Open Democracy, UK
Jan 22 2007
My life as a pigeon
Hrant Dink
22 – 1 – 2007
This article was published in the Armenian-Turkish newspaper "Agos"
on 10 January 2007. It was the last Hrant Dink would ever write; nine
days later, he was murdered outside the newspaper’s Istanbul office.
I did not at first feel troubled about the investigation that was
filed against me by the ªiºli public prosecutor’s office with the
accusation of "insulting Turkishness". After all, it was not the
first time to face this charge. I had been familiar with the
accusation because of a similar lawsuit filed against me in Urfa.
Over the last three years, I was being tried in Urfa for "denigrating
Turkishness" on the grounds of having stated in a talk I gave at a
conference there in 2002 that "I was not a Turk … but from Turkey
and an Armenian."
I was unaware about how this lawsuit was proceeding. I was not at all
interested. My lawyer friends in Urfa were attending the hearings in
my absence.
I was even quite nonchalant when I went and gave my deposition to the
ªiºli public prosecutor. I ultimately had complete trust in what my
intentions had been and what I had written. Once the prosecutor had
the chance to evaluate not just that single sentence from my
editorial – which made no sense by itself – but the text as a whole,
he would understand easily that I had no intention of "denigrating
Turkishness"; and this comedy would come to an end.
I was certain that a lawsuit would not be filed at the end of the
investigation. I was sure of myself. But, surprise! A lawsuit was
filed.
But I still did not lose my optimism.
So much so that on a television show that I joined live, I even told
the lawyer (Kemal) Kerincsiz who was accusing me "that he should not
get his hopes too high, that I was not going to be smacked with any
sentence from this lawsuit, and that I would leave this country if I
received a sentence." I was sure of myself because I truly had not
had in my article any premeditation or intention – not even a single
iota – to denigrate Turkishness. Those who read the entirety of my
collection of articles would understand this very clearly.
Hrant Dink was from 1996 the editor-in-chief and a columnist of the
Armenian-language weekly newspaper Agos in Istanbul. The paper aims
to provide a voice for the Armenian community in Turkey and to
further dialogue between Turks and Armenians.
On 19 January 2007, Hrant Dink was assassinated outside Agos’s
offices in Istanbul.
As a matter of fact, the report prepared by the three faculty members
from Istanbul University who had been appointed by the court as
experts stated exactly that. There was no reason for me to be
worried; there would certainly be a return from the wrongful path (of
the lawsuit) at one stage of the proceedings or the other. So I kept
asking for patience …
But there was no such return.
The weapon of sincerity
The prosecutor asked for a sentence in spite of the expert report.
The judge then sentenced me to six months in prison.
When I first heard about my sentence, I found myself under the bitter
pressure of the hopes I had nurtured all along the process of the
lawsuit. I was bewildered … My disappointment and rebellion were at
their pinnacle.
I had resisted for days and months saying: "just you wait for this
decision to come out and once I am acquitted, then you will all be so
repentant about all that you have said and written."
In covering every hearing of the lawsuit, the newspaper items,
editorials and television programmes all attributed to me a remark
that "the blood of the Turk is poisonous." Each and every time, they
were adding to my fame as "the enemy of the Turk." At the halls of
the court, the fascists physically attacked me with racist curses.
They bombarded me with insults on their placards.
The threats reached hundreds, hailing for months through phones,
email and letters which kept increasing day after day. I persevered
through all this with patience awaiting the decision for acquittal.
Once the legal decision was announced, the truth was going to prevail
and all these people would be ashamed of what they had done.
My only weapon was my sincerity. But the decision was made and all my
hopes were crushed. From then on, I was in the most distressed
situation that a person could possibly be in.
The judge had made a decision in the name of the "Turkish nation" and
had it legally registered that I had "denigrated Turkishness." I
could have persevered through anything except this.
According to my understanding, racism was the denigration by anyone
of a person they lived alongside with on the basis of any difference,
ethnic or religious, and there was no way in which this could ever be
forgiven.
It was in this psychological state that I made the following
declaration to the members of the media and friends who were at my
doorstep trying to confirm "as to whether I would leave this country
as I had indicated earlier".
"I shall consult with my lawyers. I will appeal at the supreme court
of appeal and will even go to the European Court of Human Rights if
necessary. If I am not cleared through any one of these processes,
then I shall leave my country. Because, in my opinion, someone who
has been sentenced for such a crime does not have the right to live
alongside the citizens he has denigrated."
As I voiced this opinion, I was emotional as always. My only weapon
was my sincerity.
A dark humour
But it so happens that the deep force that was trying to single me
out and make me an open target in the eyes of the people of Turkey
found something wrong with this press release of mine as well; this
time, it filed a lawsuit against me for attempting to influence the
court. The entire Turkish media had been given my declaration, but
what got their attention was what was written in Agos alone. And it
so transpired that the legally responsible parties in the Agos
newspaper and I began to be tried this time around for attempting to
influence the court. This must be what people call "dark humour".
Who, more than the accused, has the right to try to influence the
judiciary? But in this humorous situation, the accused is tried for
just such an offence.
"In the name of the Turkish state"
I have to confess that I had more than lost my trust in the concept
of "law" and the "system of justice" in Turkey.
How could I have not? Had these prosecutors, these judges not been
educated in the university, graduated from faculties of law? Weren’t
they supposed to have the capacity to comprehend (and interpret) what
they read?
But it so transpires that the judiciary in this country, as expressed
without compunction by many a statesman and politician also, is not
independent.
The judiciary does not protect the rights of the citizen, but instead
of the state. The judiciary is not there for the citizen, but under
the control of the state.
As a matter of fact I was absolutely sure that even though it was
stated that the decision in my case was reached "in the name of the
Turkish nation", it was a decision clearly not made "on behalf of the
Turkish nation" but rather "on behalf of the Turkish state." As a
consequence, my lawyers were going to appeal to the supreme court of
appeals; but what could guarantee that the deep force that had
decided to put me in my place would not be influential there either?
And was it the case that the supreme court of appeals always reached
right decisions?
Wasn’t it the same supreme court of appeal that had signed onto the
unjust decision that stripped minority foundations of their
properties? It had done so, moreover, in spite of the attempts of the
chief public prosecutor.
We did appeal and what did it get us?
Just like the report of the experts, the chief public prosecutor of
the supreme court of appeals stated that there was no evidence of
crime and asked for my acquittal; but the supreme court of appeals
still found me guilty.
The chief public prosecutor of the supreme court of appeals was just
as certain about what he had read and understood as I had been about
what I had written, so he objected to the decision and took the
lawsuit to the general council.
But what can I say: that great force which had decided once and for
all to put me in my place and had made itself felt at every stage of
my lawsuit through processes I would not even know about, was there
present once again behind the scenes. And as a consequence, it was
declared by majority vote at general council as well that I had
denigrated Turkishness.
A pigeon reflex
This much is crystal-clear: that those who tried to single me out,
render me weak and defenceless, succeeded by their own measures. They
managed, with the wrongful and polluted knowledge they injected into
society, to form a significant segment of the population whose who
view Hrant Dink as someone "denigrating Turkishness".
The diary and memory of my computer are filled with angry,
threatening lines sent by citizens from this particular sector, whose
numbers cannot easily be dismissed. (Let me note here that one of
these threatening letters was sent from the neighbouring city of
Bursa, which I found particularly disturbing because of the proximity
of the danger it represented; I therefore handed it to the ªiºli
prosecutor’s office, but have not been able to get a response to this
day.)
How real or unreal are these threats? To be honest, it is of course
impossible for me to know for sure.
What is truly threatening and unbearable for me is the psychological
torture I personally place myself in. "Now what are these people
thinking about me?" is the question that really bugs me.
It is unfortunate that I am now better known than I once was and I
feel much more the people who throw me that glance which says, "Oh,
look, isn’t he that Armenian guy?" And I reflexively start torturing
myself.
One aspect of this torture is curiosity, the other unease. One aspect
is attention, the other apprehension. I am just like a pigeon …
Obsessed just as much by what goes on my left, right, front, back. My
head is just as mobile … and fast enough to turn right away.
And here is the cost for you
What did the foreign minister Abdullah Gul state? The justice
minister Cemil Cicek?
"Come on, there is nothing to exaggerate about (Article 301 0f the
penal code). Is there anyone who has actually been tried and
imprisoned from it?"
As if the only cost one paid was imprisonment …
Here is a cost for you … Here is a cost …
Do you know, oh ministers, what kind of a cost it is to imprison a
human being into the apprehensiveness of a pigeon?… Do you know?…
You, don’t you ever watch a pigeon?
What they call "life-or-death"
What I have lived through has not been an easy process … And what
we have lived through as a family …
There were moments when I seriously thought about leaving the country
and moving far away. And especially when the threats started to
involve those close to me … At that point I always remained
helpless.
That must be what they call "life-or-death." I could have resisted
out of my own will, but I did not have the right to put into danger
the life of anyone who was close to me. I could have been my own
hero, but I did not have the right to be brave by placing, let along
someone close to me, any other person in danger.
During such helpless times, I gathered my family, my children
together and sought refuge in them and received the greatest support
from them. They trusted in me. Wherever I would be, they would be
there as well.
If I said "let’s go" they would go, if I said "let’s stay" they would
stay.
To stay and resist
Okay, but if we went, where would we go?
To the Armenian republic?
How long someone like me who could not stand injustices would put up
with the injustices there? Would I not get into even deeper trouble
there?
To go and live in the European countries was not at all the thing for
me.
After all, I am the kind of person who, if I travel to the west for
three days, I miss my country on the fourth and start writhing in
boredom saying "let this be over so I can go back". So what would I
end up doing there?
The comfort there would have gotten to me! Leaving "boiling hells"
for "ready-made heavens" was not at all right for my personality
make-up.
We were people who volunteered to transform the hells they lived into
heavens.
To stay and live in Turkey was necessary because we truly desired it,
and we had to do so out of respect for the thousands of friends in
Turkey who pursued a struggle for democracy and who supported us.
We were going to stay and we were going to resist.
If, however, we were forced to leave one day … we were going to set
out just as in 1915 … Like our ancestors … Without knowing where
we were going … Walking the roads they walked through … Feeling
the ordeal, experiencing the pain …
With such a reproach we were going to leave our homeland. And we
would go where our feet took us, but not our hearts.
Apprehensive – and free
I wish that we would never ever have to experience such a departure.
We have way too many reasons and hope not to experience it anyhow.
Now I am applying to the European Court of Human Rights.
How long this lawsuit will last, I do not know.
What I do know, and what puts me a little at ease, is that I will be
living in Turkey at least until the lawsuit is finalised.
If the court decides in my favour, I will undoubtedly become very
happy and it would mean that I would never have to leave my country.
>>From my own vantage-point, 2007 will probably be even a more
difficult year.
The trials will continue, new ones will commence. Who knows what
kinds of additional injustices I will have to confront?
While all these occur, I will consider this one truth my only
security.
Yes, I may perceive myself in the spiritual unease of a pigeon, but I
do know that in this country people do not touch pigeons.
Pigeons live their lives all the way deep into the city, even amidst
human throngs. Yes, somewhat apprehensive, but just as free.
ey/pigeon_4271.jsp
–Boundary_(ID_2imLZ107p+b3XQY 04s+/HA)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
