"They say, I got convicted of provoking hatred and animosity against "the nation I belong to," Once said Sevan Nişanyan. When asked, what kind of country Turkey is, he gave the following answer: "A country in which a judge can write the following decision:
"…The accused openly provoked a large section of the population to hatred and animosity against another section by belittling and provoking the religious beliefs of a large section of society, by pointing himself and the members of THE NATION HE BELONGS TO as targets, outside the boundaries of respect and freedom of expression, in a rude manner, as heard in his defense, in a way that clearly angers the religious feelings of people, mocking, humiliating and hurting the feelings of members of the religion of a large section of the population for their prophet. In the court’s opinion, THE INTENT OF THE ACCUSED is not to express his thoughts within the boundaries of freedom of expression, as he states by making FICTION WITH WORDS AND SENTENCES, but to LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR SOCIAL CONFLICT, in a way that disturbs societal peace and compels religious feelings, causing hatred and animosity by provoking the religious feelings of the majority of the population."
The decision with reasons, of judge Recep Uyanık (awake) of Istanbul 14th lower court came several days ago.
It seems to me like a masterpiece of interpretation of Article 216. I purportedly provoked within a section of the population hatred and animosity against "the nation I belong to" (namely Armenians). One wonders why the Armenians wouldn’t be the complainants, if this was the case.
Apparently your honor does not know the difference between insulting (tahkir) and provoking (tahrik). Also, no doubt, he is unaware of European Court of Human Rights Handyside etc. decisions.
"Citizens" have started the SAME case in Konya, Bursa and Ümraniye. Let’s see what comes out of them."