Turkey has been trying to become a member of the EU for the last 50 years. The governments changed, the prime ministers changed, there were even periods of coups, but our wish and determination to become a member have never changed. Now, despite some of our retired chiefs of general staff saying "The EU is trying to separate us," they never mentioned it when they were on duty. Recently, during the coalition of the Democratic Left Party (DSP), the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Motherland Party (ANAVATAN, formerly ANAP), EU membership was once again announced as Turkey's "state policy" and as part of the process to become a member, the death penalty was lifted. In other words, full membership in the EU is our political will. It is a conscious choice we have made so as to keep up with the times, approach the standard of modern civilization and not break away from international competition, making Turkey a freer, safer and more prosperous country.
The bureaucrats who prepared the progress report took into consideration the criteria that we know and accept, such as the Copenhagen and Maastricht criteria, the European Convention on Human Rights and the practices of the European Court of Human Rights. However, several details in the report disturb some people. The points that disturb certain circles include expansion of freedoms, taking the public's will into consideration and allowing the judiciary and military bureaucracy's strength to be weakened. For example, the report says:
"Overall, there was continued progress in the area of judicial reform. However, implementation of the new legislation by the judiciary presents a mixed picture so far and the independence of the judiciary still needs to be further established."
"Concerns remain regarding the perception of the independence of the judiciary, in particular the influence exerted by state bodies."
"The prosecutions and convictions for the expression of non-violent opinion under certain provisions of the new Penal Code are a cause for serious concern and may contribute to create a climate of self-censorship in the country. This is particularly the case for Article 301 which penalizes insulting Turkishness, the Republic as well as the organs and institutions of the state. Although this article includes a provision that expression of thought intended to criticize should not constitute a crime, it has repeatedly been used to prosecute non violent opinions expressed by journalists, writers, publishers, academics and human rights activists."
"The Armed Forces have continued to exercise significant political influence. Senior members of the armed forces have expressed their opinion on domestic and foreign policy issues including Cyprus, secularism, the Kurdish issue"
European Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn was frank and said that should Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) remain unchanged, the negotiation process will never be concluded.
But why is this four-paragraph-long clause so important for our membership in the EU? Because:
"Those who publicly humiliate Turkishness, the Republic or Parliament will be given a penalty of imprisonment between six months and three years and those belittling the government of the Turkish Republic, the ruling bodies of the state, the military or security establishments will receive a penalty of two years' imprisonment."
"The expression of opinion with the aim of criticism is not a crime…"
What is your reaction when you first read these? What? Humiliating our values and establishment, listed in law, should be allowed? None of us would say "yes" to this. Then why is there an objection? It is because of this:
"Previously repealed laws, such as 163, 141 and 142, and the application of several others, which are similar to those and still in force, totally blocked the freedom of thought and expression, freedom of religion and religious exercise and still pose as a barrier. Thousands of people were tortured, repressed, put in jails and suffered."
In other words, the problem is with the written rules and in the interpretation and application of them, not with the text. The mentality, which will decide "criticism or not?" is significant. Then the thing that should be done is to prevent the mentality that resists democracy from interpreting the written rules as it wishes.
The point that we should be sad about is the fact that we always take action after someone else asks us to do that which is right and normally becoming of us.
