Tweet
The Daily Star, Lebanon
Oct 13 2006
A French law harms free speech in Turkey
By Howard Eissenstat
Commentary by
Friday, October 13, 2006
On October 12, France's National Assembly approved a proposal to
criminalize the denial of the Armenian Genocide. If it also passes
the Senate and receives presidential approval, the law will be a blow
to freedom of speech in France; more importantly, it will also be a
blow to freedom of speech in Turkey.
For advocates of free speech in Turkey, the past few years have been
a time both of great hopes and great frustration. In 2003 and 2004,
when the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party government
of Prime Minister Reccep Tayyip Erdogan first came to power, it
seemed to promise a new, more democratic and pluralistic Turkey. In
those heady days, it seemed that Turkey was poised to achieve its
long-term goal of membership in the European Union.
For the past year or two, however, such hopes have seemed
increasingly Pollyannaish as Turkish reforms have stumbled. Most
dramatically, a steady stream of Turkey's most prominent
intellectuals, journalists, and authors have been brought to trial
under the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish criminal code, which
makes it a criminal offense, punishable by as many as three years in
prison, to "denigrate Turkishness." The international stature of
several of those accused, including novelists Orhan Pamuk and Elif
Shafak, have ensured widespread media coverage of the trials and a
steady decline in Turkey's stature abroad. Even as charges against
one intellectual were dropped, several more cases emerged in steady
succession, so that they have remained in the news and become a
constant drain on Turkey's international standing.
On September 21, Elif Shafak's case was thrown out of court as
baseless. The charges against her, based on what a character in one
of her novels said, was only the most absurd in a long series of
embarrassing trials. Nevertheless, within a matter of days, new
charges were brought up against Hrant Dink, the publisher of a small
Armenian newspaper.
In fact, this situation appears to be part of a concerted effort by
members of the old elite within the bureaucracy and the military and
their allies to sabotage both the Erdogan government and Turkey's
European aspirations. The liberalization promised by the government -
and demanded by the EU - placed elements of the old elite in a
dilemma. Many in the Turkish bureaucracy, and particularly within the
military, believe it is their right and duty to shepherd Turkey
toward modernization. Elected officials are seen as too corrupt and
the populace as too ignorant and fickle to be trusted with
stewardship of the nation. When legal limitations are insufficient
for maintaining control, a murky system of patronage, strong-arm
tactics, and outright violence that the Turks refer to as the "deep
state" can be relied on to keep both politicians and ordinary
citizens in line. The liberalization demanded by the EU and the
reforms implemented early on by the Erdogan government threaten this
monopoly on real power.
In recent weeks, the battle between the government and elements of
the Turkish state has become more heated, with generals warning of
the threats of political Islam almost on a daily basis. Yet,
advocates of free speech have gained significant popular support. The
public, seeing the ludicrous nature of the Article 301 trials, has
started accepting the virtues of defending unpopular opinions. Both
Erdogan and his foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, called Shafak while
she awaited trial to demonstrate their support. For a time it seemed
a corner had been turned, and advocates of free expression were
starting to feel hopeful.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
All of this came to a crashing halt thanks to the debate in France's
National Assembly over the proposed law to criminalize denial of the
Armenian genocide. The law is a bad idea for France and, more
importantly, it has proven to be a tremendous blow to Turkish reform.
History is not the issue. If we accept the definition of genocide
used in the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, there is no
question that the Ottoman state's destruction of much of its Armenian
population between 1915 and 1917 was genocidal. In dispute is whether
denial of this fact should constitute a crime. After all, freedom of
speech is the right to say what one believes, even if those beliefs
are stupid, wrong, or offensive. Indeed, it is often beliefs that are
offensive that require protection since they are most likely to be
limited by state power.
This has been the argument that Turkish liberals have been making as
they have tried to build a more open and democratic society. This is
the argument that has created space for public discussions of the
Armenian genocide and for advocates of Turkish recognition of the
crime, like Dink and Shafak. Despite significant pressure against
this, openings have been made, conferences held, and articles
written.
Now, however, discussion of Article 301 has almost completely
disappeared from the Turkish public sphere while newspapers endlessly
discuss the French proposal. The draft law, moreover, has allowed the
most anti-democratic elements in Turkish society to pose as
"defenders of liberty." Turkish intellectuals who had been exerting
their energy to develop greater awareness of the Armenian genocide,
or simply working for more freedom, have been forced to suspend their
criticisms of Article 301 to argue against the French law. They
realize that defending the freedom to express unpopular opinions in
Turkey requires that they also defend unpopular opinions in France.
Criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide tarnishes France's
reputation as a bastion of freedom of expression. More seriously, it
will be a devastating blow to freedom of speech in Turkey.
Howard Eissenstat teaches Middle Eastern history at Seton Hall
University in New Jersey. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY
STAR.
Oct 13 2006
A French law harms free speech in Turkey
By Howard Eissenstat
Commentary by
Friday, October 13, 2006
On October 12, France's National Assembly approved a proposal to
criminalize the denial of the Armenian Genocide. If it also passes
the Senate and receives presidential approval, the law will be a blow
to freedom of speech in France; more importantly, it will also be a
blow to freedom of speech in Turkey.
For advocates of free speech in Turkey, the past few years have been
a time both of great hopes and great frustration. In 2003 and 2004,
when the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party government
of Prime Minister Reccep Tayyip Erdogan first came to power, it
seemed to promise a new, more democratic and pluralistic Turkey. In
those heady days, it seemed that Turkey was poised to achieve its
long-term goal of membership in the European Union.
For the past year or two, however, such hopes have seemed
increasingly Pollyannaish as Turkish reforms have stumbled. Most
dramatically, a steady stream of Turkey's most prominent
intellectuals, journalists, and authors have been brought to trial
under the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish criminal code, which
makes it a criminal offense, punishable by as many as three years in
prison, to "denigrate Turkishness." The international stature of
several of those accused, including novelists Orhan Pamuk and Elif
Shafak, have ensured widespread media coverage of the trials and a
steady decline in Turkey's stature abroad. Even as charges against
one intellectual were dropped, several more cases emerged in steady
succession, so that they have remained in the news and become a
constant drain on Turkey's international standing.
On September 21, Elif Shafak's case was thrown out of court as
baseless. The charges against her, based on what a character in one
of her novels said, was only the most absurd in a long series of
embarrassing trials. Nevertheless, within a matter of days, new
charges were brought up against Hrant Dink, the publisher of a small
Armenian newspaper.
In fact, this situation appears to be part of a concerted effort by
members of the old elite within the bureaucracy and the military and
their allies to sabotage both the Erdogan government and Turkey's
European aspirations. The liberalization promised by the government -
and demanded by the EU - placed elements of the old elite in a
dilemma. Many in the Turkish bureaucracy, and particularly within the
military, believe it is their right and duty to shepherd Turkey
toward modernization. Elected officials are seen as too corrupt and
the populace as too ignorant and fickle to be trusted with
stewardship of the nation. When legal limitations are insufficient
for maintaining control, a murky system of patronage, strong-arm
tactics, and outright violence that the Turks refer to as the "deep
state" can be relied on to keep both politicians and ordinary
citizens in line. The liberalization demanded by the EU and the
reforms implemented early on by the Erdogan government threaten this
monopoly on real power.
In recent weeks, the battle between the government and elements of
the Turkish state has become more heated, with generals warning of
the threats of political Islam almost on a daily basis. Yet,
advocates of free speech have gained significant popular support. The
public, seeing the ludicrous nature of the Article 301 trials, has
started accepting the virtues of defending unpopular opinions. Both
Erdogan and his foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, called Shafak while
she awaited trial to demonstrate their support. For a time it seemed
a corner had been turned, and advocates of free expression were
starting to feel hopeful.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
All of this came to a crashing halt thanks to the debate in France's
National Assembly over the proposed law to criminalize denial of the
Armenian genocide. The law is a bad idea for France and, more
importantly, it has proven to be a tremendous blow to Turkish reform.
History is not the issue. If we accept the definition of genocide
used in the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, there is no
question that the Ottoman state's destruction of much of its Armenian
population between 1915 and 1917 was genocidal. In dispute is whether
denial of this fact should constitute a crime. After all, freedom of
speech is the right to say what one believes, even if those beliefs
are stupid, wrong, or offensive. Indeed, it is often beliefs that are
offensive that require protection since they are most likely to be
limited by state power.
This has been the argument that Turkish liberals have been making as
they have tried to build a more open and democratic society. This is
the argument that has created space for public discussions of the
Armenian genocide and for advocates of Turkish recognition of the
crime, like Dink and Shafak. Despite significant pressure against
this, openings have been made, conferences held, and articles
written.
Now, however, discussion of Article 301 has almost completely
disappeared from the Turkish public sphere while newspapers endlessly
discuss the French proposal. The draft law, moreover, has allowed the
most anti-democratic elements in Turkish society to pose as
"defenders of liberty." Turkish intellectuals who had been exerting
their energy to develop greater awareness of the Armenian genocide,
or simply working for more freedom, have been forced to suspend their
criticisms of Article 301 to argue against the French law. They
realize that defending the freedom to express unpopular opinions in
Turkey requires that they also defend unpopular opinions in France.
Criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide tarnishes France's
reputation as a bastion of freedom of expression. More seriously, it
will be a devastating blow to freedom of speech in Turkey.
Howard Eissenstat teaches Middle Eastern history at Seton Hall
University in New Jersey. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY
STAR.