New York Times, NY
Feb 9 2007
Civic Groups Seek to Amend Law on Insults to Turkish State
By SEBNEM ARSU
Published: February 9, 2007
ISTANBUL, Feb. 8 – A group of civic organizations on Thursday
submitted suggestions for rewording a section of the Turkish penal
code under which noted intellectuals and writers had been charged
with the crime of insulting the Turkish identity and the state.
But some critics of the law say it should be revoked, not amended.
After the killing last month of an Armenian-Turkish journalist, Hrant
Dink, some critics said the law, known as Article 301, was partly
responsible. According to this argument, Mr. Dink’s conviction under
the article for comments he made about the genocide in which more
than a million Armenians were killed by the Ottoman Turk government
from 1915 to 1918 made him a traitor in the eyes of many Turks and
put his life in jeopardy.
For Turkey, the Armenian issue is among the thorniest issues of free
speech. The courts have interpreted the use of the word genocide in
reference to the killings as an `insult against the Turkish state’
under Article 301.
Last year, after harsh criticism by the European Union, the
government said it was receptive to changing the law but not
abolishing it.
The proposal submitted on Thursday, signed by 10 civic organizations,
tried to make a distinction between illegal language and legal
criticism. Instead of outlawing `insulting Turkishness’ it proposed
new wording that would outlaw `openly abasing and deriding’ the
Turkish identity.
That was not enough for one civic group, the Turkish Chamber of
Doctors, which broke with the umbrella group and accused the
government of trying to evade responsibility for the law for fear of
losing voters in November’s general elections. `Changes are only a
facade and can never prevent bitter consequences, as we’ve witnessed
with Mr. Dink’s murder,’ said Gencay Gursoy, the group’s general
secretary.
Perihan Magden, a journalist who is one of a number of people given
security protection by the government after Mr. Dink’s death, said
the suggested changes were too mild to make a difference.
`The fact that I have to live in my own country under police
protection is a government acknowledgment that something is wrong,’
she said.