"insulting Turkish identity"

[UKTurk]

If I haven't said this before I'll say it now.


Armenia doesn't want peace in Turkey, Armenia wants a piece of Turkey!

[Gavur]

Washington Times Terms Turkey Islamic-Fascist; Ankara Reacts

INTERNATIONAL 11.30.2005 Wednesday - ISTANBUL 04:46


By Zaman
Published: Tuesday, November 29, 2005
zaman.com


A news article published in the Washington Times two months ago was claiming the Justice and Development Party government in Turkey converted the country into an "Islamic-fascist" structure. The paper repeated its negative approach to the power in Turkey on Tuesday and wrote the military gave a secret note to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan following the discussions over the authority of Islamic scholars (ulama).

Erdogan's statement of "let the ulama decide on the fate of the headscarf," the alcoholic beverage consumption ban in some districts of Istanbul in line with the same ban at some local administrations initiated secularists to take a counter-action and the military in the end sent a warning note to Erdogan, the paper reported. Prime Minister's Spokesman Akif Beki, however, said the article by Andrew Borowiec is not based on any concrete proof and is a total fabrication. “The Prime Ministry regards this news story as denigration against the unity in Turkey,” read an official statement released by the Prime Ministry.


The statement invited the Washington Times writers to prove his claims, otherwise noted, Turkey will declare him as one who lacks professional ethics and as a hit man of some circles. Reportedly, a warning notice was sent to Washington Times for damaging the image of Turkey and its European dream. It was claimed the notice was examined by various diplomats.

[Hovik]

Free Speech Is For All, Even David Irving

FREE SPEECH IS FOR ALL, EVEN DAVID IRVING

Canberra Times (Australia)
November 30, 2005 Wednesday Final Edition

'EVERYONE has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media
and regardless of frontiers." So says Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations General Assembly
Resolution, December 10, 1948.

Controversial British historian and Nazi apologist David Irving today
languishes in an Austrian holding cell for the crime of stating a
view that most of us find disgusting. He has stated that Hitler knew
nothing of the genocide of Europe's Jews. This is a crime in Austria,
Germany, Poland and France.

Another anti-Semitic, and much more vicious, Holocaust denier, Ernst
Zundel, awaits trial in Germany on a similar charge.

Irving is a historian of World War II who hasuncovered important
Wehrmacht documents, and he has defended the Nazis. He supported
Zundel in court -not his right to speak, but what Zundel actually said:
that the Holocaust was a myth.

This places them both beyond the realm of reasonable argument.

Their errors could be demonstrated in open debate -as historians
have done with Irving's work. Indeed, open debate -without fear of
imprisonment and fines -helps to make an open society.

Many writers spoke out in favour of someonewho affirmed another
genocide.

The Turkish government charged the novelist Orhan Pamuk with what
can only be called "holocaust confirmation" for asserting that Turkey
committed genocide against its Armenian population during and after
World War I.

I think Pamuk was right, and I was among many to sign petitions
for him. Turkey's citizens should not be obliged to adhere to any
orthodoxy.

Nor do I believe that Turkey has a right to prosecute those who accuse
its armed forces of crimes against the country's Kurdish population.

Outside Turkey, this is an easy (and obvious) position to assume. But
within the European Community, how many in the literary and human
rights worlds who rallied to Pamuk's defence have stood up for the
right of two men with whom they disagree to have their say? I have
a free speech hero, a Jewish lawyer in the United States who would
never dare deny that Jews were massacred in their millions by Germany.

David Goldberger is a law professor at Ohio State University, but in
1977 he worked for the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU has
an honourable record defending American blacks in the South and free
speech throughout the country. Holocaust survivors in 1977 sought
to ban a parade by American Nazis through a Chicago suburb. Goldberg
represented the Nazis' right to free expression, and he was pilloried
for it. But he believed in the constitutional right to express views
that he found odious.

Similarly, a conservative Chief Justice of theUS Supreme Court,
Charles Evans Hughes, wrote in 1931 in the case of Near vs Ohio:
"The rights of the best of men are secured only as the rights of the
vilest and most abhorrent are protected." Perhaps nothing is more
vile and abhorrent than denying the genocides of our time, whether
Armenian, Jewish or Rwandan. But nothing could be more fatal to our
rights to speak and to write than for us to deny others the right to
deny our dearest beliefs. One day, will it be illegal to assert (or
deny) that the United States committed war crimes in Iraq? The United
Nations General Assembly passed by unanimous consent a resolution on
November 1 that "Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as a historic
event, either in full or in part". If a historian says -as the leading
Holocaust historian of our time, Raul Hilberg, does say -that the
number of Jews murdered by the Nazis was 5.2 million rather than the
six million, will he be tried before an international tribunal for
denying the orthodox version "in part"? Should historic inquiry cease,
because the UN and the courts of Austria and Germany have stated their
position on the Holocaust? That is no way to suppress fascism. It is
fascism. -The Independent.

[Hovik]

Pamuk Case Tests Commitment To Freedom Of Thought

PAMUK CASE TESTS COMMITMENT TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT
By Vincent Boland

Financial Times (London, England)
November 29, 2005 Tuesday

HUMAN RIGHTS: There are fears that next month's trial will further
damage Turkey's image.

Turkey's most celebrated novelist goes on trial on December 16 on a
charge that amounts to treason.

Orhan Pamuk, who is probably more feted abroad than in his native land,
is accused of insulting Turkey in an interview earlier this year in
which he attacked official indifference to the fate of Armenians,
during the last days of the Ottoman empire, and of the Kurds during
the civil conflict of the 1980s and 1990s. That conflict killed 35,000
people, including many Kurdish civilians in Turkey's south-eastern
provinces.

Mr Pamuk is the most high-profile victim of the zealous prosecution
of those inside Turkey whose views either challenge the official
version of some of the country's most sensitive historical events,
point out the arbitrariness of its justice system, or otherwise test
the limits of freedom of expression.

But Mr Pamuk is not the only one. In the past few weeks, elements
of Turkey's prosecution system have pursued successful cases against
journalists and publishers who have taken similar stances.

The government, aware that these cases damage the country's image in
the eyes of its European critics, and indeed, friends, hopes that Mr
Pamuk's case will be thrown out.

But as recent cases suggest, that may be too optimistic. In any
event, whether Mr Pamuk is convicted or not is immaterial; it is his
prosecution that is the outrage.

Fatih Tas, a Kurdish publisher based in Istanbul, is being prosecuted
for the publication in translation of Spoils of War, a book by John
Tirman, an American writer, that includes strong criticism of the
Turkish military during its war with Kurdish separatists.

The Turkish armed forces are big customers of US arms manufacturers,
which are the subject of Mr Tirman's book.

Mr Tas has been prosecuted before. In 2002 he won a case against
prosecutors who had charged him in connection with the publication
in Turkey of essays by Noam Chomsky, the firebrand US academic. Some
of the works accused the Turkish authorities of human rights abuses
against Kurds.

Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian newspaper editor, was recently given a
suspended jail sentence for articles he wrote. He took both Turkey and
Armenia to task over the question of genocide in 1915, when hundreds
of thousands of Armenian citizens of the Ottoman empire were massacred
as the empire was disintegrating.

Burak Bekdil, a prominent columnist who writes for a variety of
newspapers, had his two-and-a-half year suspended jail sentence
confirmed in mid-November for his assertion, in a column, that ordinary
Turks would find it difficult to get a fair trial in their own country.

These cases coincide with a separate example of what may be prosecution
excess in the eastern city of Van.

A few weeks ago, Yucel Askin, the rector of Yuzuncu Yil University in
the city, and Enver Arpali, another official at the university, were
arrested as part of an investigation into fraud at the institution.

Mr Askin's case has pitted the Higher Education Board - which is the
guardian of secularism and official orthodoxy at Turkey's universities
- against the criminal justice system.

Depending on which side of the story one believes, the rector's case is
either an outrage against academic freedom and an abuse of his human
rights, or a straightforward case of corruption. But it has already
turned to tragedy: Mr Arpali committed suicide at the beginning of
this month, pleading his innocence.

None of these cases does much for Turkey's reputation abroad, or
indeed at home, as a country that honours civil liberties.

Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister, insists that "freedom of expression
is guaranteed in Turkey". He says the country today is more relaxed
about issues that raise controversy than was the case four or five
years ago.

This may be true, but why are these cases being pursued now, with
Turkey embarked on accession to the European Union?

The main reason is the absence of a developed civil society in
Turkey. Although civil society is beginning to take root, there
is still a fear in certain parts of the bureaucracy about the free
exchange of ideas.

For this part of the Turkish power structure, no questioning of
the legitimacy of the country's official institutions, laws, or
history, however marginal and unthreatening the source, must go
unchallenged. That is why civil and human rights in Turkey seem
so contingent.

In 2004, Brussels heaped pressure on the government to reform its
fascist-era penal code. The government complied. But a controversy
last year over a proposal to make adultery a criminal offence, in
deference to the views of devout Muslims, may have taken everybody's
eye off reform.

The result is that the revised code still contains articles - notably
the infamous article 301 - that allow prosecutors to pursue "thought
crimes". Mr Pamuk is among those charged under this article, which
criminalises "insulting" Turkey and its institutions.

Unpleasant as these incidents are, they may yet have a constructive
outcome. The case of the Van rector, in particular, has cast a harsh
light on the wider criminal justice system.

Mr Askin's fellow rectors have come down unwaveringly on his side in
what many observers see as a direct challenge to the credibility of
the justice system. These cases may yet be the catalyst for further
reform of this vital aspect of Turkish society.

[Gavur]

Amnesty International: Turkey: Article 301 Is A Threat To Freedom

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: TURKEY: ARTICLE 301 IS A THREAT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND MUST BE REPEALED NOW!

Public Statement

AI Index: EUR 44/035/2005 (Public)
News Service No: 324
1 December 2005

Amnesty International is extremely concerned at the frequent use of
Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) to prosecute human rights
defenders, journalists and other members of civil society peacefully
expressing their dissenting opinion. Article 301, on the denigration
of Turkishness, the Republic, and the foundation and institutions of
the State, was introduced with the legislative reforms of 1 June 2005
and replaced Article 159 of the old penal code. Amnesty International
repeatedly opposed the use of Article 159 to prosecute non-violent
critical opinion and called on the Turkish authorities to abolish
the article.

The organization is now concerned that the wide and vague terms
of Article 301 mean that it too can be applied arbitrarily to
criminalize a huge range of critical opinions. It states that:
1. Public denigration of Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand
National Assembly of Turkey shall be punishable by imprisonment of
between six months and three years.

2. Public denigration of the Government of the Republic of Turkey,
the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security
structures shall be punishable 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. Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute
a crime.

The final qualification of the article in paragraph 4 suggests that
expressions amounting to "criticism" rather than "public denigration"
are not punishable. Amnesty International considers that the attempt
to draw a distinction between criticism and denigration is highly
problematic. The lack of legal certainty of the crime will lead to
arbitrary interpretation by prosecutors and judges. Even the Turkish
Minister of Justice himself, Cemil Cicek, has reportedly stated that
"the whole issue comes down to how the laws are interpreted".

Amnesty International believes that Article 301 poses a direct
threat to freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 19 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
in Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Turkey is a State Party to both
conventions and therefore the Turkish government has a legal obligation
to uphold this freedom. Nevertheless Amnesty International receives a
steady flow of cases opened against individuals under Article 301, for
expressing a wide variety of opinions. Some of these cases are outlined
below. The organization hopes that the international attention focused
on the novelist Orhan Pamuk's case will also cast light on the cases
of lesser known individuals prosecuted under the same legislation.

With regard to the concerns above, Amnesty International notes
also the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which
states that the limits of acceptable criticism are broader as regards
politicians than private individuals (Lingens v Austria, 1986); are
wider with regard to government (Castells v Spain, 1992); and that
the authorities of a democratic state must accept criticism even if
provocative or insulting (Ozgur Gundem v Turkey, 2000). In addition,
the law has to be accessible and formulated with precision sufficient
for the citizen to regulate their conduct (Sunday Times v the United
Kingdom, 1998). Furthermore, Amnesty International notes Recommendation
1589 (2003)1 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
which urges states inter alia to "abolish legislation that makes
journalistic freedom of expression subject to criminal prosecution";
"to stop immediately all forms of legal and economic harassment of
dissenting media" and "to incorporate the case-law of the European
Court of Human Rights in the field of freedom of expression into
their domestic legislation and ensure the relevant training of judges".

Cases opened under Article 301

Orhan Pamuk is an internationally-known Turkish author whose novels,
including Snow and My Name is Red, have been translated into many
languages and have received wide critical acclaim. He is facing
charges under Article 301 for comments he made during an interview he
gave to a Swiss newspaper (Tages Anzeiger) on 5 February 2005. In the
interview, Orhan Pamuk stated, "30,000 Kurds and a million Armenians
were murdered. Hardly anyone dares mention it, so I do. And that's
why I'm hated". The first hearing of his case will take place in the
Sisli Court of First Instance No. 2 in Istanbul on 16 December 2005.

Hrant Dink is a journalist and the editor of the Armenian-language
weekly newspaper Agos, which is published in Istanbul. On 7 October
2005, Hrant Dink was given a six-month suspended prison sentence by
the Sisli Court of First Instance No. 2 in Istanbul for "denigrating
Turkishness" in an article he wrote on Armenian identity. According
to the prosecutor in the case, Hrant Dink had written his article
with the intention of denigrating Turkish national identity. The
court suspended the sentence as the journalist had no previous
convictions, on condition that he does not repeat the offence. Hrant
Dink is currently appealing the decision. However, he is also being
prosecuted under Article 301 for another offence (see below). Should
he be imprisoned, Amnesty International would consider him to be a
prisoner of conscience.

Sehmus Ulek is the Vice-President of the Turkish human rights NGO
Mazlum Der. On 28 April 2005 the Sanlıurfa Court of First Instance
No. 3 started hearing a case against him and Hrant Dink, under Article
159 of the old TPC (now Article 301) for speeches they made during a
conference organized by Mazlum Der's Urfa branch on 14 December 2002
entitled "Global Security, Terror and Human Rights, Multi-culturalism,
Minorities and Human Rights". Sehmus Ulek referred in his speech to the
nation-building project of the Turkish Republic as it had affected, in
particular, the southeastern area of the country; Hrant Dink discussed
his own relationship to official conceptions of Turkish identity. The
next hearing of the case will take place on 9 February 2006.

A trial began in May 2005 at the Beyoglu Court of First Instance No.

2 in Istanbul against publisher Ragip Zarakolu for his publication of
a Turkish translation of a book by Dora Sakayan entitled Experiences
of an Armenian Doctor: Garabet Hacheryan's Izmir Journal (Bir Ermeni
Doktorun Yasadıkları: Garabet Haceryan'ın İzmir Guncesi; Istanbul:
Belge 2005). Ragip Zarakolu had been charged under Article 159 of the
TPC for "denigrating Turkishness and the security forces", and then
under Article 301 after the new TPC came into effect. Another case
had been opened against him in March, in which Ragip Zarakolu was
charged with "denigrating the state and the republic" under Article
159 (also converted to Article 301) and "insulting Ataturk's memory"
under Law No 5816 for publishing a Turkish translation of a book by
George Jerjian entitled The Truth Will Set Us Free: Armenians and
Turks Reconciled (Gercek bizi Ozgur Kalıcak; Istanbul: Belge 2004).

Fatih Tas is a 26-year-old student of Communications and Journalism
at Istanbul University and the owner of Aram publishing house. He is
currently being tried under Article 301 because he published a Turkish
translation of a book by the American academic John Tirman, entitled
Savas Ganimetleri: Amerikan Silah Ticaretinin Insan Bedeli (Istanbul:
Aram, 2005) (The Spoils of War: the Human Cost of America's Arms
Trade), that reportedly includes a map depicting a large section of
Turkey as traditionally Kurdish and alleges that the Turkish military
perpetrated a number of human rights abuses in the south-east of
the country during the 1980s and 1990s. Fatih Tas argues that the
book contains nothing that has not previously been discussed in the
Turkish Parliament or media, and was not intended to insult Turkey
or Turkishness. The prosecutor reportedly demanded that each "insult"
in the book should be tried as a separate charge and called for Fatih
Tas to be given a prison sentence of ten and a half years. The next
hearing of his case will take place on 2 December 2005 at the Court of
First Instance No.2 in Istanbul. In relation to other statements made
in the book, Fatih Tas also faces charges under Articles 1/1 and 2
of Law 5816, which prohibits publicly insulting the memory of Ataturk.

Murat Pabuc was a lieutenant in the Turkish army who retired on
grounds of disability. Whilst still serving, he witnessed the massive
earthquake that hit Turkey in August 1999, as well as the institutional
corruption that he alleges followed it. He became disillusioned with
his military duties, seeing soldiers as being alienated from ordinary
people, and began to refuse orders. He eventually began undergoing
psychiatric treatment. In June 2005 he published his book Boyalı
Bank Nobetini Terk Etmek The literal translation of this title is
"Abandoning the Duty of the Painted Bench". It alludes to a Turkish
anecdote which portrays a pastiche of a soldier following orders
unquestioningly. He believes that this was the only way for him to
express what he had experienced in the army. As a result he is facing
a trial for "public denigration of the military" under Article 301.

Birol Duru is a journalist. On 17 November 2005 he was charged with
"denigrating the security forces" under Article 301 because he
published on the Dicle news agency a press release from the Human
Rights Association (IHD) Bingol branch which stated that the security
forces were burning forests in Bingol and Tunceli. The president
of IHD's Bingol branch, Rıdvan Kızgın, is also charged under
other legislation for the contents of the press release. Rıdvan
Kızgın has had over 47 cases opened against him since 2001,
and Amnesty International is currently running a web action
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/tur-161105-action-eng for him as part
of its ongoing campaigning work on human rights defenders in Turkey
and Eurasia. Birol Duru is due to be sentenced on 8 December 2005.

Amnesty International welcomes many of the changes introduced by the
legislative reforms that came into force on 1 June 2005. However,
the organization believes that the breadth and frequency of the
cases cited above illustrates the threat that Article 301 poses to
the principle of freedom of expression and calls for it to be repealed.

Human rights activists, writers, publishers -- in fact potentially
anybody -- who express views which run counter to "official history"
or the dominant ideology may find themselves prosecuted.

That such prosecutions rarely end in imprisonment and more often in
fines or acquittal or the dropping of charges is small consolation.

The initiation of these legal proceedings is a way of trying to
silence opposition voices and should be addressed immediately.

Amnesty international considers Article 301 to be at odds with Turkey's
international legal obligations, and therefore calls on the Turkish
authorities to terminate without delay all prosecutions against
individuals under it, and to abolish the article in its entirety.

[Gavur]

Leading Turkey reporters charged

By Sarah Rainsford
BBC News, Istanbul



The EU has voiced concerns about freedom of expression in Turkey
A prosecutor in Istanbul has filed charges against five prominent Turkish newspaper columnists who are accused of insulting the judiciary.

It is the latest in a series of cases brought against some of the best-known writers under a controversial Article 301 of the new penal code.

More than 60 of them are on trial under Article 301 that makes it a crime to insult Turkishness or state organs.

EU officials say Article 301 is the cause for serious concern.

Sensitive subject

There is a very thin line in Turkish law between criticism and insult, and writers and publishers here keep on stepping over it.

Now another five men have joined their ranks, this time accused of insulting the judiciary.

They all wrote newspaper columns in September after a court intervened to stop a controversial academic conference on the fate of the Ottoman Armenians.

It is one of the most sensitive subjects in the country.

The columns called the court ruling nonsense, a travesty of justice and an attack on the academic freedom of universities.

But a group of nationalist lawyers took that as an insult and the men now face trial and potentially up to nine years in prison.

The EU has expressed serious concern about the limits on freedom of expression in Turkey and the restrictive way Article 301 is interpreted.

Turkey's best-known novelist, Orhan Pamuk, goes on trial in a fortnight charged under the same law.

Many see that case as a test of Turkey's commitment to democratic reforms, but the list of the accused is growing despite pressure from Europe.

The cases are becoming a trial of strength now between those who see Turkey's future within Europe and strong conservative and nationalist forces here who see the EU as a threat.

[Gavur]

Five Turkish Journalists Indicted

Five Turkish Journalists Indicted 02 Dec 2005 22:53:00

By Athina Saloustrou





Five prominent Turkish journalists risk between six and 10 years in jail for criticising a court decision that briefly blocked a conference on the massacres of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire earlier this year, Anatolia news agency reported on Friday. A landmark conference organised by intellectuals disputing Ankara’s official line on the mass killings of Armenians during WWI was blocked in September when a court, petitioned by a group of nationalists, ordered the suspension of the event. An Istanbul prosecutor indicted the five journalists under articles that penalise insults to the judiciary and attempts to influence justice. The suspects include four journalists from the liberal daily Radikal, editor-in-chief Ismet Berkan and columnists Erol Katircioglu, Haluk Sahin and Murat Belge, as well as Hasan Cemal, a senior editorialist for the mass-selling Milliyet. The European Union, which Turkey is seeking to join, recently warned Ankara to respect freedom of expression after several intellectuals, including internationally-renowned novelist Orhan Pamuk, were charged for voicing their opinions. The conference, already postponed once in May, was finally held with a one-day delay after the organisers changed the venue to circumvent the court order.

http://news.ert.gr/en/newsDetails.asp?id=13323

[Hovik]

Five Turkish journalists risk jail over Armenian conference row

Five Turkish journalists risk jail over Armenian conference row

Agence France Presse -- English
December 2, 2005 Friday 6:13 PM GMT

ISTANBUL Dec 2 -- Five prominent Turkish journalists risk between six
and 10 years in jail for criticizing a court decision that briefly
blocked a conference on the massacres of Armenians under the Ottoman
Empire earlier this year, Anatolia news agency reported Friday.

An Istanbul prosecutor indicted the five under articles that penalize
insults to the judiciary and attempts to influence justice, the
agency said.

The case is scheduled to come to court on February 7.

The European Union, which Turkey is seeking to join, recently warned
Ankara to respect freedom of expression after several intellectuals,
including internationally-renowned novelist Orhan Pamuk, were charged
for voicing their opinions.

The suspects include four journalists from the liberal daily Radikal
-- editor-in-chief Ismet Berkan and columnists Erol Katircioglu,
Haluk Sahin and Murat Belge -- as well as Hasan Cemal, a senior
editorialist for the mass-selling Milliyet.

"Turkey has recorded significant progress in its EU membership process,
but this case proves that we have not yet cought up with EU standards,"
Berkan told NTV television.

A landmark conference organized by intellectuals disputing Ankara's
official line on the mass killings of Armenians during World War
One was blocked in September when a court, petitioned by a group of
nationalists, ordered the suspension of the event.

The conference, already postponed once in May, was finally held with
a one-day delay after the organizers changed the venue to circumvent
the court order.

The ruling came under widespread criticism, including harsh words by
the EU and even the Turkish government, which backed the holding of
the conference in a bid to prove its tolerance for dissenting views.

Turkey has only recently begun to openly discuss the massacres of
Armenians between 1915 and 1917, which many countries have recognized
as genocide.

Armenians claim up to 1.5 million of their kin were slaughtered in
orchestrated killings.

Turkey categorically rejects claims of genocide, arguing that 300,000
Armenians and at least as many Turks died in civil strife when the
Armenians took up arms for independence in eastern Anatolia and sided
with Russian troops invading the crumbling Ottoman Empire.

[Gavur]

Armenian Conference Brings Charges Against Journalists

12.04.2005 Sunday - ISTANBUL 08:53


By Cihan
Published: Saturday, December 03, 2005
zaman.com


Bagcilar public prosecutor Ali Cakir has completed an investigation launched against five journalists by a group of lawyers who had also filed a lawsuit to suspend the controversial Armenian conference in September.

The public prosecutor brought a file on Friday against journalists Hasan Cemal, Ismet Berkan, Murat Belge, Haluk Sahin, and Erol Katircioglu.


The journalists stand accused of “attempting to influence the right to a fair trial” and of ”degrading the judicial organs of the state,” according to the indictment.


The charges have been made against the five journalists in connection with articles they wrote about the Ottoman Armenian conference held in Istanbul in September this year.


The trial of the five journalists, who may face sentences from 6 months to 10 years imprisonment, will start on 7 February 2006.


For further information, please visit:

http://www.cihannews.com

[Gavur]

Turk Journalists Charged In New Test Of Free Speech (Article 301-Be gone!)

TURK JOURNALISTS CHARGED IN NEW TEST OF FREE SPEECH

Reuters, UK
Dec. 4, 2005

ANKARA: In a fresh test of Turkey's human rights record and its bid
to join the EU, a state prosecutor has filed charges against five
journalists for comments they made on a conference about World War
One massacres of Armenians.

The five respected newspaper columnists face between six months and 10
years in jail if found guilty of the charges of "trying to influence
the judicial process" and "insulting state judicial organs", Turkish
media reported today.

Four of the five columnists are being charged under the controversial
Article 301 of Turkey's penal code -- the same used against the
country's most famous novelist, Orhan Pamuk, whose trial begins on
December 16, and many other journalists.

The article makes it a crime to insult state institutions or
"Turkishness".

The trial of the columnists is scheduled to start on February 7,
2006. Four of them work for the liberal Radikal newspaper and the
fifth for the centrist Milliyet daily.

The journalists had all criticised efforts by prosecutors and
nationalist lawyers to ban a September academic conference at two
universities in Istanbul dedicated to the massacre of Armenians by
Ottoman Turkish forces 90 years ago.

Although a court blocked the conference at the prosecutors' request --
much to the embarrassment of Turkey's pro-EU government -- organisers
circumvented the ban at the last minute by moving the venue to a
third university in Istanbul.

In their columns, the five journalists had branded the court ruling
an attack on academic freedom and a travesty of justice.

A group of nationalist lawyers backs the Istanbul district prosecutor's
filing of charges against the five columnists.

The issue of the Armenian massacres is sensitive in Turkey.

Ankara has always denied claims that the Ottoman forces committed
genocide against local Armenians but, under EU pressure, has called
for historians to debate the issue.

Pamuk, the internationally known author of such novels as "My Name is
Red" and "Snow", caused a furore earlier this year when he said Turkey
should face up to its responsibility for the deaths of the Armenians.

European Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn has called Pamuk's
trial "a provocation" by conservative forces opposed to Turkey's
efforts to join the European Union.

Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul says he is confident that the charges
against Pamuk will be dropped. But his government has so far resisted
EU calls to modify or scrap Article 301.

The timing of the charges against Pamuk and the journalists is awkward
for Turkey as it tries to overcome long-standing EU doubts over its
commitment to freedom of expression.

Ankara began EU entry talks in October, but it is not expected to
join the wealthy bloc before 2015 at the earliest.