Agos, 30 December 2005

It was an event organized by Şanar Yurdatapan, an activist who continues his unrelenting struggle for freedom of thought and expression. We, the victims of legal maltreatment, either being tried or already sentenced, were to be introduced to writers, intellectuals and journalists who had come from abroad to lend support to Orhan Pamuk.[1]

You know how in a courtroom the suspects stand facing the gallery of spectators, well he lined us up to face each other just like that, them on one side, us on the other.

During the meeting, I kept remembering that rhyme from my childhood:

“We gathered in our one score and dozen;

they lined up the buns and baked us in an oven.”

I couldn’t warm at all to the atmosphere that day. In fact, I confess, I felt like we’d just been through 12 September[2] all over again.

* * *

In view of the frequency of cases filed against our freedom of expression in recent months, it is really no surprise for us to experience a repeat of the 12 September syndrome.

Yet it seemed as if things weren’t going so badly at all.

Almost no subject had been left undiscussed in Turkey.

Even the Armenian issue, the least discussed issue of all, had finally made it onto the agenda.

The number of people sentenced for thought crimes was on the decrease.

Columnists were writing whatever they wished almost every day and everyone spoke their mind on television channels.

So much so, that those who talked about the Kurds’ right to form a separate state, and those who said, “The Armenian genocide did take place,” could express their views without all hell breaking loose.

* * *

So why has the sword of Damocles begun to dangle over our heads once more?

Is all this just a new downward turn brought on by certain articles introduced by the New Turkish Penal Code; or are they the first repercussions of a more dangerous and long-term policy, developed at a much deeper level, that for now is being carried out via the judiciary?

I believe the latter offers a clearer explanation.

In particular, it is quite evident that the opponents of the European Union have begun playing their strongest hands now that we have made it through the transition processes of 17 December and 3 October.[3]

* * *

Article 301 existed in the corpus of the former Penal Code,[4] of course, as Article 159, and in fact was more restrictive. I am not about to sing the praises of Article 301; but one must concede that it contains Paragraph 4,[5] which makes reference to the right to criticise. If enacted, it can plausibly result in outcomes in favour of the accused.

Yet, just because we recognize that an article of criminal law preventing freedom of expression represents an improvement on its predecessors, this should not mean that we accept its existence, or agree to the lesser of two evils.

After all, although the existence of the former 159 was worse, its use in recent times was not as widespread as the current law!

Which means that the main problem is not whether such an article is a lesser or greater evil, but whether or not it exists at all.

The essential requirement is to completely abolish all articles that restrict our freedom of expression and can be enacted at any time, to implicate anyone.

* * *

Why does the state need such articles of law? Why, even as it throws the old criminal law out the door, does it smuggle in a new one through the window?

This is the main issue we have to consider.

We often use the terms freedom of thought and freedom of expression together, and assume that while our freedom of thought is unlimited, our freedom of expression is subject to certain restrictions.

After all, as long as the insides of our heads belong to us and as long as we do not express our most extreme and outrageous thoughts, what harm can they do to anyone? Can anyone restrict or prevent us from thinking these thoughts?

We think that no one can.

But some can, and that’s where the problem really lies.

Not in the obstruction of expression, but of thought.

* * *

Pay no heed to their proclaimed Kemalism.

Pay no heed to the fact that they appear to follow the words of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk: “We will raise children whose hearts and minds are free.”

From our childhood years on, they do everything in their power to block the development of our thoughts and to shape them according to their will. They constantly strive to create standardized, uniform citizens that fit the mould they call the ‘Turkish-Islamic synthesis.’

And I’ll give it to them, they often succeed.

Those who have been shaped in this way naturally have no problems in terms of freedom of expression.

The law finds no cause for concern in them, nor do they have any worries regarding the law.

They can say and write anything they wish. And if that doesn’t suffice, they can express themselves with fists and feet, kicks and slaps.

And, if that’s still not enough, by throwing tomatoes and eggs.[6]

***

It is clear what the limits of freedom are in their eyes.

The less you think, the more freedom you have to express yourself. And the more you think, the less freedom is granted for expression.

[1] In a case that caused a great deal of turmoil between the EU and Turkey, Orhan Pamuk, winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature, was on put on trial for ‘insulting Turkishness’ on the basis of an interview he gave to a Swiss journalist in which he said, “We killed 30 thousand Kurds and one million Armenians.” The trial was dismissed in 2006 but later reopened and Pamuk was ordered to pay a total of 6000 TL in compensation to the plaintiffs.

[2] The date of, and common form of reference in Turkish, for the military coup carried out in 1980, the third and most oppressive military coup in the history of the Republic of Turkey. Hrant Dink was jailed, interrogated and tortured during this coup. 

[3] 17 December 2004 was the date upon which the European Council decided that Turkey sufficiently fulfilled the criteria to open accession negotiations; 3 October 2005 was the date upon which accession negotiations between Turkey and the EU were officially launched.

[4] Article 301 of the new Turkish Penal Code, which took effect on 1 June 2005, was an amendment to Law 159 of the former penal code. According to this law, it was a crime to “publicly [denigrate] Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, [or] the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations.” The wording of this law was further amended in 2008.

[5] Paragraph 4 of Article 301 of the new Turkish Penal Code that was introduced in 2005 read, “Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime.”

[6] During the trials that Hrant Dink and Orhan Pamuk faced over accusations of “insulting Turkishness” , they were almost lynched during the hearings by crowds who also threw tomatoes, eggs and coins at them. They were only able to leave the courthouse with police escorts.