"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."
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder
Not: Yalnızca bu blogun üyesi yorum gönderebilir.