Cicek is wrong. It’s high time to talk about amending Article 301
By Yusuf KANLI

Turkish Daily News
Wed. Jan. 24, 2007
php?ed=yusuf_kanli

It was at the height of a debate on the persecution of intellectuals
in our society, under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK),
when the TDN asked Justice Minister Cemil Cicek during a Sept. 20
reception in Ankara hosted by Sabancı Holding Chairwoman Guler
Sabancı, whether the government would consider making amendments to
the article or totally scrap it.

The minister was very irritated and tried to avoid giving an answer
when I asked why he was so opposed to an amendment – which would
include a detailed clarification as to exactly what constitutes a
crime – to Article 301. However, with a large smile on his face,
he replied, "How willing are you to let people curse at Turkey,
insult Turkishness and get away with it?"

That night, within a few minutes and without giving the minister enough
time to fully answer one question before moving on to the next, I threw
a set of questions at him: But don’t you think this article seriously
infringes on the concept of free thought? Don’t you see that this
article is being used by some people to disseminate hatred? Can’t
we have a new law that complies with the modern understanding of
freedom of expression and opinion, negative or otherwise? Don’t you
think it will be in the best interest of Turkey to draw a line between
criticism and insult? Can there be progress in any area if criticism
is barred? Why are you against the amendment of this article?

He was very irritated. "Parliament is in session to legislate the
reform package, I must go," he responded at first, but seeing that
I had no intention of giving up, he said: "Where were you when the
TCK amendment was being debated? Did you not read the draft at that
time? Were you not aware of this article? Why did you, and others,
not raise your voices at that time? The TCK was legislated only
a short time ago. We need time to see problems that may arise in
practice. This is a serious issue. We cannot make a law and start
talking of amending it the next day, we need to see the application,
let the courts develop an interpretation. There have been different
court verdicts under the same article. Let’s wait and see how it
is implemented and if there is a need, at a later stage we may make
amendments and correct all the problems arising from that and perhaps
other articles. Why are you acting in such haste?"

I don’t want to repeat here how successfully the government had
distracted our attention from the adultery debate and how big a
mistake the intellectuals and progressive personalities of this nation
committed by not focusing well enough on each and every article of
the TCK…

"We were unfortunately debating adultery at that time," I said and
noticed a large smile on the face of Cicek. "You should have been
more attentive. … You should not have let yourself get carried away
with a discussion about one article only to forget about the rest,
including an important package like the TCK," he said.

He was damn right! But we were right as well in demanding immediate
action on Article 301, which we believed was not only devastating
Turkey’s international reputation, but at the same time had become a
tool for a witch-hunt by hard-core nationalists, a major contributor to
the widening polarization in the country and escalation of nationalism
with racist tones.

I should have asked the minister that night as well why the hell
the prosecutors were not taking punitive action against those hordes
attacking not only outside court rooms, but in the courts as well,
against people being prosecuted under the contentious article on
grounds that they insulted "Turkishness."

But, as we were laying to rest our friend and colleague Hrant Dink,
it must be clear to everyone concerned for the future of democracy,
freedom of thought, freedom of press and of minority rights in this
country why we were demanding from the government in such "haste"
to either totally scrap or make radical amendments to Article 301.

Still, it was sad to see the justice minister declaring even on such a
sorrowful day that the last thing Turkey needed was to begin another
debate on Article 301, arguing that the matter should be discussed
in a more suitable atmosphere.

Sorry Cicek. … We are sorry to say but you are totally out of
tune with our people – some of whom turned out in thousands at the
funeral of Dink yesterday while others were glued to their TV sets
watching live coverage of the procession on all news channels –
who are shouting out loud their demand for wider freedom of thought.

Can’t you, Cicek, understand the message in the statement of Rachel
Dink yesterday when she underlined: "He parted from his loved ones;
from his children; from his grandchildren. … even from his life,
but did not part from his homeland." She was speaking after her
husband was made a target by Article 301. Do we have the luxury to
wait longer so that the contentious article produces other targets
for the death squads?

–Boundary_(ID_hZx8coU14WvY9dedNPO4Xg)–