Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Feb 16 2007
Unless we abolish Article 301 in our thoughts!
by BULENT KENES
Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which imposes limitations on
freedom of thought, was already controversial due to the court cases
filed in its name against popular figures such as Orhan Pamuk, Elif
ªafak, Hrant Dink and many others, but the debates surrounding this
article have recently increased, particularly after Turkish
journalist of Armenian descent Hrant Dink was killed in a horrendous
murder.
One of the tenets of jurisprudence is the rule that `there is no
crime without a law.' If we are to scrutinize this tenet, we see that
what we should discuss is the perception of crime making Article 301
a necessity rather than discussing the article itself. Article 301 is
not a cause; it is a result. What does this result stem from? It is
the production and result of a mindset that is afraid of thought and
that sees banning as the easiest way of rendering it inefficient.
>From this perspective, I find the debates and efforts to abolish
Article 301 well meant but futile. The reason is simple. Even if
Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code was abolished, it will still be
possible for those who are ready to label just about anything as a
`crime' to find loopholes to file lawsuits against anyone, falling
under various articles of the same law or various clauses of the same
article.
Not only is it possible to file lawsuits against those charged with a
crime for their thoughts or statements in a penal system that doesn't
prioritize freedoms; it is also possible to imprison them. Moreover,
it would not be difficult to find a few narrow-minded prosecutors who
feed on fear and nightmares despite their pretension to be
neo-nationalists.
I don't want to be misunderstood. Of course Article 301, which has
become a symbol for those with a knee-jerk mentality, should be
abolished as soon as possible. Who amongst those with libertarian,
democratic or progressive views could oppose this? But my concern is
a little different. What matters in the end is preventing thoughts
and statements from being perceived as crimes. In my opinion, not
only should Article 301 be abolished but also a new article should be
added that would render ineffective the grounds for repression of
thought and criticism, which the malevolent will find aplenty in
other articles.
Just like the First Amendment, which constitutes the fundamental
basis for freedom of the press and expression in the United States, a
new article should be added to the constitution and penal laws that
will secure freedom of expression, which will leave no room for any
sort of pressure on any view or thought, so that we can talk about
real freedoms of faith, thought and expression.
This is the easier part. What also needs to be done is to cure the
widespread epidemic in society which drives to perceive anything
critical in thoughts and expressions as a `crime.' That is to say,
what is important is to change the mentality of the people. It is
impossible to change it overnight, and we need legal regulations to
protect these freedoms.
Although passage in the French parliament of a bill making it a crime
to deny the alleged Armenian genocide and similar campaigns in the
West have undermined those who are seeking more freedom, the need to
advance in the direction of freedoms remains strong. Ultimately,
freedoms are not granted; rather, people deserve freedom, and they
need to struggle towards this end.
Feb 16 2007
Unless we abolish Article 301 in our thoughts!
by BULENT KENES
Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which imposes limitations on
freedom of thought, was already controversial due to the court cases
filed in its name against popular figures such as Orhan Pamuk, Elif
ªafak, Hrant Dink and many others, but the debates surrounding this
article have recently increased, particularly after Turkish
journalist of Armenian descent Hrant Dink was killed in a horrendous
murder.
One of the tenets of jurisprudence is the rule that `there is no
crime without a law.' If we are to scrutinize this tenet, we see that
what we should discuss is the perception of crime making Article 301
a necessity rather than discussing the article itself. Article 301 is
not a cause; it is a result. What does this result stem from? It is
the production and result of a mindset that is afraid of thought and
that sees banning as the easiest way of rendering it inefficient.
>From this perspective, I find the debates and efforts to abolish
Article 301 well meant but futile. The reason is simple. Even if
Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code was abolished, it will still be
possible for those who are ready to label just about anything as a
`crime' to find loopholes to file lawsuits against anyone, falling
under various articles of the same law or various clauses of the same
article.
Not only is it possible to file lawsuits against those charged with a
crime for their thoughts or statements in a penal system that doesn't
prioritize freedoms; it is also possible to imprison them. Moreover,
it would not be difficult to find a few narrow-minded prosecutors who
feed on fear and nightmares despite their pretension to be
neo-nationalists.
I don't want to be misunderstood. Of course Article 301, which has
become a symbol for those with a knee-jerk mentality, should be
abolished as soon as possible. Who amongst those with libertarian,
democratic or progressive views could oppose this? But my concern is
a little different. What matters in the end is preventing thoughts
and statements from being perceived as crimes. In my opinion, not
only should Article 301 be abolished but also a new article should be
added that would render ineffective the grounds for repression of
thought and criticism, which the malevolent will find aplenty in
other articles.
Just like the First Amendment, which constitutes the fundamental
basis for freedom of the press and expression in the United States, a
new article should be added to the constitution and penal laws that
will secure freedom of expression, which will leave no room for any
sort of pressure on any view or thought, so that we can talk about
real freedoms of faith, thought and expression.
This is the easier part. What also needs to be done is to cure the
widespread epidemic in society which drives to perceive anything
critical in thoughts and expressions as a `crime.' That is to say,
what is important is to change the mentality of the people. It is
impossible to change it overnight, and we need legal regulations to
protect these freedoms.
Although passage in the French parliament of a bill making it a crime
to deny the alleged Armenian genocide and similar campaigns in the
West have undermined those who are seeking more freedom, the need to
advance in the direction of freedoms remains strong. Ultimately,
freedoms are not granted; rather, people deserve freedom, and they
need to struggle towards this end.