Turkish Pianist Fazil Say Shouldn't Have Received Jail Term for Anti-Islamic Tweets

Today, I want to show the reason why this decision is against the Turkish Penal Code and European Convention of Human Rights. I plan to give the reasons why it's morally wrong on the third round and the fourth will be for the summary. Let's remember the tweets first: a."I am not sure if you have also realized it, but all the pricks, low-lives, buffoons, thieves, jesters, they are all Allahists" (a retweet from another user) (1) b. "You say rivers of wine flow in heaven, is heaven a tavern to you? You say two huris [companions] await each believer there, is heaven a brothel to you?" (a poem of Omer Khayyam, 11th century Persian poet) (2) c. Why such haste? Have you got a mistress waiting or a raki on the table? (3) The Turkish Penal Code states: 1- Any person who openly provokes a group of people belonging to different social class, religion, race, sect, or coming from another origin, to be rancorous or hostile against another group, is punished with imprisonment from one year to three years in case of such act causes risk from the aspect of public safety. 2- Any person who openly humiliates another person just because he belongs to different social class, religion, race, sect, or comes from another origin, is punished with imprisonment from six months to one year. 3-Any person who openly disrespects the religious belief of group is punished with imprisonment from six months to one year if such act causes potential risk for public peace. (4) The prosecutor mentioned that this decision was based on the third clause. According to the European Convention of Human Rights, which we must consider too as Turkey ratified it in 1954 (5), freedom to manifest one"s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others (6). This statement is similar to the Turkish Penal Code, as it restrains the freedom of manifesting other religions, if it's in a way which causes risk of public order. What this debate is going to be about is clearly that what the boundaries of "risk of public order" are. There is not a certain definition of this risk. We can only define public order. The United Kingdom Foreign has defined "public order" as a condition characterized by the absence of widespread criminal and political violence, such as kidnapping, murder, riots, arson, and intimidation against targeted groups or individuals (7). It's clear that some very little amounts of risks are not included within. Because any idea can disturb someone and cause violence among the public. If we included every little damage as "risk of public order", no peripheral idea would be allowed, which would definitely handicap the debatability of subjects and freedom of thought. The European Convention of Human Rights glosses this situation as it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society". This means, amongst other things, that every "formality", "condition", "restriction" or "penalty" imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (8). If we lead back to the subject, there hasn't been any concrete risk of public order. In the first paragraph of the 8th page of the full decision, which isn"t translated into English so I have to show the Turkish one, (9) the risk of public peace is openly considered as the abstract risk of the public order, which actually refers to the people who are disturbed by these tweets. However, this "abstract risk" isn't expounded enough and can't be considered as such a vital situation as it's obvious that a tweet/ three tweets won't cause any violence in public. Lots of Twitter accounts post tons of insult and blasphemy including tweets every day, which don't cause any violence, but only disturb or shock some people. They are all ensured by the European Convention of Human Rights, as it's a matter of democracy to debate some topics and sometimes in a blunt way. Besides, one of these tweets (marked as "a" at the beginning) doesn't belong to him. He has retweeted it and even if these tweet was too dangerous for the public, he shouldn't have been responsible of it. To sum up, I wrote the translations of the tweets one more time, then I mentioned the relevant laws and principles to the topic, I found a definition to "public order" and explained the boundaries of it quoting a principle of European Convention of Human Rights, then proved that the case doesn't have anything against these boundaries. At the next round, I'll analyse the tweets and generally the case and explain why the decision is morally wrong. Thank you, good luck. :-) Sources: (1) http://www.globalpost.com... (2) http://www.guardian.co.uk... (3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (4) http://legislationline.org... (5) http://www.echr.coe.int... (6) http://www.echr.coe.int...(2005).pdf (7) 236. UK FCO, Police Personnel, 2007. (8) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int...#{"itemid":["001-57499"]} (9) http://arsivlemesemolmazdi.blogspot.com...