Freedom of expression is a very problematic issue in contemporary Turkey. The country may be in accession negotiations with the European Union, yet the lack of freedom of expression -caused by specific laws of the Turkish penal code that undermine it- poses a very big obstacle, and is regularly criticised by the annual European Commission’s Progress Reports. Not unjustly: according to Freedom House 2008 Freedom of Press Rankings, Turkey qualifies 109^th among 195 countries and lies within the group of 59 countries in which the Press is considered to be partly-free. Turkey (together with Mexico, Honduras and Congo-Brazzaville), qualifies just after Albania and just ahead of Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Uganda and Ukraine. Not a very complimentary position for a country which aspires to join the European Union.

When Turkey and freedom of expression are considered usually everybody’s mind goes to the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish Penal code, under which many Turkish writers and journalists have been prosecuted. Turkish Nobelist Orhan Pamuk, Turkey’s most famous female writer Elif Safak, and Turkish journalist of Armenian origin Hrant Dink constitute the most well-known cases. Orhan Pamuk was accused of denigrating Turkishness in 2005 when in an interview with Swiss magazine Das Magazin he said: “Thirty thousand Kurds have been killed here, and a million Armenians. And almost nobody dares to mention that. So I do.” In 2006 Elif Safak was also accused of insulting Turkishness through her novel The Bastard of Istanbul in which one of her heroes characterises the Armenian issue as genocide. Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink had also been accused of denigrating Turkishness three times, again for comments on the Armenian issue, which he also characterised as genocide. Orhan Pamuk, Elif Safak and Hrant Dink, all had their charges dropped later on, amidst international condemnation of their prosecutions. With one difference: Hrant Dink didn’t live long enough to see the charges against him dropped – he was assassinated in 2007 by a teenager who is believed to have been manipulated by members of an ultranationalist group. Hrant Dink’s prosecutions under article 301 had made him a target of the far-right.

What Hrant Dink’s murderers were not expecting was that by pulling that trigger they would shake and awake the Turkish civil society. Hrant Dink’s funeral was turned into a massive protest against his assasination, and was attended by approximately a hundred thousand Turkish citizens holding placards reading “We are all Armenian” and “We are all Hrant Dink” in Turkish, Kurdish and Armenian, as well as placards reading “301 is the murderer”.

Amidst national and international condemnation, the Turkish Parliament decided to amend article 301 on 30 April 2008. Unfortunately the amendment didn’t change much, quite the contrary: it further politicised freedom of expression in Turkey. According to the old version of the article:

1. A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey shall be punished by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
2. A person who publicly denigrates the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punished by imprisonment of between six months and two years.
3. In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.
4. Expressing an opinion with the purpose of criticism does not constitute a penal offence.

In the amended version, the word Turkishness (whatever that may mean) has been replaced with the phrase Turkish Nation (whatever that may mean again), the maximum penalty has been reduced from three years to two, and the key-change is that:

The investigation for this offence is subject to the permission of the Minister of Justice.

Therefore, the Minister of Justice is held responsible to decide which cases will be prosecuted and which ones will be dropped. The amended article was put into effect on 9 May 2008.

Ever since, 766 cases have reached the Ministry which rejected 619 of them, granted permission for investigation for 73, while 74 cases are still under review (as of 27-04-2009). There are complaints though that high-profile cases are being dismissed, while non-high profile ones are being prosecuted. Therefore, the calls for the annulment of article 301 have increased, and it remains to be seen what stance the government and the main opposition parties of Turkey will take.

However, freedom of expression in Turkey is not all about article 301. On 25 June 2009, Nedim Gürsel, a Turkish-French author had to stand before court for the third hearing of his case. His crime? He wrote a novel, titled Allah’in Kizlari (The Daughters of Allah) which the Religious Affairs Directorate found that “insults not only Islam but also all celestial religions and caused disintegration in society”. Now he is facing accusations under Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code, according to which:

(1) A person who openly incites groups of the population to breed enmity or hatred towards one another based on social class, race, religion, sect or regional difference in a manner which might constitute a clear and imminent danger to public order shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one to three years.

(2) A person who openly denigrates part of the population on grounds of social class, race, religion, sect, gender or regional differences shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months to one year.

(3) A person who openly denigrates the religious values of a part of the population shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months to one year in case the act is likely to distort public peace.

In yet another interesting case, Turkish NGO Freedom Association (Özgür-Der) is currently facing closure, over a statement it released in November 2008 against military-style ceremonies at Turkish schools. Since 1933, Turkish students have to stand in military-style ranks and repeat the national pledge of allegiance every morning. They also have to march like soldiers on several ceremonies of official public holidays (does this ring any bells for my Greek compatriots?).

In their statement , Freedom Association (Özgür-Der) encouraged the Turkish citizens to “adopt a stance against ceremonies that impose on us the official ideology and despise our beliefs and identities.” Now, Freedom Association are trialed under article 318 of Turkish Penal Code, according to which:

(1) Persons who give incentives or make suggestions or spread propaganda which will have the effect of discouraging people from performing military service shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months to two years.
(2) If the act is committed through the medium of the press and media, the penalty shall be increased by half.

It is the same article under which the famous Turkish transsexual singer Bülent Ersoy was charged, to be acquitted later on in December 2008, after a long process that attracted a great deal of international attention.

And that’s not the end of the list. In January 2009 Nedim Şener, a journalist of Milliyet published a book titled “Dink Murder and Intelligence lies”. In that book he reveals the deficiencies of Turkish Intelligence Services before and after Dink was shot, deficiencies which may have contributed to his death. Now, he is standing trial under Anti-Terror Law for “making targets of the personnel in service of fighting terrorism, and obtaining and declaring secret information that is forbidden to be declared”and for “violation of the secrecy of communication”, under Article 288 for “attempting to influence fair trial”, as well as under Article 301 (ever-present) for “insulting governmental institutions”. If found guilty, Şener is facing an imprisonment of a total of 28 years. Ironically enough, the person accused of Dink’s murder is facing a maximum of 20 years if convicted, while in a related case the 8 Trabzon Gendarmerie Command personnel who are accused of neglecting their duties regarding Dink’s death are facing up to two years in prison if found guilty.

In its latest Progress Report, the European Commission is particularly emphasizing the lack of freedom of expression in Turkey. Article 301 is –as expected- attracting the biggest share of criticism, but the problem is much bigger than that. A wider legislative reform is required, and the government and the main opposition parties of Turkey have to stand up to the expectations of the Turkish civil society. Not for the European Commission to praise Turkey in its next Progress Report in November 2009- this time for Turkey itself. Because, as Orhan Kemal Cengiz, chairman of the Human Rights Agenda Association HRAA, wrote in an article on Today’s Zaman:

“…the biggest insult to Turkishness is the lack of freedom of expression in this country.”