(WiPC/IFEX) – The following is a WiPC report: Freedom of Expression in Turkey “Mini-democracy Package” Fails Writers March 2002 For over a quarter of a century, Turkey has been among those countries of highest concern to the writers’ association, International PEN. From the mid-1970s through to the end of the 1990s Turkish prisons played host […]
(WiPC/IFEX) – The following is a WiPC report:
Freedom of Expression in Turkey
“Mini-democracy Package” Fails Writers
March 2002
For over a quarter of a century, Turkey has been among those countries of highest concern to the writers’ association, International PEN. From the mid-1970s through to the end of the 1990s Turkish prisons played host to dozens of writers at any one time.
The early 1990s saw a gradual change for the better. A major amnesty in 1991 led to the release of hundreds of political prisoners, among them many writers, editors, journalists and publishers. Since then, a series of legislative and constitutional amendments have led to gradual improvement for free expression.
Today PEN’s records show only one writer, Fikret Baskaya, held in prison specifically for his writing. Yet there are at the same time over 100 writers, editors, journalists and publishers before the courts, a figure that is likely to be higher given that not all cases are reported to PEN. Writers who attempt to push the boundaries find themselves embroiled in lengthy trials, often lasting months, that are a financial and emotional drain. The majority of cases do not end in imprisonment, and acquittal is not uncommon. Yet the aim is to suppress those who criticise while at the same time avoid the scrutiny of the outside world, most notably within the European Union to which Turkey is seeking membership.
Law No. 4744 – the “Mini-Democracy Package”
Given that Turkey wishes to join the European Union and that it has been instructed to improve its human rights record as one of the conditions of entry, there were high expectations of the “mini-democracy package” (Law 4744) adopted by the Turkish government on 6 February 2002. Yet these hopes proved to be overly optimistic. Aimed at meeting the conditions set by the European Union, Law 4744 makes adaptations to Turkish law to meet Constitutional amendments adopted in October 2001. Yet the limited nature of the amendments, and indeed expansion of some articles to widen the types of cases that can be penalised, leads to the question of how real is the Turkish government’s alleged commitment to human rights. Below is a summary of the main laws used to penalise free speech and the impact of Law No. 4744:
Article 8 – The Anti-Terror Law
Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law has been used to penalise those who speak out in defence of the Kurdish community, in effect branding them as supporters of terrorism. Providing a maximum of three years in prison for “separatist propaganda”, many writers who wrote of human rights abuses found themselves before the courts or even in prison. International condemnation of this law has led it to be used less widely than it has been in the past, in favour of laws on insult and incitement. Yet Fikret Baskaya has been detained since June 2001 to serve a 16-month sentence for his book entitled A Question of History? Mehmet Uzun, a well-known Kurdish writer, is to be brought before the courts – on 16 and 19 April – in two separate cases under Article 8. The first for his book on Kurdish literature and language, the second for a speech made in Diyabakir in 2000. On 3 April Abdullah Keskin, a publisher, will go on trial for the publication of a book by US author and former Washington Post correspondent, Jonathan Randal, entitled After Such Knowledge, What Forgiveness? My Encounters in Kurdistan.
Furthermore, the “mini-democracy” package, rather than abolishing Article 8, had in fact extended it. Whereas before the amendments the law encompassed only “written and oral propaganda”, it has been expanded to include visual “propaganda”.
Article 312/2 – Turkish Penal Code
Aimed at penalising “incitement to hatred on the basis of class, religion or race”, Article 312/2 of the Penal Code has been applied as a means of penalising writers who support minority issues. There are a number of writers, editors, publishers and journalists on PEN’s records facing trial under this article. Some are being tried for their views on Islam: in late 2001, writer Emine Senlikoglu was tried for her opposition to the ban on girls wearing headscarves in school – she is appealing a 20-month prison term; Fehmi Koru, a journalist, is also appealing a 20-month sentence for supporting newspaper owner Mehmet Kutlular, himself sentenced to two years for claiming that the 1999 earthquake was “divine retribution”. Those who write on Turkey’s numerous minorities also find themselves on the wrong side of this law. Nese Düvel and her publisher Nihat Tuna are on trial for Duvel’s book on the Alevite community; Selma Koçiva is similarly penalised for her book The Reality of the Laz Community. Meanwhile, the author of the widely acclaimed Culture of the Pontus, Omer Asan is awaiting the next stage of judicial proceedings for his widely acclaimed anthropological study of a small community in the Northeast of Turkey with Hellenic roots.
The “mini-democracy package” has narrowed down the law to include only “incitement ⦠done in a form that could endanger public order”, but the wording is still broad and is open to wide interpretation. Worryingly, the law added another category, “insulting a segment of the population or people’s honour”, as a new offence.
Article 159 of the Turkish Penal Code
Also widely used against writers is Article 159 of the Penal Code relating to “insult”. The scope of the law is extraordinary. Writers who dare to criticise the Turkish institutions, ranging from the military, the judiciary, government offices or even the Turkish State itself, find themselves in the dock. Prison sentences are rarely the result of these trials, but emotional and financial cost can be. This article has led to those writing about human rights abuses by the army, specifically against the Kurds, before the courts. For example, currently on trial is Celal Baslangic for his book Temple of Fear, on the activities of the army against Kurds in the 1980s and 1990s; human rights lawyer, Eren Keskin, and journalist Erdol Tas, who covered her allegations of torture by the army, are also on trial; as is editor Erol Ozkoroy, whose article suggested undue military influence on the state institutions. Criticising the judiciary is also hazardous. Journalist Burak Bekdil, whose satirical article on the state of the judicial system could earn him a prison term, is awaiting his third trial hearing. In addition, writers Metin Munir and Semra Uncu are before the courts for an article condemning the appointment as prosecutor a man accused of criminal connections. It is also possible to “insult the Turkish nation” as Akin Birdal, a leading human rights activist who has also written extensively on human rights and democracy, has found.
The “mini-democracy package” has conceded that the penalties for “insult” had been too heavy and reduced the maximum penalty from six years to three. However, given that fines rather than prison sentences are the usual penalties under this article, this change will have no real impact. Yet it is evident that criminal law, specifically Article 159, is being used to penalise those who criticise the Turkish authorities and that it has no place at all in a democracy and should be repealed, allowing civil courts to adjudicate where individuals have suffered defamation.
The FoX Campaign
Since 1996, a remarkable campaign challenging the numerous laws that penalise free expression has been running in Turkey, headed by the musician and composer, Sanar Yurdatapan. The campaign centres around the publication of a series of booklets, entitled “Freedom of Expression” containing articles written by intellectuals, human rights and labour activists, lawyers, writers, artists, etc, to which sometimes over 1,000 other activists sign their names a joint publishers. Turkish legislation demands that such acts be brought to the courts. The complex Turkish legal system means that each booklet – several are published each year – entails lengthy trial processes. In most cases, individual FoX activists brought to the courts are served with short prison terms, fines or acquittal. Occasionally some have entered prison, most notably the FoX leader, composer Sanar Yurdatapan. In March 2002, several courts were hearing various charges against the “publishers” of two FoX pamphlets, ‘FoX for All’ and FoX 2001. Over 65 writers, artists, intellectuals, politicians and campaigners are involved in the processes. PEN has affiliated itself to this campaign, which it sees as a unique example of civil disobedience aimed at challenging and eventually overturning the burden of legislation used to suppress free speech in Turkey.
Although it welcomes the initiative to improve Turkish legislation in line with European Union accession requirements, International PEN is deeply disappointed by the limited changes to laws that are used to penalise freedom of expression in Turkey. Indeed it is alarmed that in some cases penalties have been increased, and the scope of repressive legislation widened.
International PEN calls on the Turkish authorities to review once again those laws under which writers, editors, publishers and journalists can be prosecuted solely for the writings. Specifically it considers Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law to be in breach of international standards safeguarding the right to free expression and calls for its abolition. Also in need of urgent reconsideration are Articles 159 and 312/2 of the Turkish Penal Code, both of which are routinely applied to suppress free speech.
The continued detention of and trials against writers, editors, publishers and journalists under these laws is of ongoing concern. International PEN urges that all those currently imprisoned solely for their writings be freed, and calls for an end to trials against writers whose only act has been to exercise their right to freedom of expression. By so doing, the Turkish government will show its true commitment to the international standards to which it is a signatory, specifically Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
