Turkish nationalism and Article 301 of the penal code

[sevgi]

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?

I already know the answers to all of these. I'll give you a copy of my thesis when I'm done

I'm trying to get outisder opinion. That's all.

 

[KAding]

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.

Well, there are several things that come to mind.

For example:
1. Turkey most definitely is not unique with these laws, not even among democratic countries
2. The more established a democratic system, the less likely that a country has these laws
3. The more established a democratic system, the less likely that these laws (if they even exist) actually get enforced

I think overall Anglo-Saxon countries have the most liberal approach, with continental European countries following closely behind. I think many Asian countries that are nominally democracies, such as Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and India have a lot fewer qualms actually making and enforcing similar laws.

IMHO, another important factor (next to the factor already mentioned in point 2.) is the cultural and political traditions in a country. For example, the United States has a very strong liberal and anti-state tradition, which no doubt can be traced back to its colonial history. Other countries, think of Thailand, but also Turkey, have a political history that is more authoritarian and which puts higher value on social stability rather than individual rights.

 

[KAding]

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.

In all fairness, I don't think Islam hates nationalism as such, it only hates nationalism when it isn't of the religious kind.

After all, what else is all this talk of an Ummah, Caliphate, Islamic State, Shura, etc? I mean, Muhammed himself founded a nation, didn't he?

But I suppose this is off-topic .

 

[sevgi]

Well, there are several things that come to mind.

For example:
1. Turkey most definitely is not unique with these laws, not even among democratic countries
2. The more established a democratic system, the less likely that a country has these laws
3. The more established a democratic system, the less likely that these laws (if they even exist) actually get enforced

I think overall Anglo-Saxon countries have the most liberal approach, with continental European countries following closely behind. I think many Asian countries that are nominally democracies, such as Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and India have a lot fewer qualms actually making and enforcing similar laws.

IMHO, another important factor (next to the factor already mentioned in point 2.) is the cultural and political traditions in a country. For example, the United States has a very strong liberal and anti-state tradition, which no doubt can be traced back to its colonial history. Other countries, think of Thailand, but also Turkey, have a political history that is more authoritarian and which puts higher value on social stability rather than individual rights.

I love your post...but just referring to your final sentence, how related do you think Turkey's current enforcement of Article 301 is to its history? In what ways? Or do you think Article 301 is set in order to focus on the current populous and situations?

 

[sevgi]

In all fairness, I don't think Islam hates nationalism as such, it only hates nationalism when it isn't of the religious kind.

After what else is all this talk of an Ummah, Caliphate, Islamic State, Caliph? I mean, Muhammed himself founded a nation, didn't he?

But I suppose this is off-topic .

I think that as long as nationalism is devoid of racism, it is not against islam..but that is a personal opinion.

 

[KAding]

I love your post...but just referring to your final sentence, how related do you think Turkey's current enforcement of Article 301 is to its history? In what ways? Or do you think Article 301 is set in order to focus on the current populous and situations?

Good question. I don't know the origins of article 301 and my knowledge of Turkish history is too limited, so I'm just thinking out loud here.

Let me put it this way: has it ever really been any different? What was and wasn't allowed in the decades or even centuries preceding the establishment of the Turkish Republic? Was it allowed to criticize Ottoman institutions, organs of the state or the Sultan? I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is more 'continuity' here than we might think. These things generally don't change overnight, not even during times of revolution.

Although references to "turkishness" definitely sound like a more recent addition. But couldn't that be viewed within the context of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the wars that raged when the new Republic was founded? With all these territorial threats the fresh Turkish leadership needed something to fall back on, something to call their own and to point to when trying to motivate the people to struggle on.

By the way, I think people who are turning this into an 'secularism' vs. 'Islam' issue are missing the point. Had Turkey been turned into a Islamic Republic it would most likely have similar laws. There might not have been references to "turkishness", but there would most likely been a penal code which prohibits "denigrating the Islamic character" of the people or something similar. Heck, just look at Iran just next door, they do call themselves Islamic, yet have exactly such laws! The principle of prohibiting certain speech is the same, the target is simply different (ethnicity or religion).

 

[KAding]

I think that as long as nationalism is devoid of racism, it is not against islam..but that is a personal opinion.

Well, even just from a practical point of view: you need to draw the borders of states somehow, no? If it isn't based on culture, then how do you do it?

 

[sevgi]

Good question. I don't know the origins of article 301 and my knowledge of Turkish history is too limited, so I'm just thinking out loud here.

Let me put it this way: has it ever really been any different? What was and wasn't allowed in the decades or even centuries preceding the establishment of the Turkish Republic? Was it allowed to criticize Ottoman institutions, organs of the state or the Sultan? I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is more 'continuity' here than we might think. These things generally don't change overnight, not even during times of revolution.

Although references to "turkishness" definitely sound like a more recent addition. But couldn't that be viewed within the context of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the wars that raged when the new Republic was founded? With all these territorial threats the fresh Turkish leadership needed something to fall back on, something to call their own and to point to when trying to motivate the people to struggle on.

By the way, I think people who are turning this into an 'secularism' vs. 'Islam' issue are missing the point. Had Turkey been turned into a Islamic Republic it would most likely have similar laws. There might not have been references to "turkishness", but there would most likely been a penal code which prohibits "denigrating the Islamic character" of the people or something similar. Heck, just look at Iran just next door, they do call themselves Islamic, yet have exactly such laws! The principle of prohibiting certain speech is the same, the target is simply different (ethnicity or religion).

You are thinking out loud..so I'm gna take your questions as being rhetorical.

But I will push you deeper into the deep end.



Turkishness = Ottomanness?

Did free speech exist back in the days? Was it necessary?

Yes, there is a continuity...but what exactly is continuing? Selective continuation perhaps? Just ask yourself....does history = accuracy of events that occurred? Who is writing Turkey's history? If Turkishness stems from ottomanness, why do Turks deny that they are accountable for some of the 'accurate events' that occurred during the time of late Ottoman Empire?

You dont have to answer these...or even reply...perhaps the next poster will

 

[Pomak]

Good question. I don't know the origins of article 301 and my knowledge of Turkish history is too limited, so I'm just thinking out loud here.

Let me put it this way: has it ever really been any different? What was and wasn't allowed in the decades or even centuries preceding the establishment of the Turkish Republic? Was it allowed to criticize Ottoman institutions, organs of the state or the Sultan? I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is more 'continuity' here than we might think. These things generally don't change overnight, not even during times of revolution.

Although references to "turkishness" definitely sound like a more recent addition. But couldn't that be viewed within the context of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the wars that raged when the new Republic was founded? With all these territorial threats the fresh Turkish leadership needed something to fall back on, something to call their own and to point to when trying to motivate the people to struggle on.

By the way, I think people who are turning this into an 'secularism' vs. 'Islam' issue are missing the point. Had Turkey been turned into a Islamic Republic it would most likely have similar laws. There might not have been references to "turkishness", but there would most likely been a penal code which prohibits "denigrating the Islamic character" of the people or something similar. Heck, just look at Iran just next door, they do call themselves Islamic, yet have exactly such laws! The principle of prohibiting certain speech is the same, the target is simply different (ethnicity or religion).

IMO it was partly because of the Kurdish issue. The need was for something to could keep social harmony in those early days.

 

[sevgi]

Well, even just from a practical point of view: you need to draw the borders of states somehow, no? If it isn't based on culture, then how do you do it?

Drawing imaginary lines is always hard and usually superfluous

 

[Pomak]

Yes, there is a continuity...but what exactly is continuing? Selective continuation perhaps? Just ask yourself....does history = accuracy of events that occurred? Who is writing Turkey's history? If Turkishness stems from ottomanness, why do Turks deny that they are accountable for some of the 'accurate events' that occurred during the time of late Ottoman Empire?

Well from an outsider's perspective. The same word is used in Bulgarian to describe the republic and the Ottomans. (Turci aka Turks)

And IMO it takes courage to confront the skeletons in the closet. Thats why Turks want to deny they had anything to do with 'accurate events' that occurred during the time of late Ottoman Empire.

A question, would those even be done again, deed for deed, if lets say Kurdistan was slipping away?

 

[Dawud_uk]

In all fairness, I don't think Islam hates nationalism as such, it only hates nationalism when it isn't of the religious kind.

After all, what else is all this talk of an Ummah, Caliphate, Islamic State, Shura, etc? I mean, Muhammed himself founded a nation, didn't he?

But I suppose this is off-topic .

let me qualify my remarks, yes we are in favour of an ummah of muslims, a community stretching from the atlantic to pacific, from the shores of africa to the shores of indonesia.

but that 'nation' would include many different peoples and tribes, colours and languages.

as such we are a nation that is divined by idealogy and shared belief, not borders, or race, or speech, or where born, or other narrow ideas.

simularly, the west has its shared ideas which it too uses to define whether someone is with them or against them, whether they mean this to be physically fighting or just idealogically opposed.

 

[Dawud_uk]

Good question. I don't know the origins of article 301 and my knowledge of Turkish history is too limited, so I'm just thinking out loud here.

Let me put it this way: has it ever really been any different? What was and wasn't allowed in the decades or even centuries preceding the establishment of the Turkish Republic? Was it allowed to criticize Ottoman institutions, organs of the state or the Sultan? I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is more 'continuity' here than we might think. These things generally don't change overnight, not even during times of revolution.

Although references to "turkishness" definitely sound like a more recent addition. But couldn't that be viewed within the context of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the wars that raged when the new Republic was founded? With all these territorial threats the fresh Turkish leadership needed something to fall back on, something to call their own and to point to when trying to motivate the people to struggle on.

By the way, I think people who are turning this into an 'secularism' vs. 'Islam' issue are missing the point. Had Turkey been turned into a Islamic Republic it would most likely have similar laws. There might not have been references to "turkishness", but there would most likely been a penal code which prohibits "denigrating the Islamic character" of the people or something similar. Heck, just look at Iran just next door, they do call themselves Islamic, yet have exactly such laws! The principle of prohibiting certain speech is the same, the target is simply different (ethnicity or religion).

KAding, the islamic republic or iran is about as islamic as the democratic republic of china is democratic.

 

[sevgi]

Well from an outsider's perspective. The same word is used in Bulgarian to describe the republic and the Ottomans. (Turci aka Turks)

And IMO it takes courage to confront the skeletons in the closet. Thats why Turks want to deny they had anything to do with 'accurate events' that occurred during the time of late Ottoman Empire.

A question, would those even be done again, deed for deed, if lets say Kurdistan was slipping away?

Do you believe the Turks are denying the 'accurate events' or do you think they truly believe in their innocence?

Your question..what do you mean by slipping away?

 

[KAding]

Drawing imaginary lines is always hard and usually superfluous

It could also work like this on a world-wide scale :

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/20...the-hexagon-frances-rectangular-departements/

That was the idea of some of the revolutionaries during the French Revolution, who wanted to break the age-old traditional borders of the departments. Just make all states rectangular, lol. Maybe that is what Dawud has in mind for the Islamic world as well .

 

[sevgi]

It could also work like this on a world-wide scale :

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/20...the-hexagon-frances-rectangular-departements/

That was the idea of some of the revolutionaries during the French Revolution, who wanted to break the age-old traditional borders of the departments. Just make all states rectangular, lol. Maybe that is what Dawud has in mind as well .

Hehehe...I snickered under my breath.

My next book:

'Nationalism: De-tangle your national identity in a rec-tangle'

 

[Pomak]

Do you believe the Turks are denying the 'accurate events' or do you think they truly believe in their innocence?

Your question..what do you mean by slipping away?

Deep down i think they know.

as for slipping away, i mean rebelling. (Think of how the Balkans slipped away)

 

[KAding]

let me qualify my remarks, yes we are in favour of an ummah of muslims, a community stretching from the atlantic to pacific, from the shores of africa to the shores of indonesia.

but that 'nation' would include many different peoples and tribes, colours and languages.

as such we are a nation that is divined by idealogy and shared belief, not borders, or race, or speech, or where born, or other narrow ideas.

simularly, the west has its shared ideas which it too uses to define whether someone is with them or against them, whether they mean this to be physically fighting or just idealogically opposed.

Absolutely. So it is also a form of nationalism, different only in the sense that religion is the binding element, rather than ethnicity or some ideology like the 'American Dream' in other countries.

 

[sevgi]

Deep down i think they know.

as for slipping away, i mean rebelling. (Think of how the Balkans slipped away)

I'd like to state here that I only know stuff about the Armenian genocide. Nothing on Kurds.

Deep down, I assure you, you are wrong. Very very wrong.

Ok..your question was:

A question, would those even be done again, deed for deed, if lets say Kurdistan was slipping away? (edit: rebelling)

I'm gna give you an annoying answer, Pomak.

The Kurds are still rebelling...and the Turks are fighting back...so yes, I think they would do everything they did, deed for deed.

KEEP IN MIND, I DONT KNOW ABOUT THE KURDS....not enough to make whole-hearted, opinionated comments...

 

[Pomak]

I'd like to state here that I only know stuff about the Armenian genocide. Nothing on Kurds.

Deep down, I assure you, you are wrong. Very very wrong.

Ok..your question was:

A question, would those even be done again, deed for deed, if lets say Kurdistan was slipping away? (edit: rebelling)

I'm gna give you an annoying answer, Pomak.

The Kurds are still rebelling...and the Turks are fighting back...so yes, I think they would do everything they did, deed for deed.

KEEP IN MIND, I DONT KNOW ABOUT THE KURDS....not enough to make whole-hearted, opinionated comments...

Yeah we rebelled for 500 years lol, but i mean like the Kurds getting close to setting up their own "Kurdistan" on current Turkish land.

anyways i am happy to be wrong about the "accurate events" issue