T Ü R K İ Y E ' N İ N B İ R İ K İ M İ
|
T Ü R K İ Y E ' N İ N B İ R İ K İ M İ |
| |
| ||
| |||
|
Y A Z A R L A R | 20 ARALIK 2005 SALI | |
| |||
|
| |
I wasn't surprised at what happened in the courtroom where novelist Orhan Pamuk's case was heard, but I was flabbergasted when I read in the papers the next day that some members of the European Parliament (MEPs) were harassed there. Most annoying of all was the treatment of MEP Denis McShane: He was punched in the head by a lawyer. He describes his attacker, in a piece he wrote for British paper The Observer, as being "a nationalist lawyer." I know McShane from his visits to Turkey as former minister for Europe in Tony Blair's government. He played an enormously important role in brightening our mood before last year's fateful summit in which Turkey was able to extract a negotiation date from the European Union. I remember dining with him at the British ambassador's residence, in a politically blurred atmosphere at a time when Brussels was giving negative signals. His soothing words were the only consolation for many of us. And he was slapped in the head as he was standing in the courtroom showing solidarity with Pamuk. What an outrageous act! Despite his introverted and asocial personality, Pamuk is the pride of Turkey. Almost every household in Turkey has at least one of his books. This is also in a not well-read country. His novels have been translated into almost all languages and are widely read the world over. Every year, when the Nobel Literature Prize jury meets in Stockholm, we speculate on whether he's a possible winner -- myself and many others with hope, some with trepidation. No intellectual in Turkey has attracted as much hostility as Pamuk. I wouldn't like to give a wrong impression. Pamuk's adversaries aren't ordinary folks but a variety of opinionated intellectuals. What can a literary persona expect from his accusers: Plagiarism... Populist tendencies... Furthering his image by belittling his country's stature... All this and more has been said about Pamuk. Some even went so far as to claim that he is a pseudo-Turk, belonging to a secret cabal, thus explaining his popularity abroad. His most recent problems started when he came out of seclusion by attacking political taboos head-on. He didn't mingle with the general public and stayed aloof, as is the tradition of great writers, and was not one to give interviews whenever a reporter extended their microphone. A year ago or so he softened his rules and opened himself up to the public by giving interviews both in Turkey and abroad. All hell broke loose afterwards. Pamuk as a writer, was attracting hostility and Pamuk, as a defender of politically disturbing causes, started receiving unbearable slurs. Bear with me when I stress the importance of our progress lately. The Turkey of today is hesitant about trying a novelist who made accusations concerning our historical taboos, the acceptance of which would carry grave consequences. The Turkey of yesterday felt no hesitation whatsoever about putting intellectuals into prison for their less accusatory claims. With the EU perspective in mind, successive Turkish governments have changed laws restricting freedoms. Authors in today's Turkey are much freer. Even thorny issues are being discussed in depth in public places, including on TV. I can't say that everybody is happy about the changes that have taken place in the field of freedoms. Some politicos, who feel Turkey has no place in the EU, are urging their followers to do their utmost to stop this process. Some old hands who have benefited from the existing order, the status quo, are trying to reverse the trend. When they find an excuse to manipulate the public's anxiety, which is the case in every country at a time of great upheavals, they always exploit it. This time they've overstepped their limit. After the scenes of angry men throwing eggs, kicking tires and punching the windows of Pamuk's van reached houses via TV outlets, and when we read in the papers that lawyers assaulted foreign visitors there to defend Pamuk's right to free speech, the public's tolerance ended. I see or read no sympathy for the aggressors. Readers who have a habit of reading what I write here every week will easily surmise why it happened the way it did. Any other government would have taken measures to prevent unpleasant events which would potentially damage the country's image, and if they happened anyway, it would be able to manage the crisis with ease. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AK) government, as I indicated previously, lacks an "early warning system" and it's clumsy in crisis management. What this government excels in is damage control. After everything takes place, it assumes the task of lifting judicial restrictions in front of basic rights and freedoms. My friends felt shame after what they saw in that courtroom, but not me. I'm not shameless, not at all, but I know from firsthand experience that the scenes we witnessed will hopefully not be repeated in the future. Those who created such a mess during a court case have lost ground in the minds of the public. I believe nobody would tolerate actions targeted at usurping our basic freedoms. What Pamuk said did not endear him to me, far from it, but what he did to defend his right to freedom of speech is more akin to my heart.
From The New Anatolian, 20 December 2005
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
|
|
Ana Sayfa |
Gündem |
Politika |
Ekonomi |
Dünya |
Kültür |
Spor |
Yazarlar Televizyon | Sağlık | Bilişim | Diziler | Künye | Arşiv | Bize Yazın |
|
| Bu sitede yayınlanan tüm materyalin her hakkı mahfuzdur. Kaynak gösterilmeden çoğaltılamaz. © Yeni Şafak Tasarım ve içerik yönetimi: Yeni Şafak İnternet Servisi |
