Tweet
HRANT, EMBARRASSMENT, A DISASTER
Today's Zaman
Dec 6 2012
Turkey
ORHAN KEMAL CENGİZ
[email protected]
The government has introduced a new institution which we all welcomed
at first. I am talking about the newly established ombudsman.
However, the government's choice to fill the role has shaken all the
country's democrats from head to toe. It's like a bad joke; it is
an insult to anyone with a little intelligence in this country. Our
conscience was deeply wounded with this appointment.
The government appointed, through parliamentary election, one of
those judges from the Supreme Court of Appeals who voted in favor of
punishing Hrant Dink under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK)
for the infamous article that brought about charges of "insulting
Turkishness" to be the ombudsman. Actually, later on I learned that
he was not only one of the judges who voted to sentence Hrant, but
he, in particular, was one of those who actively lobbied to get this
punishment. This former judge has taken his oath before Parliament
and will very soon take office as Turkey's first ombudsman.
I do not know if you remember all this time later what it was that
lead to Hrant's murder. He was first labeled an Armenian who insulted
Turks, and then, of course, became an open target and was shot down
in front of the Armenian Agos weekly in 2007. It is such a sad,
painful story to remember.
Everything started with a media campaign. Hrant had uttered some
words that made some circles extremely angry; he said Sabiha Gökcen,
Ataturk's adopted daughter, was actually an Armenian. His words
made headlines.
Then some lawyers and some notorious figures brought lawsuits against
Hrant by cherry- picking some of his words from one of the pieces
in a long series of articles he published in the Agos, where he was
editor-in-chief.
In this series of articles, Hrant was speaking to Armenians and
advising them to get rid of hatred of Turks in order to emancipate
themselves from the chains of the past. The Turkish judiciary,
however, read his words in a completely distorted manner. He just said
"replace the poisoned blood associated with the Turk with fresh blood
associated with Armenia." Both the court of first instance and the
court of appeals evaluated this sentence as if Hrant was insulting
Turkish blood, and he was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence.
I think what Hrant said was unmistakably clear. Interestingly,
back then "expert opinions" requested by the courts reaffirmed that
Hrant's words had nothing to do with insulting Turkishness, but the
court of appeals just wanted to understand his words as an insult
under Article 301.
And now we have one of those judges who punished Hrant as the
nation's ombudsman. How on earth can a judge who has the capacity
to misunderstand these words that were so clear be relied upon
to understand the true meaning of the words of citizens who have
problems with state institutions? Is his appointment as ombudsman
a reward for his deliberate misunderstanding of Hrant's words? Has
he been appointed by the government for that very purpose, namely,
to make sure that he will always misunderstand the words of citizens
when they have a conflict with the state?
It is hard to believe that the government chose one person out of
70 million in Turkey to be ombudsman and that this person happened
to be the one who sent Hrant Dink to his death by deliberately
misinterpreting his statements.
In my view, with this move alone, the government cancelled out 1,000
good things they have done, like they killed our hopes for the future
of this country.
Today's Zaman
Dec 6 2012
Turkey
ORHAN KEMAL CENGİZ
[email protected]
The government has introduced a new institution which we all welcomed
at first. I am talking about the newly established ombudsman.
However, the government's choice to fill the role has shaken all the
country's democrats from head to toe. It's like a bad joke; it is
an insult to anyone with a little intelligence in this country. Our
conscience was deeply wounded with this appointment.
The government appointed, through parliamentary election, one of
those judges from the Supreme Court of Appeals who voted in favor of
punishing Hrant Dink under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK)
for the infamous article that brought about charges of "insulting
Turkishness" to be the ombudsman. Actually, later on I learned that
he was not only one of the judges who voted to sentence Hrant, but
he, in particular, was one of those who actively lobbied to get this
punishment. This former judge has taken his oath before Parliament
and will very soon take office as Turkey's first ombudsman.
I do not know if you remember all this time later what it was that
lead to Hrant's murder. He was first labeled an Armenian who insulted
Turks, and then, of course, became an open target and was shot down
in front of the Armenian Agos weekly in 2007. It is such a sad,
painful story to remember.
Everything started with a media campaign. Hrant had uttered some
words that made some circles extremely angry; he said Sabiha Gökcen,
Ataturk's adopted daughter, was actually an Armenian. His words
made headlines.
Then some lawyers and some notorious figures brought lawsuits against
Hrant by cherry- picking some of his words from one of the pieces
in a long series of articles he published in the Agos, where he was
editor-in-chief.
In this series of articles, Hrant was speaking to Armenians and
advising them to get rid of hatred of Turks in order to emancipate
themselves from the chains of the past. The Turkish judiciary,
however, read his words in a completely distorted manner. He just said
"replace the poisoned blood associated with the Turk with fresh blood
associated with Armenia." Both the court of first instance and the
court of appeals evaluated this sentence as if Hrant was insulting
Turkish blood, and he was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence.
I think what Hrant said was unmistakably clear. Interestingly,
back then "expert opinions" requested by the courts reaffirmed that
Hrant's words had nothing to do with insulting Turkishness, but the
court of appeals just wanted to understand his words as an insult
under Article 301.
And now we have one of those judges who punished Hrant as the
nation's ombudsman. How on earth can a judge who has the capacity
to misunderstand these words that were so clear be relied upon
to understand the true meaning of the words of citizens who have
problems with state institutions? Is his appointment as ombudsman
a reward for his deliberate misunderstanding of Hrant's words? Has
he been appointed by the government for that very purpose, namely,
to make sure that he will always misunderstand the words of citizens
when they have a conflict with the state?
It is hard to believe that the government chose one person out of
70 million in Turkey to be ombudsman and that this person happened
to be the one who sent Hrant Dink to his death by deliberately
misinterpreting his statements.
In my view, with this move alone, the government cancelled out 1,000
good things they have done, like they killed our hopes for the future
of this country.