Cyprus Observer, Cyprus
Oct 27 2006

EU envoy on French bill and Article 301: Do not compare apples with pears

27.10.2006

Hansjoerg Kretschmer, the EU Commission rep – resentative in Ankara
said that Turkey cannot exploit the French parliament’s approval of a
bill that makes denial of the alleged Armenian genocide a crime as an
excuse to avoid democratic reforms. Kretschmer demanded the Turkish
government to take action regarding Article 301 of the Turkish Penal
Code (TCK). The representative invited Turkey not to `compare apples
with pears’, expressing that the two bills have separate contents;
one would prohibit the expression of one specific statement, but the
other is used to prevent public debate on general political issues.
Speaking at an interview with Reuters last week he said, `[The French
bill] would prohibit the expression of one specific statement, i.e.,
that there was no genocide. But 301 is used to prevent public debate
on general political issues,’ pointing out, `For example, one person
ended up in court because she questioned whether conscientious
objectors should have to do military service. So comparing the French
bill and 301 is really comparing apples and pears.’
He also expressed hope for Turkey’s EU membership saying, `Some say a
Muslim country cannot be a liberal democracy because there is a
danger of radical Islamists coming to power. The task of the
accession process now is to build and strengthen the civilian
institutions in a way that any possible fundamentalist threat, if it
should arise, can be contained. You do not need the military for this
kind of thing.’

US says bill is bad for Turkey’s EU bid
The United States also expressed negative opinions about the French
bill, with Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried saying the
French bill is not helping to better EU-Turkey relations. `The job of
outsiders is to encourage a Turkish-Armenian dialogue, not to take
positions which make that dialogue harder,’ he was quoted as saying
on a trip to Brussels, adding that his government certainly shared
the view that this legislation criminalising discussion did not seem
to make any sense.