An open letter to Hrant Dink

[Gavur]

An open letter to Hrant Dink
Sunday, October 16, 2005




Hrant, you did not commit any crime. It is those who make you feel like a 'foreigner' in your own land that have been committing a crime for centuries. There are no courts to punish them, apart from our pens

Elif Şafak
Dear Hrant,

I learned of your conviction to six months for “insulting and belittling Turkishness” in one of your articles when I was in the United States. It appears despite the expert's report noting that there was no such thing, in other words you had not insulted Turkishness, the court found it appropriate to sentence you anyway. I tried to read everything about the case in both the national and international media. I desperately looked for an article that said, “The person you are talking about is a bridge between Armenians and Turks. For years, he has tried to establish peace between two peoples that were deaf to each other, even though he was never commended or supported in his efforts.”

When I had nothing left to read, I took a walk on the streets. Americans, young and old, black and white, eating their pizzas and sipping their coffee with children playing by their side. All of a sudden I felt like a foreigner, enervated and alone. At the end of the day, that is what I am: a foreigner in America. No matter how well I learn their language, their values or symbols, no matter how well I keep with the pace of daily life, this foreignness of mine will never be gone. I know what it means to be a foreigner in a new country. But you tell me, Hrant, how does it feel to feel and to be seen as a “foreigner” in your own land, in your own country!

I was never discriminated against in Turkey because of my name or surname, or due to what was written in the religion section of my ID card. As a child, I was never reprimanded and kicked out of a music competition just like dear Takuhi, an Istanbul Armenian, had. I was never accosted with questions like: “Your Turkish is great. When did you learn it?” Questions that dear Aron, whose family has been Sefarad from İzmir for centuries would have to face over and over. I never had to experience my school being closed and my childhood memories being erased in one glimpse, just like dear Eleni, an Istanbul, middle-aged Greek, had to.

When I come across Turks who claim that non-Muslim minorities in Turkey were never treated badly, they were never discriminated against and our history has no blemishes, I look at their faces in amazement. They are either very naïve or apathetic. Given the fact that our history is full of tragedies, and the past lives within the present and a better future cannot be established without recognizing the pains of the past, neither naïvety nor apathy can be excusable.

When I heard of the court's decision, what hurt me most was its conviction that you had “insulted the Turkish nation.” Because I know how much you love this land and the people of this land. Because I know how many times you had to fight against the sweepingly negative generalizations about Turks made by some Armenians in the diaspora. And that is the thing: The people who suffer the most are Turkey's Armenians who love the country they were born in. Both Turkish nationalism and Armenian nationalism in the diaspora regards them with great suspicion. They want to talk about the past but that offends the Turkish nationalists. They want to talk about a future with Turks but that offends the Armenian nationalists. Turkey's Armenian intellectuals are stuck between these two monoliths and are trying to find a way out. Meanwhile, Turkish courts are out to punish them.

This country has yielded nationalist, xenophobic and discriminatory politics that smeared its own children. It charged its intellects, hung, tortured and imprisoned young people for their thoughts. It denied them freedom of thought, freedom of expression.

However, it is equally true that this land has also produced an alternative culture, a fabric woven with egalitarian, cosmopolitan, multi-cultural and multi-faith threads. A discourse that says “there are as many paths in this world as the number of hearts beating for God, and no human being's path can be rendered superior to another.” A discourse teaching that says, “The man who doesn't see the peoples of the world as one, is a rebel even if the pious claim he's holy.” I have faith in this second component of Turkish culture, and I know you do too.

Hrant, you did not commit a crime. It is those who make you feel like a “foreigner” in your own land that have been committing a crime for centuries. There are no courts to punish them, apart from our pens. If they try to silence your pen, I have mine to write what you would. If I have mine silenced, someone else will write what I would. The regime might succeed in punishing individuals one by one but how can they ever manage to imprison our words?

Take good care and do not forget that you are not alone,

Elif Şafak

[Gavur]

The language of hate

Sunday, October 30, 2005


Elif Şafak

I have been testing a hypothesis for a long time, which is that Turks living abroad are more reactionary, conservative and closed to criticism than those living in Turkey.

Turkey is changing at an incredible pace, but Turks living abroad change very slowly. It can even be said that they and their identities remain unchanged. This is true especially for those living in the United States. I am receiving a multitude of e-mails about my opinions and articles on the “Armenian issue.” There are a lot who agree with me entirely, but there are also those who don't agree at all. All are quite civilized and free in their opinions. However, I don't know why, but the Turks in the United States are either in full agreement with me and send letters full of praise or they are totally opposed and send letters full of insult. It appears there is no middle ground. I just would like to cite a few passages from these letters without mentioning any names. I will first cite a few that I describe as “the language of hostility and hate.” Next week, I will give a few examples of letters I describe as the “language of growing reconciliation.” I just want to portray the huge gap between the language, content, purpose and presentation between the two.

Those who speak the language of hostility and hate accuse me of “selling out the country” and “carrying Armenian, not Turkish, genes." (Their words are very rude.) If you criticize, you are not “one of us.” The following are just a few examples.



Selling out the country:

“Don't forget those who praise you for selling out your country today will turn their back on you tomorrow. At one time, the Taliban walked the halls of the White House and met the president, because they were treading along a path approved. Later, bombs rained on their heads. Nothing may rain on your head because you live in the United States, but one cannot sell out one's country until the end. The reason why I am writing you this is because you hurt the conscience of many Turks and I wanted to ask you if it was worth it.”



Being ungrateful to the state:

“I am worried about the possibility of me being as heedless as you are. Please don't forget the fact that our glorious state is providing exceptional environments for our diplomats and families despite its limited capabilities, expecting them to represent the country and the flag in the best possible way. The opportunities provided by this country and the successful education you received at your diplomat mother's expense seems to have provided you with a good future. Please tell me how many people get the opportunity to get born in Strasbourg and go to secondary school in Madrid. How many get the opportunity to do a bachelor's degree and a doctorate at the Middle East Technical University Department of International Relations?”



Thank God you are not a diplomat:

"Your educational profile shows you could have chosen your mother's profession, but I have nothing against you deciding to become a novelist. Considering the way you interpret Turkey's sensitivities and issues that are constantly raised by outside forces with your intellect, I can say it was very good for the country that you decided against becoming a diplomat."



On being traitorous and deluded:

“This country is not one that can be sold out that easily. It is strong and rooted enough to survive through the ages. It has no problem with its history, unlike what you are trying to say. Those who have a problem with their history, assess it anyway. Please Ms. Şafak, don't waste your intellect, youth and energy, even if you are a convert, on such matters. Don't upset us. Don't upset Mother Anatolia.”



Carrying Armenian genes:

“Why don't you just admit you are an Armenian, so that you don't annoy us anymore. Your mother was a diplomat, but failed in bringing you up. She failed to instill patriotism in you. You have ‘sold out' just like the others. You work harder than Armenians. You might even have some Armenian blood in you. Otherwise, you would not be doing such nonsense.”



Accusations about warmth towards Christian blood:

“Even if you have Turkish blood, your heart is warm to Christian blood. Turks never hurt Armenians. Just the opposite. Armenians stabbed Turks in the back. You read the history wrong. Shame on you for supporting Armenians as a Turk!”



Accusations about insulting forefathers:

“Would you still have accused our grandfathers of murdering Armenians if you knew my grandfather, who I lost three years ago. He spent eight months in the mountains, leaving my grandmother alone back at the village, to fight the Armenian gangs. How can you call my grandfather a murderer?”

This is the language of hate.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=27114

[Gavur]

The language of reconciliation

TDN
Sunday, November 6, 2005
Opinion by Elif SAFAK


Elif SAFAK

>From time to time it happens. Amid mistrust, temper, and anger, there
comes a letter that moves me deeply -- a letter written in the
language of reconciliation. Last week I published some selected
samples of letters of hatred, coming mostly from Turks outside
Turkey. This week I want to share some letters of hope, coming mostly
from Armenians everywhere:

I.

Dear Elif, I read your article with tears in my eyes. I am a
54-year-old from Toronto who was raised in Lebanon only to hate
Turks. In the last 10 years that has changed slowly as I started
meeting co-workers from Turkey. In fact, I geta very warm feeling when
I meet fellow Turks now here in Toronto or in Ottawa. I go with them
to Turkish restaurants to eat doner and also to discuss the Armenian
genocide. A few months ago, one of my Turkish friends in Ottawa told
me, "It is too heavy for us to digest the word genocide..." I agree
with him. In fact, Armenians have a duty to help fellow Turks avoid
embarrassment and pass from this chasm with dignity and respect.

This is a journey that we both, Turks and Armenians, have to go
through together to build a better future for our children. I truly
believe that we can achieve friendship with honesty and truth. God
bless you, "Watan dash." Technically, I am a Turkish citizen since
both my grandparents are from Adana.

Technically, you are my fellow country person.

II.

I read your recent article in which you clearly identify the social
and political ramifications of the Armenian genocide as it is getting
slowly introduced/digested/processed by Turkish society today. I
admire your clear-headedness, capacity to sift through such a complex
issue and your fairness. Please keep it up. If I can be of any help,
please let me know.

I am Turkish-born Armenian. I still keep my Turkish citizenship. I
love Turkey. In an odd way I consider Turkey as my homeland, not
Armenia. I have more in common with my Turkish classmates from what
was formerly the American College for Girls in Arnavutkoy. The bond
that we share is very strong. Yet it wasn't until the very recent year
that my Turkish friends and I were able to openly discuss the Armenian
genocide. They are intellectually enlightened people but they do not
have all the information at their fingertips.

I believe that credible Turkish scholars should translate most of the
existing pivotal books on this subject into Turkish. If it is in the
language of the "people" then it will be read and digested.

III.

I send you the deepest thanks for viewing things as objectively as you
have and also for possessing the boldness to make your views public.
That principle of objectivity and fact-based analysis on which you
obviously place such great importance has resulted in that article
that, to me, is certainly one of the most positive and hope-inducing
collection of words I have readin a while. I just might yet have cause
to rise from my cynicism on this matter.

We obviously agree on one other important thing and that is that the
true form of nationalism contains the potential to criticize aspects
of one's own nation. I also would like to take up a few words now,
since I have decided already to write this letter, to apologize on
behalf of the Armenians for the terrorism that had been inflicted upon
Turkish citizens throughout the years. My apology may seem relatively
insignificant but I do feel compelled to express to you that the
majority of Armenians does not consider such actions proper conduct
and I, along with that significant majority, have shown the greatest
interest in the position of non-violence in the quest for resolution.

*** Such are the letters of reconciliation -- heartwarming, thought
provoking, affecting. What intrigues me most is the enormous
difference between them and the letters of hatred. The situation today
is highly polarized. It is as if there exist two utterly different
languages. When a Turkish intellectual openly recognizes the
atrocities committed during 1915, many Armenians address her/him with
the language of camaraderie and gratitude. In a similar position,
however, numerous Turks --especially those living abroad -- address
her/him with the language of wrath. Between the language of gratitude
and the language of wrath, non-nationalist Turkish intellectuals stand
wondering if there can ever be a bridge of words between opposite
coasts.

Can the language of wrath and the language of gratitude ever manage to
speak to one another?

http://www.TurkishDailyNews.com

[Gavur]

'So-called' citizen of Turkey-Elif Şafak

'So-called' citizen of Turkey
Sunday, December 4, 2005







Elif Şafak
Throughout history, each country's “cultural elite” has played an imperative part in triggering social transformations and questioning the existing dogmas, no matter how deeply rooted they may have been. In Turkey, it is a bit different. Here, some members of the intelligentsia are surprisingly much more narrow-minded and bigoted than the general public. Some of our authors are far more blimpish, if not also ignorant, than our illiterates. By the same token, some of our artists use their art in the service of the status quo. Although art is “radical” by definition and always a catalyst for change, in the hands of some, art can serve just the opposite ends: it can be the mouthpiece of the status quo. Here lies another characteristic of the Turkish intelligentsia: the proclivity to devour each other. We are a small cultural elite wherein musicians condemn other musicians and authors condemn other authors. Our intelligentsia is famous for their hostility and cruelty towards one another.

Accordingly, whenever someone develops an alternative point of view, while the Turkish public tries to understand, the Turkish intelligentsia does its utmost not to. While the public pays attention, the intelligentsia prefers to ignore. While the public is not afraid of expressing praise whenever they like something, the intelligentsia keeps its good opinions to itself. I, like many others, have become used to receiving all types of conservative accusations from a seemingly progressive intelligentsia. Each time I deliberately refrain from giving an answer with an article to those who make allegations against my person, especially when these allegations are sexist, nationalist or arrogant. However, the nonsensically disparaging remarks made by filmmaker Halit Refiğ against me made even me say, “Enough is enough.” Refiğ describes me as a “fully fledged anti-Kemalist” and declared me a “so-called citizen of Turkey.” I will not even dignify his spurious allegations by responding to them. Therefore, leaving his vindictive remarks to one side, it is impossible not to be surprised at the change in the use of the expression “so-called.” This deserves further evaluation.

For years the dominant ideology in Turkey used the term “so-called” in order to refer to the “so-called Armenian genocide.” It now appears that they have found a new usage for this term; now they are talking about “so-called Turks.”

If anyone ventures to criticize any part of “this exquisite republic founded by Atatürk,” one is immediately branded. “How dare you? You are a traitor, you are a so-called Turk,” they say. If a foreigner eavesdropped on this discourse, they would think that we Turks are divided amongst ourselves into three groups: the so-called Turks (the minority), the beloved Turks (the majority) and the 100 percent Turks (the guardians of the hegemony).

Underlying this discourse is an aggressive nationalism. Whenever one voices a critical opinion, this kind of nationalism always recoils by using the same three accusations:

(i) Are you betraying Kemalism?

(ii) Are you trying to revamp the Sevres Treaty?

(iii) Are you a pawn of foreign powers, conspiracy theories, etc.?

Thus, for instance, if you happen to maintain that the “ban on the headscarf needs to be lifted,” they fire back, “Article one!” If you happen to vouch for minority rights, they retort, “Article two!” If you are a resolute believer in Turkey's European Union accession and support the implementation of the necessary reforms fully and immediately, you are accused of “Article three!” Year after year, we hear the same kind of accusations. There is something in common between the fervent advocates of Bush's foreign policy in Iraq and nationalists like Halit Refiğ in Turkey. Both stances are based on the attitude: “If you love your nation, you will never criticize it. If you are a patriot, you will not challenge the state.” From here it is a short step to imply, “Those who criticize the system are traitors and the enemy of the people.” The politics of fear serves only to reinforce the status quo.

Fortunately, aggressive nationalism is but one among many voices in Turkey. This nation is not in the monopoly of a few people and critical thinkers are not traitors. I have known such Turks overseas whose hearts and souls are in Turkey despite being thousands of miles away. I have known such people overseas who manage to think beyond national borders and passport control gates. People are punished because they have a critical mind and wish to change things, not through hate, but through care and love. In our bid for membership in the EU, open-minded thinkers are needed more than ever.

[Gavur]

The water finds its crack: an Armenian view of Turkey

Hrant Dink
13 - 12 - 2005


Europe and Turkey are locked in a relationship of mutual fear and suppressed desire. It will be opened when Turkey can face its greatest taboo, says the editor of the Armenian newspaper “Agos” in Istanbul, Hrant Dink.


The interest of foreign journalists, politicians and intellectuals in Turkey is more intense than ever. Their opening inquiries are clear and strong: “Where is Turkey going? Will nationalism increase? If it does, to what kind of a regime can Turkey slide?”

Then comes a special question, the one that people like me – a Turkish citizen and an Armenian – can always expect: “Are you minorities afraid of the way things are going?”


Hrant Dink is a journalist and editor of the bilingual (Armenian-Turkish) weekly newspaper Agos in Istanbul. In October 2005, he was given a six-month suspended sentence for “insulting the Turkish identity” in a newspaper article which discussed the massacres of Armenians in 1915. He is appealing this decision.

Since April 2005, Hrant Dink (along with the Turkish human-rights activist Sehmus Ulek) is also being prosecuted under Article 301 of the Turkish penal code (formerly Article 159) for speeches they delivered in December 2002 at a conference in Urfa, southeastern Turkey, entitled "Global Security, Terror and Human Rights; Multiculturalism, Minorities and Human Rights". In his speech, Hrant Dink discussed his own relationship to official definitions of Turkish identity. The next hearing of the case is due on 9 February 2006.

On the comparable case of renowned Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, see this article by Murat Belge (himself facing charges along with four colleagues under Article 301 for his willingness to discuss the genocide, in a case that will come before an Istanbul magistrates’ court on 7 February 2005):

“Love me, or leave me? The strange case of Orhan Pamuk” (October 2005)

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=3&debateId=123&articleId=3118

It is striking that those looking at Turkey from the outside are much more impatient, eager for quick answers and solutions, than those on the inside. To what degree is this impatience realistic? After all, throughout the period of the modern republic since 1923, Turkey is a country where changes have been dictated from top to bottom and thus one where inner dynamics from bottom to top are not easily activated. Turkish society is far more used to accepting change, allowing it to happen, than to initiating it.

This consistent structural character has allowed the “deep state” – the network of military and security forces that exercises real political control in Turkey – to survive the three major international developments influencing the country in recent decades.

First, the cold-war years of conflict (1940s-1980s) between the United States-led capitalist world and the Soviet Union-led socialist world. This external dynamic favoured the emergence of a radical, social left in Turkey, but the state’s preference for western capitalism – aided by successive military coups d’état – crushed the left’s challenge before it could become too powerful.

Second, the mullahs’ revolution in Iran (1979). This external dynamic too had a harsh effect on Turkey; those in power instinctively saw its influence among religious Muslims in Turkey as equivalent to the demand for a change of regime, and thus something to be opposed by all means.

Third, the European Union (1960s-2000s). This outer dynamic is very different in its impact on Turkey than the first two. The main reason is that the EU finds nearly all elements of Turkish society and its institutions divided against itself on the issue. Political left and right, secular and religious, nationalist and liberal, state bureaucracy and military – the situation is the same in that everywhere there are internal conflicts over Europe at least as much as conflicts between the camps.

Since no part of Turkish society is homogeneously “for” or “against” the European Union, the EU process has had a singular effect: dissolving Turkey’s existing polarisations and becoming itself the main inner dynamic of Turkish development. As the negotiations for Turkey’s accession to the EU continue over the next decade, this dilemma will increasingly constitute the basis of Turkish politics. Every change experienced in the near future will “touch the skin” of nearly every section of society, creating widespread friction and probably a lot of annoyance.

From the inside, therefore, the questions facing Turkey are different from those posed by outsiders: “How can the oligarchic state, so accustomed to holding power, consent to share its sovereignty as a member of the European Union? Why is it so desperate to abandon the world it knows for an unknown future in Europe – is it the desire to be western, or the fear of remaining eastern?”

The great taboo

But the questions are not all one way. When the European Union is asked why it wishes to include Turkey, with its lower economic and democratic standards, the answer suggests an uncomfortable truth – that the relationship between Turkey and the EU is governed less by reciprocal desire than by fear. The military elite of the Turkish republic probably calculates that a Turkey unable to enter the European Union is in danger of becoming a strategical irrelevance, while the European Union’s power-brokers must consider that a Turkey remaining outside of Europe might become a combatant on the other side of a “clash of civilisations”.

As long as the engine of fear pushing from the back is stronger than the engine of desire pulling from the front, the dynamics of Turkish-European Union relations will be uneasy and contested on all sides – not just in Turkey.

Where fear is dominant, it produces symptoms of resistance to change at all levels of society. The more some people yearn and work for openness and enlightenment, the more others who are afraid of such changes struggle to keep society closed. In Turkey, the legal cases against Hrant Dink, Orhan Pamuk, Ragıp Zarakolu or Murat Belge are examples of how the breaking of every taboo causes panic in the end. This is especially true of the Armenian issue: the greatest of all taboos in Turkey, one that was present at the creation of the state and which represents the principal “other” of Turkish national identity.

In this atmosphere, a guiding watchword can be found in the first words of our national anthem. Indeed, I concluded my presentation to the conference at Bilgi University, Istanbul on “Ottoman Armenians During the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility and Democracy " on 24-25 September 2005 with these very words: “Do not fear”.

The real desire

The best contribution to the understanding of modern Turkey I can make at this stage is through a theme I developed at that Istanbul conference.

The relation between every living being and its area of existence is contained within it and (in the case of human beings) embodied in its very name. The animate is present, together with its area of living existence, inside and not outside this being. If you take this animate away from its area, even on a golden plate, it means that it is being cut at its very root. Deportation is something like that. People who lived on this territory for 3,000 years, people who produced culture and civilisation on this territory, were torn from the land they had lived on and those who survived were dispersed all over the world.

If this axe to the root dominates the psychological condition of generations of this people, you cannot simply act as if the rupture does not exist. The experience is already internalised, recorded on its people’s memory, its genetic code. What is its name? The discipline of law can be preoccupied with this question, but whatever it decides we know exactly what we have lived through. It can be understood, even if I should not use the word genocide, as being a tearing up of the roots. There is nothing to do at this point, but this should be understood very well.





I would like to illustrate this internalising of experience with a personal anecdote from several years ago. An old Turkish man called me from a village in the region of Sivas and said: “Son, we searched everywhere until we found you. There is an old woman here. I guess she is from your people. She has passed away. Can you find any relative of her, or we will bury her with a Muslim service”.

He gave me her name; she was a 70-year-old woman called Beatrice who had been visiting on holiday from France. “Okay, uncle, I will search”, I said.

I looked around and within ten minutes I had found a close relative; we knew each other because we are so few. I went to the family’s store and asked: “Do you know this person?” The middle-aged woman there turned to me and said “She is my mother”. Her mother, she told me, lives in France and comes to Turkey three or four times a year, but after a very short time in Istanbul prefers to go directly to the village she left many years earlier.

I told her daughter the sad news and she immediately travelled to the village. The next day she phoned me from there. She had found her mother but she suddenly began to cry. I begged her not to cry and asked her whether or not she will bring her body back for burial. “Brother”, she said, “I want to bring her but there is an uncle here saying something”, and gave the phone to him while crying.

I got angry with the man. “Why are you making her cry?”, I said. “Son”, he said, “I didn’t say anything... I only said: ‘Daughter, it is your mother, your blood; but if you ask me, let her stay here. Let her be buried here...the water has found its crack’.”

I became thrown away at that moment. I lost and found myself in this saying produced by Anatolian people. Indeed, the water had found its crack.

A lady at the Istanbul conference implied that remembering the dead meant coveting territory. Yes, it is true that Armenians long for this soil. But let me repeat what I wrote soon after this experience. At the time the then president of Turkey, Suleyman Demirel, used to say: “We will not give even three pebblestones to Armenians.” I told the story of this woman and said: “We Armenians do desire this territory because our root is here. But don’t worry. We desire not to take this territory away, but to come and be buried under it.”

[Gavur]

Turkey Brings Another Case Against an Ethnic Armenian

By REUTERS
Published: December 26, 2005

ISTANBUL, Dec. 25 (Reuters) - A Turkish court has opened a case against an Armenian-Turkish journalist for his comments on a six-month sentence it gave him earlier for denigrating Turkish identity, lawyers involved in bringing the case said Sunday.

The Istanbul court was acting after a group of nationalist lawyers asked the court to file a case against Hrant Dink, editor in chief of the bilingual Turkish and Armenian weekly Agos, and three Agos journalists, saying that the journalists "tried to influence the judiciary" through their editorials.

Mr. Dink, an Armenian who was born in Turkey, was sentenced to six months in jail by an Istanbul court in October for comments in an article he wrote against Article 301 of a revised penal code, which allows prosecutors to pursue cases against writers and scholars for "insulting Turkish identity."

The case is now before the Court of Appeals, one of several such freedom of speech cases that have highlighted European Union concerns about Turkey's efforts to become a member.

European officials say that such court cases are likely to hinder Turkey's progress toward full membership.

About 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks in 1915 during World War I. While historians are widely agreed that the 1915 massacres constituted genocide, the subject remains taboo in Turkey, which says the killings were related to World War I clashes after Armenian militants joined forces with Russia.

The nationalist Lawyers Unity Association asked the court to bring the case against the four journalists, who face jail terms of nine months to 4½ years, if convicted.

"The case has been opened because Dink and the other writers of the Armenian Agos publication have criticized a former sentence of the court in an effort to prevent a just lawsuit, which is against Article 288 of the code," said the leader of the association, Kemal Kerincsiz.

Mr. Dink told the Anka news agency that it was his right to criticize the earlier verdict, adding he would take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if the Court of Appeals upholds the court ruling.

Orhan Pamuk, a best-selling Turkish novelist, is also facing a jail term of six months to three years from the same court for violating Article 301 for his comments in February to a Swiss magazine on the 1915 killings and on the deaths of Kurds in last two decades in Turkey. The case against Mr. Pamuk was filed at the request of the same lawyers group.

Last Thursday, the Istanbul court fined a writer for breaching Article 301 in a book on the evacuation of Kurdish, Armenian and Syriac Christian villages in the past 100 years, and a publisher for an article on Turkey's Iraq policy.

[Gavur]

Turkey Opens New Case Against Journalist

December 26, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:05 p.m. ET

ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) -- A Turkish prosecutor has opened a new case
against one of the country's leading Turkish-Armenians for comments he
made about an earlier prosecution.

Hrant Dink, editor of the bilingual Armenian-Turkish newspaper Agos,
was convicted in October of ''insulting Turkishness'' and received a
six-month suspended sentence. The case became one of several prominent
prosecutions over speech that prompted questions about Turkey's
dedication to democracy from officials of the European Union, which
Turkey is trying to join.

Defense lawyer Fethiye Cetin said Monday that Dink now faces charges
of attempting to influence the judiciary, punishable by 4 1/2 years in
prison, for saying that he would leave the country if the case against
him was not dropped.

Cetin and Dink said they had not received formal notice of the new
charges.

A group of Turkish writers, academics, journalists and artists called
on the government Monday to scrap the law making it a crime to insult
Turkey, ''Turkishness'' or state institutions.

The country's most famous novelist, Orhan Pamuk, was charged under the
law with insulting Turkey, for telling a Swiss newspaper in February
that ''30,000 Kurds and 1 million Armenians were killed in these
lands, and nobody but me dares to talk about it.''

The novelist's remarks highlighted two of the most painful episodes in
Turkish history: the massacre of Armenians during World War I -- which
Turkey insists was not a planned genocide -- and recent guerrilla
fighting in Turkey's overwhelmingly Kurdish southeast.

The group of 169 intellectuals issued a statement Monday saying they
viewed Pamuk's trial as ''a grave interference in our country's
democratization process.''

Turkey's government has indicated that it has no plans to change the
law.

''Freedoms are not limitless; in freedom there's a definite limit,''
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said last week.

Dink was convicted in October of insulting the country's national
identity in a series of articles calling on diaspora Armenians to stop
focusing on Turks and to turn instead to the welfare of Armenia.

An editor at Agos said Dink told Armenians that their enmity toward
the Turks ''has a poisoning effect in your blood'' and the court took
the remark out of context to mean that Dink believed Turkish blood was
poison.

Dink said at the time that he would appeal the ruling and later said
that he would leave the country if he did not succeed.

Three other journalists, including his son, also were charged with
trying to influence the judiciary after they criticized Dink's
conviction.


Copyright 2005 The Associated Press

[Gavur]

New Trend Of Censor: "influencing Judgment"

Erol ONDEROGLU
24/12/2005

BİA, Turkey
Dec 26 2005

Sucu, Selcuk, Yildiz, and Tasci from Cumhuriyet are standing trial
for reports on "Kiziltepe". The court will await the prosecutor's
deliberation. 5 writers will stand trial next year for criticizing
the cancellation of the "Armenian Conference".

BİA (Istanbul) - Besides the trials based on article 301, article 288
of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) and article 19 of the Press Law have
come under severe criticism after five journalists of the "Radikal"
and "Milliyet" newspapers were sued based on these articles. Human
rights activists are discussing article 288 of the TCK, which is on
"Attempting to influence fair judgment," and article 19 of the Press
Law, which is on "Influencing Judgment."

The writers will stand trial next year for criticizing the court
decision to cancel a conference on Ottoman Armenians to be held at
the Bogazici University.

Newspaper's Kiziltepe case to continue on January 31, 2006

Mehmet Sucu, the editor-in-chief of the Cumhuriyet newspaper,
the newspaper's owner Ilhan Selcuk, general manager Ibrahim Yildiz
and Ilhan Tasci, who wrote the news report, are standing trial for
mentioning the contents of the indictment and the discrepancies in
the file in the Kiziltepe investigation. 12-year-old Ugur Kaymaz
and his father were killed in Kiziltepe in the province of Mardin in
November, 2004.

An Istanbul court continued on December 21 to try Cumhuriyet officials,
who are charged on grounds of the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of article
19 of the Press Law No: 5187 and article 119 of the old Penal Code.

The court postponed the hearing to January 31, 2006 to allow time
for the prosecutor to prepare the deliberation about the fundamentals.

Only the newspaper's lawyer Bulent Utku was present at the hearing.

"Ugur Kaymaz, when killed, was about my son's age," Sucu had said
during his statement. "Not stating the facts about the incident
would be a betrayal of my son, myself and my job, which requires me
to write the truth."

Five writers stand trial for criticizing the cancellation of the
conference

A case has been brought against Ismet Berkan, the general manager of
the "Radikal" newspaper, and writers Erol Katircioglu, Murat Belge,
Haluk Sahin and Milliyet writer Hasan Cemal, following a complaint
by lawyer Kemal Kerincsiz, a member of the board of directors of the
Lawyers' Union, and six other lawyers.

The journalists, who argued that "canceling the conference is a blow to
freedom of thought," face up to 10 years in prison if found guilty. The
first hearing will be held on February 7 in an Istanbul court.

What the law says?

Article 288, which is on "Attempting to influence fair judgment"
states:

"(1) An individual, who publicly makes an oral or a written statement
with the aim of influencing the prosecutor, judge, court, experts or
witnesses before the investigation or the trial ends through a final
verdict, will be sentenced to six months to three years in prison.

(2) If this crime is committed through the media, the punishment is
increased by half."

Article 19 of the Press Law on "Influencing Judgment" states that:
"(1) The individual who publishes the contents of the documents on
the procedures of the Republic prosecutor, judge or court, or other
documents about the investigation during the period that starts with
the preliminary investigation and lasts until a judicial decision
to abate an action has been taken or the public lawsuit has been
launched, will be fined 2 billion Turkish liras (USD 1,500) to 50
billion Turkish liras (USD 37,000). In regional duration publications,
this fin cannot be less than 10 billion Turkish liras (USD 7,400),
and in widespread duration publications, the fine cannot be less then
20 billion Turkish liras (USD 15,000). (2) Until a final verdict has
been reached, individuals who publish deliberations about the case
or the procedures of the judge or the court, will be fined as stated
in paragraph 1."

[Gavur]

Turkey, "my country of three thousand years."

Hrant Dink: forging an Armenian identity in Turkey

The Armenian-Turkish journalist is deeply hurt by a recent court
sentence but he remains hopeful about Turkey's future, reports Ã`stün
Bilgen-Reinart.

openDemocracy.net
7-2-2006

By Ã`stün Bilgen-Reinart

On 8 October 2005, a court in ÅžiÅŸli, Istanbul sentenced Hrant Dink, t
editor-in-chief of Agos, the only Armenian newspaper in Turkey, to six
months in prison (suspended for good behaviour), for having written an
article that "insulted and belittled Turkishness". He still faces
charges for remarks he made at a conference in Urfa, southeastern Turkey
in December 2002; and in December 2005 another suit was opened against
him and two Agos colleagues by the Turkish Union of Lawyers. These two
additional cases carry possible sentences of six years and
four-and-a-half years respectively; the first comes to court on Thursday
9 February 2006.

Hrant Dink was devastated by the October conviction. "I was found guilty
of racism!" he says. "How can this be? All my life I have struggled
against ethnic discrimination and racism. I would never belittle
Turkishness or Armenianness. I wouldn't allow anyone else to do it, either."

If the court of appeal does not overturn the ruling, Dink says he will
leave Turkey, "my country of three thousand years."

"In my article, I was talking about the Armenian identity", Dink
explains in an interview at Agos's office in Istanbul's bustling
commercial neighbourhood of Osmanbey. "It's not my job to criticise the
Turkish identity ` that's up to the Turks."

"I've come up from the ranks of the left in this country", he says. "I
know what you can and cannot do here. I have shared all the pain
inflicted on the left since the 1970s. I thought I knew this country
well, but this ruling took me by surprise."

It is ironic that Dink got into trouble for suggesting to diaspora
Armenians that it was time to rid themselves of their rage against the
Turks. "Armenians, especially of the diaspora, tend to have a problem
associated with the role of other that the Turk has played in forming
the Armenian identity", Dink says. "There is a certain history. A
trauma. The Turk has become such a source of pain that it "poisons the
Armenian blood", as the Anatolian saying goes. In my article, I was
addressing the Armenian world and saying: "There are two ways of getting
rid of this poison. One way is for the Turks to empathise with you, and
take action to reduce your trauma. At the moment this seems unlikely.
The second way is for you to rid yourself of it yourself. Turn your
attention towards the state of Armenia and replace the poisoned blood
associated with the Turk, with fresh blood associated with Armenia.'

It was the reference to "poisoned blood associated with the Turk" that
got Dink in court.

The legacy of 1915

The "trauma" he refers to goes back ninety years, to the convulsions of
the first world war and the dying days of the Ottoman empire.

Once a mighty empire spanning three continents, the Ottomans faced
staggering losses during the late 19th century. In 1911, Ottoman
territories in north Africa were lost to the Italians. In 1913, the
Balkan wars ended with defeat, and as Bulgarians and Serbs won their
independence, close to 5 million impoverished and bitter Muslim Turks
fled from southeastern Europe to seek refuge in Anatolia. Then the
"great war" that was to convulse Europe broke. European empires were
shaken to the core, while uprisings shook the Ottoman empire.

In eastern Anatolia, some Armenian nationalists took up arms for
independence and joined the invading Russian army. The hardline leaders
of the Committee of Union and Progress in the Ottoman government ` known
as "Young Turks " ` were all from Balkan stock. They felt betrayed by
the non-Muslim peoples of the empire. They promised the remaining lands
would not become a second 'Macedonia' as they called the bulk of the
Balkans (see Dogu Ergil, Ottoman Armenians During the Collapse of the
Empire). They decided to rid Anatolia of its Armenian population.

In 1915, the majority of Anatolia's 2 million Armenians were deported to
Syria and Mesopotamia. Hundreds of thousands (the highest estimate is
1.5 million) died or were killed in the process.

The strength of diversity

Today, as Turkey starts accession talks with the European Union, the
country is under pressure to recognise those deaths as "genocide."
Turkey refuses the term. In fact, the subject has long been taboo in
Turkey. A crucial event in overcoming the silence occurred in September
2005, when the first conference discussing "Ottoman Armenians During the
Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility and
Democracy" was held ` amidst a storm of controversy ` at Bilgi
University in Istanbul.

Hrant Dink says the fact that he lives in Turkey, with the Turks, has
kept him emotionally healthy and free of the "disease that afflicts many
diaspora Armenians." But he also knows something about discrimination.

"As a child, I didn't know what it meant to be Turkish or Armenian. At
Armenian boarding school in Istanbul, I recited the Turkish credo every
morning, but I was also told I should preserve my Armenian identity. I
never came across my own name in school books ` only Turkish names. As
an adolescent, I heard the word 'Armenian' used as a swearword. As a
Turkish citizen, I saw high-court decisions that referred to Armenians
as 'foreigners living in Turkey'. The Armenian orphanage that I worked
so hard to establish was confiscated by the state."

Dink says no one at home or at school ever spoke about the events of
1915, but throughout his childhood, he sensed loss and trauma through an
internalised feeling of history. "We all have an intuition about
something broken in the past", he says. "It's in our genetic code. Each
Armenian family has losses that go back to the time when survivors were
scattered all over the world. "

"Even if you flee from that sense of history", he adds, "history doesn't
let go of you. In Turkey, you face so many attacks against the Armenian
identity that you find yourself in a defensive position whether you want
it or not. During the 1970s, there was news of the Armenian Secret Army
for the Liberation of Armenia (Asala) and the killing of Turkish
diplomats. My identity was always other, and often belittled. I saw
again and again that I was different. Many people who were like me were
leaving this country, but I didn't want to leave ` I wanted to stay and
fight for what I thought was right."

"In the end, I decided that how they defined me wasn't important. I had
to define myself. I am an Armenian of Turkey, and a good Turkish
citizen. I believe in the republic, in fact I would like it to become
stronger and more democratic. I don't want my country to be divided, but
I want all the citizens to be able to live fully and contribute their
diversity to this society ` as a source of richness."

Despite the October court sentence ` one "that has done me great harm",
he says ` Dink is surprisingly optimistic about Turkey's future. "Turkey
is going through a process of internal dynamism," he says. "It is
experiencing the interaction of the east and the west within itself.
This interaction can lead sometimes to confrontation and sometimes to
agreement, but if it results in a kind of harmony, that would be a
positive outcome."

Far from viewing Turkey's moderate Islamist government as a threat, Dink
sees it as a potential instrument of harmony. "No authoritarian pressure
has been able to suppress religious movements in this country. We see
today that in power they seem less radical than they were in previous
years; that they tend to tame themselves in order to remain on the
political stage. They're satisfied with the freedom to perform their
religious rituals. In this country, Islam will renew and reform itself,
without harming either the republic or secularism; and when this
happens, it will set an incredible example for Europe and the world. It
will show the world that the east can renew and reform itself ` without
the intervention of outsiders like Bush with his bombs in Iraq. The
transformation that will result from Turkey's own internal dynamics will
set a great example of the interaction, reconciliation and harmony of
the east and the west."

"You must find it surprising that I'm so hopeful", Dink smiles. But when
asked about the appeal of his sentence, his face darkens. "If the high
court does not exonerate me", he says, "The only honourable option for
me is to leave. If I am judged guilty of racism, I can no longer live
with the Turks. I cannot bear to think that people who meet me on the
street might think: 'This is the guy who said the Turks have poisoned
blood.'"


Ã`stün Bilgen-Reinart is a freelance writer, journalist, and broadcaster
with a special interest in Aboriginal and development issues. She is the
co-author of "Night Spirits: The Story of the Relocation of the Sayisi
Dene" (University of Manitoba Press, 1997).

http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-turkey/dink_3246.jsp

[Gavur]

Dink, Mazlum-Der executive found not guilty

Friday, February 10, 2006






Şanlıurfa court finds journalist Dink and human rights activist Ülek not guilty of insulting the national anthem

ANKARA - TDN with wire services


The Şanlıurfa Third Criminal Court on Thursday acquitted Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink, who was on trial for saying that the Turkish national anthem and a national oath were discriminatory, the journalist said.

Dink was facing charges for remarks he made at a human rights conference in 2002 in southeastern Turkey criticizing Turkey's national anthem and an oath taken by Turkish schoolchildren each day in which they say, "Happy is the one who says, 'I am a Turk'."

A court in the southeastern city of Şanlıurfa acquitted Dink, a Turkish citizen and editor of the bilingual Armenian-Turkish newspaper Agos. Dink did not attend the hearing.

"Of course, I am happy to be acquitted, but the important thing is that such cases should not be brought in the first place," Dink said by telephone from Istanbul. "People should be able to express themselves freely. Such cases are hurting both us and Turkey's image."

In October Dink was convicted of "insulting Turkishness" and received a six-month suspended sentence. Dink appealed that sentence and said he would leave the country unless his conviction was overturned. Separately, a Turkish prosecutor filed new charges against Dink in December for insulting the "Turkish judiciary" with his comments. That trial will start in Istanbul on May 16.

Association of Human Rights and Solidarity for Oppressed Peoples (Mazlum-Der) Vice President Şeyhmus Ülek was also found not guilty by the same court.

Ülek, who attended the hearing, told the court that his speech during a panel discussion was his own opinion and could not be described as an insult to Turkishness.

The case had become one of several prominent prosecutions over speech that prompted questions about Turkey's dedication to democracy from officials of the European Union, which Turkey is trying to join.

On Monday five prominent journalists faced charges in an Istanbul court for insulting the judiciary by criticizing a court decision that suspended an academic conference on Ottoman Armenians.