|
 |
|
|
|
Just what to do with notorious Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) is the subject of considerable debate in Turkey these days.
|
|
It is understandable since murdered journalist Hrant Dink, Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk and many other Turkish intellectuals have all been prosecuted under Article 301 for "insulting Turkishness." Article 301 calls for prison sentences of up to three years for those who "insult" the republic, the Turkish Parliament, the government, judiciary, military and security organizations under the umbrella provision "insulting Turkishness, the republic, state institutions and organs." Some are arguing that Article 301 is directly responsible for Dink's murder because the alleged killer and his accomplices announced they had killed Dink for insulting Turks. Amid criticism from the public and media, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül said he was amenable to changing the article while Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also said it was possible to change the article but they were not thinking of abolishing it. The EU is also pressuring Turkey for the abolishment of Article 301 on the grounds that it restricts freedom of expression. Yeni Şafak's Fehmi Koru looks at two options for changing the article according to the opinions of jurists. One option is to replace the words "Turkishness" with "Turkish nation" and "republic" with "Turkish republic," says Koru, referring to jurist Professor İzzet Özgenç. The other option comes from Professor Zafer Püskül, says Koru. Püskül asserts that both terms "Turkishness" and "Turkish nation" contradict the constitution's definition of "citizen." Koru quotes Püskül as saying that there are already prohibitions in the Constitution against insulting these things so there is no need for another article. In between the choice to amend or abolish, Koru says: "The worst thing the government could do is to change this article because it is being pressured. When will we learn to do the right thing by ourselves?" questions Koru. Radikal's Hasan Celal Güzel thinks that Article 301 has unfortunately turned into a political debate as he criticizes the EU for praising Turkey for enacting this article at first but then changing its mind. Güzel accuses the EU of hypocrisy. "Preventing the wrong implementation of this article is more important for our justice system, and not because of outside pressure," explains Güzel. He thinks that it would be politically unfair to ask the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government to abolish this article after so much conflict. Güzel proposes two things for the amendment of this article. Instead of "insulting," "extreme insults" should be used. Secondly, the president, minister of justice, or the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors should have powers of inquiry on this article, Güzel says. Star's Ahmet Kekeç says everybody is fond of talking about law and the rule of law in Turkey. He says that although we love law so much, we never want to appear in a court because the history of law in Turkey is full of wrong practices; just as it is in the case of Article 301. He admits that similar articles exist in some EU countries but there is a problem of implementation in Turkey that some want to ignore. "While speaking about Article 301 it is necessary to talk about its 'implementation' in Turkey as well," Kekeç urges.
|
| 31 January 2007, Wednesday |
| FATMA DİŞLİ ZIBAK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benzer Haberler 
