European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Mad as a Turk: Pregnant Novelist on Trial for insulting Nation

by Alexander G Rubio
Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 06:20:25 AM EST

Turkish novelist Elif Shafak

When I was young, whenever my grandmother, now passed away, talked about someone about to blow their top, she'd describe them, in her rustic dialect, as, "Sint som en Tørk," or, translated from backwoods Norwegian, "Mad as a Turk."

The word mad, in this context, was, of course, meant to mean angry. But there are times, when the other interpretation seems appropriate.

Turkey has been working for ages now towards the goal of membership in The European Union, complaining bitterly at every set-back or bump in the road, that they are being treated unfairly by European nations that doubt their cultural affinity with the rest of the Union. Then they go off and do things like this.

When the Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk stated that "a million Armenians and thirty thousand Kurds had been killed in Turkey," in an interview with a Swiss newspaper in 2004, he was promptly charged with the crime of "denigrating Turkish identity" and put on trial.

From the diaries ~ whataboutbob

The Turkish author
Orhan Pamuk

Due to Pamuk's high international profile, the case became a cause célèbre, which threatened to grow into a major diplomatic incident, complete with the manhandling of a European Member of Parliament outside the court house.

In the end the whole thing became such an embarrassment, that the trial was dropped, through a legal sleight of hand. So the story ended happily, for Orhan Pamuk. But at the time I wrote the following:

The sad part is that having done away with this one high profile case, the many others, lacking international household names, who either have been convicted or charged under the same laws, are now likely to be forgotten.

Well, it looks like Turkey may have another cause célèbre on their hands.

TURKEY’S faltering hopes of European Union membership look set to be dealt a blow this week when Elif Shafak, one of the leading members of a new generation of Turkish female novelists, faces charges under the country’s draconian restrictions on freedom of speech.
Shafak, 34, is being tried under article 301 of the Turkish penal code, which makes it an offence to insult “Turkishness”. Her alleged crime is that a character in her latest bestselling novel, The Bastard of Istanbul, describes the massacres of Armenians in the late Ottoman Empire as a genocide — an interpretation which, although widely accepted internationally, is still vigorously denied by the Turkish state.
Although other Turks have faced charges for referring to the events of 1915-16 as a genocide, Shafak is the first writer to be prosecuted for words spoken by a character in a work of fiction.

Ms Shafak, 34, initially argued that the statements in question were made by fictional characters, and thus not subject to prosecution. and in June, a public prosecutor in Istanbul agreed and dismissed the charges. But the case was brought before a high criminal court in Istanbul, which overruled the lower court's decision.

The charges against Shafak, who is due to give birth at the time of her trial, originates at the Union of Jurists, a group of ultra-nationalist lawyers, which has had a hand in a number of other related prosecutions, among them the one directed at Pamuk.

Its main spokesman is a lawyer named Kemal Kerincsiz. His rabidly xenophobic sound-bites have turned him into a celebrity, and his words are echoed by the thugs who have taunted and assaulted defendants in the corridors of the courthouses, denouncing them as traitors and "missionary children" (a reference to the foreign schools many of the defendants attended) and spouting racist slogans that call to mind Berlin in 1935, while the riot police look on.

This comes on the heels of the case of the British artist living in Turkey who faces up to three years in prison after being charged with insulting the Turkish prime minister's dignity with a work of art.

One could perhaps claim that these are simply the shenanigans of a few bad apples, and activist prosecutors, with an agenda contrary to the bulk of the Turkish population. But the thing is, that the members of any society, a democratic one in particular, are, in the end, responsible for the laws passed, and enforced, in their name. Until such time as Turkey, as a nation, faces up to that awesome right, and responsibility, and amends the laws which make trials like this feasible, its protestations of unfair treatment will probably be given the weight they deserve.

Anyone wishing to make their feelings known to the Turkish authorities on the matter, can find the contact information to the Turkish embassy, or representation, in their country, at this web page.

This article is also available at Bitsofnews.com.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Mad as a Turk: Pregnant Novelist on Trial for insulting Nation | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Mad as a Turk (none / 0)

Excellent diary. Thanks for posting it.

But the thing is, that the members of any society, a democratic one in particular, are, in the end, responsible for the laws passed, and enforced, in their name.

I think that in a democracy only those who vote for those who pass the laws should feel responsible--and those who can't be bothered to vote (but not as much as those who postively vote for candidates whose opinions and attitudes are a matter of public record.)

Otherwise, don't we fall into the trap of collective guilt/punishment?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 10:08:06 AM EST

Re: Mad as a Turk (none / 0)

A point worthy of discussion. Did, for example, the German people carry a collective guilt for the genocide of the Jews?

Did the Turkish people, due to the genocide of the Armenians? And do they still, because of the denial of same to this day (which is at the heart of these court cases)? Where does the collective start and the personal end when it comes to responsibility for the actions of your country? I really don't have a good answer.

But it seems to me that a state, at least, can not fob off the responsibility for the laws within its jurisdiction and say it's simply a matter for the courts, and should have no bearing on the standing of that state in the fellowship of nations.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Alexander G Rubio (alexander.rubio@gmail.com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 10:37:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mad as a Turk (4.00 / 5)

I don't think any en masse guilt (by association) is healthy, wise, or justified. I especially don't think guilt should (though it can, like hate) be passed on to children.

I would say definitely so, but this isn't an area of expertise for me (far from it.)

The state can recind laws and create new laws (no?)

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:

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.
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.
In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.
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".

So the noun "denigration" battles the verb "criticise" in the courts; and lawyers make lots of money. Literary criticism in the courts.

Perhaps this is a postive sign, though. We had the "Lady Chatterley" trial and the "Oz" trial here in the U.K. France has had the "Olympia Press" trial, which can, perhaps be seen as last gasps of an old establishment rather than the fiery breath of a new crackdown?

On Lady Chatterley:

When it was published in Britain in 1960, the trial of the publishers, Penguin Books, under the Obscene Publications Act of 1959 was a major public event and a test of the new obscenity law. The 1959 act, introduced by Roy Jenkins, had made it possible for publishers to escape conviction if they could show that a work was of literary merit. One of the objections was for the frequent use of the word "fuck" and its derivatives.

Various academic critics, including E. M. Forster, Helen Gardner and Raymond Williams, were called as witnesses, and the verdict, delivered on November 2, 1960, was not guilty. This resulted in a far greater degree of freedom for publishing explicit material in the UK. The prosecution was ridiculed for being out of touch with changing social norms when the chief prosecutor, Mervyn Griffith-Jones, asked if it was the kind of book "you would wish your wife or servants to read".

On Oz:

Oz was one of several 'underground' publications targeted by the Obscene Publications Squad, and their offices had already been raided on several occasions, but the conjunction of schoolchildren and arguably obscene material set the scene for the infamous Oz obscenity trial of 1971. In some respects it was a copy of the Australian trial, with evidence and judicial instruction clearly aimed at securing a conviction, but the British trial was given a far more dangerous twist because the prosecution employed an archaic charge against Neville, Dennis and Anderson--"conspiracy to corrupt public morals"--which, in theory, carried a virtually unlimited penalty.

The defence lawyer, John Mortimer QC announced at the opening of the trial in 1971 that "[the] case stands at the crossroads of our liberty, at the boundaries of our freedom to think and draw and write what we please" (The Times: 24 June 1971). For the defence, this specifically concerned the treatment of dissent and dissenters, about the control of ideas and suppressing the messages of social resistance communicated by OZ in issue #28. The charges read out in the central criminal court stated "[that the defendants] conspiring with certain other young persons to produce a magazine containing obscene, lewd, indecent and sexually perverted articles, cartoons and drawings with intent to debauch and corrupt the morals of children and other young persons and to arouse and implant in their minds lustful and perverted ideas" (The Times: 23 June 1971). According to Mr Brian Leary prosecuting "It dealt with homosexuality, lesbianism, sadism, perverted sexual practices and drug taking" (op. cit.).

The trial brought the magazine to the attention of the wider public. John Lennon and Yoko Ono joined the protest march against the prosecution and organised the recording of "God Save Oz" by the Elastic Oz Band to raise funds and gain publicity.

Dennis and Anderson were defended by lawyer and playwright John Mortimer (creator of the Rumpole Of The Bailey series) with assistance from Australian lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, while Neville represented himself.

The trial was, at the time, the longest obscenity trial in British legal history. Defence witnesses included comedian Marty Feldman, artist and drugs activist Caroline Coon, DJ John Peel, musician and writer George Melly and academic Edward De Bono. At the conclusion of the trial the "Oz Three" were found guilty and sentenced to hard labour -- although Dennis was given a lesser sentence because the judge, Justice Michael Argyle, considered that Dennis was "very much less intelligent" than Neville and Anderson. Shortly after the verdicts were handed down they were taken to prison and their heads shaved, an act which caused an even greater stir on top of the already considerable outcry surrounding the trial and verdict.

The most famous images of the trial come from the committal hearing, at which Neville, Dennis and Anderson all appeared wearing rented schoolgirl costumes.

At the appeal trial, where the defendants appeared wearing long wigs, it was found that Justice Argyle had grossly misdirected the jury on numerous occasions. During the appeal, it was also alleged that Berger, who was called as a prosecution witness, had been harassed and assaulted by police. The convictions were overturned. Years later, Felix Dennis told author Jonathan Green that on the night before the appeal was heard, the Oz editors were taken to a secret meeting with the Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, who told them that they would be acquitted if they agreed to give up work on Oz, and that MPs Tony Benn and Michael Foot had interceded on their behalf.

On Olympia Press--or rather, Maurice Girodias:

Girodias consistently ran afoul of the authorities throughout his career. The Paris police, often egged on by British Customs authorities, would seize and destroy many copies of his books. The courts would fine him, and by 1963 he found himself having to leave Paris, first for Copenhagen, then for America, where Customs agents destroyed the microfilm copies of numerous TC titles Girodias possessed. He also got into serious trouble with Simon & Schuster and author Irving Wallace over a book called "The Original Seven Minutes" by JJ Jadway which purported the be the actual book featured in Irving Wallace's title The Seven Minutes. Copies of Girodias' Olympia Press title had to be destroyed before reaching the bookstores. Books were published in the United States under the Olympia Press, Traveller's Companion and Ophelia Press imprints. Later, after buying the Venus name from Barney Rosset's Grove Press, Girodias published in the US under the Venus Freeway imprint.

Erotic books were also published in other countries under the Olympia Press imprint, including the UK. The first British edition of Story of O by Pauline Reage was published by Olympia Press.

After a decade in America, Girodias published President Kissinger using the Venus Freeway imprint, a deeply flawed work of science fiction by numerous authors offering a dream of socialism starring Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. For this, Girodias was set up by the authorities in a phony drug deal and invited to leave the country.

So, different issue(s) (though still about "morality" of a publishing act) and yet all three cases were the end of something and not the beginning.

(He types hopefully.)

Orhan Pamuk wasn't found guilty--maybe they used the technicality to stop the case coming to full trial? Maybe the public can see it's a crock?

Do they have a jury system?

I presume the law is there because of the ongoing troubles with the kurds, but I don't know enough (nothing would more or less sum it up.)

When the Thatcher govt. in the U.K. banned the voices of members of Sinn Fein, the BBC got actors to do voice-overs...

I sort of understand and sort of don't understand at all. I mean, I understand how the law works, but I don't understand why anyone would want to pass it. Who is going to lose out if the current turkish govt. accepts that, on the evidence, there was an (attempted?) genocide? Is there money involved?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 11:23:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mad as a Turk (none / 0)

good diary, and comments.

it is interesting to see which counties take an insular, justificatory role in not recognising the pain their ancestors have caused...

my german partner had films of auschwitz as compulsory school viewing at 11 years old.

i think that is too young, myself, but the germans have to be so serious, and i admire them for it.

i wish all countries would feel so ready for self-criticism, it is troubling to see the calcified patriotism at play, as in certain japanese attitudes towards similar excesses.

to come together as one world, we need to create pride in what we have done well, and a certain sorrow and shame for the opposite.

crusty nationalism is just retro.

Peace is not the absence of war -- peace is the absence of fear. Ursula Franklin

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 01:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mad as a Turk (none / 0)

Now that's a lot of history nicely condensed. Many thanks.

-----
sapere aude

by Number 6 on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 08:32:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mad as a Turk (none / 0)

Well the Oz 3 had competent defense counsel.

Interesting cases.

First interesting English characters and trial I remember were Keeler, Rice-Davies, and Profumo.

Got big play from American tabloids.

Was going to write a diary on that one a while back, but got distracted.

Then came Steed and Peel, and Bond.

Strange times, the early to mid-sixties.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 09:10:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mad as a Turk (none / 0)

Baudelaire, Flaubert, Joyce- among so many- all went on trial for what they wrote. As in the case of Joyce's Ulysses, charges of obscenity, a favored hang-up Stateside.

In the Sixties obscenity turned into a repressive tool to stiffen political dissent especially with the Vietnam War. I recall a US Supreme Court ruling on a case in Dallas. Local authorities used obscenity charges to put the underground press effectively out of business.

Here's an extensive quote from venerable Mr. Judge Douglas, dissenting- worth a read for bloggers who may in the future be confronted with similar treatment.

...The two raids in this case were search-and-destroy missions in the Vietnamese sense of the phrase. In each case the police came at night. The first search warrant authorized a search and seizure of "obscene articles and materials, to-wit: pictures, photographs, drawings and obscene literature" concealed at a given [401 U.S. 200, 205] address. The seizures included: two tons of a newspaper (Dallas Notes), one photograph enlarger, two portable typewriters, two electric typewriters, one camera, "numerous obscene photographs," and $5.43 in money. The second warrant was issued 16 days later, in response to a claim that marihuana was concealed on the premises. It authorized the officers "to search for and seize the said narcotic drug and dangerous drug in accordance with the law in such cases provided." Not finding any marihuana on the premises, the sergeant asked instructions from his lieutenant. He was told to seize pornographic literature and any equipment used to make it. He "didn't know what to seize and what not to seize so [he] just took everything." "Everything" included a Polaroid camera, a Kodak Brownie, a Flocon camera, a Kodak lamp, a floating fixture lamp, a three-drawer desk containing printers' supplies, a drafting square, a drafting table, two drawing boards, a mailing tube, two telephones, a stapler, five cardboard boxes containing documents, one electric typewriter, and one typewriter desk. A poster of Mao Tse-tung, credit cards, costume jewelry, cans of spices, a brown sweater, and [401 U.S. 200, 206] a statue of a man and woman in an embrace were also seized. Thus the newspaper Dallas Notes, a bi-monthly, was effectively put out of business.
It would be difficult to find in our books a more lawless search-and-destroy raid, unless it be the one in Kremen v. United States, [353 U.S. 346 ]. If this search-and-destroy technique can be employed against this Dallas newspaper, then it can be done to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, the Yakima Herald-Republic, the Sacramento Bee, and all the rest of our newspapers. For, as I shall point out, the Texas statute governing "obscenity" is plainly unconstitutional. [401 U.S. 200, 207]
Government certainly has no power to close down newspapers. Even censorship - whether for obscenity, for irresponsible reporting or editorials, or otherwise - is taboo. As Chief Justice Hughes said in Near v. Minnesota, [283 U.S. 697 ], decided in 1931:
"[T]he administration of government has become more complex, the opportunities for malfeasance and corruption have multiplied, crime has grown to most serious proportions, and the danger of its protection by unfaithful officials and of the impairment of the fundamental security of life and property by criminal alliances and official neglect, emphasizes the primary need of a vigilant and courageous press, especially in great cities. The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct. Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate remedy, consistent with constitutional privilege." Id., at 719-720.

I agree with that view.

It is said, however, that these issues are not before us as the case has been remanded to a single judge to pass on them. But we deal with plain error, as the state statute is unconstitutional on its face and we should put an end to lawless raids under it.

Bold mine.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 05:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mad as a Turk: Pregnant Novelist on Trial for insulting Nation | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]