Friday, June 13, 2008
Article #2 from Volume 1, Issue 3: Your Media, Your Human Right
“Penal Code 301: Public opinion & ‘Turkishness’”
Todd Price
At the start of summer, democratic elections in Turkey had never seemed more crucial to a loosely assembled relationship with the U.S. The results yielded a controversial Parliamentary body whose beliefs and opinions have traditionally been at odds with each other over an array of serious issues.
Joining the European Union in particular has been on Turks minds for the greater part of the last half of the century. However, apart from the generalized construction of these issues surrounding this relationship is an enhanced problem of international human rights.
Respect for the freedom of press is honored by our world’s citizenry as a democratic principle and is enshrined as a right of individuals. Un-willingly though, the factors of extenuating contexts that have shown important consequences for Turkey’s relative position within the international community have not demonstrated the enhancement of such principles.
The international human rights aspects to the U.S.-Turkish relationship have been for the most part historically uncertain. Arguably, United States’ primary interests have always remained strategic in aspect. Above all, for Turkey and its’ people, undergoing the long-hauled journey to the European Union has been the most serious issue. However, the increasingly hostile international community has painted a desperate, completely different portrait of the Turkish national agenda.
For example, recent New York Times articles showing the clash of civilizations and subsequent discussions about the rise of a Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) totalitarian regime have been evermore negligent to efforts to protect these rights. Perhaps, it is through benign combat with democracy and international human rights NGOs that a forum for dialogue concerning ethnic peace remains static and lacks respect for the moral rights of global citizens.
This may be why so many Turks within the deteriorating 84-year-old secular establishment have been strongly opposed to any changes to Constitutional laws that would subsequently pose a threat to its secular orientation, despite improving the status of
human rights.
The projected changes would improve its steps as measured by the Copenhagen Criteria toward European Union integration. In light of this, the suggested changes to the Turkish
Penal Code 301 has become the matter of public disgrace instead of necessarily advocating change.
One clause stipulates: “[A] person(s) who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.”
Many notable Turkish authors such as Orhan Pamuk and Arat Dink, along with media oligarchs, have posited that this clause exacerbate the human right to free speech.
In addition, this may also help explain why the young Turkish generations have become increasingly aware of their inalienable media rights and are staging mass protests across ethnic divides.
The public press is one of Turkey’s most prominent institutions and the focus of social reason on the Anatolian Peninsula.
It has historically been uncertain. Who is going to protect these universal rights on behalf of both the world citizenry and Turkish nation as a conduit for freedom of the press and not as the source of public fear?
Recently, dozens of public rallies have featured an array of socio-political issues such as constitutional change, presidential elections, and the war in Iraq. These should matter to the international community- important issues to care about enhancing.
In the emerging context of debate over Kurdish problems, the US Congress’s Armenian Genocide Resolution indicates that it is again supporting strategic consideration of the Turkish Republic marginalizing Turks’ human rights.
This is quite worrisome.
Todd Price
At the start of summer, democratic elections in Turkey had never seemed more crucial to a loosely assembled relationship with the U.S. The results yielded a controversial Parliamentary body whose beliefs and opinions have traditionally been at odds with each other over an array of serious issues.
Joining the European Union in particular has been on Turks minds for the greater part of the last half of the century. However, apart from the generalized construction of these issues surrounding this relationship is an enhanced problem of international human rights.
Respect for the freedom of press is honored by our world’s citizenry as a democratic principle and is enshrined as a right of individuals. Un-willingly though, the factors of extenuating contexts that have shown important consequences for Turkey’s relative position within the international community have not demonstrated the enhancement of such principles.
The international human rights aspects to the U.S.-Turkish relationship have been for the most part historically uncertain. Arguably, United States’ primary interests have always remained strategic in aspect. Above all, for Turkey and its’ people, undergoing the long-hauled journey to the European Union has been the most serious issue. However, the increasingly hostile international community has painted a desperate, completely different portrait of the Turkish national agenda.
For example, recent New York Times articles showing the clash of civilizations and subsequent discussions about the rise of a Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) totalitarian regime have been evermore negligent to efforts to protect these rights. Perhaps, it is through benign combat with democracy and international human rights NGOs that a forum for dialogue concerning ethnic peace remains static and lacks respect for the moral rights of global citizens.
This may be why so many Turks within the deteriorating 84-year-old secular establishment have been strongly opposed to any changes to Constitutional laws that would subsequently pose a threat to its secular orientation, despite improving the status of
human rights.
The projected changes would improve its steps as measured by the Copenhagen Criteria toward European Union integration. In light of this, the suggested changes to the Turkish
Penal Code 301 has become the matter of public disgrace instead of necessarily advocating change.
One clause stipulates: “[A] person(s) who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.”
Many notable Turkish authors such as Orhan Pamuk and Arat Dink, along with media oligarchs, have posited that this clause exacerbate the human right to free speech.
In addition, this may also help explain why the young Turkish generations have become increasingly aware of their inalienable media rights and are staging mass protests across ethnic divides.
The public press is one of Turkey’s most prominent institutions and the focus of social reason on the Anatolian Peninsula.
It has historically been uncertain. Who is going to protect these universal rights on behalf of both the world citizenry and Turkish nation as a conduit for freedom of the press and not as the source of public fear?
Recently, dozens of public rallies have featured an array of socio-political issues such as constitutional change, presidential elections, and the war in Iraq. These should matter to the international community- important issues to care about enhancing.
In the emerging context of debate over Kurdish problems, the US Congress’s Armenian Genocide Resolution indicates that it is again supporting strategic consideration of the Turkish Republic marginalizing Turks’ human rights.
This is quite worrisome.
Posted by
UWJHR
at
9:43 AM
|
Labels: human rights, media, newsletter, todd price, turkey, university of washington, uwjhr
Labels: human rights, media, newsletter, todd price, turkey, university of washington, uwjhr
0 comments:
Post a Comment