Tweet
TURKISH COURT REJECTS EDITOR'S APPEAL
Hurriyet, Turkey
May 2 2006
An Armenian editor, who lives in Turkey and was found guilty under
article 301 of insulting Turkishness last year when he described
Turkish blood as dirty in relation to the so-called Armenian genocide,
has had his appeal turned down. Hrant Dink was given a six-month
suspended sentence last October for writing an article which discussed
the so-called genocide.
In February, the case was interpreted by the Appeals Court of which
the chief prosecutor stated that the remarks made by Dink were in no
way insulting, however, the court has ignored its previous statements
and now said that the charge is still valid.
Hrant Dink is said to be very distressed by the entire episode and has
even gone as far as saying should his name not be cleared in Turkey,
he would have to leave the country for good.
The case is being closely watched by the European Union, as it holds
concerns over Turkey's freedom of speech laws. Something which will
need to be addressed as Dink is not the only person being scrutinized
under the infamous article 301.
Hurriyet, Turkey
May 2 2006
An Armenian editor, who lives in Turkey and was found guilty under
article 301 of insulting Turkishness last year when he described
Turkish blood as dirty in relation to the so-called Armenian genocide,
has had his appeal turned down. Hrant Dink was given a six-month
suspended sentence last October for writing an article which discussed
the so-called genocide.
In February, the case was interpreted by the Appeals Court of which
the chief prosecutor stated that the remarks made by Dink were in no
way insulting, however, the court has ignored its previous statements
and now said that the charge is still valid.
Hrant Dink is said to be very distressed by the entire episode and has
even gone as far as saying should his name not be cleared in Turkey,
he would have to leave the country for good.
The case is being closely watched by the European Union, as it holds
concerns over Turkey's freedom of speech laws. Something which will
need to be addressed as Dink is not the only person being scrutinized
under the infamous article 301.