Trial: Sevres paranoia is hunting Professor Oran

[Vladimir]

Despite a plea by BIHDK former chairman Professor Kaboglu for the case against him and Professor Oran "to end today and here," the court has adjourned until 10 May to hear witnesses. "Who from now on would write a report for you" reacts Prof. Oran.
BIA News Center
11/04/2006 Erol ONDEROGLU BİA (Ankara) - On trial for their Minority Rights and Cultural Rights Working Group Report, Professor Dr. Ibrahim Kaboglu, the former head of the Human Rights Advisory Board of the Prime Ministry (BIHDK), and board member Professor Doctor Baskin Oran appeared on Monday for the second time before an Ankara court.

The two academics as well as approximately 20 lawyers defending them, including Oya Aydın, Bahri Bayram Belen, Haluk Inanıcı, Sezgin Tanrıkulu, Kazım Genc and Asude Senol, attended Monday's hearing at the 28th Ankara Penal Court of First Instance where they are charged under Articles 216/I and 301/II of Penal Code, facing 18 months to five years imprisonment.

In reply to the Court's request, the Ministry of Justice reported there was no need for permission to be granted to investigate charges of "public humiliation of the courts authority." Taking also into account the date of crime, judge Avni Mis recalled that the trial on article 301 had been stopped in the lack of permission for investigation and a letter had been sent to the Ministry of Justice.

Trial continues on article 216

Continuing the trial under article 216 that regulates the offence of "dangerous incitement of public hatred and enmity," the court heard 6-7 witnesses who were involved in the voting for the report that constitutes the alleged crime.

Prof. Dr. Oran reacts to witness call

Prof. Dr. Oran reacted to the court calling witnesses asking the judge, "even if all of of the witnesses testify against us, under which article of the penal code will you sentence us?"

"Even if it was to result with acquittal, after what has happened to people who have been asked to prepare an official report, from which expert are you going to ask for reports? Which expert will write a report for you after all of this?" Oran questioned.

Prof. Dr. Kaboglu, the other academic also on trial, submitted a nine page additional defence statement to the court in addition to his previous defence. He stated that the judicial institution of the state had put on trial another institution (BIHDK) which was set up by law and targeted developing and protecting human rights.

Kaboglu: Take 301 to the Constitutional Court

Prof. Dr. Kaboglu said that with this case Turkey and the concept of "Turkishness" referred to in the report was being tried and added, "at the stage this affair has reached with the trial, it is an intervention into the freedom of expressing opinions and an indicator that Turkey's problems are being covered by a shawl."

Arguing that article 301 was in violation of the constitution, he requested the court to take the issue to the Constitional court.

Prof. Dr. Kaboglu stated that the proceedings had led to indignation not only in Turkey but in various countries of the world and said "this trial should end today and here" but the court adjourned until 10 May for other witnesses to be heard.

"Sevres Paranoia" disturbs prosecutor

Approximately 25 witnesses were heard on 15 February when the case started. Ankara Republic Prosecutor Nadi Turkaslan who prepared the indictment on 14 November had referred to the concept of "Sevres Paranoia" in the report, alleging, "the demands of minorities in this report have great similarities to the provisions related to minorities in the Sevres Treaty that landed our country under occupation. With such a similarity, there is nothing strange in having a Sevres paranoia".

Prosecutor Turkaslan had also criticised the report for proposing a "Turkishness" concept instead of being a "Turk".

What is Sevres Treaty?

The Treaty of Sèvres of August 10, 1920, between the Entente and Allied Powers1 and the Ottoman Empire after World War I which denied a sovereign Turkish satate and envisaged the loss of a great deal of Ottoman territory outside of the Anatolian mainland as well as passing portions of southern Anatolia to Italy, while declaring Thrace and Western Anatolia, including the key port of Smyrna (now Izmir), would become part of Greece. The Bosphorus, Dardanelles and Sea of Marmara were to be demilitarized and internationalized, and the Ottoman army was to be restricted to strength of 50,000 men.

The nationalist government in Ankara rejected the terms of the treaty and resisted the Greek army's advance into the area assigned to Greece in Western Anatolia, and its further unilateral advance towards Ankara. Following the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) and the disastrous defeat of the Greek forces, a peace agreement was signed with the Soviet Union. These events forced the former wartime Allies to return to the negotiating table, and the terms of Sèvres were revised in Turkey's favor by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. (EÖ/IIYE)

[Vladimir]

Publishers Troubled with Restrictive Laws
Prof. Oran, "Government has retreated in face of Turkish nationalism"; Finkel, "it's no use if journalists have no courage"; Lawyer Ilkiz, "Public Morality cannot be entrusted to the Obscenity Commission"; Lawyer Inanici: "301 designed to reinforce..."

Oran: High expectations for 2005 lead to big disappointments

The "TCK and Freedom of Publishing" session that followed the opening remarks started with a short introduction by the session's facilitator, publisher Mehmet Atay.

Atay referred to the post September 12, 1980 military takeover period in Turkey and said it was then that not only the freedom of publishing itself but even the freedom of possession of books at home had been subject to pressure.

The first speaker of the session, Prof.Dr. Baskin Oran, covered the human rights situation of last year and said that since the October 2001 constitutional amendment and the launch of the EU accession period, Turkish public opinion had great expectations from 2005. "Because expectations were so high, the disappointment was so big," Prof.Oran said.

Prof. Oran also criticised the state of the new Turkish Penal Code by saying "we have come face to face with what appears to be zombies of the articles of the previous Penal Code" and recalled that particularly article 301 allowed judges to punish those expressing critical opinions. He said article 216 and 288 were being used to suppress the freedom of expression and that developments due to these articles had reached "absurd dimensions".

He expressed belief that the reason for such problems was the reaction to globalisation and the activities of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) explaining, "the society came to believe that its national identity was under threat. This in turn influenced justice. In these days where we are entering an election period, the government has retreated in the face of Turkish nationalism."

Finkel: We must act bravely as journalists

Journalist Andrew Finkel, meanwhile, recalled that he had been put on trial under article 159 due to the "Sirnak 1988" article he wrote while working for the Sabah newspaper and summarised his views as a foreign journalist working within the scope of the freedom of expression in Turkey.

"Think of it like this," he said. "You are a guest at a dinner. They ask you how the soup is. In order not to be impolite, you say it is good. They ask you to tell the truth. But when you say it is a bit salty, you get the reply 'shame, shame'".

Finkel stressed that as long as journalists did not feel free and did not act bravely, the laws themselves would have little or no meaning and noted that the behaviour of some of his colleagues made him feel sad. Finkel added, "when as journalists we do not act with courage, how can we expect the government to act with courage?"

Ilkiz: Is this not shameful?

Focusing on obscenity and obscene publications at the convention, communications jurist Fikret Ilkiz noted that the relevant article 59 of the new Turkish Penal Code which was prepared by previous governments was being put into practice in a very short time, but in steps.

Ilkiz recalled that a case had been filed in the past against Henry Miller's "Tropic of Capricorn" on allegations of containing obscene remarks and that a total of 26 publishers acting under the initiative of publisher Ugur Cankocak had challenged the case, succeeding and clearing the name of the book.

He said that he had positive feelings for the first sentence of article 226 of the Penal Code titled "Obscenity" because it protected minors, but expressed concern that the 7th sentence of the same article which disallowed it to be applied to scientific work was being disregarded and ignored. "In cases that are open due to politics or other reasons, this 7th sentence will have no meaning," he argued.

Ilkiz also noted that members of the Prime Ministry Commission for the Protection of Minors from Obscene Publications were being utilised by courts as expert witnesses and argued that as result of this "public morality had been handed over to this commission."

Saying that there was nothing holistic between the laws, Ilkiz concluded: "I beg your pardon, I will continue to be immoral."

Inanici: 301 will enforce auto-censorship

Jurist Haluk Inanýcý who said that freedom of opinion was the insurance of democracy criticised article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code arguing that the main problem with it was that forced publishers and authors into auto-censorship.

Inanici said the concept of "degrading Turkisism" under article 301/1 was "a shame" and added that the main target of this article was to "protect the moral values of the Turkish race" while its enforcement would be limited to Turkey. Lawyer Inanici also criticised court cases against those who had criticised the jurisdiction under article 310/2 and called for an environment where limitations of freedom of expression by the government it would not be regarded as natural.

Zarakolu: New threat, Ataturk Law

Publisher Ragýp Zarakolu who started his speech by saying, "I'm fed up from talking about 301, obscenity, counter-terrorism law, " stressed that even books that had been cleared by the Martial Law Tribunals of the past were being put on trial in today's Turkey.

Zarakol said a new Law on Offences Committed Against Ataturk was a "new threat" for the country and described it as a threat that would make justice ideological. As head of Belge Publications, Zarakol said "a wave of tolerance needs to be started from the Prime Minister downwards" but noted that the Prime Minister himself was opening libel cases against printed media for cartoons depicting him. (EO/KO/II/YE)
.....

[Piling]

Very interesting, I will make a translation in French, what is the source ?

[Vladimir]

bianet.org English section.