be applicable for that election. In
other words, if the change on the age for being elected is not made
before October, it won't be applicable in the next elections.
Asik criticizes the AKP for having forgotten about other promises
such as changing the law on political parties, making changes to the
election system, making the public declaration of property and assets
a law for those in power and abolishing political immunities.
These were promises for changing a faulty election system that brought
to power a party receiving votes from only 25 percent of registered
voters, says Asik, and concludes: "In our tradition, democracy is a
tool used to bring a political party to power. And parties usually
try to figure out ways to stay in power."
Turkish Daily News
Jul 13, 2006
Article 301 should be changed
Radikal's Ismet Berkan yesterday talks about the infamous Article 301
of the Turkish Penal Code, responsible for many court cases against
writers and journalists. Berkan says Hrant Dink, editor in chief of
Armenian-language daily Agos, was the most recent victim of 301,
having been given a suspended sentence of six years in prison for
"denigrating Turkishness." Berkan quickly notes that this was the
first jail sentence in a case of "denigrating Turkishness."
Berkan recalls earlier discussions on Article 301 in his column when
Berkan himself, along with a number of other journalists, was tried
for having denigrated Turkishness under Article 301, citing a statement
by Justice Minister Cemil Cicek in those days: "We should see how the
Supreme Court of Appeals will interpret the article. We'll change it
if the law happens to limit the right to freedom of expression." Berkan
contends that now how the law is being applied has become apparent.
Berkan compares Article 301 of the new penal code to Article 159 of the
old code and emphasizes that while the old version of 301 criminalized
"openly insulting" Turkish identity, "denigrating" is enough to be
considered a crime under the new article. Berkan says, insulting or
denigrating Turkish identity should be removed altogether from the
penal law. Although the justice minister assures that many countries
in Europe have the same crime in their penal codes, Berkan wonders
how many people have been tried for this crime in these countries
versus the number of those taken before the court in Turkey.
Another point Berkan makes is that the institutions being protected
>From insult under Article 301 can go to court and defend themselves
without this article. "Why threaten with a jail sentence?" asks
Berkan. If the article should remain in the penal code at least its
wording should be changed back to "openly insulting" as it was in
the previous version, Berkan suggests.
Another problem Berkan sees with the article is the definition of
"Turkishness" as mentioned in this law. The word is dangerous in a
multi-ethnic society, Berkan asserts, and concludes by reiterating
his suggestion that Parliament should move to change Article 301.
Let them talk:
Yeni Safak's Fehmi Koru yesterday in his column wrote about Turkey's
decades-old problem with the Islamic headscarf. Wearing the headscarf
is banned on university campuses, which forces certain female religious
believers to choose between going to school and dressing as dictated
by their beliefs.
We will be seeing coverage of news regarding the headscarf for a long
time, says Koru, who recalls the justice minister's complaint about
members of the judiciary making political statements on the headscarf.
Koru argues that the principle of separation of powers does not mean
a thing in Turkey. The executive branch and the legislative branch
intersect, he asserts, adding that the judicial branch has become
obsessed with separating itself as far as possible from these two
powers. The media, or the so-called fourth power, on the other hand,
is struggling to leave its mark on the country's political agenda,
purposefully keeping the "headscarf" issue hot in an attempt to debase
the government.
Koru then refers to "an institution that should remain outside
of politics," implying the military, and argues that the judiciary
should refrain from giving the impression that its actions are under
the influence of the army. Koru says recent political statements from
top judges do not give that impression, and if the distance between
the three powers can be maintained in this manner, the media will
also be forced to act within its own sphere of activity. The habit of
newspapers and TV channels to turn every issue into an instrument of
political-bashing is a "disease" that can only be cured if all powers
act within their own boundaries.
Koru says the media uses the "headscarf" issue in order to create
tension in society. The government simply has to tolerate the media
getting its hand on the headscarf issue at every opportunity and
political statements from the judiciary. The wisest course of action
would be to turn a deaf ear to news reports on the headscarf, which
the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has nothing to do with, and
listen to objections of the judiciary with utmost respect without
grieving too much for when politics overstates the importance of an
issue, when tension in society rises unnecessarily. The government
should simply "let them talk" and not react.
Koru concludes by asserting that if politicians act wisely, the
principle of separation of powers could be fully established in
the system.
AKP forgot about promises to change the election law:
Prime Minister Erdogan said his government would work to lower the
age of being eligible to be elected to Parliament to 25 before the
next general elections. Asik notes that, according to Turkish law,
amendments made to the election law need to go into force at least one
year before the next elections to be applicable for that election. In
other words, if the change on the age for being elected is not made
before October, it won't be applicable in the next elections.
Asik criticizes the AKP for having forgotten about other promises
such as changing the law on political parties, making changes to the
election system, making the public declaration of property and assets
a law for those in power and abolishing political immunities.
These were promises for changing a faulty election system that brought
to power a party receiving votes from only 25 percent of registered
voters, says Asik, and concludes: "In our tradition, democracy is a
tool used to bring a political party to power. And parties usually
try to figure out ways to stay in power."