09.06.2008 - Source: Reporters Sans Frontières

YouTube blocked for more than a month ("YouTube blocked for more than a month is an “unacceptable” act of censorship") [ID 23432]

Document(s): Open document

28.05.2008 - Source: Amnesty International

Freedom of expression ("Annual Report 2008") [ID 23433]

"The peaceful expression of opinion continued to be restricted in law and practice. Lawyers, journalists, human rights defenders and others were harassed, threatened, unjustly prosecuted and physically attacked. An increased number of cases were brought under Article 301 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes “denigration of Turkishness”, despite national and international opposition to the Article.

 * On 19 January, journalist and human rights defender Hrant Dink was shot dead. He had previously been prosecuted under Article 301. The suspected gunman allegedly stated that he shot Hrant Dink because he “denigrated Turkishness”. An estimated 100,000 people attended Hrant Dink’s funeral in an unprecedented display of solidarity. While a police investigation into the murder resulted in a number of suspects being brought to trial, the full culpability of the security services was not examined. In October, Hrant Dink’s son, Arat Dink, and Sarkis Seropyan, respectively assistant editor and owner of the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos, were convicted under Article 301 and each received a one-year suspended sentence.
    * In April, two Turkish nationals and a German citizen who all worked for a Christian publishing house in Malatya were killed. The three reportedly had their hands and feet bound together and their throats cut. The trial of people charged in connection with the murders began in November.

Article 216 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes “inciting enmity or hatred among the population”, was applied in an arbitrary and overly restrictive manner.

    * In November, lawyer Eren Keskin received a one-year prison sentence for her use of the word “Kurdistan”. The sentence was later commuted to a fine of 3,300 liras (approximately US$2,800).

Prosecutions were also brought under Article 7(2) of the anti-terrorism law that criminalizes “making propaganda for a terrorist organization or for its aims”.

    * In November, Gülcihan ªimºek, a DTP member and mayor of the city of Van, received a one-year prison sentence for referring to PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan as “Mr”."

Document(s): Open document

13.05.2008 - Source: Reporters Sans Frontières

Authorities urged to amend restrictive laws after You Tube blocked for third time in 2 months ("Authorities urged to amend restrictive laws after YouTube blocked for third time in two months") [ID 23220]

Document(s): Open document

05.05.2008 - Source: Reporters Sans Frontières

Freedom of expression still in danger despite article 301 reform ("Freedom of expression still in danger in Turkey despite article 301 reform") [ID 23217]

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Freedom of Speech and Press ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22809]

"The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the government continued to limit these freedoms in occasional cases.

The government intimidated journalists into practicing self‑censorship. The government, particularly the police and judiciary, limited freedom of expression through the use of constitutional restrictions and numerous laws, including articles of the penal code prohibiting insults to the government, the state, "Turkishness," Ataturk, or the institutions and symbols of the republic. Other laws, such as the Antiterror Law and laws governing the press and elections, also restricted speech.

Individuals could not criticize the state or government publicly without fear of reprisal, and the government continued to restrict expression by individuals sympathetic to some religious, political, and Kurdish nationalist or cultural viewpoints. In some cases government officials prosecuted individuals who had displayed no intention of criticizing or insulting the government or Turkish state. Active debates on human rights and government policies continued, particularly on issues relating to the country's EU membership process, the role of the military, Islam, political Islam, the question of Turks of Kurdish and other ethnic or religious origins as "minorities," and the history of the Turkish-Armenian conflict at the end of the Ottoman Empire. However, persons who wrote or spoke out on such topics, particularly on the Armenian issue, risked prosecution.

The TPA reported that serious restrictions on freedom of expression continued despite legal reforms related to the country's EU candidacy. The TPA reported that the most serious problem during the year remained the large number of complaints filed by ideologically motivated attorneys, subsequently accepted by the courts, on grounds such as insulting Turkishness or the memory of Ataturk. According to a November European Commission report, the number of persons prosecuted for the expression of non-violent opinions almost doubled in 2006 compared with 2005, and there was a further increase in the number of prosecutions during the year. More than half of the charges were brought under the Penal Code, and in particular under Article 301, which criminalizes insulting "Turkishness.""

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Harassment of writers, journalists and political figures ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22890]

"Prosecutors harassed writers, journalists, and political figures by bringing dozens of cases to court each year under various laws that restrict media freedom; however, judges dismissed many of these charges. Police harassed and beat journalists during at least one demonstration. Authorities ordered raids of newspaper offices, closed newspapers temporarily, issued fines, or confiscated newspapers for violating speech codes. Despite government restrictions, the media criticized government leaders and policies daily and in many cases adopted an adversarial role with respect to the government."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Internet freedom ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22895]

"The Internet was widely available in the country. It is used in schools, libraries, private internet cafes and other public locations, and the government encouraged its use. There were some restrictions on Internet access.

On May 4, the government adopted a new Internet law governing criminal and civil law violations. The law allows the government to ban a Web site if there is sufficient suspicion that one of eight crimes is being committed via the site: encouraging suicide; sexual abuse of children; facilitation of drug abuse; provision of dangerous substances for health care; obscenity; prostitution; gambling; or crimes regulated in Turkish Code 5816 (crimes against Ataturk). Upon receiving a complaint or as a result of personal observations, a prosecutor may file an application for a ban on access to the offending site, or in an urgent situation, the prosecutor or the Telecommunication Presidency may impose a ban. In either case, a judge must rule on the matter within 24 hours. Following a judicial ban order, the Internet service provider (ISP) must block access within 24 hours. If the judge does not approve the block, the prosecutor must ensure access is restored. The ISP may face a penalty ranging from six months' to two years' imprisonment for failing to comply with a judicial order. The law also allows individuals who believe a Web site violates his or her personal rights to request the ISP to remove the offensive content.

On March 7, an Istanbul court banned access to the "YouTube" Web site to block a cartoon video that lampooned Turkey's founding father, Ataturk, as gay. The court ruled that the ban was necessary because "Ataturk and Turkey were insulted with swear words written in English on Ataturk's photos and to protect freedom of expression." On March 8, the court ruled in a new decision that it would lift its prior order if YouTube removed the offensive video. On March 9, after YouTube removed the video, the ban was lifted and users were again able to access the site.

On August 17, a court prohibited all postings on the wordpress.com Web site in response to a petition filed by lawyers for Adnan Oktar, a controversial Turkish Muslim author best known as an ardent antievolutionist who authored the book Atlas of Creation. Letters from Oktar's lawyers claimed that Edip Yuksel, a popular Turkish Muslim author who has defended evolution and criticized Oktar, posted offensive and illegal content on his wordpress sites. Oktar's lawyers initially applied to have only several postings blocked but later applied for a blanket prohibition after authors moved the allegedly defamatory content to other sites hosted on the wordpress.com domain. The government said that, pursuant to the court order, all wordpress sites were blocked because it did not possess the technology to block just one site. All wordpress sites remained blocked at year's end.

Earlier, on April 17, an Istanbul court granted Oktar's petition to block access to the electronic dictionary Web site Eksi Sozluk for allegedly insulting him; access to the site was restored one week later without the offensive links.

On September 17, a Sivas court issued an order to block access to YouTube after the court determined content on the site insulted Ataturk and the leaders of the government. Reporters Without Borders issued a statement calling the blocking of the entire Web site a disproportionate measure and urged the government to reverse the decision. YouTube removed the offensive content and the government did not block access.

Government authorities have on rare occasions accessed Internet user records to protect "national security, public order, health, and decency" or to prevent a crime. Police must obtain authorization from a judge or, in emergencies, the highest administrative authority before taking such action."

Document(s): Open document

04.02.2008 - Source: Committee to Protect Journalists

Annual report on press freedom in 2007 ("Attacks on the Press in 2007") [ID 22210]

Document(s): Open document

31.01.2008 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Restrictions on freedom of expression (2007) ("World Report 2008") [ID 23467]

"After its electoral victory in July, the new AKP government failed to take immediate steps to restart the stalled reform process by lifting restrictions on freedom of expression such as article 301, and elements of the legal establishment opposed to reform continued to prosecute and convict individuals for speech-related offences, as well as for staging unauthorized demonstrations. Over 2007 hundreds of individuals, among them journalists, writers, publishers, academics, human rights defenders, and, above all, officials of Kurdish political parties and associations, were prosecuted. Some were convicted."

Document(s): Open document

23.11.2007 - Source: Reporters Sans Frontières

The daily Gerçek Demokrasi is the 7th Kurdish newspaper to be temporarily closed on the orders of a Turkish court for “propaganda” in favour of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) since October ("Seven newspapers closed in the past two months") [ID 21932]

Document(s): Open document

06.11.2007 - Source: European Commission

Freedom of expression and penal code ("Turkey 2007 Progress Report [SEC(2007) 1436]") [ID 22361]

"Overall, prosecutions and convictions for expressing non-violent opinions, and actions against newspapers illustrate that the Turkish legal system does not fully guarantee freedom of expression in line with European standards. Article 301 and other provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code that restrict freedom of expression need to be brought into line with the ECHR and case law of the ECtHR."

Document(s): Open document

08.04.2007 - Source: Guardian

5 Punk rockers face jail after bureaucrat takes offence to song criticising university entrance exam ("Turkish band faces jail for exam protest") [ID 19663]

Document(s): Open document

07.04.2007 - Source: Guardian

Security services offer protection to about 20 journalists, writers and intellectuals following Hrant Dink murder in January 2007; activists urge end of ban on insulting Turkishness ("Why Turkish intellectuals need armed guards") [ID 19664]

Document(s): Open document

27.03.2007 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Freedom of expression in 2006 (legal proceedings against more than 100 writers and journalists; penal code, art. 301, 305; criminal code, art. 216; killing of Hrant Dink) ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2007 (Events of 2006)") [ID 19387]

"According to the HRFT, the authorities initiated legal proceedings against more than 100 writers and journalists who had merely exercised their internationally protected right to freedom of expression by engaging in debates about and challenging current and past official policies.

Prosecution was facilitated by a number of problematic provisions of the penal code, which courts readily interpreted so as to punish legitimate criticism. These provisions included in particular article 301, which criminalized “defamation” of “Turkishness,” the Turkish Republic, and government institutions and branches; article 305, which criminalized activities considered to undermine the integrity of the state, national security, fundamental principles of the Turkish Republic and other fundamental national interests.

Journalists, writers and others criticizing official views and policies were also the targets of defamatory media campaigns as well as physical attacks typically perpetrated with impunity by nationalist groups, such as groups affiliated with the Nationalist Action Party.

- In September, a new criminal proceeding was launched against prominent Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on charges of “insulting Turkishness” after he used the term “genocide” to describe the massacres of Armenians that took place in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 in an interview for Reuters. It was the third time he was prosecuted on the same charges, and in October 2005 he was given a six-month suspended prison sentence, which was upheld on appeal in June 2006. On 19 January 2007, Dink was shot dead in Istanbul, outside the office of the Agos newspaper, for which he was an editor. It was believed that he was murdered because of his work as a journalist, in particular his outspokenness regarding the mass killing of Armenians. A few days after the murder, seven suspects were arrested.

Criminal code provisions on hate speech (article 216) remained of concern, as hate speech motivated by nationality, sexual orientation, and political, philosophical or religious conviction was excluded from its scope."

Document(s): Open document

12.01.2007 - Source: Reporters Sans Frontières

Ban on issue of French history magazine on fundamentalism ("Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey ban issue of French history magazine on fundamentalism") [ID 19118]

Document(s): Open document

01.2007 - Source: Human Rights Watch

More than 50 individuals indicted for statements that questioned state policy on controversial topics such as religion, ethnicity, and the role of the army ("World Report 2007") [ID 19011]

"More than 50 individuals were indicted for statements or speeches that questioned state policy on controversial topics such as religion, ethnicity, and the role of the army. The government failed to abolish laws that restrict speech.

In April an Adana court sentenced broadcaster Sabri Ejder Öziç to six months of imprisonment under article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code for “insulting parliament” by describing a decision to allow foreign troops on Turkish territory as a “terrorist act”. Öziç is at liberty pending appeal. In July the Supreme Court upheld a six-month prison sentence against Hrant Dink, editor of the newspaper Agos (Furrow), under article 301 for “insulting Turkishness” in an editorial concerning the 1915 massacres of Armenians in Anatolia. The sentence was suspended, but other speech-related charges against Dink are pending. In September British artist Michael Dickinson was imprisoned for two weeks and subsequently deported for publishing a collage showing Prime Minister Erdoğan as US President Bush’s poodle.

İpek Çalışlar, biographer of Latife Uşaklıgıl, first wife of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the Turkish republic, is on trial under the Law to Protect Atatürk. In a newspaper interview, Çalışlar had related an anecdote, supposedly shameful, that Kemal had donned his wife’s hijab once in 1923 to escape an armed rival."

Document(s): Open document

08.11.2006 - Source: European Commission

Freedom of expression (progress in the area of broadcasts in languages other than Turkish at local and regional level; prosecutions under new Penal Code, art. 301) ("Turkey 2006 Progress Report") [ID 19391]

"With regard to freedom of expression (including the media), the Ministry of Justice issued a circular in January 2006, regarding cases of freedom of expression in written and visual media. It instructed prosecutors to take into consideration both Turkish legislation and the ECHR. The circular also established a monthly monitoring mechanism of criminal investigations and court cases against the press and media.

Some progress can be reported in the area of broadcasts in languages other than Turkish at local and regional level [...]

However, the prosecutions and convictions for the expression of non-violent opinion under certain provisions of the new Penal Code are a cause for serious concern and may contribute to create a climate of self-censorship in the country. This is particularly the case for Article 301 which penalises insulting Turkishness, the Republic as well as the organs and institutions of the state. Although this article includes a provision that expression of thought intended to criticise should not constitute a crime, it has repeatedly been used to prosecute non violent opinions expressed by journalists, writers, publishers, academics and human rights activists

In July, the General Assemblies of the Civil and Penal Chambers of the Court of Cassation established restrictive jurisprudence on article 301. The Court confirmed a six-month suspended prison sentence for journalist Hrant Dink. This was on the basis of article 301 of the new Penal Code for insulting "Turkishness" in a series of articles he wrote on Armenian identity.

Against this background, article 301 needs to be brought into line with the relevant European standards. The same applies to other provisions of the Penal code which have been used to prosecute the non-violent expression of opinions and may limit freedom of expression. The potential impact of the anti-terror law on freedom of expression raises concerns [...]

Recent decisions taken by the government in relation to the appointment procedure of the members of the High Audiovisual Board (RTÜK) are a cause for concern to the extent that they weaken the independence of the media regulatory body.

Overall, open debate has increased in recent years in Turkish society on a wide range of issues. Notwithstanding this trend, freedom of expression in line with European standards is not yet guaranteed by the present legal framework."

Document(s): Open document

10.10.2006 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Freedom of expression and penal code ("A Minority Policy of Systematic Negation") [ID 18287]

"Turkey has in recent years amended several provisions under the penal code or other laws that used to lead to numerous prosecutions in the 1990s and nominally brought most of them inline with international standards on freedom of expression – an effort which led to a significant decrease in prosecutions under legislation restricting freedom of expression. Nevertheless, persons and groups expressing their views publicly on controversial issues such as minorities, the Kurdish question, Islam and other religions, the genocide of Armenians, and human rights violations continue to be prosecuted and are under threat of conviction.

Judicial harassment of outspoken individuals has increased dramatically in the past year: according to PEN American Center, recent developments are increasingly reminiscent of the 1990s when hundreds of writers and journalists were imprisoned for what they had written. In many cases new provisions such as article 301 of the penal code (“denigration of Turkishness, the Republic, and the foundation and institutions of the State”) have come to serve the same purpose as the laws that were eliminated.

According to PEN American Center, at least 15 journalists, editors, and publishers were standing trial as of July 2006, or have recently stood trial, under the insulting or denigrating Turkishness provision."

Document(s): Report
Press Release

10.10.2006 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Freedom of expression and Anti-Terror Law ("A Minority Policy of Systematic Negation") [ID 18289]

"[...] the freedom of expression of minority groups is impeded with the Anti-Terror Law, a controversial law that was initially established in 1991. Following an increase in violence by the PKK in the past two years, an additional bill was passed by parliament (amendments to the 1991 Law on the Fight against Terrorism (Act 3713) on 29 June 2006. Among other things, it provides prison sentences for the dissemination of statements and propaganda by “terrorist organisations.” It is feared that vague wordings of the new provisions may lead to arbitrary prosecutions of journalists covering issues related to Kurdish organizations and against pro-Kurdish media, and further hinder discussion on minority issues."

Document(s): Report
Press Release

10.10.2006 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

3 Kurdish activists arrested as they prepared to walk to the border of Iraq to peacefully protest the killings of civilians by security forces and express their concern about tensions between the government and the Kurdish-led administration in northern Iraq ("A Minority Policy of Systematic Negation") [ID 18292]

"On 2 May 2006, three Kurdish activists, Ibrahim Guclu, Zeynel Ozalp, and Sedat Ogur, were arrested as they prepared to walk to the border of Iraq to peacefully protest the recent killings of civilians by security forces in southeastern Turkey and express their concern about tensions between the Turkish government and the Kurdish-led administration in northern Iraq. The men were charged under the Anti-Terror Law for “making propaganda for the PKK,” a charge that is all the more ironic in light of the fact that Guclu has repeatedly and publicly condemned violence by the PKK."

Document(s): Report
Press Release

10.10.2006 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Editor in chief of a publishing house charged for issuing a Turkish edition of Greek writer's novel ("A Minority Policy of Systematic Negation") [ID 18299]

"Abdullah Yilmaz, editor in chief of a publishing house, was charged for issuing a Turkish edition of Greek writer Mara Meimaridi's best-selling novel The Witches of Smyrna."

Document(s): Report
Press Release

12.07.2006 - Source: Armenialiberty

Court ruling against ethnic Armenian journalist for "denigrating Turkish national identity" restricts freedom of expression and could make it difficult for country to join European Union ("EU Warns Ankara Over Ruling On Armenian Journalist") [ID 17631]

Document(s): Open document

24.03.2006 - Source: Amnesty International

Article 301 of the Penal Code interdicts publicly discussing the "official" version of the country's history or the role of the army ("In support of freedom of expression [EUR 44/004/2006]") [#47402],  [ID 15521]

Document(s): Open document

16.03.2006 - Source: Committee to Protect Journalists

Report on prosecution of journalists, writers, and academics who favor EU membership ("Nationalism and the press: Free expression is a victim as Turkish nationalists resist European tilt") [#46879],  [ID 15515]

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Report on the situation of free speech ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46152],  [ID 15862]

"The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the government continued to limit these freedoms in some cases. Journalists practiced self‑censorship. The government, particularly the police and judiciary, limited freedom of expression through the use of constitutional restrictions and numerous laws, including articles of the penal code prohibiting insults to the government, the state, "Turkish identity," or the institutions and symbols of the republic. Other laws, such as the Anti-Terror Law and laws governing the press and elections, also restrict speech. Individuals could not criticize the state or government publicly without fear of reprisal, and the government continued to restrict expression by individuals sympathetic to some religious, political, and Kurdish nationalist or cultural viewpoints. Active debates on human rights and government policies continued, particularly on issues relating to the country's European Union (EU) membership process, the role of the military, Islam, political Islam, and the question of Turks of Kurdish origin as "minorities"; however, persons who wrote or spoke out on such topics risked prosecution. The Turkish Publishers Association (TPA) reported that serious restrictions on freedom of expression continued despite legal reforms related to the country's EU candidacy"

Document(s): Open document

16.02.2006 - Source: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Report on freedom of the media (cartoon controversy, cases of violence against media freedom) ("Report to the Permanent Council by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media") [#44347],  [ID 13449]

Document(s): Open document

28.12.2005 - Source: BBC News

According to foreign minister`s suggestions, controversial law against insults to state or its institutions could be changed ("Turkey insult law 'may be dumped'") [#40999],  [ID 13450]

Document(s): Open document

26.12.2005 - Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Intellectuals called on government to end limits on freedom of expression ("Turkish Intellectuals Urge End To Limits On Freedom") [#40961],  [ID 13451]

Document(s): Open document

01.12.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Concerns over frequent use of Penal Code, Art. 301 to prosecute human rights defenders, journalists and other members of civil society peacefully expressing their dissenting opinion; ai believes that Art. 301 poses direct threat to freedom of expression ("Article 301 is a threat to freedom of expression and must be repealed now!") [#40035],  [ID 13452]

Document(s): Open document

10.2005 - Source: UK Home Office

freedom of the press ("Country Report - October 2005") [#40563],  [ID 13453]

for more detailed information seek out the original document page 90

"6.82 As outlined in the European Commission 2005 report:

“As regards freedom of the press, there have been some positive developments, such as acquittals and a number of releases, as a result of the adoption of the new Press Law and the new Penal Code, although, as indicated above, journalists continue to face prosecution and are sometimes convicted for the expression of non-violent opinion. According to the Turkish Press Council there are no journalists currently imprisoned in relation to their work. In addition to the abovementioned problematic articles in the new Penal Code, a number of other articles are retained which are of specific concern to journalists and which could, in particular, create a climate of self-censorship damaging to freedom of the press, information and expression. Several of these articles seem to contradict the new Press Law, which had aimed at ‘avoiding prison sentences in cases of offences committed through the press’.” [71e] (p26)

6.83 The EC 2005 also noted that:

“In response to fears about restrictions on freedom of the press in the new Penal Code, the Press Council established a new Legal Assistance and Support Service in June 2005. This Service will reportedly provide a lawyer free of charge to journalists facing charges brought against them under provisions of the new Code. The Service will also designate an observer to follow court cases involving journalists. According to International PEN, there are currently an estimated 60 writers, publishers and journalists under judicial process in Turkey.” [71e] (p26)

6.84 The Freedom House report ‘Freedom of the press 2005’ (released on 25 August 2005) noted:

“Constitutional provisions for freedom of the press and of expression are only partially upheld. As part of its ongoing reforms to prepare for membership in the European Union, Turkey passed another series of reforms in 2004 that affected press freedom. A new press code was adopted in June that includes heavy fines instead of prison sentences for some press crimes, permits noncitizens to own periodicals and serve as editors, protects against disclosure of sources, and prevents authorities from closing publications or hindering distribution. The new code, which was due to take effect in April 2005, reduced the minimum sentence for defamation. However, prison sentences remain in place for crimes such as stating that genocide was committed against the Armenians in 1915, instigating hatred in one part of the population against another (used against journalists who write about the Kurdish population), or calling for the removal of Turkish troops from Cyprus. Criminal defamation laws for insult against institutions such as the president, the military, and Turkish national identity stand as well, and sentences are in fact longer for members of the media than for others.” [62e] (p204)

6.85 The Freedom House ‘Freedom of the press 2005’ continued:

“Censorship is not explicit, but content censorship and self-censorship occur among editors and journalists, who are concerned about violating the many legal restrictions. Often, the courts side against journalists, who continue to be jailed and face huge fines for various press offenses…Despite overt government restrictions, independent domestic and foreign print media provide diverse views, including criticism of the government and its policies. Turkey’s broadcast media are well developed, with hundreds of private television channels, including cable and satellite, as well as commercial radio stations. Media are highly concentrated in a few private conglomerates, which subtly pressure their editors and journalists to refrain from reporting that will harm their business interests. This could include avoiding criticism of the government, which often has contracts with other arms of the companies and advertisers.” [62e] (p205)

6.86 Turkey ranked 105 (out of 194 countries) in the Freedom House Table of Global Press Freedom Rankings and the status of its press was considered ‘partly free’. In 2004 the ranking for Turkey was 107. [62e] (Table of Global Press Freedom Rankings)"

Document(s): Open document

10.2005 - Source: UK Home Office

Freedom of Expression ("Country Report - October 2005") [#40563],  [ID 13454]

for more detailed information seek out the original document page 86

"6.69 As noted in the European Commission 2005 report:

“With regard to freedom of expression, the situation of people sentenced for the expression of non-violent opinion continues to be addressed. The Turkish authorities have reported that a significant number of persons serving prison sentences under articles of the old Penal Code have been set free. Both the authorities and a number of NGOs report that there has been a continued reduction in the number of prosecutions and particularly convictions in cases related to freedom of expression. Nevertheless, there are a number of new cases where individuals expressing non-violent opinions have been prosecuted and convicted, including under provisions of the new Penal Code.” [71e] (p25)

6.70 The EC 2005 report continued:

“In May 2005 several amendments to the new Penal Code were adopted, which improved certain provisions related to freedom of expression…However, a number of articles which have been used to restrict freedom of expression in the past, and remained virtually unchanged in the new Code, were not addressed in the context of the May 2005 amendments. These and other articles still constitute a potential threat to freedom of expression given their broad margin of appreciation. This is particularly the case with regard to a number of vaguely worded articles which refer to offences against symbols of state sovereignty, the reputation of state organs and national security… In assessing whether to bring cases which impinge on the right to freedom of expression, the judiciary should consider whether the expression incites violence, armed rebellion or enmity, what the capacity of the individual or group is to influence the public and what kind of opportunity the target of the expression has to respond.” [71e] (p25-26)

6.71 The EC 2005 report further noted that:

“There has been some progress on open and free debate in general… According to the Turkish Publishers Association, the publication of books related to sensitive issues, such as the Kurdish and Armenian questions, is reportedly easier than in the past and when cases are brought against authors or publishers acquittals are more common. However, books focusing on these issues are in some cases still banned and individuals are occasionally convicted. Recourse to legal action against cartoonists and satirists, including by the Prime Minister, is of concern. In June 2005, in such case, a journalist was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.” [71e] (p25)

6.72 As noted in the Amnesty International Turkey Memorandum of August 2005:

“Amnesty International has previously welcomed some of the changes made to the Turkish Constitution and legislation since 2001 in order to improve standards related to the right to freedom of expression. Amnesty International considers that the amendment to Article 90 of the Constitution by the government – which gives priority to international treaties on fundamental rights and freedoms to which Turkey is a state party over Turkish domestic legislation – is a key development. However, the organization is nevertheless still aware of numerous cases in which individuals are being prosecuted or have received monetary fines or custodial sentences for the peaceful expression of non-violent opinion. While courts have handed down some landmark judgments which have cited international standards, there are also several examples of important cases where the decisions of the Court of Appeals appear to be in contravention of international standards.” [12s] (Section on Freedom of expression)

6.73 The AI Turkey memorandum continued:

“The restrictions provided for in the new TPC [Turkish Penal Code] appear to be considerably broader than this and are not limited to those instances which are demonstrably necessary on one of the permissible grounds. As such, the law could be used to penalize individuals exercising their human right to freedom of expression on matters of political opinion. For example, Section 3 of Part 4 of the new TPC entitled ‘Crimes against signs of the state’s sovereignty and the honour of its organs’ (Articles 299 – 301) could be used to penalize individuals who exercise their right to freedom of expression by expressing political views. In particular, Amnesty International is disturbed that this section of the new TPC criminalizes offences such as ‘insulting’ the President (Article 299), or ‘denigrating’ the Turkish flag or anything carrying its replica and the national anthem (Article 300), Turkishness, the Republic, the Parliament, the government, the judiciary, the military and security forces (Article 301)… Moreover, Section 3 carries over aspects of Article 159 of the previous TPC, which criminalized insults against or denigration of various state institutions… We recognize that Paragraph (4) of Article 301 states that ‘any expression of thought which is made with the intention of criticism does not constitute a crime’. However, Amnesty International recalls that a similar amendment was made in August 2002 to this provision in the previous TPC, under Article 159, yet this did not prevent prosecutions of statements by individuals who had exercised their right to freedom of expression.” [12s] (Section on Freedom of expression)"

Document(s): Open document

23.09.2005 - Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Istanbul court banned conference of academics and intellectuals on massacre of Armenians in Ottoman Empire in 1915 ("Turkey: Court Bans Conference On Armenian Massacre") [#37044],  [ID 13455]

Document(s): Open document

22.09.2005 - Source: BBC News

Controversial conference on mass killing of Armenians living under Ottoman Empire, banned by court; prime minister called the decision undemocratic ("Turkey bans 'genocide' conference") [#36965],  [ID 13456]

Document(s): Open document

01.08.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Report on the reform process; freedom of speech and freedom of press constricted by new turkish penal law; torture still common; health care; violence against women ("Länderkurzinfo der Koordinationsgruppe Türkei der deutschen Sektion") [#34626],  [ID 13458]

"Das am 1. Juni 2005 in Kraft getretene neue Strafgesetzbuch wird von türkischer Seite als zentrale Reformmaßnahme zur Verbesserung des Menschenrechtsschutzes präsentiert. Zwar enthält die Gesetzesnovelle viele positive Änderungen, gleichwohl birgt das Gesetz die Möglichkeit, das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung einzuschränken und Personen als gewaltlose politische Gefangene zu inhaftieren. Strafrechtsartikel, die in der Vergangenheit der Verfolgung von Meinungsäußerungen dienten, wurden in inhaltlich identischer Form in das neue Strafgesetzbuch übernommen. So taucht beispielsweise Art. 159 des alten Strafgesetzbuches, der die „Beleidigung oder Verunglimpfung“ verschiedener staatlicher Institutionen unter Strafe stellte, in Form von Art. 301 im Abschnitt „Verbrechen gegen Symbole der staatlichen Souveränität und die Ehrung ihrer Organe“ wieder auf. Darüber hinaus wurden neue restriktive Artikel aufgenommen, wie z. B. Art. 305 tStGB, nach dem Handlungen gegen die grundlegenden nationalen Interessen der Türkei mit drei bis zehn Jahren Haft bestraft werden können. In der Begründung für diesen Artikel wurden als Beispiele für eine mögliche Tatbestandserfüllung die Forderung nach einem Abzug der türkischen Truppen aus Zypern oder die Verbreitung der These vom Völkermord an den Armeniern angeführt [1]. Weiterhin bestehen bleibt auch das Gesetz zum Schutz des Andenkens an Atatürk, nach dem ein breites Spektrum von Meinungsäußerungen bzw. kritischer Auseinandersetzung mit der türkischen Geschichte sanktioniert werden kann. In Bezug auf exilpolitische Tätigkeiten ist insbesondere darauf hinzuweisen, dass auch nach dem neuen Art. 301 tStGB die „Beleidigung des Türkentums“ mit einem um ein Drittel erhöhten Strafmaß belegt ist, wenn sie von einem türkischen Staatsangehörigen im Ausland begangen wird. Die massive Kritik am Gesetzentwurf durch türkische Journalistenverbände und Menschenrechtsorganisationen hat bezüglich der Inhalte so gut wie keinen Eingang in das aktuelle Gesetz gefunden. Lediglich die Strafverschärfung bei Verbreitung von Äußerungen durch die Presse wurde weitgehend zurückgenommen; dieser Strafverschärfungsgrund behält dennoch bei mehreren Artikeln Gültigkeit, indem er durch den Tatbestand „öffentliche Begehung“ oder durch das Pressegesetz erfasst ist [2] . Vor der jüngsten Strafrechtsreform hatte es von 2002 bis 2004 Gesetzesreformen gegeben, die zu Änderungen in den Artikeln 159, 169 und 312 tStGB a. F. und zur Abschaffung von Art. 8 Anti-Terror-Gesetz (ATG) führten. Auch wenn Strafverfahren und vor allem Verurteilungen nach den genannten Artikeln abgenommen haben, wurden seitdem die Artikel 159, 169 und 312 tStGB a. F. sowie Art. 7 des Anti-Terror-Gesetzes (ATG) weiter häufig angewandt, um unliebsame Meinungsäußerungen und Kritik von Menschenrechtsverteidigern, Journalisten und Vertretern oppositioneller Parteien juristisch zu verfolgen. Gründe sind neben der mangelhaften Annahme durch die türkischen Justizorgane auch strukturelle Umstände. So wurde in der Begründung zur Abschaffung von Art. 8 ATG darauf hingewiesen, dass Art. 312 II tStGB stattdessen bei separatistischen Äußerungen angewendet werden kann. Vor allem Menschenrechtrechtler werden nach wie vor wegen „Beleidigung der Sicherheitskräfte angeklagt“, wenn sie Menschenrechtsverletzungen öffentlich anprangern, obwohl dem hier relevanten Art. 159 a. F. der Zusatz beigefügt wurde, dass bloße Kritik nicht strafbar sei. Auch die Sonderberichterstatterin des Generalsekretärs der Vereinten Nationen für Menschenrechtsverteidiger, Hina Jilani, berichtete im Anschluss an ihre Türkei-Mission vom 11. bis 20. Oktober 2004 über andauernde gravierende Repressionen gegen Menschenrechtler in der Türkei. Gegen den Vorsitzenden der IHD-Zweigstelle Diyarbakır sind 56, gegen die stellvertretende IHD-Vorsitzende und Leiterin eines Rechtshilfezentrums für sexuell misshandelte Frauen, Eren Keskin, sind 87 Strafverfahren anhängig. Viele derartige Verfahren enden zwar inzwischen mit Freisprüchen, es kommt aber nach wie vor zu Verurteilungen zu Geld- oder sogar Haftstrafen. Eren Keskin und weitere Vorstandsmitglieder der Zweigstelle Istanbul des IHD haben im Frühjahr 2005 – nach zahlreichen ähnlichen Vorfällen und auch physischen Angriffen in der Vergangenheit – erneut schriftliche Morddrohungen von den so genannten „Türkischen Rachebrigaden“ erhalten, die sich dabei ausdrücklich auf ihren Mordanschlag auf den IHD-Vorsitzenden Akin Birdal im Mai 1998 bezogen [3] . Auch türkische Politiker, darunter auch Ministerpräsident Erdoğan, haben die Menschenrechtler in der Türkei wiederholt als Sympathisanten von Terrororganisationen diffamiert."

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

AI: Contineous human rights violations; response of administration and government on reports about torture und misstreatment still inconvenient; limitation of the right of expression by constituion and the new penal law ("Memorandum on AI's recommendations to the government to address human rights violations") [#38256],  [ID 13457]

"FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Amnesty International has previously welcomed some of the changes made to the Turkish Constitution and legislation since 2001 in order to improve standards related to the right to freedom of expression. Amnesty International considers that the amendment to Article 90 of the Constitution by the government – which gives priority to international treaties on fundamental rights and freedoms to which Turkey is a state party over Turkish domestic legislation – is a key development.

However, the organization is nevertheless still aware of numerous cases in which individuals are being prosecuted or have received monetary fines or custodial sentences for the peaceful expression of non-violent opinion. While courts have handed down some landmark judgments which have cited international standards, there are also several examples of important cases where the decisions of the Court of Appeals appear to be in contravention of international standards.15 Such problems seem to derive from an apparent resistance by prosecutors and members of the judiciary to the reforms. Indeed the UN Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders has drawn attention to the fact that “prosecutors have not actively engaged in the implementation of the reform” and that “Some judges have also shown reluctance to implement the reforms” concluding that attitudes on the part of “some within the judiciary is hampering concrete change at the local level”. Amnesty International therefore fully supports the call of the UN Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders for “monitoring of the implementation of the new laws by the judiciary at the local level, in particular with regard to cases involving freedom of expression”.

However, the organization notes that the government has previously required that prosecutors receive permission from the Ministry of Justice in order to open cases under the notorious Article 159 of the previous TPC (which criminalizes “insults” to various state entities). Despite such monitoring of cases by the Ministry of Justice, cases in violation of international standards on free speech continued to be opened under Article 159. Therefore, closer monitoring which takes into account Turkey’s obligations under international law need to be implemented. In this connection, steps should be taken to implement Hina Jilani’s recommendation for “increased training of the judiciary, security forces and governorship on the aims and intents of the new laws”.

· Constitutional restrictions on the right to freedom of expression Apart from the failure to implement the new laws in relation to freedom of expression, it is clear that the law in Turkey still places unnecessary and abusive restrictions to this right. We therefore urge the government to take steps to address these existing legal and constitutional restrictions on the right to freedom of expression as a priority.

Many of these aspects derive from provisions found in the Constitution on the right to freedom of expression. Although restrictions and prohibitions of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms (Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution) were reworded to a large extent in 2001, numerous articles of the Turkish Constitution still retain restrictions which are not compatible with Turkey’s obligations under international law.16 Amnesty International is also concerned that the amendment of Article 26 in 2001 introduced further restrictions to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression: “…for the purposes of protecting national security, public order and public safety, the basic characteristics of the Republic and safeguarding the indivisible integrity of the State with its territory and nation, preventing crime, punishing offenders, withholding information duly classified as a state secret, protecting the reputation and rights and private and family life of others, or protecting professional secrets as prescribed by law, or ensuring the proper functioning of the judiciary”.
Such wording can be - and has been in the past - used to penalize peaceful statements, for example, on the Kurdish issue or the role of Islam in politics and society. Amnesty International urges the Turkish authorities to ensure that the restrictions in the Constitution do not go beyond the margins allowed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) to which Turkey is a state party.

· Problems with the new TPC As stated above, Amnesty International considers that the new TPC contains measures which may be significant obstacles to the full enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression in Turkey and appear to be a step back in the reform process. Some provisions – in the use of which the European Court of Human Rights has found Turkey to have been in breach of the ECHR – have apparently been carried over directly from its predecessor. International human rights law on freedom of expression, as set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the ECHR as elaborated in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, provides that any limitations on the right to freedom of expression must be narrowly drawn and only such as are necessary in a democratic society for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals, or for the prohibition of war propaganda and advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The restrictions provided for in the new TPC appear to be considerably broader than this and are not limited to those instances which are demonstrably necessary on one of the permissible grounds. As such, the law could be used to penalize individuals exercising their human right to freedom of expression on matters of political opinion.

For example, Section 3 of Part 4 of the new TPC entitled “Crimes against signs of the state’s sovereignty and the honour of its organs” (Articles 299 – 301) could be used to penalize individuals who exercise their right to freedom of expression by expressing political views. In particular, Amnesty International is disturbed that this section of the new TPC criminalizes offences such as “insulting” the President (Article 299), or “denigrating” the Turkish flag or anything carrying its replica and the national anthem (Article 300), Turkishness, the Republic, the Parliament, the government, the judiciary, the military and security forces (Article 301). There is no clear reason provided why, as the law states, such acts should be aggravated and provided with heavier sentences when perpetrated abroad by a citizen of Turkey. Moreover, Section 3 carries over aspects of Article 159 of the previous TPC, which criminalized insults against or denigration of various state institutions. In the light of the way that this provision has been used to unnecessarily restrict the right to freedom of expression, Amnesty International has called for it to be repealed.
We recognize that Paragraph (4) of Article 301 states that “any expression of thought which is made with the intention of criticism does not constitute a crime”. However, Amnesty International recalls that a similar amendment was made in August 2002 to this provision in the previous TPC, under Article 159, yet this did not prevent prosecutions of statements by individuals who had exercised their right to freedom of expression. Amnesty International therefore urges the government to repeal this section in order to bring the legislation into line with international standards on freedom of expression.

Some of the articles found within Section 4 of Part 4 of the new TPC (Articles 302 – 308) entitled “Crimes against State Security” also appear to be in contravention of Turkey’s obligations to comply with human rights standards. Amnesty International views with particular concern Article 305 which criminalizes “acts against the fundamental national interest”, especially in the light of the written explanation attached to the draft when the law passed through Parliament. The explanation provided as examples of crimes such acts as “making propaganda for the withdrawal of Turkish soldiers from Cyprus or for the acceptance of a settlement in this issue detrimental to Turkey… or, contrary to historical truths, that the Armenians suffered a genocide after the First World War”. Amnesty International considers that the imposition of a criminal penalty for any such statements – unless they demonstrably amount to advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence – would be a clear breach of international standards related to freedom of expression.

Amnesty International is additionally concerned by Section 5 of Part 3 of the new TPC entitled “Laws against the Public Order” (Articles 213 – 222). Amnesty International notes that Article 312 of the previous TPC – which criminalized incitement of people to enmity on the basis of social, regional, ethnic or religious difference – has been carried over into the new TPC as Article 216. In the past, the Turkish state has been found to have been in breach of the right to freedom of expression by the European Court of Human Rights in its use of this provision. While such legislation is necessary to criminalize advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, it has rarely been used as such. In the past, peaceful statements related to religious or minority rights have been prosecuted under this Article – Amnesty International has repeatedly raised its concerns about the use of this provision. Amnesty International urges that particular care be paid in the use of this Article and supports the recent recommendation of the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance which urged the Turkish authorities “to continue their efforts to ensure that Article 312 of the Criminal Code prohibiting incitement to hatred is applied for the purpose of punishing racist statements in compliance with the letter and spirit of this provision [Article 312]”.

Furthermore, Amnesty International notes the concern articulated by human rights organizations and press groups related to Article 220 (8) – which criminalizes the making of propaganda for criminal organizations, as well as Article 226 – which criminalizes obscenity, that these may be used to restrict the right to freedom of expression. Article 318 which criminalizes “alienating the people from the army” also appears to offer possibilities to restrict the right to freedom of expression in a way not permitted by international standards.

Paragraph 1 of Article 298 of the new TPC introduces sanctions against individuals who may try to prevent prisoners from exercising their full rights. While legislation protecting the rights of prisoners is welcome, this provision is framed in such a way as to suggest that the focus of the law is prisoners who, for example, may engage in a boycott of a prison facility. Paragraphs 2 and 3 lay down penalties for those who encourage or persuade prisoners to take part in hunger strikes. Amnesty International is concerned that Article 298 may be used to curtail non-violent protests such as boycotts or hunger strikes and thus may violate the right to freedom of expression.

While some changes were made to the draft of the law after its entry into force was delayed, these must be considered insufficient. Most obviously, the possibility of aggravated sentences when the offences are perpetrated through the press was removed in some crimes. However, the problems in the law remained unaddressed. In at least one instance, a change made the TPC even more restrictive. For example, Article 305 of the draft, which criminalized “acts against the fundamental national interest”, was altered to explicitly allow for the prosecution of “foreigners” as well as Turkish citizens who engage in such acts.

Amnesty International considers that legal and constitutional guarantees for the right to freedom of expression must be further strengthened so that they are compatible with international legal provisions, such as those of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The European Court has interpreted restrictions to Article 10 very narrowly. Amnesty International will closely monitor the implementation of the new TPC but asks for further steps to be taken to amend the law and constitution in order to fully ensure freedom of expression in Turkey."

Document(s): Open document

13.07.2005 - Source: Reporters Sans Frontières

Istanbul: Turkish-Armenian journalist on trial for "insulting Turkish identity"; if sentenced, he faces 3 years in jail; fuzzy language in new criminal code could easily be used against journalists discussing sensitive topics ("Armenian journalist faces three years jail for "insulting Turkish identity"") [#33973],  [ID 13459]

Document(s): Open document

06.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Annual report on press freedom (covering 2004) ("Freedom of the Press 2005") [#42060],  [ID 13460]

Document(s): Open document

25.05.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Prosecutions for peaceful expression of opinion ("Annual Report 2005") [#32304],  [ID 13461]

"People were prosecuted for the peaceful expression of their opinions, although the Court of Appeal and some lower courts issued landmark judgements upholding the right to freedom of expression. Cases and investigations were opened against individuals because of their peaceful opinions and activities. Such prosecutions constituted a form of judicial harassment; they rarely ended in custodial sentences, but often resulted in heavy fines. Such trials were opened under various articles of the Turkish Penal Code, for example, those which criminalize “insults” to different state bodies or “incitement to enmity and hatred”. However, trials were opened under many other laws as well – these included the Anti-Terror Law, the Law on Meetings and Demonstrations, as well as laws on public order and on associations and foundations. Politicians were prosecuted for making election propaganda in languages other than Turkish. Severe fines were handed down under both the old and new press laws to newspapers and journalists.
Journalist Hakan Albayrak was released from prison in Ankara province in November having served six months of a 15-month prison sentence for an article in which he commented on the funeral rites of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic.
On 30 December a court in Ankara continued to hear the case opened against the writer Fikret Başkaya for having intentionally “insulted or derided the Turkish state” in his book Against the Current. He faced a sentence of up to three years’ imprisonment if convicted."

Document(s): Open document
Open document

19.05.2005 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Freedom of expression and free media ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2005 (Events of 2004)") [#32120],  [ID 13462]

"Human rights organizations reported a significant decrease in prosecutions under legislation restricting freedom of expression. While the government amended several provisions under the Penal Code or other laws, persons expressing their views publicly on controversial issues such as minorities, the Kurdish question, Islam and other religions, and human rights violations were still under threat of prosecution and conviction.

Whereas the state security courts were abolished in May 2004, the new regional aggravated penal courts replaced them. Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorist Legislation that criminalized propaganda against the unity of the state was repealed and sentences under article 159 of the Penal Code were decreased. By April 2004, over 2,200 persons were acquitted under these provisions. The number of cases under other provisions – article 7 of the Anti-Terrorist Legislation criminalizing propaganda in connection with outlawed organizations, article 169 of the Penal Code criminalizing assistance to outlawed organizations and article 312 criminalizing expression considered to be inciting to hatred based on racial, religious or ethnic enmity – also decreased.

Prosecutions against persons expressing their opinions or reporting on controversial issues, including on minorities or Armenian or Kurdish issues and human rights violations, remained a state policy. According to HRA, 693 persons were sentenced to prison terms and fines for expressing their views, compared to 454 in 2003, while new cases were launched against 467 persons out of 2,488 persons subject to investigations for the same reason in 2004, compared to 1,706 persons in 2003. The government prohibited or confiscated nine books or publications in 2004, compared to 285 in 2003.
The government enacted a new Press Law. The new law replaces prison terms with fines for those who violate the law. However, human rights organizations and journalists noted that journalists will face prosecution under 25 articles of the new law for legitimate reporting.
The press was largely monopolized by holding companies, which had economic and financial dealings with various state agencies, including the military. Most Turkish media outlets imposed self-censorship and displayed a pro-government, especially pro-military, attitude, criticizing even the elected government and NGOs when they challenged “state policies” guarded by the military.

• Former Democracy Party (DEP) parliamentarians Leyla Zana, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak were released upon an order of the 9th Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals on 9 June on the basis of a law allowing retrials according to European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments. The retrial continued at the year’s end. Upon a statement by the military criticizing their release, the Ministry of Interior filed a series of complaints against the former deputies for their speeches after they were released.

• In a case against Turkey’s largest teacher’s union, Egitim-Sen, initiated upon a complaint by the chief of general staff for closure of the union for defending the right to education in children’s mother tongues, the Ankara Labor Court decided against the indictment on the basis of the case-law of the ECtHR regarding freedom of expression and of association. However, the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the court’s decision in November, arguing that freedom of association could be restricted by considerations of territorial integrity and national security. The case was pending at the year’s end. The union’s leaders and several unionists were prosecuted for protesting the case."

Document(s): Open document

05.2005 - Source: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Legal review of new Turkish Penal Code, focused especially on fredoom of media concerns ("Review of the Draft Turkish Penal Code: Freedom of Media Concerns") [#33760],  [ID 13463]

Document(s): Open document

23.03.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

There are concerns that the new Penal Code which is due to come into effect on 1 April contains numerous restrictions on fundamental rights, especially the right to freedom of expression ("Concerns about new Penal Code should be addressed") [#30535],  [ID 13464]

Document(s): Open document

02.03.2005 - Source: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Publisher charged for publishing a book about government policies on Kurdish; writer charged with insulting the military and security forces of the State, acquitted; there are concerns over legal grounds for their trials ("OSCE media freedom representative concerned over legal grounds for trials of publisher and writer in Turkey") [#29587],  [ID 13465]

Document(s): Open document

03.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Article on freedom ef expression ("Anliegen in Europa und Zentralasien Juli-Dezember 2004: Türkei") [#32532],  [ID 13466]

"Friedlicher Ausdruck einer nicht-gewalttätigen Meinung führte weiterhin zu Ermittlungen und Gerichtsverfahren, obwohl der Kassationshof und einige unterinterstanzliche Gerichte richtungweisende Urteile erließen, die das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung unterstützten. Gerichtsverfahren wurden eröffnet nach Artikel 159 TStG, der “Beleidigung” verschiedener Staatsorgane unter Strafe stellt, Artikel 312 TStG, der Aufstachelung zu Feindschaft und Hass bestraft, und Artikel 7 des Anti-Terror- Gesetzes. Viele dieser Gesetze wurden angewendet, um eine Meinung unter verschiedenen Vorwänden zu bestrafen. In manchen Fällen führte dies zu Haftstrafen. Sehr schwere Geldstrafen wurden nach dem alten Pressegesetz und seinem Folgegesetz gegen Zeitungen und Journalisten verhängt. Politiker wurden verfolgt, weil sie ihren Wahlkampf in einer anderen Sprache als Türkisch geführt hatten.

Der Journalist Hakan Albayrak wurde aus dem Gefängnis in der Provinz Ankara im November entlassen, nachdem er sechs Monate einer 15-jährigen Haftstrafe wegen Verstoßes gegen das Gesetz Nr. 5816 über Verbrechen gegen Atatürk abgebüßt hatte. Seine Verurteilung beruhte auf einem Artikel, der die Beerdingungsriten von Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, dem Gründer der Republik Türkei, kommentierte.

Ein Gericht in Ankara setzte am 30. Dezember 2004 ein Verfahren gegen den Schriftsteller Fikret Başkaya wegen vorsätzlicher “Beleidigung oder Verächtlichmachung des türkischen Staates” in seinem Buch “Gegen den Strom” fort. Im Falle einer Verurteilung droht ihm eine Haftstrafe bis zu drei Jahren."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Articles of Penal Code prohibiting insults to Government limited freedom of expression ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29519],  [ID 13467]

"The Government, particularly the police and judiciary, limited freedom of expression through the use of constitutional restrictions and numerous laws, including articles of the Penal Code prohibiting insults to the Government, the State, or the institutions and symbols of the Republic. Other laws, such as those governing the press and elections, also restrict speech. In September, Parliament adopted legislation prohibiting imams, priests, rabbis, and other religious leaders from "reproaching or vilifying" the Government or the laws of the State while performing their duties (see Section 2.c.). The "reasoning" attached to the Penal Code states that persons could be found in violation for accepting payment from foreign sources for the purpose of conducting propaganda in favor of withdrawing troops from Cyprus or (quoting from the text of the "reasoning") "saying that Armenians were subject to a genocide at the end of the First World War." The reasoning is not law, but serves as guidance to judges and prosecutors on how to apply the law.

According to HRA, in the first 9 months of the year, courts tried 416 persons on charges relating to spoken or written expression.

Individuals could not criticize the State or Government publicly without fear of reprisal, and the Government continued to restrict expression by individuals sympathetic to some religious, political, and Kurdish nationalist or cultural viewpoints. Active debates on human rights and government policies continued, particularly on issues relating to the country's EU membership process, the role of the military, Islam, political Islam, and the question of Turks of Kurdish origin as "minorities"; however, persons who wrote or spoke out on such topics risked prosecution."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Freedom of the press was restricted; Government took a number of steps to ease some of the restrictions ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29519],  [ID 13468]

"Freedom of the press was restricted; however, the Government took a number of steps during the y