Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
Judging by sales figures, Turkish readers love comics magazines and graphic novels, but the political and military leaders of the country have had little patience for them, an examination of Turkey’s banned books revealed last month.
On 5 January 2013, the Turkish government will lift bans against 453 books and 645 periodicals blacklisted over a 63 year period. It is part of a package of judicial reforms that will also offer a conditional pardon for certain media and freedom of expression offences and secure greater free expression in the publishing field.
When Turkish journalists got hold of the astonishing list of banned books at the end of November, a surprise awaited them. Amid titles of works by “usual suspects” — Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin; Turkish authors Nazım Hikmet and Aziz Nesin; and the theologian Said Nursî — the figure of Captain Miki (or “Tommiks” as he is known here) made an unexpected appearance. One episode among the adventures of the Italian hero, who has been popular with Turkish readers since the 1950s, was banned for more than 52 years, they learned.
So how exactly did Captain Miki offend Turkish state? The Prosecutor’s report revealed that a single issue of Captain Miki’s adventures was banned in 1961, months after the 27 May 1960 military coup took place. The generals, who hung a democratically elected prime minister the same year, accused Captain Miki of having encouraged laziness and a “spirit of adventurousness” among Turkish people.
When I called MK Perker, one of Turkey’s most prolific comic book authors, to ask about Captain Miki’s tragic fate, he didn’t sound much surprised. In 2011, Perker and a group of famous Turkish comic writers published Harakiri, a high quality comics magazine which was fined the Turkish equivalent of 50,000 GBP after putting out only two issues. They were accused of precisely the same offence: Encouraging laziness and a spirit of adventurousness among Turkish people.
“Some people spy on comics magazines,” he said, “and then complain to prosecutors about certain images they find disagreeable. These are mostly random events. You can’t foresee them. A magazine publishes content similar to ours and nothing happens. But just because someone picks on you and files a complaint, you end up getting in trouble.”
Perker, whose comics appear weekly in the Sunday supplements of two national newspapers, said he regularly feels the need to self-censor his own work. “For my newspaper pieces, I need to be cautious,” he said. “But in places like Harakiri I feel more free. We don’t have a boss at the magazine. We don’t have to show our work to an editor. We don’t run any advertisement so there is no fear of ever losing our artistic independence. Harakiri is like HBO [the American cable television network] when compared to comic sections of national newspapers,” he said.
Despite the 50,000 GBP fine in 2011 putting an end to his happy days of artistic independence, Perker and his friends put out a third issue earlier this year.
Perker, whose works appeared in the New Yorker, Mad Magazine, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and Heavy Metal among others, began his career at the Turkish cartoon magazine Gırgır, which used to sell half a million copies in its heyday during the 1970s. I asked Perker whether things got better in terms of freedom of expression since his days in Gırgır.
“Censorship always existed in Turkey,” he said. “It is a very consistent phenomenon. After the 12 September 1980 coup d’état, Gırgır was shut down by the military junta. Markopaşa, the weekly satirical magazine published by the Turkish author Sabahattin Ali, was closed numerous times. Its publishers had to sell the magazine personally on streets because there was simply no other way to distribute it,” he said.
In Ottoman times, under rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, cartoonists and comic writers faced similar problems. Perker points out that when the Sultan’s pointed nose became a subject of cartoons, a ban was issued against newspapers running such images. He says:
The Sultan’s nose became a metaphor for government. Depictions of all pointed noses were outlawed. Comic magazine publishers had to go to Geneva in order to continue their publishing operations.
According to Perker, despite the pressures on their activities, the influence of comic magazines continue to be a force in Turkey’s cultural life. The political response to weekly comic magazines has even become a subject for debate in government.
In 2005, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan sued Penguen magazine when it published a cartoon that depicted him as an elephant, giraffe, monkey, camel, frog, snake, cow and duck. Erdogan lost the case on free expression grounds. While some parliamentarians sue cartoonists in courts, others, like the deputy prime minister Bülent Arınç said he wanted all cases against cartoonists dropped and expressed his support in 2010.
This is a feeling shared by Kürşat Kayra, the Ankara prosecutor who prepared the legal documents that lifted bans placed on hundreds of books, newspapers and periodicals:
If we don’t acknowledge that the right to freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, then we won’t be able to say ‘the king is naked!’ when the occasion arises.
Kaya Genc is a Turkish essayist and novelist. Follow him on Twitter: @kayagenc
Keir Starmer’s social media interim guidelines appear sensible enough, which is more than can be said for the controversial cases that led to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ consultation.
Index took part in that consultation back in October. I wrote at the time Starmer was adamant that the ruling in the Paul Chambers appeal (which overturned his 2010 conviction for jokingly tweeting that he would blow an airport “sky high”) was not to be seen as any sort of precedent. Yet in the guidelines published today, Starmer cites the two passages in that ruling that seemed to provide most protection for free speech, which noted:
…a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside [section 127(i)(a) of the Communications Act 2003], for the simple reason that the message lacks menace.
And:
Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127].
So it would seem there’s been a slight change of mind, which is entirely reasonable and welcome (though on Twitter Chambers’ partner Sarah Tonner seems a little annoyed by this apparent switch).
Apart from that, what else have we got to discuss in these interim guidelines? Well, there’s a slight shift away from the use of the controversial section 127 of the Communications Act. At the consultation I attended, the various representatives, from diverse groups including anti-bullying and anti-harassment bodies, were keen to stress that section 127 was not appropriate for social media, and that it would be better to focus on patterns of harassment, abuse etc, and prosecute, if necessary, under anti-harassment laws such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This is welcome – too often we focus on the medium rather than the behaviour.
More generally, there’s much on high thresholds on prosecution, and clear identification of public interest, perhaps not evident in the prosecutions of people such as Liam Stacey (sentenced to 56 days in prison for a “racially aggravated public order offence” after tweeting a poor taste joke about footballer Fabrice Muamba).
There is not much on the difference between “merely offensive”, which may not merit a prosecution, and “grossly offensive”, which could. As so often, this comes down to the probable perception of a right-thinking person. As in definitions of “obscenity” it seems a case of “I know it when I see it”.
There is a worry in the suggestion that removal of offensive posts by ISPs may provide a defence against prosecution.
While Facebook, Twitter et al will sometimes remove posts off their own bat, there is no absolute uniform system, and due to the sheer volume of traffic on social networks every day, some posts will slip through and others will be removed prematurely or inappropriately. Furthermore, this contains the germ of a suggestion of third-party liability, in which ISPs are held responsible for content. It will be crucial to examine this in the three-month public consultation on the guidelines which open today. It will also be worth examining whether section 127 of the Communications Act is appropriate at all in social media cases.
A decent start then, but more to be done.
Padraig Reidy is news editor at Index. Follow him on Twitter: @mepadraigreidy
Guidelines issued today on when criminal charges should be brought against people posting offensive or abusive comments on social media sites could boost free speech (more…)
Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act could be adjusted to remove the word “insulting” from legislation, it was announced today (10 December). Director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer has said that past cases could be classified as “abusive”, as opposed to “insulting”. Section 5 has stirred controversy in the past: in 2010, a Christian preacher was charged with a public order offence for telling a police officer homosexuality was “a sin”. A Home Office spokesman told the Telegraph that it had “consulted on removing ‘insulting’ from the Act and was considering the responses.” The House of Lords will take a vote on the matter on Wednesday (12 December).