301 REFORM? FORGET IT!
Yusuf Kanli
Turkish Daily News, Turkey
Jan 9 2008
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
Under pressure from the European Union as well as from Turkish
intellectuals, but unwilling to take any meaningful steps in
fear of a possible nationalistic backlash, the ruling Justice and
Development Party (AKP) has devised some cosmetic changes to the
Penal Code's contentious Article 301 that regulates penalties for
"abasing Turkishness."
Thus, the cunning AKP thinks that with the amendment - expected to be
proposed to Parliament this week - it will be able to tell Europe and
Turkish intellectuals "Look, we have abided by our word and amended
Article 301 as we promised" on the one hand, while at the same time
turning to conservative circles in society to say "Look, we have
defied all pressure and kept 'abasing Turkishness' as a serious crime,
punishable with permission of the Justice Minister... We did not bow
to pressure!"
Let's put it right straight away! As it stands within the current AKP
proposal for its amendment, the contentious Article 301 will remain
as a chain on free thought... What's proposed is not reform.
What we are seeing is deception in action!
Proposed changes
According to what has been leaked to the media so far, the changes the
AKP is proposing to make in the text and preamble of the contentious
article are:
1. Rather than the current description of Turkishness which includes
not only the Turkish state, its institutions, Turks living in the
country but also persons living anywhere else on the globe but who have
"ethnic ties" with Turkey, the draft preamble states that the "Turkish
nation means the entirety of Turks living on the same homeland." So,
under the new description of the "nation" if Iraqi Turks, Azeris,
Turkmens, other central Asian Turkic peoples, Turks in northern
Cyprus and Turkish minorities across the Balkan states are no longer
considered part of the Turkish nation and if their Turkishness is
abased, people engaging in such "acts" will no longer face court
charges under the new 301. What a big achievement!
2. In the draft the ambiguous "abasement of Turkishness" terminology
remains, but "abasement of Turkishness" can be considered a crime
if there is "intense intent" to abase Turkishness. Who will decide
whether there was "intense intent" and under what scale of measurement?
3. Contrary to the current practice that empowers prosecutors to open
cases against individuals on the grounds of violating Article 301 with
their statements or attitudes, with the proposed amendments enacted,
the opening of such cases will require the written permission of the
Justice Minister. But was that not the practice until the new Penal
Code entered into force a few years ago? If so, is this progress,
or a step backward? Furthermore, would not such a practice mean
interference of politics in the judiciary?
4. Rather than the present, rather obscure terminology, "abasing
Turkishness", the draft introduces the term "abasing the Turkish
nation" instead. And instead of "Republic" it qualifies it as the
"Turkish republic." It's like in the saying, "What's the difference
in saying 'Ali Veli' or 'Veli Ali'?"
5. Under Article 301, rather than the current maximum three years
behind bars, a person can be sentenced to a maximum two years. Also,
a one-third increase in the penalty if the "crime" is committed abroad
will be scrapped.
Is it so difficult?
Of course we would prefer to see this contentious article erased from
the Penal Code all together and we have no such obsessive crime in this
country, but at least, is it really so difficult to erase the ambiguous
"abasement" word from the entire article and replace it with the word
"insult" which I believe has a much clearer meaning?
The AKP has waited almost a year after the Jan. 19, 2006 murder
of our colleague Hrant Dink who was made a target because of that
contentious article and is now trying to legislate an amendment by the
date of first anniversary of his killing in front of his bi-lingual
Turkish-Armenian weekly, AGOS. When Dink was murdered, the AKP leaders
had been telling the Turkish media and Europeans for some time that
amending 301 was high on their agenda. Hrant was killed and scores of
other Turkish intellectuals were harassed and made targets under that
Penal Code clause reflecting a rather primitive understanding. And,
the AKP is proposing a cosmetic change...
They had better not do it... What the AKP is proposing as "reform"
in that contentious article is not reform at all, but an attempt
to deceive.
Yusuf Kanli
Turkish Daily News, Turkey
Jan 9 2008
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
Under pressure from the European Union as well as from Turkish
intellectuals, but unwilling to take any meaningful steps in
fear of a possible nationalistic backlash, the ruling Justice and
Development Party (AKP) has devised some cosmetic changes to the
Penal Code's contentious Article 301 that regulates penalties for
"abasing Turkishness."
Thus, the cunning AKP thinks that with the amendment - expected to be
proposed to Parliament this week - it will be able to tell Europe and
Turkish intellectuals "Look, we have abided by our word and amended
Article 301 as we promised" on the one hand, while at the same time
turning to conservative circles in society to say "Look, we have
defied all pressure and kept 'abasing Turkishness' as a serious crime,
punishable with permission of the Justice Minister... We did not bow
to pressure!"
Let's put it right straight away! As it stands within the current AKP
proposal for its amendment, the contentious Article 301 will remain
as a chain on free thought... What's proposed is not reform.
What we are seeing is deception in action!
Proposed changes
According to what has been leaked to the media so far, the changes the
AKP is proposing to make in the text and preamble of the contentious
article are:
1. Rather than the current description of Turkishness which includes
not only the Turkish state, its institutions, Turks living in the
country but also persons living anywhere else on the globe but who have
"ethnic ties" with Turkey, the draft preamble states that the "Turkish
nation means the entirety of Turks living on the same homeland." So,
under the new description of the "nation" if Iraqi Turks, Azeris,
Turkmens, other central Asian Turkic peoples, Turks in northern
Cyprus and Turkish minorities across the Balkan states are no longer
considered part of the Turkish nation and if their Turkishness is
abased, people engaging in such "acts" will no longer face court
charges under the new 301. What a big achievement!
2. In the draft the ambiguous "abasement of Turkishness" terminology
remains, but "abasement of Turkishness" can be considered a crime
if there is "intense intent" to abase Turkishness. Who will decide
whether there was "intense intent" and under what scale of measurement?
3. Contrary to the current practice that empowers prosecutors to open
cases against individuals on the grounds of violating Article 301 with
their statements or attitudes, with the proposed amendments enacted,
the opening of such cases will require the written permission of the
Justice Minister. But was that not the practice until the new Penal
Code entered into force a few years ago? If so, is this progress,
or a step backward? Furthermore, would not such a practice mean
interference of politics in the judiciary?
4. Rather than the present, rather obscure terminology, "abasing
Turkishness", the draft introduces the term "abasing the Turkish
nation" instead. And instead of "Republic" it qualifies it as the
"Turkish republic." It's like in the saying, "What's the difference
in saying 'Ali Veli' or 'Veli Ali'?"
5. Under Article 301, rather than the current maximum three years
behind bars, a person can be sentenced to a maximum two years. Also,
a one-third increase in the penalty if the "crime" is committed abroad
will be scrapped.
Is it so difficult?
Of course we would prefer to see this contentious article erased from
the Penal Code all together and we have no such obsessive crime in this
country, but at least, is it really so difficult to erase the ambiguous
"abasement" word from the entire article and replace it with the word
"insult" which I believe has a much clearer meaning?
The AKP has waited almost a year after the Jan. 19, 2006 murder
of our colleague Hrant Dink who was made a target because of that
contentious article and is now trying to legislate an amendment by the
date of first anniversary of his killing in front of his bi-lingual
Turkish-Armenian weekly, AGOS. When Dink was murdered, the AKP leaders
had been telling the Turkish media and Europeans for some time that
amending 301 was high on their agenda. Hrant was killed and scores of
other Turkish intellectuals were harassed and made targets under that
Penal Code clause reflecting a rather primitive understanding. And,
the AKP is proposing a cosmetic change...
They had better not do it... What the AKP is proposing as "reform"
in that contentious article is not reform at all, but an attempt
to deceive.
DEVLET BAHCELI: MHP NOT INTERESTED IN ANY PROPOSAL ON ARTICLE 301
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Jan 9 2008
The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) has refused to support a
government attempt to amend controversial Article 301 of the Turkish
Penal Code (TCK), which the government says restricts freedom of
expression.
MHP Chairman Devlet Bahceli said, "It should be noted that the MHP
strongly opposes any amendments to Article 301 of the TCK; it will
not be interested in any proposal on this matter." The MHP leader
further stressed that the party is determined to fight against those
uneasy with the article's current content.
The MHP leader began his speech, addressing his group in Parliament,
by condemning the recent bombing in Diyarbakýr and then said, "For us,
seeking an amendment of this article means rewarding the circles that
seek an opportunity to defame Turkey's honorable history, denigrate the
Turkish nation and insult the national and spiritual values of Turkey."
Asserting that the administration had facilitated the job of the
separatists for the sake of membership in the EU, the MHP leader
underlined that leniency in Article 301 would lead to insults of
Turkishness and national symbols such as the flag.
Bahceli further said, "The similarity between those who seek to accuse
Turkish nationalists and the circles who work hard for the recognition
of the so-called Armenian genocide should be carefully considered."
He also asserted that the MHP had forced the government to launch
cross-border operations. Claiming that the MHP's determination and
attempts encouraged the administration to take action against the PKK,
Bahceli said: "You should recall that the current administration has
held power for the last five years. The main opposition has been
all the same in this period. Terror has been escalated by certain
circles. ... The actors in the past were all the same. What changed is
that the MHP has won 70 seats in Parliament. This change has pushed
Turkey and global actors into dealing with the Kurdistan Workers'
Party [PKK]."
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Jan 9 2008
The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) has refused to support a
government attempt to amend controversial Article 301 of the Turkish
Penal Code (TCK), which the government says restricts freedom of
expression.
MHP Chairman Devlet Bahceli said, "It should be noted that the MHP
strongly opposes any amendments to Article 301 of the TCK; it will
not be interested in any proposal on this matter." The MHP leader
further stressed that the party is determined to fight against those
uneasy with the article's current content.
The MHP leader began his speech, addressing his group in Parliament,
by condemning the recent bombing in Diyarbakýr and then said, "For us,
seeking an amendment of this article means rewarding the circles that
seek an opportunity to defame Turkey's honorable history, denigrate the
Turkish nation and insult the national and spiritual values of Turkey."
Asserting that the administration had facilitated the job of the
separatists for the sake of membership in the EU, the MHP leader
underlined that leniency in Article 301 would lead to insults of
Turkishness and national symbols such as the flag.
Bahceli further said, "The similarity between those who seek to accuse
Turkish nationalists and the circles who work hard for the recognition
of the so-called Armenian genocide should be carefully considered."
He also asserted that the MHP had forced the government to launch
cross-border operations. Claiming that the MHP's determination and
attempts encouraged the administration to take action against the PKK,
Bahceli said: "You should recall that the current administration has
held power for the last five years. The main opposition has been
all the same in this period. Terror has been escalated by certain
circles. ... The actors in the past were all the same. What changed is
that the MHP has won 70 seats in Parliament. This change has pushed
Turkey and global actors into dealing with the Kurdistan Workers'
Party [PKK]."
No comments:
Post a Comment