
Parliament Speaker Köksal Toptan on Monday said he had signed a proposal to amend an anti-free speech article in the penal code and had forwarded it to the parliamentary Justice Commission.
The bill, which amends the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), was sitting in Toptan’s office awaiting his signature while he was on a visit to China.
Article 301 criminalizes the concept of insulting “Turkishness,” whose legal definition is quite vague. Many intellectuals, academics, journalists and writers have faced charges of violating 301 after voicing criticism of official state ideology. The European Union and rights groups have demanded a change, saying 301 is a major obstacle to freedom of speech in the country.
At a press conference he held yesterday in Parliament Toptan said although the bill was submitted to his office for signature in his absence, Deputy Parliament Speaker Güldal Mumcu, a member of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), had thought better of it “for known reasons” and “entirely of her own accord” to wait until Toptan returned. Members of the European Parliament had also criticized Mumcu for stalling on the submission of the bill.
Mumcu had been criticized for delaying 301's referral to Parliament on purpose. Media reports claimed that Mumcu's decision to wait for Toptan indicated the CHP's reluctance to amend the law. Mumcu had denied all reports suggesting that she personally supported the anti-democratic version of 301.
The proposal would require the permission of the president to launch a 301-related lawsuit against an individual over words spoken or written. Toptan said he believed it would be more appropriate to give this authority to the justice minister. He also criticized placing such a responsibility on the shoulders of the president, who holds a politically neutral office. "This could leave the president in very difficult situations," he said. He also stated that the permission should be reserved not for a lawsuit, but for the earlier stage of launching a probe.
Indeed, the necessity of presidential permission for 301 litigation has attracted much criticism from all quarters. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who is currently on a visit to Qatar, responded to the criticism yesterday. "We did that [proposed presidential permission] to build confidence," Erdoğan said, speaking to journalists in Doha. "The justice minister is a political figure," he noted, adding that this could undermine confidence in the neutrality of a decision to launch a 301-related suit.
Meanwhile, the opposition parties, the CHP and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), announced on Monday that they would not be supporting the government's planned changes to 301.
Speaking to the press in Parliament in the afternoon, CHP deputy leader of the party's parliamentary group Hakkı Suha Okay said: "Everything about this bill, from its submission, the way it was drafted, its tone, everything about it is wrong. It is out of question for the CHP to support this."
He claimed that the change was being proposed due to EU pressure. He also said endowing the president with the authority to provide permission to launch 301-related lawsuits was a huge mistake. He said this would put pressure on the president regarding 301 charges filed against "some neo-Ottomanist and pro-EU" intellectuals.
MHP parliamentary group deputy leader Oktay Vural also said his party would do its best to prevent the law from being adopted. "We think this proposal runs against the spiritual and national values of the Turkish nation and its sovereignty," Vural stated.
Given the number of seats the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has in Parliament, Vural said it might not be possible for the MHP to stop the law from being adopted. Vural called on AK Party deputies to remember the parliamentary oath they took when they were sworn in and vote against the bill. He also said the proposal to leave the decision over whether to start a lawsuit over a 301 investigation to the president was a "political assassination." He stated that the president's office has to preserve the integrity and the solidarity of the country and that it was wrong to turn it into a place where decisions are made over whether acts insulting this integrity should be legally followed up on or not.
Vural accused the AK Party of having transformed the will of the nation into a will that bowed to the wishes of foreigners.
Article 301 is relatively new as it was introduced on June 1, 2005, to replace Article 159 of the old penal code. It was hoped that the new article would ensure freedom of opinion. The article was passed as part of reforms adopted by the government as a condition for the country's admission to the European Union. However, it soon became clear that Article 301, like its predecessor 159, had become the frequent subject of court cases.