See this gun? So shut up
Poor Turkey, poor Orhan Pamuk.
Pamuk did not hesitate to publicly criticize the Turkish government, judiciary and society, which he held partly responsible for Dink’s death. “The murder of my courageous, golden-hearted friend has soured my life,” Pamuk confessed, “I am furious at everyone and everything, and I feel boundless shame.” As if to reinforce his words, Turkey was in an uproar last Friday over images of several police officers who were photographed in a chummy pose with the young murder suspect. The officers were suspended from duty, but not before the newspaper Sabah condemned the incident, writing that a nationalist murderer was being treated like a hero.
So Pamuk is in (very rational) fear for his life, and has left Turkey.
“Tell Orhan Pamuk to wise up!” one of the principal suspects in the Dink murder, right-wing extremist Yasin Hayal, a man with a criminal record, said publicly. The threat must have made a strong impression on the author. Last week the self-proclaimed “Turkish Revenge Brigade” (TIT) posted a video on YouTube depicting Dink’s corpse next to photos of Pamuk….The video ended with a shot of a Turkish flag and the head of a wolf – the symbol of Turkish ultra-nationalists, and the threat: “More will die.”
How I hate and despise people like that, and how little good it does me.
Pamuk, Turkey’s most famous writer and a man who ought to be the pride of this country as it seeks European Union membership, has been pursued by hate-mongering nationalists for some time, and he is not the only one. About a dozen Turkish writers, journalists and academics are currently the targets of hate-spewing, fanatical right-wing extremists. Pamuk’s hasty departure shines a spotlight on the clash of cultures and the climate of agitation, intimidation and fear dissidents in Turkey currently face, especially those who dare to tackle national taboos – of which there are many, including the 1915 genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire…According to statistics compiled by the Turkish Human Rights Foundation, close to 100 intellectuals have already been hauled before courts for voicing their critical opinions. Most have been charged with the crime of “insulting Turkishness,” or disparaging national institutions. Reactionary prosecutors use a notorious Turkish law known as Article 301 to persecute critical thinkers.
In a way it sounds not as distant and foreign and alien as I would like…
The hostile mood in Turkey reflects the country’s difficult relationship with its intellectuals and its deep distrust of its pro-Western authors who criticize the system from within. “We are always seen as potential runaways, if not potential traitors,” says writer Shafak. “Criticizing the country is considered practically the equivalent of hating it.” In a recent television interview, she was asked: “Did you ever say that you were not feeling at home in Turkey?”
Actually, to an American, it sounds unpleasantly familiar. The rage is not as murderous or as prosecutorial here, but the basic concept is, I’m afraid, the same. It’s the same and it’s deadly for independent critical thought.
Update. I said that last bit very clumsily, as you’ll see from comments. I’ll leave it so that the comments won’t look like gibberish, and for that matter because it serves me right for putting it clumsily. I didn’t mean that the US situation is comparable – I didn’t even mean to change the subject to the US; it’s the Turkish situation that horrifies me. I found the murder of Hrant Dink really upsetting, and still do; Pamuk’s comment on it – that the murder of his golden-hearted friend has soured his life – makes me want to throw ashes on my head. I just meant that it’s the same way of thinking, that’s all. It is; but the way of acting is a whole different ball game.
“Actually, to an American, it sounds unpleasantly familiar.” I was with you up till that point, but no, I don’t buy that at all. OK, I’m writing from London, so may be missing something – do dinner parties in New York now lower their voices as they talk politics? – but I don’t think so. Every day in America thousands of articles get written, books published, blogs updated, fiercely critical of Bush and of America generally. It’s not a problem. No one gets threatened, no one gets prosecuted for having un-American thoughts. Yes, you may get people accusing you of being unpatriotic if you’re famous enough, but that’s standard stuff – “America, love it or leave it”. It’s part of the territory of political argument: sometimes it descends to insult. The Dixie Chicks come to mind – fiercely and unpleasantly attacked after those remarks about Bush they made in a concert in London, but as far as I’m aware never subject to any violence, and certainly never prosecuted for insulting America. Where are they now? Just been awarded a load of Grammies, I believe.
What I’m trying to say is, it’s not just a difference of degree between Turkey and America. The violence in Turkey, the assassination of Hrant Dink and the threats to Orhan Pamuk, are different in kind. On one side you have violent intimidation backed by the law, on the other a robust exchange of views in an open society. To compare them is to trivialise the sort of pressure that Pamuk and other Turkish writers are facing.
To someone viewing America from across the Atlantic, I’d say fears about the death of independent critical thought are a little premature.
Its the same old whine of the blue-staters when they were shattered by a non-preferred candidate winning the elections in 2000 and 2004.
Considering the bile and contempt that so-called liberals publish about conservatives and Christians, I can’t help but feel that most Americans are all talk, and that is pretty damn decent of them. In the America of 1776 there would have been duels (between gentlemen) and deadly brawls (us hoi polloi) all over. But all there are now is strong words.
You know how conspiracy nutcases sound like they don’t listen to anything except what their fellow loonies say? Thats what the spreaders of this ‘danger to free speech in America’ meme sound like to people overseas.
Well said, Mick. Self-aggrandising nonsense, I’m afraid OB.
Besides, ChrisPer, what same old whine? You think conservatives and Christians smile sweetly and turn the other elbow when ‘a non-preferred candidate’ wins? If so you weren’t paying attention during the Clinton years. No reason you should, of course, but it means you’re talking bullshit now. Whine shmine.
Thenk you. I am much relieved.
Silly of me to put it so crudely, of course. A bit of free association. But it’s very much the Turkish situation that horrifies me.
Hey, OB, come to England. Here nobody likes our country! Hell, even UNICEF has just concluded we’re crap at raising kids. You want somewhere where an oppresive sense of national pride isn’t in evidence? We got it!
Ah but Dave, that’s because the French ethnically cleansed us all those centuries ago.
Climate of fear?
Try crossing the dhimmis running Clare college!
Dave,
awwww…have you forgotten last year’s sea of St. George’s flags, massed chants of “En-ger-lund!”, and amusingly mediocre performance of yer football team already?
;-)
I consider wallowing in the utter mediocrity of our sporting “talents” a confirmation of my thesis, not a challenge… ;-)
England – loathe it or leave it, eh?
Anyway, OB, I don’t think you expressed yourself badly or unclearly; it’s just that given the way many of those that label themselves leftists fall over themselves to align themselves with anything anti-American etc. means that we always need to explicitly disassociate ourselves from such before pointing out any such similarities as you did.
It’s a bit like reasonable conservatives in America always have to disavow the nutcase GOP and Fundie elements before expressing conservative opinions lest they be lumped in with ‘that lot’ (see, for example, the way Orac over at Respectful Insolence seems to preface every vaguely political sentiment with some version of ‘I’m Not With Stupid’).
I’m a bit surprised that you would be so readily misinterpreted by regulars here, who should know you well enough to realize your opinions are likely to be more nuanced than that; but there you go.
Why, thanks, outeast – I thought much the same, hence the testiness of my reply. But the last sentence is (accidentally) a bit ambiguous or misleading, so I can see where the misinterpretation got in.
I don’t think you need to apologise for your last statement, Ophelia. You don’t have to look far to find wingnuts who suggest that liberals should be shot for disapproving of the political choices of their camp. One even advocates the gas chamber for those who have committed “treason”. It is intended to have a chilling effect on dissent, just the same. It’s probably only a matter of time before someone is killed by a rightist lunatic in the States. Amanda Marcotte has had death threats and it only takes one nutter with a gun, which the US is not short of.
And its not as though extremist nuts with guns haven’t proved they exist… Weathermen, SLA, Unabomber, McVeigh…
Even here in sleepy old Australia we had a nutter kill a security guard at an abortion clinic.
But the criminologists have looked into ‘fear of crime’ and find it far more related to hysterical media behaviour than to realistic assessment of risks. I suggest if we looked at the prevalence of actual threats, actual violence and actual effects on public debate, we would find that the chilling is barely related to actual risk. Confirmatory bias may result in chilling self-censorship…
When your Comander-in-Chief goes on TV and tells you that if you aren’t with him you’re with the terrorists, I think a certain element of paranoia is permissible – indeed reasonable.