Tweet
TANER AKCAM, TURKISH JOURNALIST VINDICATED IN ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CASE
Paula Duffy
HULIQ.com
Oct 25 2011
SC
Turkish writer and professor Mr. Taner Akcam who wrote about the
genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, got a favorable ruling on
Tuesday from the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr. Akcam had challenged Article 301 of Turkey's criminal code
that provided for arrest and conviction of anyone who used the term
"genocide" to describe the killing of Armenians during the waning
days of the Ottoman Empire,
The Republic of Turkey, a successor to that empire has consistently
taken exception to its own citizens and those around the world for
characterizing the 1.5 million deaths in that way. Its criminal code
provided for up to three years in prison for anyone who violated the
law because it denigrated the "Turkishness" of ancestors of those
accused of carrying out the atrocities.
While amendments were made to the language of Article 301 after a
series of highly publicized cases brought against many prominent
Turkish intellectuals, journalists and teachers, Taner Akcam claimed
that it didn't stop charges being brought and investigations from
interfering with citizens' rights of free expression.
The European Court of Human Rights published a unanimous decision
in favor of Mr. Akcam and others, announced in a press release late
Tuesday. The court, set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe
Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950
European Convention on Human Rights decided that Turkey violated
Article 10 of that Convention.
Mr. Akcam brought his case after the tragic killing of journalist Hrant
Dink in 2007. Dink was the editor of AGOS, a bilingual Turkish-Armenian
newspaper and had been convicted under Article 301.
He became the target of death threats and attacks by political
extremists and was shot to death early that year.
There was an uproar over Dink's death and in response, the Turkish
government revised the language of Article 301 to add what is described
by the court as a "security clause". It required that any investigation
into the activities of individuals accused of violating the law had
to be approved by the Turkish Minister of Justice.
Prior to Mr. Dink's death but after his conviction, Taner Akcam
published an editorial in Dink's newspaper that criticized the
government's actions. He was hit with three criminal complaints of
his own. Akcam was thoroughly investigated but ultimately not charged
or punished.
Despite that he was subjected to what he called a media smear
campaign and received the same public threats as Dink. It caused him
to cease writing and publishing on the 1915 killings and as a result,
he appealed to the Court of Human Rights. His main argument centered
on his fear of expressing himself and suffering the consequences
which in the U.S. is called a "chilling effect" on free speech rights.
Akcam told the court that despite the amendments to Article 301 there
was no meaningful difference in how writers were treated in Turkey
when they called the Armenian killings a "genocide."
The court agreed with Akcam and while the decision was made public
today, it is not final. In the press release regarding the court
ruling, it is explained that there is a three-month period during
which one of the parties to the litigation can request that the case
be referred to the Grand Chamber of the court.
There, five judges will consider whether further examination of the
case is necessary. If it moves on for more review, a final decision
will be rendered by that Grand Chamber. If the judges consider the
matter closed, today's ruling will then become final.
From: Baghdasarian
Paula Duffy
HULIQ.com
Oct 25 2011
SC
Turkish writer and professor Mr. Taner Akcam who wrote about the
genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, got a favorable ruling on
Tuesday from the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr. Akcam had challenged Article 301 of Turkey's criminal code
that provided for arrest and conviction of anyone who used the term
"genocide" to describe the killing of Armenians during the waning
days of the Ottoman Empire,
The Republic of Turkey, a successor to that empire has consistently
taken exception to its own citizens and those around the world for
characterizing the 1.5 million deaths in that way. Its criminal code
provided for up to three years in prison for anyone who violated the
law because it denigrated the "Turkishness" of ancestors of those
accused of carrying out the atrocities.
While amendments were made to the language of Article 301 after a
series of highly publicized cases brought against many prominent
Turkish intellectuals, journalists and teachers, Taner Akcam claimed
that it didn't stop charges being brought and investigations from
interfering with citizens' rights of free expression.
The European Court of Human Rights published a unanimous decision
in favor of Mr. Akcam and others, announced in a press release late
Tuesday. The court, set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe
Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950
European Convention on Human Rights decided that Turkey violated
Article 10 of that Convention.
Mr. Akcam brought his case after the tragic killing of journalist Hrant
Dink in 2007. Dink was the editor of AGOS, a bilingual Turkish-Armenian
newspaper and had been convicted under Article 301.
He became the target of death threats and attacks by political
extremists and was shot to death early that year.
There was an uproar over Dink's death and in response, the Turkish
government revised the language of Article 301 to add what is described
by the court as a "security clause". It required that any investigation
into the activities of individuals accused of violating the law had
to be approved by the Turkish Minister of Justice.
Prior to Mr. Dink's death but after his conviction, Taner Akcam
published an editorial in Dink's newspaper that criticized the
government's actions. He was hit with three criminal complaints of
his own. Akcam was thoroughly investigated but ultimately not charged
or punished.
Despite that he was subjected to what he called a media smear
campaign and received the same public threats as Dink. It caused him
to cease writing and publishing on the 1915 killings and as a result,
he appealed to the Court of Human Rights. His main argument centered
on his fear of expressing himself and suffering the consequences
which in the U.S. is called a "chilling effect" on free speech rights.
Akcam told the court that despite the amendments to Article 301 there
was no meaningful difference in how writers were treated in Turkey
when they called the Armenian killings a "genocide."
The court agreed with Akcam and while the decision was made public
today, it is not final. In the press release regarding the court
ruling, it is explained that there is a three-month period during
which one of the parties to the litigation can request that the case
be referred to the Grand Chamber of the court.
There, five judges will consider whether further examination of the
case is necessary. If it moves on for more review, a final decision
will be rendered by that Grand Chamber. If the judges consider the
matter closed, today's ruling will then become final.
From: Baghdasarian