Tweet
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
Jan 11 2008
HOPES LOW FOR CLARIFYING ANTI-`TURKISHNESS' CONCEPT
By Burak Bekdil
Friday, January 11, 2008
The infamous Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, which outlaws
`humiliating Turkishness,' has been the focal point of criticism that
the country lacks decent legislation allowing free speech.
Knowing that, Turkey's pro-EU government is working to amend that
article, but in a way that will probably not please anyone. The
current, very vague definition of what constitutes an offense is
about to be `softened,' but the new version may not be any better.
Even worse, there is no consensus on the amendment, even within the
ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). The government has now
delayed a vote on the proposed changes in parliament until next week
(Turkish Daily News, Today's Zaman, January 9).
Under the current penal code, Article 301 makes denigrating
"Turkishness" or insulting the country's institutions a crime that
can be punished by up to three years in prison.
The law has been used more than 60 times against writers and
intellectuals -- including Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk and slain
ethnic-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink -- since it went into effect
June 2005 (Today's Zaman, January 9).
Working together, Deputy Prime Minister (and former minister of
justice) Cemil Cicek and incumbent Minister of Justice Mehmet Ali
Sahin announced on January 7 that under the amended provision,
prosecutors must obtain permission from the Justice Ministry to be
able to press charges and that the ambiguous word "Turkishness" would
be replaced with `the Turkish nation' (Today's Zaman, January 9).
Cicek is known to have objected to the amendment, arguing that many
EU-member countries have similar articles in their penal codes. Cicek
also argued that the new practice would turn justice ministers, who
will have to make the decision whether to endorse prosecution, into
targets (Today's Zaman, January 9).
Overall, the proposed amendment has not impressed intellectuals
inside Turkey, and it was not clear how effectively it would prevent
nationalist prosecutors from pressing charges against opinion-makers
for their speeches or writings.
`If the government hopes to leave behind its 301-related headaches
with some cosmetic changes to the law, what it has offered so far
won't help at all,' wrote columnist Yusuf Kanli (Turkish Daily News,
January 9). Kanli said the government was `unwilling to take any
meaningful steps in fear of a possible nationalistic backlash.'
`Let's put it right straight away!' Kanli wrote. `As it stands within
the current proposal for its amendment, the contentious Article 301
will remain a chain on free thought... What's proposed is not reform.
What we are seeing is deception in action!'
Nobel laureate Pamuk was prosecuted for commenting on the mass
killings of Armenians by Turks in the early 20th century. Dink,
editor of the Armenian minority newspaper Agos, was killed in front
of his Istanbul office in January 2007. His assassination stirred the
debate about Article 301, with many observers saying he had become a
target of nationalist circles because of his prosecution.
The Turkish government took a year to respond to Dink's murder, and
it only focused on the issue after a final warning from the EU in
November to repeal or amend the article.
`It is not acceptable that writers, journalists, academics, and other
intellectuals ... are prosecuted for simply expressing a critical,
but completely nonviolent opinion,' EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli
Rehn said when presenting the annual progress report on Turkey in
November. `The infamous Article 301 must be repealed or amended
without delay.'
While the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party favors the abolishment
of the entire article, Devlet Bahceli, leader of the Nationalist
Action Party, strongly opposes any changes.
`The amendments mean slandering the glorious history of Turkey and
despising the Turkish nation. It will reward those who seek an
opportunity to insult the national and spiritual values of Turkey,'
Bahceli said (Dogan News Agency, January 8).
Fatma Disli, a columnist for Today's Zaman newspaper, wrote on
January 9 that the opposition to the amendment makes it difficult to
record progress. `The opposition within parliament to the amendment
of the article and the heightened nationalist feelings in the Turkish
public indicate that Turkey has a long way to go before it can
[re]move one of the most problematic barriers on its EU path,' Disli
wrote.
Ismet Berkan of Radikal newspaper wrote that even if the article were
amended, it would not ease the EU's concerns, since the proposed
amendment retains the nebulous phrase "Turkish identity." `Acting on
such an abstract concept, all the opinions harboring criticism about
state institutions or the Turkish identity may be regarded as an
insult to the things in question,' Today's Zaman quoted Berkan as
saying on January 9.
Jan 11 2008
HOPES LOW FOR CLARIFYING ANTI-`TURKISHNESS' CONCEPT
By Burak Bekdil
Friday, January 11, 2008
The infamous Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, which outlaws
`humiliating Turkishness,' has been the focal point of criticism that
the country lacks decent legislation allowing free speech.
Knowing that, Turkey's pro-EU government is working to amend that
article, but in a way that will probably not please anyone. The
current, very vague definition of what constitutes an offense is
about to be `softened,' but the new version may not be any better.
Even worse, there is no consensus on the amendment, even within the
ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). The government has now
delayed a vote on the proposed changes in parliament until next week
(Turkish Daily News, Today's Zaman, January 9).
Under the current penal code, Article 301 makes denigrating
"Turkishness" or insulting the country's institutions a crime that
can be punished by up to three years in prison.
The law has been used more than 60 times against writers and
intellectuals -- including Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk and slain
ethnic-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink -- since it went into effect
June 2005 (Today's Zaman, January 9).
Working together, Deputy Prime Minister (and former minister of
justice) Cemil Cicek and incumbent Minister of Justice Mehmet Ali
Sahin announced on January 7 that under the amended provision,
prosecutors must obtain permission from the Justice Ministry to be
able to press charges and that the ambiguous word "Turkishness" would
be replaced with `the Turkish nation' (Today's Zaman, January 9).
Cicek is known to have objected to the amendment, arguing that many
EU-member countries have similar articles in their penal codes. Cicek
also argued that the new practice would turn justice ministers, who
will have to make the decision whether to endorse prosecution, into
targets (Today's Zaman, January 9).
Overall, the proposed amendment has not impressed intellectuals
inside Turkey, and it was not clear how effectively it would prevent
nationalist prosecutors from pressing charges against opinion-makers
for their speeches or writings.
`If the government hopes to leave behind its 301-related headaches
with some cosmetic changes to the law, what it has offered so far
won't help at all,' wrote columnist Yusuf Kanli (Turkish Daily News,
January 9). Kanli said the government was `unwilling to take any
meaningful steps in fear of a possible nationalistic backlash.'
`Let's put it right straight away!' Kanli wrote. `As it stands within
the current proposal for its amendment, the contentious Article 301
will remain a chain on free thought... What's proposed is not reform.
What we are seeing is deception in action!'
Nobel laureate Pamuk was prosecuted for commenting on the mass
killings of Armenians by Turks in the early 20th century. Dink,
editor of the Armenian minority newspaper Agos, was killed in front
of his Istanbul office in January 2007. His assassination stirred the
debate about Article 301, with many observers saying he had become a
target of nationalist circles because of his prosecution.
The Turkish government took a year to respond to Dink's murder, and
it only focused on the issue after a final warning from the EU in
November to repeal or amend the article.
`It is not acceptable that writers, journalists, academics, and other
intellectuals ... are prosecuted for simply expressing a critical,
but completely nonviolent opinion,' EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli
Rehn said when presenting the annual progress report on Turkey in
November. `The infamous Article 301 must be repealed or amended
without delay.'
While the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party favors the abolishment
of the entire article, Devlet Bahceli, leader of the Nationalist
Action Party, strongly opposes any changes.
`The amendments mean slandering the glorious history of Turkey and
despising the Turkish nation. It will reward those who seek an
opportunity to insult the national and spiritual values of Turkey,'
Bahceli said (Dogan News Agency, January 8).
Fatma Disli, a columnist for Today's Zaman newspaper, wrote on
January 9 that the opposition to the amendment makes it difficult to
record progress. `The opposition within parliament to the amendment
of the article and the heightened nationalist feelings in the Turkish
public indicate that Turkey has a long way to go before it can
[re]move one of the most problematic barriers on its EU path,' Disli
wrote.
Ismet Berkan of Radikal newspaper wrote that even if the article were
amended, it would not ease the EU's concerns, since the proposed
amendment retains the nebulous phrase "Turkish identity." `Acting on
such an abstract concept, all the opinions harboring criticism about
state institutions or the Turkish identity may be regarded as an
insult to the things in question,' Today's Zaman quoted Berkan as
saying on January 9.