Orhan Pamuk Case

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

I don't like Orhan Pamuk and his novels.He doesen't know anything about Turkey as a naive westrener.He thinks that Europe is golden land for Turks and Turks don't fit into it.He is too polemical than as a author.Like Salman Rushdie who insulted Holy Quran in his Satanic Verses, he looks for fame and prestije.

Westren circles like him, because he went American Robert Academy in Istanbul.This academy- always been a head ache for Turkey- produced political nightmares like Bulent Ecevit and Tansu Ciller.The Academy produced Pro -Westren columints, translators, scholars, scientists, politicians and all of them were harmfull for Turkey.I think this academy must be abolished.It hurts our nation deeply.

The most significant support to him came from Salman Rushdie, his spiritual counterpart who wrote an article on 14 October 2005 for The Times.

I want to point some similarities of Orhan Pamuk and Salman Rushdie here:

Both belongs a wealthy family.

Both went English speaking missionary schools.

Both had no regular jobs.

Both used masonic and religious themes in their novels.

Both had a westren lobby behind themselves.

Both became modern day Fausts,

Both caused a international controversy.

Faust or Faustus is the protagonist of a popular German tale that has been used as the basis for many different fictional works. The story concerns the fate of a learned gentleman named Faust, who in his quest for forbidden or advanced knowledge of material things, summons the Devil (represented by Mephistopheles, often also referred as Mephisto), who offers to serve him for a period of time, at the cost of his soul.

In this case, Orhan Pamuk is Fausts and West is Mephistopheles.

Novels of Orhan Pamuk merely frauds, masonic plots, esoteric mumbo-jumbo in oriental sense.There is a racsist tinge in them.Turkish storeotypes are ugly, vulgar, unfair and backward.But west thinks his novels deal with the clash between past and present and the values of East and West from the point of view of a bourgeois intellectual.The truth is that, Orhan Pamuk says the same thing what Samuel Huntigton says in 'Clash Of Civilizaitions- West is good East is bad.

I can pinpoint a similarity between him and Umberto Ecco:

The best known work of Ecco is: The Name Of The Rose.If the rose is red, it points a famous Rosicurican archtype.

My name is Red, a previous novel by Orhan Pamuk contains a plot on murders of book copiers, caligarphers in Ottoman times.Both books have a plot wise affinity.

He is too narcist .He considers himself a man of thought and stance, a artfull mediator and convice others so.But too many readers find his novels obscure, boring and inconsistent.The critics don't like his books.His Turkish is awfull.He speaks English better than Turkish.I think he has writer and correction team for his books.The westren lobby behind him used every marketing tool to boost the selling of his novels.Western media made remarks like that :

foremost novelist,

renowend writer,

a great story teller etc etc.

Maybe he is most known, but he is not the best writer in Turkey.But he has westren media bandwagoning him .

He faces charges 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."

This declarations on Armeninas and Kurds are baseless and biased.Orhan Pamuk is a great liar.He using this topic for his own interset not his plight for democracy, free speech, human rights etc etc.He sees himself as a contender for Nobel prize.

His ostensible aim is to receive the Nobel Prize for literature. He was aware it would not suffice to write only a good novel or to create a good work of art to win this prize.

This case has a open modus operandi :to fool and fuddle Turkey and Turks.

So our nation acted collectively.

This week Turkish press and media divided on his trial, some defending him as a victim and some blaming him as traitor.He made a havoc at the heartland of our nation.

Turkish Armenians divided by our bloody foe, British army against the state.British had set attrocities among Turks, Greeks, Kurds and Armenians.Like other minorites, Armenians were reach, peacefull and skilled citizens.They had high ranking positions in goverment and state .They omitted military service.They were the most pampered segement of our society when most of Turks were poor and illitirate.Most city names in eastern provinces still in Armenian.They are still part of Turkey instead of our bloody foes.

I am sure jurisdiction will not punish Orhan Pamuk .He is powerfull, he is rich.He knows West will support him.He considers Turkey as a banana republic and subservient to Western demands on any ground.So his case will not be a litmus for foreign pressure.

Turks are not beggars like Third World.Only rootless and rich people like Orhan Pamuk wants to join homosexual and sodomite EU. Eu is not a dream for Turks.She was and is a nightmare for many people.

The last incindents in France showed Western ideals: democracy, freedom, and equality were mere illusions. The western nations procured this ideals for themselves only not for the third world.

The Western goverments and instutions think there is a inherent biological cause. The third world is not compatible racially with Europeans. So, they want to deport them back to their countries or send them to prisons to rot.

But western nations like Britain exploited the resources of the third world and give them gospels and told them to be subsurvient to their orders. Then, they exported them to do dirty and hard jobs for them. Only rich people from third world gained access to education and good living conditions. The West served like large shopping mall for rich all around the world .

Orhan Pamuk is not the first writer insulting Turkish identity.Aziz Nesin, after his books translated into English, had said '60% percent of Turks are dumb.', Ahmet Altan another charlatan said ' Turks are vulgar people.'

That is main tactic of prolific writers in Turkey: insult Turkish identity, gain fame, money and prestije world wide.A lot of Turkish writers who carved for fame and money and who had nothing to say became lackeys and mouthpieces of West.

Orhan Pamuk fell prey to the trap West way layed for him.The West will back clap him, applause him, maybe give him Nobel prize.But he will not have a homeland, like Salaman Rushdie.He will stroll aimlessly at the cold streets and oppulent sky of west like Marcel Proust.

[legamus]

i'm only familiar with this based on brief news blurbs so my understanding is that he's on trial for insulting something turkish (the government? culture? turkey in general?) regardless of whether or not you agree with him or you consider him an idiot - isn't what's happening there an infringement on the freedom of speech? if it is, doesn't that concern you?

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[PocketRocket]

i'm only familiar with this based on brief news blurbs so my understanding is that he's on trial for insulting something turkish (the government? culture? turkey in general?) regardless of whether or not you agree with him or you consider him an idiot - isn't what's happening there an infringement on the freedom of speech? if it is, doesn't that concern you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I first heard of this on a CBC radio program last night.

They were interviewing the lady who translated his books into english.

Apparently, most of the foforah stems from a comment he made during an interview, wherein he said something to the effect of "15 million Armenians and (forget who else????) died in Turkey, and I'm the only one who's writing/saying anything about it".

Shortly after this he was charged with whatever the hell he was charged with.

Something like "Demeaning the Turkish identity".

Hmmm. I wonder. If I resumed calling the members of our favorite Quebec political party "Bloc-heads", could I be charged in Quebec???

[Biblio Bibuli]

A few points:

Orhan is a good writer.

Orhan appears to love Turkey deeply ... his portraits of the country are loving.

Parroting the Koran is not good writing ... ever.

The Turks DID kill a great number of Armenians. Get over it.

Salman Rushdie HAS a homeland ... England.

Aside from that ... hate to break it to you ... but no one in the west cares enough about Turkey to give a damn about their identity (as I'm sure no one in Turkey gives a damn about Polynesians identity).

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

A few points:

Orhan is a bad writer.

Orhan appears to love fame and prestije.What is doing now, is doing for himself, not for free speech, democracy etc etc.He wants to win Noble prize.That is all

Salman Rushdie is living in England and write in English , he is not english.His homeland is India.

The British, our arch enemy had a hand in Armenian case.They caused much trouble.The poisonous seeds that British had sawed did this things.Armenians were freindly terms with Turks.They had high ranking positions.Nobody foreced them to anything.The evilhood of British caused many bloodshed around the world.

Turks are not beggars.Only rootless and rich people like Orhan Pamuk wants to join homosexual EU.

[PocketRocket]

A few points:

Orhan is a bad  writer.

You say bad, BB says good, everyone's a critic.

Could it be that *gasp* good and bad are subjective opinions and all a matter of personal taste???

Orhan appears to love fame and prestije

And who doesn't???

Salman Rushdie is living in England and write in English , he is not english.His homeland is India

Hopefully he's happy there.

Orhan Pamuk is a converted Jew.He is not Turkish.He lives in Turkey and writes in Turkish.His homeland  is Israel.

Your point is???

The British, our arch enemy had a hand in Armenian case.They caused much trouble.The poisonous seeds that British had sawed did this things.Armenians were freindly terms with Turks.They had high ranking positions.Nobody foreced them to anything.The evilhood of British caused many bloodshed around the world.

So the British caused the Turks to slaughter the Armenians, with whom they were on good terms????

Your reasoning boggles the mind.

Turks are not beggars.Only rootless and rich people like Orhan Pamuk wants to join homosexual EU.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So the true issue is your personal homophobia???

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

Most of the readers don't like him.He is bad.This is a popular taste.Only media says his good and bandwagon him.

Salman is deceving himself.British uses him as a puppet.He is not happy and never will be.

Look in history, where is bloodshed, behind them is British.

Turkish Armenians divided by British.For Iraqi oil, British set attrocities among Turks, Kurds and Armenians.British have the blood stain of world on their sleeve.Armenians were reach, peacefull and skilled citizens.They were the most pampered segement of our society.Armenians always belonged East Anatolia and Turkey.Most city names still in Armenian.They are still part of Turkey instead of our bloody foes.

[PocketRocket]

Most  of the readers don't like him.He is bad.This is a popular taste.Only media says his good and bandwagon him.

Most of what readers??? Can you cite a source to verify your claim???

Salman is deceving himself.British uses him as a puppet.He is not happy and never will be.

Yes, I am sure the terrible British held a gun to Rushdie's head and forced him to write The Satanic Verses

Look in history, where is bloodshed, behind them is British.

Yeah. Every drop of blood in history is on the hands of the British.

The Holocaust, for example. I can see how the British are responsible for that.

Again....

Turkish Armenians divided by British.For Iraqi oil, British set attrocities among Turks, Kurds and Armenians.British have the blood stain of world on their sleeve.Armenians were reach, peacefull and skilled citizens.They were the most pampered segement of our society.Armenians always belonged East Anatolia and Turkey.Most city names still in Armenian.They are still part of Turkey instead of our bloody foes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, right. When the Armenian slaughter took place, oil wasn't even a concern as yet.

I suppose the Crusades were also motivated by Britain's greed for oil.

Attila the Hun was probably also motivated by British lust for oil.

Yup. You've made a strong case here

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

Low tolerance levels of Messrs. Pamuk and Dink!

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

AYŞE ÖZGÜN

Last weekend we were introduced to Mrs. Verkin Kasapoğlu Arıoba, a Turk of Armenian origin, during her interview with one of the newspapers. Here was her claim:

"I represent the people of Armenian origin of Turkey just as much as Hrant Dink [who is embroiled in a court case for allegedly belittling the Turkish identity in one of his articles in the Armenian language Argos newspaper that he edits; he is very famous in European Union circles]. Since they insist on using the word 'democratic' in every sentence they utter, I insist that speaking up is also my democratic right."

A group of “enlightened' people including Orhan Pamuk, Hrant Dink, Mr. Lagendijk (an EU parliamentarian) and others who leave no stone unturned regarding human rights, liberties, freedom of expression and democracy, went to have dinner at a restaurant in Şişli last week following the hearing in Pamuk's case. Verkin Hanım decided to join them and introduce herself to Pamuk and Dink.

"I went to where Pamuk was sitting and extended my business card while introducing myself. He immediately took my card and a smile appeared on his face. He obviously thought I was going to congratulate him. I continued by telling him that I am a Turk of Armenian origin and that I had come here on behalf of thousands of silent Turks of Armenian origin living in Turkey and that wanted to exercise my democratic rights to admonish him for exploiting such a deep-rooted issue in such a manner. I told him that what he did was not helpful to anyone and that such actions could, to the contrary, be harmful."

What do you think Pamuk did when he heard this statement? Embrace the lady and thank her for coming? Bow and ask her to join their table? Show respect for her courage?

None of the above! He crumpled her business card and turned his back on her.

Sitting next to Pamuk was Hrant Dink (whom Verkin Hanım had met before) and he must have overheard her because, when she turned to talk to him, he also got very upset and blurted, "Don't you talk to me!" Obviously, the man was not in a state of mind to hear the lady out.

We can see from this small episode that our famous heroes-of-the-year get upset very easily. What is this disrespectful attitude to those who don't think like you? At least hear them out. At least listen to them for three minutes and express your views on the matter. After all, Verkin Hanım came all the way to a restaurant and to your table where you were seated to express her views and disagreement with your way of handling a situation. Where is your supposedly sound sense of justice and equality, let alone freedom of expression?

As you see, it is easier said than done, ladies and gentlemen. When such attitudes are expressed by such people in such a manner, I really lose hope for Turkey's entry into the EU. Short fused, wouldn't you say?

© 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

Orhan Pamuk and 'Untouchability' of the Art

Once upon a time, I made two interviews with Orhan Pamuk for the magazine Aksiyon. I held the interview in light of his novels and with his novelistic personality.

I titled a saying of his: "The novelist can wrong the history" he said; a strange irony of fate. This means, the transitivity between art and life is faster and sharper then we think. Furthermore, this wrongfulness does not remain vague and imaginary as it does to some extent in the novel when it is reflected in to reality., And the figures step in, 30,000 Kurds, a million Armenians. However, it is obvious, this is not the first time the historian wrongs the history; thus, there must be another problem.

If Orhan Pamuk, "in addition to his assessments we did not like as a nation", had uttered a few noteworthy words about the ongoing war in Iraq, the forces that are now trying to lean on Syria and about the Palestinians victimized in Israel, he would be respected a little at this point, but this is not the case. On the other hand, when did Orhan Pamuk become a "man of thought", did he know the suppositions on history he put forward would be taken so seriously, these are points that need clarification. I think all his discourses that lead to the claim that "Turkey does not deserve the EU" originate from the writer's worry of losing his privilege and from his jealousy of "wanting Europe for itself," since his books entered the EU before Turkey. Reducing the great novelist's statements that became a national cause to a simple reason such as jealousy may appear strange to some, but the person before us is not an old-timer politician, an intelligence spy, or an expert businessman. There is no need to be a clairvoyant to see the issue turned into a conspiracy of disgracing the new TCK (Turkish Penal Code) and spoiling the Justice and Development Party's (AKP) pleasure of "victory” of making Turkey approach the EU much far beyond Orhan Pamuk’s aim. I do not think the writer planned all these in detail. The issue must be related to the delusion of a novelist who is accustomed to the "untouchable" atmosphere of the art, of an artist whose most novels are an arena of free shot over history, to his delusion that he can use this power of his at all places.

For an eye that looks at art by a western point of view, the art aims for itself before all; for a novelist in this context, the history is just a material, even the religion and esteemed personalities in the history are so as well. In his books, "The Black Book," "The White Castle," "My Name is Red," and "The Silent House," we see Pamuk deals with the history as the projection of his imagination. In "The Black Book," he fictionalized the relationship between Mevlana and Sems as a "gay relationship" probably with a point of view of the Western sources. In "My Name is Red," Pamuk fictionalized the relationship of the characters who are as pious as to hold an opinion on the ban on depiction of human forms for pages with young boys within the logic of the art of novel peculiar to itself. As a result? He did not receive even a third of the reactions he does today. If a meaningful discussion and criticism platform could be formed for the discussion of these books in this country, which is abundant with Rumi lovers and people attributing holiness to the Ottoman Empire, this ground would serve as a brake for Orhan Pamuk who, we see, has a passion for being " a man of thought and stance". If those reading his books had not surrendered to the concept called "art" and treated as a half god with the fear of looking reactionary, if they had said "no my friend, you cannot dress the historical reality according to your imagination even if this is for art, their unique characters are not less valuable than the authorization you think to obtain from art;" in other words, if the relationship between the historical reality and novel fiction had been hurt just a little bit, our sense of justice -and even the writer himself -would not have been so hurt at the moment.

There was probably a last exit before the bridge, before the eggs and fists. The weakness of our reflex of criticizing something at the right place and at the right time plays a role in missing this "exit". I do not know whether Pamuk would or would not have taken these seriously but the issue still interests the pious lovers of literature. Because literates with religious values try to read and digest the art within the secular universe the art belongs to; even while the "unquestionability" of the modern art is nothing but a "dogma".

December 22, 2005

23.12.2005

NIHAL B. KARACA

Istanbul

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=columnists&alt=&hn=27866

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

Pamuk Ought to be Tried not in Court but in Public Conscience

His greatest aim was to receive the Nobel Prize for literature. He was aware it would not suffice to write only a good novel or to create a good work of art to win this prize.

He had to find something that would attract the attention of the west. He thought he could achieve this target with the words he would say about the two issues that he perhaps never even came face to face with and never internalized before; the Kurdish and Armenian issues. Since the West would always award prizes to anyone who criticized the Orient.

His strategy, I think, was laying underneath the statement "We killed one million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds", a sentence that he said aloud prior to the Nobel Prize. The West would reward an Oriental only for criticizing himself/herself. After all, the most significant support came from Salman Rushdie, who wrote an article on 14 October 2005 for The Times, a British daily. It would be ludicrous to think that Mr. Rushdie would not support his spiritual counterpart.

He made a minor miscalculation, however. The Nobel Jury disliked becoming politicized. They would not award a Nobel Prize to anyone who became politicized, even if they came from the Orient. Luckily, the German Union of Writers came to his aid. And the Union thrust into his hands a prize of lesser value than the Nobel. This prize was titled "The Peace Award". He responded to this by saying his former statements louder. "You cut down thousands of Jews too," he could not say when he was receiving the prize from the German Union Leader. If he could have said it, I would not consider the Pamuk statements as a typical Young Turk movement that expected to be given a clap by the West, I would say that he is sincere in his words, and I would still respect him, though I do not agree with his statements.

Seeing that Pamuk is thumbing around the old notebooks, he should have reminded France of the Algerian massacres and asked the same nation to explain how they paid the blood money for those massacres. It was already then apparent the French were responsible for the murdering of 500,000 Rwandans; however, this was documented once again last week. Or he should have condemned the West for the murdering of 110,000 Bosnians in front of the whole world's eyes. Hundreds of thousands of Bosnians were either killed or assaulted because the great European countries tolerated and turned a blind eye to those crimes. What is more, I am curious about what Mr. Pamuk said about the First and Second World Wars. A total of 40 million people, most of whom were innocent civilians, were killed in the interests of the European.

Mr. Pamuk is turning the history into a political discourse. His intention, rather than his thoughts, is insincere. He gives the appearance of a contemporary Young Turk who would say the kind of things that would return him applause. He expects to get support from some lobbies by having a finger in every pie in terms of the Armenian and Kurdish issues. He does not say anything about the ban on headscarf. He is abstaining from this not as a matter of believing or disbelieving in this freedom, rather because it would not please the circles from whom he expects to receive an applause. That is to say, he is being very opportunist in expressing his thoughts. He is talking about the things to earn him money, whereas he is remaining silent about other issues.

Leaving all this aside, I strongly object to anyone being tried for their thoughts and pronouncing them aloud. Although their thoughts and what they say do not please us, Orhan Pamuk – like anyone else – can express his thoughts freely. The court that he will actually be responsible to is the public conscience. Let us leave it to this court to hear the case and issue a decree about it…

December 17, 2005

19.12.2005

MEHMET KAMIS

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=columnists

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

Turkish writer may face new charge

27dec05

ANKARA: Best-selling Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk might face another court case for allegedly insulting the Turkish military in an interview with a German newspaper, his publishers said yesterday.

Pamuk is already on trial under article 301 of Turkey's revised penal code for telling a Swiss newspaper no one dared discuss the alleged massacre of a million Armenians 90 years ago and the deaths of 30,000 Kurds in the past two decades.

The issue of freedom of speech has dogged every stage of Turkey's efforts to join the European Union. While the EU agreed to start entry talks with Turkey in October, such court cases are likely to hinder Ankara's progress towards full membership.

Nihat Tuna, of publishers Iletisim Yayinlari, said the prosecutor of an Istanbul court that charged Pamuk for denigrating Turkish identity had begun an investigation under the same article.

"This is a preliminary investigation. It does not mean that another case against Pamuk will be launched," Mr Tuna said.

The Vatan newspaper said the nationalist Lawyers Unity Association had called on prosecutors to charge Pamuk under article 301, which prescribes punishment of up to three years in jail for insulting Turkish identity, the army and parliament.

The 53-year-old author of best-sellers My Name is Red and Snow is seen by many as a contender for the Nobel Prize for Literature.

His novels deal with the clash between past and present and the values of East and West from the point of view of a bourgeois intellectual.

Reuters

[PocketRocket]

Wow. You really like seeing your comments posted.

No replies, yet you keep churning it out.

In any case, this whole thing is over a guy saying something that some higher-ups in Turkey didn't like.

In other words, it's a crime to criticize Turkey publicly, at least if you're a Turkish citizen.

That alone is worthy of criticism.

Oh-oh, I hope the Turkish government doesn't put a "hit" out on me for saying something bad about them

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

no replies, but people views it,

my postings are not baseless, it needs background,

I am not the only one saying this things, so people might be cautious

so quick and personalized replies can make a person foolish.....

[PocketRocket]

Yeah, but the bottom line is that the guy is being charged with a "crime" of saying something "offensive" about Turkey.

Obviously, that country has learned nothing from the experiences of western governments with some recording artists.

It works like this; if you "ban" a record or CD by a recording artist (or a book, works the same way), then people go looking for that album just to see what the fuss was about.

That means more sales.

This is essentially what the Turkish government is doing.

If they were to totally ignore him, then any interest surrounding him would likely disappear quite quickly.

But by vilifying him so vehemently, all they are doing is calling greater attention to him, and stirring up interest which will virtually guarantee LOTS more book sales.

In other words, the Turkish government is turning a previously unknown author into a mega star.

I had never heard of the guy before this.

Now I want to read his book to see why the Turks are all so upset with him.

So, it kind of backfired, don't you think???

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

yes....

nobody cares about his books,

nobody cares what you say or do anything in Turkey,

you can find books in any subject, press is free, academies are free, religion is free

Turkey is heaven on earth

the point is that, he has career ambitions

the only way achiving this was insulting national identity

I read all his novels, if you want reading something

read 'White Castle'.

[PocketRocket]

yes....

nobody cares about his books,

nobody cares what you say or do anything in Turkey,

Then why is this guy being charged with a crime like as though he had gone out and shot somebody???

You are contradicting yourself.

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

the case is not against his books,

it is his remarks about Turkish identity and Turkish Millitary

it is a defensive reflex,

we need time, after dust settled

we have mature jurisdiction

our nation is upset deeply, we don't deserve this

but nobody gonna hang him,

it will pass.

[PocketRocket]

But you said that "Nobody cares what you do or say in Turkey".

Obviously SOMEBODY cares, or the poor sap would not be facing criminal charges.

I guess nobody cares, but only if you say what they want to hear.

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

many people said the same things he sad

but they dont made fuss

this case has a open modus operandi

to fool and fuddle Turkey and Turks

so our nation acted collectively

[PocketRocket]

Okay. Sorry, but I grow weary of your self-contradictions and obfuscation.

I won't be returning to this thread, and seeing as I'm the only one who's been talking to you on this subject, I thinks you'll be pretty lonely talking to yourself in here.

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

Europe’s Male Snow Whites and the Others...

The date is December 16, 2005. The venue is the Sisli courthouse building. Orhan Pamuk appears at the first hearing in the case he is accused of saying, “a million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds had been killed in Turkey,” in an interview that was published in a Swiss newspaper.

Under the eyes of the local and international media, the trial still goes ahead despite constant disruptions from the angry mob inside and outside the court building protesting and attacking Pamuk and his supporters. The crowds shouted, “Love it or leave it!” at Pamuk, who asked British Labor Party MP Denis MacShane who had come to offer his support: “Should I go into exile?”

MacShane concluded his article published in The Observer newspaper with the following sentence: “Turkey will not join Europe unless Voltaire wins, and the ayatollahs -- secular and religious -- lose.” This was a reference to Voltaire’s famous saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.” MacShane, naturally, was not the first person to compare Turkey’s rulers to ayatollahs regarding their handling of the Pamuk case. On the day the trial was being held in Sisli, people on the other side of the Atlantic were reading an article in The New York Times, entitled, “Secular Democracy Goes on Trial,” which stressed the similarity between Orhan Pamuk and Salman Rushdie.

Is Pamuk the Salman Rushdie of Turkey?

Let’s first start with Rushdi. An Indian boy, who emigrated from Bombay to London many years ago, completed his mental and cultural transformation by passing through modernity, making the people and values in his homeland the object and adding an eccentric color to his novels. Rushdie’s fame peaked with his novel, “The Satanic Verses,” and in a sense, with the pandemonium that ensued, the novel that included insults against Prophet Mohammed, sparked widespread and large protests around the world. The incident was politicized when Ayatollah Khomeini issued the “death sentence” on Rushdie and turned the situation into a likeness of the ancient East-West war. Many writers, artists and intellectuals -- local and recruited -- from the West, Edward Said in particular, supported Rushdie against “Islamic fanaticism” and defended his freedom of expression.

There may be some similarities between Rushdie and Pamuk. First of all, they are both novelists whose fame goes beyond the countries in which they live in and both are bestselling authors. Their political views bear a number of similarities, and both are known as “left(ist) liberals.” They are both the children of the Enlightenment intellect; and both are also close to post-modern literature. One of them was damned for “belittling the sacred values of Islam,” the other was taken to court for “openly belittling Turkish identity.” However, there is no similarity in judicial terms between the case of Rushdie and that of Pamuk, as is thought to be. Rushdie was not tried as a “thought criminal.” In fact, he could not be tried. The cases instigated by Muslims living in the UK against Rushdie on the grounds that “their religious values were insulted,” failed because of the discriminative character of the Blasphemy Law which prohibits insults against sacred/religious values. This law is still in effect in Britain and only punishes insults directed against the sacred values of members of the Anglican Church, but does not protect other religions against blasphemy and insolence. What is more interesting, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the claim that this discriminative law is against the European Convention on Human Rights, and allowing “The Satanic Verses” to be published violated the freedom of religion and conscience which is protected by Article 9 of the Convention. Hence, Rushdie could not be registered as a “thought criminal” in the judicial sense. The date is February 25, 1998. The venue is the Paris Court of Justice. The presiding judge of the three-judge court, Jen-Yves Montfort, announces the court’s decision to the curious crowds waiting in the hall outside: “The accused is ordered to pay 240,000 French francs ($40,000) for contravening the definition of “crime against humanity” and for discussing the Holocaust openly and systematically.” The person sitting in the defendant’s chair was none other than Roger Garaudy, one of the most widely known French Marxist philosophers, who later converted to Islam.

Best example of double standards: Garaudy

Garaudy had defended himself in his book titled, "Les Mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne,” by saying that he brought the number of Jews killed and the existence of gas chambers in concentration camps into question, and also emphasized that the legend, "six million Jews were massacred," is used to justify the cruelty of Israel in Palestine. After the session, there were some protests at the entrance of the court building, and members of a Zionist Organization called "Betar," shouted slogans like "Nazi Garaudy!" and "Garaudy to Prison!", attacking those who came to support Garaudy and injuring an old man.

The Garaudy case was later taken to the European Court of Human Rights ( ECHR); however, on July 7, 2003 the court decided that an appeal in this case was unacceptable. The Strasbourg court investigated the book, which was the subject of the case, and decided there was no violation of the freedom of expression, referring to Article 17 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which prohibits exploitation of rights. According to the court, "The writer adopted revisionist theories in his book and discussed the existence of crimes against humanity that Nazis committed against Jews in a systematic way." The following statement by the court, which emphasized all cases relating to Article 10 of the Convention, including thoughts which offend a particular group in society, is quite interesting: "Discussing the existence of historical events like the Holocaust, which is clearly proven, cannot be accepted as a historical study in the search of reality. The real aim of these kinds of studies is to re-establish a national-socialist regime, and as a result, to accuse the victims of Holocaust of distorting history. Consequently, discussing the existence of crimes against humanity is one of the most serious types of racist slandering and is tantamount to inciting hatred against Jews."

What Voltaire said is fine, but…

Neither the Council of Europe nor the European Union reacted in the aftermath of Garaudy's conviction. The European clerisy; leading newspapers and magazines of the EU, which defend freedom of speech at almost every given opportunity, also failed to react. In short, almost all the institutions of the "free world" kept silent against this and similar convictions in Voltaire's country. It can be understood that there may be some extremist sensitivities towards particular issues in Turkey and Europe, which experienced serious historical traumas in the first half of the 20th century; however, it is unacceptable trying to create a "truth monopoly" about historical events or stigmatizing the people questioning these truths as "betrayers" and/or "anti-Semitists"; or even trying them and sentencing them to jail. Europe should first think twice about the difficulties it experienced in gaining the freedom of speech before it criticizes in a conceited manner. Europe should also open its taboos to discussion, as free thinking cannot develop in an atmosphere where prohibitions exist. Hypocrisy, not Voltaire, will win in lands where free thinking cannot develop.

Associate Professor Zuhtu Arslan

30.12.2005

Zuhti Arslan

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=commentary&alt

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

Turkish writer still faces charges

Associated Press

Originally published December 30, 2005

ANKARA, Turkey // Turkish prosecutors decided yesterday not to file new charges against the country's best-known novelist that allege denigration of Turkey's armed forces, but the writer still faces charges that he insulted "Turkishness," said lawyers who sought his trial.

Nationalist lawyers had petitioned prosecutors to file criminal charges against Orhan Pamuk for reportedly telling the German newspaper Die Welt in October that the military threatened democratization in Turkey.

European officials have criticized the trial and called on Turkey to do more to protect free speech. Some have warned it may jeopardize Turkey's efforts to join the European Union.

Prosecutors decided there were no grounds to try Pamuk for insulting the military, said nationalist lawyer Kemal Kerincsiz.

The prosecutors based their decision on a European human rights convention protecting free speech and on a section of Turkey's penal code that says remarks made within the spirit of criticism are not a crime. The law draws a distinction between criticism and insult.

Die Welt quoted Pamuk as saying, "I don't see [the ruling] Justice and Development Party as a threat to Turkish democracy. Unfortunately, the threat comes from the army, which sometimes prevents democratic development."

The novelist still faces charges 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."

On Wednesday, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul acknowledged that charges brought against Pamuk had tarnished the country's image abroad and said laws that limit freedom of expression may be changed.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also said laws could be changed if there were serious flaws.