Tweet
Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Oct 20 2012
Is the Fazıl Say affair a case of `blasphemy?'
MUSTAFA AKYOL
Turkish pianist Fazıl Say, a world-renown musician, went on trial the
other day before an Istanbul court on charges of insulting religious
beliefs. The trial made international news, as many media outlets
interpreted the affair as a case of `blasphemy.' It was also often
reported that Turkey's `Islamic government' is no big fan of Say and
reports implied that his trial might have something to do with the
`Islamization' of Turkey, which once used to be a beautifully secular
country.
The facts, however, are a little more complicated. As someone who is
also not a fan of Say, but who opposes him going to jail for what he
said, let me try to explain the nuances here.
First of all, it is neither the current Turkish government nor any new
law or regulation it enacted that put Say on trial. The Turkish penal
code article that he is accused of violating, Article 216, has been in
practice for decades. Its relevant part reads as follows:
`Any person who openly denigrates the religious beliefs of a group
shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to one year if the
act is conducive to a breach of the public peace.'
In fact, with an amendment in 2004, the `Islamist' Justice and
Development Party (AKP) government, in line with EU suggestions,
liberalized this law by adding the final clause ' `if the act is
conducive to a breach of the public peace,' ' Before this, it was
easier to accuse someone of `denigrating the religious beliefs of a
group.'
Moreover, this law has recently led to other trials that would
probably be welcomed by most liberal critics. In 2009, for example a
group of Turkish men who put a sign on the door of their `cultural
association' that read `Jews and Armenians cannot enter, [but] dogs
are free to enter' was found guilty of violating Article 216. They
were sentenced to five months in prison, commuted to 3,000 Turkish
Lira.
Say too is being accused of `denigrating the religious beliefs of a
group,' specifically that of Muslims, by likening the Islamic heaven
to a brothel and calling Muslims (`Allahists' in his language)
`pricks, low-lives, buffoons, thieves and jesters.'
This means that Say is not accused of `blasphemy,' which would be
defined as `offending God.' No, he is rather accused of offending a
group of people, by both denigrating their values and insulting their
character.
This means that Say's comment can indeed be considered as `hate
speech' according to some European standards. (Calling Jews `pricks,
low-lives, buffoons, thieves, jesters' would probably not be very
welcome in countries like Germany.) So I have had a hard time in
understanding some of the harsh European voices that have rushed to
Say's defense.
But personally speaking, my standards for free speech are higher than
the European average. (Although I find Holocaust denial insane and
irresponsible, for example, I find it unacceptable to criminalize it.)
Hence I would not argue for the banning of racist rhetoric and even
hate-mongering, as long as it does not come to the level of
encouraging imminent violence.
Therefore, I think we Turks should further reform Article 216 and save
people like Say from such court cases. The fact that I see Say as an
illiberal, anti-democratic, military-coup craving, rude and arrogant
Islamophobe does not change that.
October/20/2012
From: A. Papazian
Oct 20 2012
Is the Fazıl Say affair a case of `blasphemy?'
MUSTAFA AKYOL
Turkish pianist Fazıl Say, a world-renown musician, went on trial the
other day before an Istanbul court on charges of insulting religious
beliefs. The trial made international news, as many media outlets
interpreted the affair as a case of `blasphemy.' It was also often
reported that Turkey's `Islamic government' is no big fan of Say and
reports implied that his trial might have something to do with the
`Islamization' of Turkey, which once used to be a beautifully secular
country.
The facts, however, are a little more complicated. As someone who is
also not a fan of Say, but who opposes him going to jail for what he
said, let me try to explain the nuances here.
First of all, it is neither the current Turkish government nor any new
law or regulation it enacted that put Say on trial. The Turkish penal
code article that he is accused of violating, Article 216, has been in
practice for decades. Its relevant part reads as follows:
`Any person who openly denigrates the religious beliefs of a group
shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to one year if the
act is conducive to a breach of the public peace.'
In fact, with an amendment in 2004, the `Islamist' Justice and
Development Party (AKP) government, in line with EU suggestions,
liberalized this law by adding the final clause ' `if the act is
conducive to a breach of the public peace,' ' Before this, it was
easier to accuse someone of `denigrating the religious beliefs of a
group.'
Moreover, this law has recently led to other trials that would
probably be welcomed by most liberal critics. In 2009, for example a
group of Turkish men who put a sign on the door of their `cultural
association' that read `Jews and Armenians cannot enter, [but] dogs
are free to enter' was found guilty of violating Article 216. They
were sentenced to five months in prison, commuted to 3,000 Turkish
Lira.
Say too is being accused of `denigrating the religious beliefs of a
group,' specifically that of Muslims, by likening the Islamic heaven
to a brothel and calling Muslims (`Allahists' in his language)
`pricks, low-lives, buffoons, thieves and jesters.'
This means that Say is not accused of `blasphemy,' which would be
defined as `offending God.' No, he is rather accused of offending a
group of people, by both denigrating their values and insulting their
character.
This means that Say's comment can indeed be considered as `hate
speech' according to some European standards. (Calling Jews `pricks,
low-lives, buffoons, thieves, jesters' would probably not be very
welcome in countries like Germany.) So I have had a hard time in
understanding some of the harsh European voices that have rushed to
Say's defense.
But personally speaking, my standards for free speech are higher than
the European average. (Although I find Holocaust denial insane and
irresponsible, for example, I find it unacceptable to criminalize it.)
Hence I would not argue for the banning of racist rhetoric and even
hate-mongering, as long as it does not come to the level of
encouraging imminent violence.
Therefore, I think we Turks should further reform Article 216 and save
people like Say from such court cases. The fact that I see Say as an
illiberal, anti-democratic, military-coup craving, rude and arrogant
Islamophobe does not change that.
October/20/2012
From: A. Papazian