Article 301 held responsible for Dink’s murder
by FATMA DISLI
Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 23 2007
Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, who was shot dead on Friday,
was laid to rest on Tuesday with the participation of thousands of
mourners. The prime suspect in Dink’s murder was captured in 24
hours. A 17-year-old secondary school graduate, unemployed Ogun
Samast confessed to the murder and said he killed Dink due to his
humiliating remarks about Turks. Dink had been previously tried for
"insulting Turkishness" in the scope of Article 301 of the Turkish
Penal Code. It is evident that nationalist feelings prompted the
killer and his masterminds, if there are any, to murder an Armenian
known for his public statements, particularly his labeling the 1915
incidents as genocide. There is a commonly held view that if Dink had
not appeared in court due to Article 301, he might still be alive
today, but according to another view, such explanations are simply
choosing the easy way out.
Vatan’s Okay Gonensin blames Article 301 for playing a major role in
Dink’s murder. He thinks some circles forced Dink’s trial under the
article and that they wanted to make him a victim of such an
assassination. Gonensin explains that it is necessary to consider the
chain of actors leading up to Dink’s murder such as the Justice and
Development Party (AK Party) government, which failed to save Turkey
from the calamity of Article 301, the Republican People’s Party (CHP)
opposition, the judiciary system that apparently forgot their purpose
and members of judiciary who are prone to act with the provocations
of street nationalists. He claims that all these people or
institutions owe an account to society due to Dink’s murder.
Posta’s Mehmet Ali Birand asserts that the killer of Dink is Article
301. He says that the police may have managed to capture the killer
who pulled the trigger, but the real killer would not be found.
"Because we are the real killers of Dink," urges Birand. "We have
nourished our murderers in a mindset and against a backdrop shaped by
Article 301. We have handed them guns," he claims. Just like
Gonensin, Birand criticizes defenders of Article 301, the members of
the judiciary and the public prosecutor who said," I would like to
get rid of the responsibility so I will file a lawsuit and let the
court decide." He also recalls the public reaction at the time of the
Armenian Conference. Birand admits that we have to change our
mindset. He thinks that urgently changing Article 301 is necessary if
we want to evolve as a society. "Only this way can we earn the
forgiveness of Dink," adds Birand.
Milliyet’s Fikret Bila’s views differ from other columnists about
holding Article 301 as the reason of Dink’s murder. He thinks
allegations such "defenders of Article 301 are responsible for this
tragic event" are cheap and simple. "If one of the defenders of
Article 301 is killed, who would be the killer then? Is it the
defenders of the abolishment of Article 301?" he asks. Bila also
directs criticism toward those who claim this murder was organized by
the "deep state." He calls such allegations conspiracy theories and
thinks that instead of making easy explanations by resorting to big
conspiracies, it is necessary to ponder the reasons and atmosphere
that resulted in murderers like Ogun Samast. Bila urges that it is
necessary to go beneath the surface and try to eradicate the problems
at its roots.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
