This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ISTANBUL 002020 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV TU
SUBJECT: ISTANBUL WRITERS SPEAK OUT ON FREEDOM OF 
EXPRESSION AND PROBLEMATIC PENAL CODE 
 
REF: A. ANKARA 5233 
 
     ¶B. ISTANBUL 1780 
     ¶C. 04 ANKARA 6116 
 
This message is sensitive but unclassified-- not for internet 
distribution. 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary:  A "Gathering for Freedom of Expression" 
November 19-22 in Istanbul brought local writers, authors and 
activists together to evaluate the state of free speech in 
Turkey.  Though Noam Chomsky's counter-intuitive (and perhaps 
garbled) statement that Europe has much to learn from Turkey 
about the topic monopolized press attention, more meaningful 
was participants' conclusion that the 2004 Turkish Penal Code 
was a step backward for freedom of expression in Turkey. 
Attendees agreed that self-censorship still exists in Turkey, 
and has in fact intensified as a result of the continuing 
prosecution of publishers and authors.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  (U)  Istanbul's Initiative for Freedom of Expression and 
local branches of Amnesty International, International PEN 
and Turkey's Human Rights Association, among others, 
organized a "Gathering for Freedom of Expression" in Istanbul 
November 19-22.  Six Istanbul municipalities were listed as 
"supporters," and offered community centers and municipal 
theaters for activities throughout the event.  Among those 
addressing the gathering were Orhan Pamuk and Noam Chomsky 
(the latter via a video greeting). 
 
¶3.  (U)  In his address, Pamuk repeated the phrase that 
resulted in criminal charges against him -- that one million 
Armenians and 30,000 Kurds had been killed in Turkey (ref A) 
-- emphasizing that for him, "these are scholarly issues...I 
am a novelist.  I address human suffering and pain, and it is 
obvious, even in Turkey, that there was an immense hidden 
pain which we now have to face."  Garnering the most press 
coverage was Chomsky's surprising statement that Europe had 
much to learn from Turkey in the area of freedom of 
expression.  Though papers did not reflect this, he (with 
typical opacity) seemed to be referring to the vigor with 
which free speech activists in Turkey are moving to defend 
their rights. 
 
Some Relaxation in the Mood... 
------------------------------ 
 
¶4.  (U)  Writers and publishers evaluated the state of free 
speech in Turkey in a November 22 panel discussion featuring 
publisher Ragip Zarakolu and others who have faced charges 
for their work.  In the session, Reporters without Border 
representative Erol Onderoglu expressed optimism about what 
he called an increased awareness in Turkey about freedom of 
expression issues, and society's acceptance of the legitimate 
role the media plays in the public realm.  Onderoglu pointed 
out that cases brought against writers have not always 
resulted in convictions; he noted a case in Batman where a 
judge cited ECHR precedents in siding with a journalist and 
telling the members of Parliament who brought the suit that 
they must be prepared to "tolerate" criticism. 
 
...But Still Many Risks 
----------------------- 
 
¶5.  (U)  Despite some advances, however, Onderoglu said the 
government has not fully accepted the media's public service 
role, and "never misses a chance to file a case."  The 
plaintiff with the highest number of cases against 
journalists was the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he claimed, with 
18 in 2005.  Beyond court cases, said Onderoglu, 22 attacks 
were committed against journalists in 2004, in the first nine 
months of 2005 alone the number had reached 32.  (Note:  He 
neither defined "attack" nor mentioned specific instances. 
End note.) 
 
¶6.  (U)  Onderoglu discussed the "sensitive" issues that 
cause the most problems for journalists, putting Armenian 
issues near the top of the list.  In addition to the more 
well-known Article 301 of the Penal Code, which covers 
insults against the State and Turkishness (ref B), he said 
Article 305 also restricts the Armenian debate with its 
stipulation that "citizens who receive financial benefit from 
a foreigner or a foreign institution directly or indirectly 
with the purpose of taking an action against fundamental 
national benefits...including independence and national 
security" can be sentenced to ten years. 
 
¶7.  (U)  Onderoglu also criticized Article 216 of the penal 
code as it impacts the headscarf debate, saying it has 
created confusion in the judiciary.  Article 216 states that 
a person who incites hatred toward others based on class, 
race, religion in a way that might endanger public order can 
be sentenced to up to three years in prison.  Without 
referring to specific cases, Onderoglu claimed some in the 
judiciary equate wearing a head scarf with inciting hatred. 
He closed by touching on local minority language 
broadcasting, lamenting the slow pace in enacting reforms 
that would allow such broadcasting in Kurdish.  Ten 
applications are pending, with no implementation since the 
legislation had passed. 
 
To What Are We Harmonizing? 
--------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (U)  Panelist Metin Celal, chair of Turkey's Publishers' 
Association, told the gathering that Turkey had taken a step 
back in freedom of speech with the new Penal Code, 
particularly Article 301.  Celal focused on challenges facing 
publishers, mentioning a recent case against Aram Publishing 
House, publisher of a book by US author John Tirman, which 
includes information about human rights violation in 
southeast Turkey during the 1990's, and which allegedly 
"insults the memory of Ataturk" in another chapter.  Aram's 
owner faces up to six and a half years in prison if 
convicted.  Celal, like Onderoglu, touched on Article 216 
regarding incitement, citing the case of academics and former 
members of the GOT's Human Rights Consultation Board being 
prosecuted under this article for a report they published on 
minorities last year (ref C).  Lawyer and author Fethiye 
Cetin (among whose clients is Hrant Dink) agreed the 2004 
penal code had been a step back, arguing that it protects the 
State rather than citizens.  Many of the articles view 
citizens' actions through a security lens, she said, 
resulting in the judiciary's de facto consideration of 
military and security policies in their decision-making. 
 
Self-censorship Remains 
----------------------- 
 
¶9.  (U)  Nadire Mater, author and advisor to Bianet, a 
network for monitoring and reporting on freedom of expression 
issues in Turkey, argued that self-censorship is still common 
among journalists here, especially as regards issues related 
to the military.  She highlighted the recent news that 
descendants of Armenians who had died in 1915-16 had recently 
won a USD 17 million settlement from French insurance company 
Axa.  Axa has a partnership in Turkey, Axa Oyak -- the 
Turkish Armed Forces Pension fund.  This could be an 
important story, she said:  Does Axa Oyak have some 
connection to or role in solving "the Armenian problem"? 
Zaman and Hurriyet did tackle the topic briefly, she said, 
but many decided not to cover it, considering it too 
sensitive.  Celal alluded to a similar point in his 
presentation, pointing out that with the precedents of fines 
and charges against publishers, many houses were becoming 
much more selective about the material they accepted. 
 
Article 301:  Ragip Zarakolu Update 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶10.  (U)  Publisher Ragip Zarakoglu currently has three cases 
open against him, and a group of conference participants 
attended hearings in two of the cases on November 21.  The 
Article 301 charges against him stem from two books he 
published:  Dora Sakayan's "Garabet Hacheryan's Izmir 
Journal:  An Armenian Doctor's Experiences," and George 
Jerjian's "History Will Free Us All -- Turkish-Armenian 
Conciliation."  In the hearing regarding the Jerjian book, 
material was sent to an expert committee that will determine 
if the book is insulting; in the Sakayan case, the prosecutor 
asked for six years imprisonment in his final statement, 
calling for conviction for both insulting the state and the 
armed forces.  (Note:  Conviction on one count of violating 
Article 301 carries a maximum penalty of three years.  End 
note.)  Hearings in the latter case will resume February 15. 
 
¶12.  (SBU)  Comment:  Orhan Pamuk's case may have monopolized 
Western media attention, but the Istanbul gathering 
illustrates how wide a net Turkish prosecutors have spread in 
applying Turkey's new penal code.  This is an area where even 
Turkey's friend, EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn, has 
been using increasingly strong language, issuing what Turkish 
press called a "warning" about freedom of expression.  The 
conference highlighted activists' determination to continue 
to shine the spotlight on and challenge freedom of speech 
restrictions.  They also made one important point that we 
highlight regularly:  while many cases may eventually be 
dismissed, the very fact that they are brought brings about 
an unhealthy degree of self-censorship.  End comment. 
JONES