Turkish nationalism and Article 301 of the penal code

[sevgi]

Hello all, Salams and Greetings,

My fellow forumers who are also my friends on facebook will know that I am currently conducting a study on Turkish nationalism and the Armenian genocide.

You guys don't have 'honours' in the UK (according to a brother who is on exchange from Manchester at my university). It is a research year designed as a pathway into a Phd. It is really hard to get into and is serious stuff.

I would like to post a link here regarding Article 301 of the Turkish penal code. Some of you may know what that is...others wont have a clue, so have a look.

I will only be active in this thread as a facilitator to urge your opinions into new directions. That is, I will be manipulating you guys to say things I want you to say Why? Well, I may be able to use some of your comments in my research. I won't be quoting anyone, don't you worry. In order to do that, I will have to go through my university's ethics board etc etc. I have better things to do.

So basically, I want those who are interested to just read the actual article which consists of four rules or the whole thing I have posted and just say what comes to your mind.

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/law-wiki/13828-article-301-turkish-penal-code.html

Thank you

Sev.

 

[Dawud_uk]

the whole turkish constitution is kufr, written by secularist murtideen, why would it suprise me to find one part of it going against the teachings of islam when the whole concept of it sickens me, that people would abandon the teachings of the shariah in favour of man made law?

 

[sevgi]

the whole turkish constitution is kufr, written by secularist murtideen, why would it suprise me to find one part of it going against the teachings of islam when the whole concept of it sickens me, that people would abandon the teachings of the shariah in favour of man made law?

Let's stay on topic please. I don't want my thread to turn into a discussion about your hate mongering and about secularism.

This is about nationalism regarding ARTICLE 301.

Please refrain from quoting and replying to off-topic posts.

If you would like issues like this covered, please start your own threads.

Jazakallah Khyar, Thank you.

 

[The_Prince]

Let's stay on topic please. I don't want my thread to turn into a discussion about your hate mongering and about secularism.

This is about nationalism regarding ARTICLE 301.

Please refrain from quoting and replying to off-topic posts.

If you would like issues like this covered, please start your own threads.

Jazakallah Khyar, Thank you.

where did the brother say any thing which was 'hate mongering'?????? i think it would be better if you didnt make false accusations against people.

 

[The_Prince]

So basically, I want those who are interested to just read the actual article which consists of four rules or the whole thing I have posted and just say what comes to your mind. Share your opinions on anything that may be related to the topic...etc.

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/law-wiki/13828-article-301-turkish-penal-code.html


Sev.

lol lol you want peoples opinion, a brother gives his opinion, and you accuse him of 'hate mongering', as they say, get out of here and what you playing at? asking for an opinion, gets one, then makes a false accusation, quote this for your paper so your teacher can see you need an F.

 

[sevgi]

lol lol you want peoples opinion, a brother gives his opinion, and you accuse him of 'hate mongering', as they say, get out of here and what you playing at? asking for an opinion, gets one, then makes a false accusation, quote this for your paper so your teacher can see you need an F.

I will keep my composure...

Do you know what hate mongering is? Silly question, coz if you did, you wouldn't be saying this.

When an individual goes on a rant about how a certain populous, their beliefs, their laws etc is kufr, disgusting, sickening etc, when an indicidual expresses their hatred towards the likes of such in an attempt to conjure reactions amongst people (notably evident from the '?' at the end of his rant), this is hate mongering.

Now, as for me wanting opinions. I want opinions on the topic. There is a topic, you know. That's how these threads work...People post threads with a topic and respondees must stay on topic.

His response has absolutely NO indication of having read the article in question. His response has no significance in this thread. His opinions and hate mongering are hence unwanted here.

Your responses mirror the likes of his.

This is a serious thread. There is a thread title for a reason. If you have no idea what is going on, just be fair and refrain from sharing your two cents on a vague topic, especially if it is hateful and especially if it indicates the warrant for further discussion on the invasive topic.

 

[sevgi]

where did the brother say any thing which was 'hate mongering'?????? i think it would be better if you didnt make false accusations against people.

Oh, and I love your naivity. Yes, hate mongers execute their hate mongering whilst carrying the banner of hate mongering all the time. All the time.

Urgh.

 

[zanjabeela]

I came into this topic because anything Turkish is of profound interest to me. And, so, the link you provided was interesting. The first part:

“1 - A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.

2 - A person who publicly denigrates Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.

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

4 - Expression of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute crime.”

sounds like it's aimed at preventing the exact kind of dialogue that has taken place in the first part of the thread. I understand the sentiments of the government in wanting to maintain complete sovereignty over how people (especially inside Turkey) view the country. After all, if you can push down dialogue, you don't have to hear the criticisms that the fourth proviso seems to encourage. How does the state determine which statement is a denigration and which is a criticism?

I understand that the second part:

A person who says “All the Turkish people are thieves and half of them are stupid.”

A person who says “The Turkish government is exploiting some weak ethnic groups, these groups are treated inhumanely.”

A person who says “The Turkish army is exploiting the people who lives eastern Turkey. This army is treating them as if they are all terrorists.”

A person who says “Turkish judiciary is untrustworthy, it is not independent.”

attempts to provide this clarification...but while I see that the first example is clearly derogatory and need not be allowed, the other three are a bit surprising. Should not the government be concerned when allegations of it being inhumane or untrustworthy are raised? Those sound like criticisms that are aimed at helping improve a nation...not denigration. It seems like a nation that does not want to be questioned is aiming for one of two things: 1) prevent disorderliness and promote a sense of homogeneous thought; or 2) does not want to evolve based on the whims of its citizens.

This was interesting:

Turkish politicians have different ideas about this controversial issue. For instance, the Republican People’s Party Leader Deniz Baykal has said “The prime minister is looking for an accomplice to the shameful act of making it free to insult the Turkish identity in Turkey. He almost expects us to apologize for being Turkish. We will not apologize” He is also against revising this article.

I'm not sure why this politician says that it is the Turkish identity that people want anyone to be apologetic over. A national identity is composed of more than just what people inside Turkey take objection to. Allowing people to point to flaws encourages the growth of the identity, not an apology for the identity.

I haven't been able to get to the end of the article just yet, but will do so later, inshaAllah. Hope this helps for now...it could be that I'm analyzing everything upside down, though. I hope people contribute to a further reading of your link. It is quite interesting.

 

[Dawud_uk]

in fairness i do hate nationists of all varieties, i have total bara towards it as our religion teaches us. if that makes me a hate monger so be it.

i have however wala towards all practicing muslims, whether they be turks, arabs, chinese, somali, nigerian, or green martians, those muslims who love the deen of Allah, love what Allah loves, hate what he hates, which includes nationalism.

the code mentioned is nationalistic, the whole constitution is nationalistic, i was trying to point out one will inevitably spring from the other.

nationalism is called asabiyyah in arabic and the ahaddith regarding use particularly strong words.

 

[sevgi]

Should not the government be concerned when allegations of it being inhumane or untrustworthy are raised? Those sound like criticisms that are aimed at helping improve a nation...not denigration. It seems like a nation that does not want to be questioned is aiming for one of two things: 1) prevent disorderliness and promote a sense of homogeneous thought; or 2) does not want to evolve based on the whims of its citizens.

I hear what you are saying. I'd like to urge your thoughts into considering Turkey as two things.

1. The nation Turkey

2. The image of Turkey

What might be good for the nation is not always good for the nation's image.



This was interesting:

I'm not sure why this politician says that it is the Turkish identity that people want anyone to be apologetic over. A national identity is composed of more than just what people inside Turkey take objection to. Allowing people to point to flaws encourages the growth of the identity, not an apology for the identity.

You think that pointing to flaws will allow the growth of identity? How does identity grow?

in fairness i do hate nationists of all varieties, i have total bara towards it as our religion teaches us. if that makes me a hate monger so be it.

i have however wala towards all practicing muslims, whether they be turks, arabs, chinese, somali, nigerian, or green martians, those muslims who love the deen of Allah, love what Allah loves, hate what he hates, which includes nationalism.

Hating 'nationalism' is fine. Hating nationalists is fine. Hating a particular type or form or group of nationalism and nationalists is also fine. Just not on this forum and not on this thread.

the code mentioned is nationalistic, the whole constitution is nationalistic, i was trying to point out one will inevitably spring from the other.

Well, constitutions are writting in the context of nationalism. Thats what they are for...

Perhaps what you do not like is that this constitution seems to uphold justice for the nation above justice for the citizen?

Thank you for your input guys. As I stated in my first post..Im not here to debate...I am merely here to pick on your thoughts and make you think of new things etc etc etc.

 

[Dawud_uk]

Thank you for your input guys. As I stated in my first post..Im not here to debate...I am merely here to pick on your thoughts and make you think of new things etc etc etc.

sevgi,

well in contexts of the law in question, it should be removed as asabiyyah which i think is the answer you are wanting as it is upholding something contradictory to the teachings of Allah and his Rasool (saws).

 

[sevgi]

sevgi,

well in contexts of the law in question, it should be removed as asabiyyah which i think is the answer you are wanting as it is upholding something contradictory to the teachings of Allah and his Rasool (saws).

Do you imagine there would be any Turkish civilians and/ or parties which share your sentiments?

 

[Dawud_uk]

Do you imagine there would be any Turkish civilians and/ or parties which share your sentiments?

i know from my conversations with brothers online who live there that there are many people living in turkey who share these ideas against secularism, but within the framework of secularism in turkey it is impossible to voice them publicly in full without being attacked and arrested under these codes.

so people have taken different routes, i.e some have taken the compromise route and tried to appease the secularist murteed generals and figures of authority and so change things one tiny bit at a time.

others believe jihad is the only solution,

others again do not know enough to decide which they feel is the right solution.

 

[Pomak]

Okies i read that.

I think changing it because other countries are more tolerant of dissent is a bad idea, psychologically.

I don't pretend to be an expert on "Turkishness" but seems like it came about from an era where the Turkish govt was worried that foreign powers were willing to use the ethnic divisions/Armenian genocide + Kurdish human rights to break up the country.

I would argue that the law as it stands and is understood by the more nationalist judges, in fact harms Turkish national image.

 

[sevgi]

I would argue that the law as it stands and is understood by the more nationalist judges, in fact harms Turkish national image.

External or internal image?

 

[Pomak]

External or internal image?

Both. I doubt that Kurds being effectively barred from being able to critique the state, makes them particularly patriotic.

 

[sevgi]

Both. I doubt that Kurds being effectively barred from being able to critique the state, makes them particularly patriotic.

To what extent do you think the Kurds represent the Turkish national image?

You don't have to answer this by the way. I just think you are onto something...

 

[Pomak]

To what extent do you think the Kurds represent the Turkish national image?

You don't have to answer this by the way. I just think you are onto something...

[disclaimer: this is kinda stretching my knowledge about Turkey/Turks, so if i say anything incorrect feel free to correct it]

I doubt they do very much. This is an issue of identity politics isn't it? Who is a "Turk" and the whole "mountain turk" issue.

 

[sevgi]

[disclaimer: this is kinda stretching my knowledge about Turkey/Turks, so if i say anything incorrect feel free to correct it]

I doubt they do very much. This is an issue of identity politics isn't it? Who is a "Turk" and the whole "mountain turk" issue.

Hehehe...I'll leave you alone.

I think I'm trying to define 'turkishness' objectively.

It is never possible.

 

[Pomak]

Hehehe...I'll leave you alone.

I think I'm trying to define 'turkishness' objectively.

It is never possible.

Ok i take it your trying to define that so that you can understand what Turks currently can't insult, right? As in the article 301.

Shouldn't it be more important to get what "turks" understand "turkishness" to mean? Rather than being objective? Or is that what you mean by objective?