Tweet
Los Angeles Times, CA
March 9 2007
A modern mockery
Ankara's outdated laws to protect 'Turkishness' only bar free speech
and hold the nation up to ridicule.
March 9, 2007
GEORGE WASHINGTON and Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey,
had much in common. Both men led successful wars of independence;
both fought ferociously against the British; both became the first
president and "father" of their respective countries, and both proved
to be uncommonly forward-looking statesmen who made sure their new
republics were secular democracies.
And yet the national cultures that the two men helped to create are
vastly different, which explains partly (if glibly) why the United
States produced YouTube while Turkey is producing ridiculous
justifications for banning it.
Though Washington's name graces the nation's capital and currency, it
is also used for such crass purposes as selling used cars and
mattresses. Ataturk, on the other hand, who died in 1938, remains the
object of a cult of personality, one in which merely insulting his
memory is grounds for imprisonment. That's why the file-sharing
company YouTube was banned from Turkey this week after it hosted a
sophomoric video titled "Kemal Gay Turk."
Playground stuff, to be sure. But against the law? The United States
has learned through trial and error (and with the guidance of a
remarkable Constitution) that allowing citizens to insult their
leaders is an acceptable price to pay for a culture of free inquiry
that holds no president, current or dead, above scrutiny. This allows
Americans to learn from the mistakes of even their greatest
presidents - Washington owned slaves, for example - while constantly
questioning assumptions about how the country should be governed.
Turkey denies itself this opportunity, hobbling the very process that
Ataturk so forcefully set in motion. Besides cordoning off inquiry
into the country's founder - who, like most revolutionaries, was a
man of considerable flaws - Ankara's illiberal speech laws
notoriously prohibit the "denigration" of "Turkishness," a concept so
vague and broad as to be meaningless.
Such laws are a barrier to Turkey's bid to join the European Union,
which would be good for both Turks and Europeans. The good news is
that more and more Turks are beginning to realize the injustice (and
futility) of such laws, especially in the wake of the slaying in
January of Armenian-Turk journalist Hrant Dink, who had been
prosecuted for denigrating Turkishness.
Playground battles belong in the playground. Young Turks have
responded to the offensive speech in question by launching a volley
of crude YouTube videos of their own, mostly aimed at Greeks. But the
underlying issue is dead serious: Turkey can, and needs to, fulfill
Ataturk's goal of modernization by allowing him to be mocked.
March 9 2007
A modern mockery
Ankara's outdated laws to protect 'Turkishness' only bar free speech
and hold the nation up to ridicule.
March 9, 2007
GEORGE WASHINGTON and Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey,
had much in common. Both men led successful wars of independence;
both fought ferociously against the British; both became the first
president and "father" of their respective countries, and both proved
to be uncommonly forward-looking statesmen who made sure their new
republics were secular democracies.
And yet the national cultures that the two men helped to create are
vastly different, which explains partly (if glibly) why the United
States produced YouTube while Turkey is producing ridiculous
justifications for banning it.
Though Washington's name graces the nation's capital and currency, it
is also used for such crass purposes as selling used cars and
mattresses. Ataturk, on the other hand, who died in 1938, remains the
object of a cult of personality, one in which merely insulting his
memory is grounds for imprisonment. That's why the file-sharing
company YouTube was banned from Turkey this week after it hosted a
sophomoric video titled "Kemal Gay Turk."
Playground stuff, to be sure. But against the law? The United States
has learned through trial and error (and with the guidance of a
remarkable Constitution) that allowing citizens to insult their
leaders is an acceptable price to pay for a culture of free inquiry
that holds no president, current or dead, above scrutiny. This allows
Americans to learn from the mistakes of even their greatest
presidents - Washington owned slaves, for example - while constantly
questioning assumptions about how the country should be governed.
Turkey denies itself this opportunity, hobbling the very process that
Ataturk so forcefully set in motion. Besides cordoning off inquiry
into the country's founder - who, like most revolutionaries, was a
man of considerable flaws - Ankara's illiberal speech laws
notoriously prohibit the "denigration" of "Turkishness," a concept so
vague and broad as to be meaningless.
Such laws are a barrier to Turkey's bid to join the European Union,
which would be good for both Turks and Europeans. The good news is
that more and more Turks are beginning to realize the injustice (and
futility) of such laws, especially in the wake of the slaying in
January of Armenian-Turk journalist Hrant Dink, who had been
prosecuted for denigrating Turkishness.
Playground battles belong in the playground. Young Turks have
responded to the offensive speech in question by launching a volley
of crude YouTube videos of their own, mostly aimed at Greeks. But the
underlying issue is dead serious: Turkey can, and needs to, fulfill
Ataturk's goal of modernization by allowing him to be mocked.