Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Dec 13 2012
Praising Hrant Dink's murder
ORHAN KEMAL CENGÄ°Z
[email protected]
In this column I have written that because hate speech directed
against minorities and sensitive groups has not been penalized at
different times, awareness in Turkey of this issue is quite low.
In fact, the number of hate speech cases against minorities that
result in prosecution and, ultimately, the suspect receiving a
punishment is very few. In our recent past a newer type of case has
been incorporated into these exceptional lawsuits, and a person who
spoke out in praise of the murder of Hrant Dink was given a prison
sentence.
The managing coordinator of Statüko magazine, Okan BaÅ?, wrote in the
magazine's January-February 2012 issue, `As you know, Ogün Samast is
only a robust youth; he attacked a man who said there is a brutishness
inherent to Turks¦ what's so wrong with that?' The Samsun 2nd High
Criminal Court convicted BaÅ? of the crime of spreading enmity and
rancor among the people by praising a crime, and he was sentenced to
one year and three months in prison.
This court decision is rather important from a number of perspectives.
The court accepted that praising Dink's murder is akin to spreading
rancor and enmity and applied Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code
(TCK) as outlawing hate speech.
The opening of this lawsuit took place in an interesting manner.
Despite the publication of this magazine in Samsun and the
prosecutors' views on the magazine, they did not opt to open a case of
their own accord. It was only following the filing of a criminal
complaint by Ä°stanbul-based civil society organization Say Stop to
Racism and Nationalism! (Dur De!) that a case was opened. I reached
the press agent for Dure De, Cengiz Algan, by phone and asked what he
thought about this decision.
Algan had the following to say:
`It pleased us that a case was opened against Okan BaÅ?, who openly
praised the killing of Hrant Dink, because all of the criminal
complaints we previously tried to file had been ignored. For example,
most recently, a criminal complaint we filed against the Akit daily
targeting [columnist] Ali BayramoÄ?lu was rejected. It is very
important that a penalty be given for Article 216 of the TCK as well.
This article actually punishes hate speech. However, up until today,
with a few updates, this article was used inversely -- to protect the
state. In this regard, this legal decision can set a precedent. In the
criminal cases we file in the future, we can show this decision as an
example.
Such a decision also carries weight in terms of civil society's
struggle. It's an example that reflects that the steps taken have not
been in vain. Civil society organizations that are involved in work
concerning hate crimes and speech where there is no legal regulation
will have more self confidence and being and know that they are not
fighting an uphill battle.'
I too agree with Cengiz and I find this decision very encouraging. I
think from now on those who are contemplating praising the killers of
Hrant Dink will think twice before opening up their mouths. And again,
as Cengiz has said, this decision sets a legal precedent. My hope is
that the Supreme Court of Appeals does not lift this penalty during
the appeals process and that it approves this penalty. Our spirits,
which have been weighed down by the prime minister's intolerant
statements as of late and the appointment of one of the judges who
decided on the sentencing of Hrant Dink for insulting Turkishness as
Turkey's first chief ombudsman, have become somewhat lifted by this
decision.
This is how Turks progress; they take two steps back and one step forward.
And I am going to continue applauding positive development, while I
criticize negativities. I wanted to share this case, which gave me a
glimmer of hope, with you.
I wish all my readers an enjoyable weekend.
Dec 13 2012
Praising Hrant Dink's murder
ORHAN KEMAL CENGÄ°Z
[email protected]
In this column I have written that because hate speech directed
against minorities and sensitive groups has not been penalized at
different times, awareness in Turkey of this issue is quite low.
In fact, the number of hate speech cases against minorities that
result in prosecution and, ultimately, the suspect receiving a
punishment is very few. In our recent past a newer type of case has
been incorporated into these exceptional lawsuits, and a person who
spoke out in praise of the murder of Hrant Dink was given a prison
sentence.
The managing coordinator of Statüko magazine, Okan BaÅ?, wrote in the
magazine's January-February 2012 issue, `As you know, Ogün Samast is
only a robust youth; he attacked a man who said there is a brutishness
inherent to Turks¦ what's so wrong with that?' The Samsun 2nd High
Criminal Court convicted BaÅ? of the crime of spreading enmity and
rancor among the people by praising a crime, and he was sentenced to
one year and three months in prison.
This court decision is rather important from a number of perspectives.
The court accepted that praising Dink's murder is akin to spreading
rancor and enmity and applied Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code
(TCK) as outlawing hate speech.
The opening of this lawsuit took place in an interesting manner.
Despite the publication of this magazine in Samsun and the
prosecutors' views on the magazine, they did not opt to open a case of
their own accord. It was only following the filing of a criminal
complaint by Ä°stanbul-based civil society organization Say Stop to
Racism and Nationalism! (Dur De!) that a case was opened. I reached
the press agent for Dure De, Cengiz Algan, by phone and asked what he
thought about this decision.
Algan had the following to say:
`It pleased us that a case was opened against Okan BaÅ?, who openly
praised the killing of Hrant Dink, because all of the criminal
complaints we previously tried to file had been ignored. For example,
most recently, a criminal complaint we filed against the Akit daily
targeting [columnist] Ali BayramoÄ?lu was rejected. It is very
important that a penalty be given for Article 216 of the TCK as well.
This article actually punishes hate speech. However, up until today,
with a few updates, this article was used inversely -- to protect the
state. In this regard, this legal decision can set a precedent. In the
criminal cases we file in the future, we can show this decision as an
example.
Such a decision also carries weight in terms of civil society's
struggle. It's an example that reflects that the steps taken have not
been in vain. Civil society organizations that are involved in work
concerning hate crimes and speech where there is no legal regulation
will have more self confidence and being and know that they are not
fighting an uphill battle.'
I too agree with Cengiz and I find this decision very encouraging. I
think from now on those who are contemplating praising the killers of
Hrant Dink will think twice before opening up their mouths. And again,
as Cengiz has said, this decision sets a legal precedent. My hope is
that the Supreme Court of Appeals does not lift this penalty during
the appeals process and that it approves this penalty. Our spirits,
which have been weighed down by the prime minister's intolerant
statements as of late and the appointment of one of the judges who
decided on the sentencing of Hrant Dink for insulting Turkishness as
Turkey's first chief ombudsman, have become somewhat lifted by this
decision.
This is how Turks progress; they take two steps back and one step forward.
And I am going to continue applauding positive development, while I
criticize negativities. I wanted to share this case, which gave me a
glimmer of hope, with you.
I wish all my readers an enjoyable weekend.