Tweet
SEVAN NISANYAN IS FACING IMPRISONMENT FOR 'DENIGRATING RELIGIOUS VALUES'
5 February 2015
Sevan NiÅ~_anyan is a controversial figure in Turkey for his harsh
critiques of Kemalism, Islam as well as his outspoken opposition to
the Turkish authorities' refusal to acknowledge that there had been
an Armenian genocide.
Sevan NiÅ~_anyan is a writer, linguist, hotelier and public
intellectual from Turkey's Armenian minority, whose etymological
dictionaries, travel books and treatises on Turkish, Islamic and
Anatolian culture have been widely hailed for their importance to
contemporary Turkish cultural discourse. He is a controversial figure
in Turkey for his harsh critiques of Kemalism (the ideology of the
founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) and Islam as well
as his outspoken opposition to the Turkish authorities' refusal to
acknowledge that there had been an Armenian genocide.
One of the biggest controversies in which NiÅ~_anyan has been
involved relates to a blog post he made in September 2012. Writing
in his personal blog, NiÅ~_anyan criticised the government's call
to introduce a new 'hate speech' bill in response to the release
of the film The Innocence of Muslims. The film led to widespread
protests around the world as a result of its unflattering depiction
of the prophet Muhammad. Writing in defence of the right to freedom
of expression, NiÅ~_anyan criticised the government's attempts to
prohibit criticism of the historical Muhammad.
NiÅ~_anyan's blog post was deemed by the public prosecutor's office
to constitute religious defamation and he was charged under Article
216/3 of the Turkish Penal Code. On 22 May 2013, an Istanbul court
found him guilty and he was sentenced to 15.5 months in prison. This
conviction and prison sentence remains under appeal.
PEN International notes that NiÅ~_anyan faces further possible
imprisonment as punishment for offending Turkey's conservative
elite and is gravely concerned that his conviction and sentence are
motivated by animosity for his legitimate expression as a public
intellectual. The organisation believes that NiÅ~_anyan's comments
fall well within the realm of legitimate historical and religious
criticism and that his conviction for religious defamation is a
violation of his right to freedom of expression as well as his right
to freedom of thought, conscience and religion/belief. Both these
rights are protected under Articles 18 and 19 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Articles 9 and 10
of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which Turkey
is a state party.
Article 216/3 functions as a blasphemy law by criminalising the public
'denigration' of religious values. This article has been criticised
for affording different levels of protection to different religions or
beliefs and for being applied in a discriminatory manner, particularly
towards unorthodox, non-religious or anti-religious beliefs. These
concerns have been highlighted in the cases of renowned concert
pianist and composer Fazil Say, and journalists Ceyda Karan and Hikmet
Cetinkaya. PEN reiterates the comment made in the Rabat Plan of Action
on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious
hatred regarding blasphemy laws: 'The right to freedom of religion
or belief, as enshrined in relevant international legal standards,
does not include the right to have a religion or a belief that is
free from criticism or ridicule'. PEN believes that the fundamental
human right to freedom of expression guarantees the right to express
critical views, even those that offend, shock or disturb. PEN calls
on the Turkish authorities to repeal Article 216/3 and drop all cases
against writers under this law for their legitimate expression.
The interview below was conducted with the help of Sait Cetinoglu,
who very kindly relayed PEN's questions to NiÅ~_anyan in Yenipazar
prison, where the Armenian-Turkish writer is currently serving a
two-year sentence as a result of a separate construction dispute with
the Turkish authorities.
A case was brought against you for a piece you wrote on your personal
blog. What does the bringing of this case and the fact that you were
convicted at its conclusion tell us about the state of freedom of
expression in Turkey?
The blog piece for which I was prosecuted and convicted argued simply
that disrespectful speech about an ancient Arab leader - implying the
prophet of Islam - was a matter of free speech that should be under
the protection of law. It employed mildly disrespectful language
about the prophet to illustrate the point.
As a result I was attacked in vile language by a government minister,
a top aide to the then prime minister, and the top religious official
of the country; several newspapers launched a lynching campaign;
I received hundreds of death threats; I was prosecuted in about a
dozen courts around the country; and I was sentenced to 15.5 months
in jail for blasphemy.
I believe the case illustrates how gravely free speech is imperilled
in this country; at least as far as Islamic prejudices are concerned.
What did the court point to as its reasoning behind this decision?
The court made a rather tendentious attempt to base its decision on
some precedents from the European Court of Human Rights. It also
asserted, without evidence, that my blog piece "threatened public
order". It was necessary to add that bit to have a case under article
216 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes religious blasphemy where
it threatens public order.
What was it about these arguments that you found objectionable and
do you think they represent an undue restriction on your right to
freedom of expression?
I believe this country, as well as the world at large, urgently needs
a serious debate about the role of Islam in modern society. But that
debate is impossible if every phrase that is contrary to the beliefs,
prejudices, habits or sensitivities of the self-appointed spokesmen
of Islam is going to be banned or prosecuted or greeted with paroxysms
of rage.
What kind of impact do cases like these have on outspoken critics
such as yourself as well as ordinary members of the public?
The ordinary public is cowed. The outspoken critics are likely to
hold out longer, but the spiralling pace of repression will eventually
make many of them think again.
What kind of impact do such court cases have on your writing?
I have been in jail for a year now. That obviously has a dampening
effect on one's writing. I use the time to concentrate on my academic
research, which is in historical linguistics.
Why is it important that forms of expression that offend, shock,
disturb are worthy of protection?
Anything that is genuinely new for a society will by definition offend,
shock or disturb. You cannot swim against the current of received
opinion without touching the nerves of the owners of received opinion.
You could either let things run in their established rut, or else
you must encourage and protect those who risk offense and shock by
seeking new paths of thought. Some of offenders may be purveyors
of junk. But you cannot expect to hear anything new unless you are
prepared to tolerate a certain amount of junk.
In recent years, cases brought under Article 216 of the Turkish Penal
Code have been increasingly coming to prominence; indeed some have
described Article 216 as Turkey's new Article 301. What does this
tell us about the way taboos have changed in Turkey in recent years?
Article 216 is actually a reasonably phrased piece of legislation. In
a sane environment it could be used to penalize vilification campaigns
against, for example, the Jews or other religious minorities. The
problem is that most Turkish courts take it as their duty to
uphold government authority at all costs against the claims of any
individual or minority interest. Nationalism was the sacred cow of
Turkish governments until 2002; so free thinkers and dissidents were
prosecuted for touching that particular bovine. Now Islam is the
sacred cow, and one must be careful not be irritate this one.
Opinions expressed by NiÅ~_anyan in this interview do not necessarily
reflect or represent the views of PEN International.
http://www.pen-international.org/newsitems/turkey-pen-talks-to-writer-and-intellectual-sevan-nisanyan-who-is-facing-imprisonment-for-denigrating-religious-values/#sthash.6AGdFNL5.dpuf
5 February 2015
Sevan NiÅ~_anyan is a controversial figure in Turkey for his harsh
critiques of Kemalism, Islam as well as his outspoken opposition to
the Turkish authorities' refusal to acknowledge that there had been
an Armenian genocide.
Sevan NiÅ~_anyan is a writer, linguist, hotelier and public
intellectual from Turkey's Armenian minority, whose etymological
dictionaries, travel books and treatises on Turkish, Islamic and
Anatolian culture have been widely hailed for their importance to
contemporary Turkish cultural discourse. He is a controversial figure
in Turkey for his harsh critiques of Kemalism (the ideology of the
founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) and Islam as well
as his outspoken opposition to the Turkish authorities' refusal to
acknowledge that there had been an Armenian genocide.
One of the biggest controversies in which NiÅ~_anyan has been
involved relates to a blog post he made in September 2012. Writing
in his personal blog, NiÅ~_anyan criticised the government's call
to introduce a new 'hate speech' bill in response to the release
of the film The Innocence of Muslims. The film led to widespread
protests around the world as a result of its unflattering depiction
of the prophet Muhammad. Writing in defence of the right to freedom
of expression, NiÅ~_anyan criticised the government's attempts to
prohibit criticism of the historical Muhammad.
NiÅ~_anyan's blog post was deemed by the public prosecutor's office
to constitute religious defamation and he was charged under Article
216/3 of the Turkish Penal Code. On 22 May 2013, an Istanbul court
found him guilty and he was sentenced to 15.5 months in prison. This
conviction and prison sentence remains under appeal.
PEN International notes that NiÅ~_anyan faces further possible
imprisonment as punishment for offending Turkey's conservative
elite and is gravely concerned that his conviction and sentence are
motivated by animosity for his legitimate expression as a public
intellectual. The organisation believes that NiÅ~_anyan's comments
fall well within the realm of legitimate historical and religious
criticism and that his conviction for religious defamation is a
violation of his right to freedom of expression as well as his right
to freedom of thought, conscience and religion/belief. Both these
rights are protected under Articles 18 and 19 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Articles 9 and 10
of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which Turkey
is a state party.
Article 216/3 functions as a blasphemy law by criminalising the public
'denigration' of religious values. This article has been criticised
for affording different levels of protection to different religions or
beliefs and for being applied in a discriminatory manner, particularly
towards unorthodox, non-religious or anti-religious beliefs. These
concerns have been highlighted in the cases of renowned concert
pianist and composer Fazil Say, and journalists Ceyda Karan and Hikmet
Cetinkaya. PEN reiterates the comment made in the Rabat Plan of Action
on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious
hatred regarding blasphemy laws: 'The right to freedom of religion
or belief, as enshrined in relevant international legal standards,
does not include the right to have a religion or a belief that is
free from criticism or ridicule'. PEN believes that the fundamental
human right to freedom of expression guarantees the right to express
critical views, even those that offend, shock or disturb. PEN calls
on the Turkish authorities to repeal Article 216/3 and drop all cases
against writers under this law for their legitimate expression.
The interview below was conducted with the help of Sait Cetinoglu,
who very kindly relayed PEN's questions to NiÅ~_anyan in Yenipazar
prison, where the Armenian-Turkish writer is currently serving a
two-year sentence as a result of a separate construction dispute with
the Turkish authorities.
A case was brought against you for a piece you wrote on your personal
blog. What does the bringing of this case and the fact that you were
convicted at its conclusion tell us about the state of freedom of
expression in Turkey?
The blog piece for which I was prosecuted and convicted argued simply
that disrespectful speech about an ancient Arab leader - implying the
prophet of Islam - was a matter of free speech that should be under
the protection of law. It employed mildly disrespectful language
about the prophet to illustrate the point.
As a result I was attacked in vile language by a government minister,
a top aide to the then prime minister, and the top religious official
of the country; several newspapers launched a lynching campaign;
I received hundreds of death threats; I was prosecuted in about a
dozen courts around the country; and I was sentenced to 15.5 months
in jail for blasphemy.
I believe the case illustrates how gravely free speech is imperilled
in this country; at least as far as Islamic prejudices are concerned.
What did the court point to as its reasoning behind this decision?
The court made a rather tendentious attempt to base its decision on
some precedents from the European Court of Human Rights. It also
asserted, without evidence, that my blog piece "threatened public
order". It was necessary to add that bit to have a case under article
216 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes religious blasphemy where
it threatens public order.
What was it about these arguments that you found objectionable and
do you think they represent an undue restriction on your right to
freedom of expression?
I believe this country, as well as the world at large, urgently needs
a serious debate about the role of Islam in modern society. But that
debate is impossible if every phrase that is contrary to the beliefs,
prejudices, habits or sensitivities of the self-appointed spokesmen
of Islam is going to be banned or prosecuted or greeted with paroxysms
of rage.
What kind of impact do cases like these have on outspoken critics
such as yourself as well as ordinary members of the public?
The ordinary public is cowed. The outspoken critics are likely to
hold out longer, but the spiralling pace of repression will eventually
make many of them think again.
What kind of impact do such court cases have on your writing?
I have been in jail for a year now. That obviously has a dampening
effect on one's writing. I use the time to concentrate on my academic
research, which is in historical linguistics.
Why is it important that forms of expression that offend, shock,
disturb are worthy of protection?
Anything that is genuinely new for a society will by definition offend,
shock or disturb. You cannot swim against the current of received
opinion without touching the nerves of the owners of received opinion.
You could either let things run in their established rut, or else
you must encourage and protect those who risk offense and shock by
seeking new paths of thought. Some of offenders may be purveyors
of junk. But you cannot expect to hear anything new unless you are
prepared to tolerate a certain amount of junk.
In recent years, cases brought under Article 216 of the Turkish Penal
Code have been increasingly coming to prominence; indeed some have
described Article 216 as Turkey's new Article 301. What does this
tell us about the way taboos have changed in Turkey in recent years?
Article 216 is actually a reasonably phrased piece of legislation. In
a sane environment it could be used to penalize vilification campaigns
against, for example, the Jews or other religious minorities. The
problem is that most Turkish courts take it as their duty to
uphold government authority at all costs against the claims of any
individual or minority interest. Nationalism was the sacred cow of
Turkish governments until 2002; so free thinkers and dissidents were
prosecuted for touching that particular bovine. Now Islam is the
sacred cow, and one must be careful not be irritate this one.
Opinions expressed by NiÅ~_anyan in this interview do not necessarily
reflect or represent the views of PEN International.
http://www.pen-international.org/newsitems/turkey-pen-talks-to-writer-and-intellectual-sevan-nisanyan-who-is-facing-imprisonment-for-denigrating-religious-values/#sthash.6AGdFNL5.dpuf