THE DAILY BLADE: Turkish Law Insults Progressiveness
Charges of "insulting Turkishness" against best-selling Turkish novelist, Elif Shafak were dropped about a week ago. But now, nationalist groups opposed to Turkey joining the European Union (EU) have charged Hrant Dink, editor of Armenian-language newspaper, Agos, with the same Kafkaesque crime; he faces up to three years in prison, if convicted. Turkish writer Ipek Calister is currently being tried on charges of insulting Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, modern Turkey’s founder, in a biography of Ataturk’s wife.
They are among some 60 writers and publishers faced with prosecution for violating Article 301, a free-speech stifling law passed a year ago that Europeans insist Turkey revoke before its membership in the EU can be considered.
Some believe that these high-profile prosecutions are shining a spotlight on the law, and prompting a debate within Turkey on democracy and free speech, according to The New York Times:
"It is something good for Turkey," said Mr. Dink … "It is good for the dynamism. There is a strong movement from inside, and I can say for the first time we are seeing a real democratic movement." …
"A lot of people were saying, ‘Wait a minute, this needs to be changed, and we are so embarrassed about what is going on,’ " said Elif Shafak … who went on trial in September for portraying a character who referred to a "genocide" against Armenians in her new novel, "The Bastard of Istanbul." In her case the charges were quickly dropped. …
But people like Mr. Dink and Ms. Shafak argue that the legal challenges may be backfiring, under the glare not only of Europe but also among Turks themselves, so that in their view, a law used to stifle debate may be encouraging it.
Judges have not hesitated to throw out cases they deem without merit. While there have been convictions under Article 301, no one has actually gone to jail. And the very government that drafted the law now says it needs to be changed, though it is not clear exactly how or when.
One thing about the article puzzles The Stiletto: Why the scare quotes around "genocide"? The New York Times has published more than 500 reports from correspondents on the scene covering successive massacres of Armenians beginning in 1894, and has since repeatedly urged Turkey to admit that the Ottomans tried to exterminate the Armenian population in 1915. Surely the Times is not doubting the veracity of its own reporting?
Comments