Tweet
HEEDLESSNESS AND ABERRATION CONTEST: ARTICLE 301
Omer Lutfa° Mete
Turkish Daily News
April 18 2008
Debates over Article 301 of the penal code are a contest of overlooking
and aberration.
One side asserts that'll be freedom to insults to Turkish identity
as the other claims an obstruction before the freedom of expression
is being lifted.
Neither is true!
Pro-change group says "The Republic of Turkey killed Armenian-Turkish
journalist Hrant Dink, let's remove this shame."
And the other group says "Whoever insults the Turkish identity should
be killed!"
I exaggerated it, didn't I?
But to prove the dimensions of this debate, positions need to be put
under microscope.
And if you examine anything under a microscope it seems larger!
The poles of this tension give the above impression.
Meanwhile the Western world believes we're in a great deal of
polarization so much that we're divided in two.
A group of Westerners say "Yes, Article 301 killed Dink and you better
change it."
The other say, "Even if so, the article cannot be amended; otherwise
it'll be free to insult Turkish identity."
Under these circumstances, you decide if the debate over the article is
political and ideological or a contest of heedlessness and aberration?
--Boundary_(ID_d+L2MPP0U1QHoAYw599/9Q )--
Omer Lutfa° Mete
Turkish Daily News
April 18 2008
Debates over Article 301 of the penal code are a contest of overlooking
and aberration.
One side asserts that'll be freedom to insults to Turkish identity
as the other claims an obstruction before the freedom of expression
is being lifted.
Neither is true!
Pro-change group says "The Republic of Turkey killed Armenian-Turkish
journalist Hrant Dink, let's remove this shame."
And the other group says "Whoever insults the Turkish identity should
be killed!"
I exaggerated it, didn't I?
But to prove the dimensions of this debate, positions need to be put
under microscope.
And if you examine anything under a microscope it seems larger!
The poles of this tension give the above impression.
Meanwhile the Western world believes we're in a great deal of
polarization so much that we're divided in two.
A group of Westerners say "Yes, Article 301 killed Dink and you better
change it."
The other say, "Even if so, the article cannot be amended; otherwise
it'll be free to insult Turkish identity."
Under these circumstances, you decide if the debate over the article is
political and ideological or a contest of heedlessness and aberration?
--Boundary_(ID_d+L2MPP0U1QHoAYw599/9Q )--