Pianist In Turkish Court For Having His Say

[Guest]

Programmatically adventurous pianist and composer Fazil Say has appeared in court in Istanbul charged with inciting hatred and insulting the values of Muslims.

He is being prosecuted over tweets he wrote mocking radical Muslims, in a case which has rekindled concern about religious influence in the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19990943

It's about time that someone from EU, which Turkey is keen to join, has a word in President Abdullah Gül's shell-like regarding non-negotiable human rights as a fundamental necessity of EU membership.

The same person might speak harshly to President Tomislav Nikolić of Serbia after UEFA makes its judgment about the Serbia v England U21 football match this week. Serbia's application for EU membership, started in 2009, appears to be stalled - no bad thing I'd say

[Dave2002]

Would he not now be brought to book also in the UK? Recent cases involving footballers suggest that there are limitations on the right to free speech. It's the tweeting and blogging etc. which seems to be getting people into trouble, and the very public nature of some of their pronouncements.

I don't know what the situation is in the USA. Can anyone still say or write what they want there, or are there likely to be consequences, depending on what one says or writes?

There may also be subtleties. A legal right to do something doesn't mean that one should do X, or that there won't be consequences if one does.

[Pabmusic]

Would he not now be brought to book also in the UK? Recent cases involving footballers suggest that there are limitations on the right to free speech...

We have never had a right to free speech in the UK, not at any time. The right has always been a residual one - we can do anything except what the law says we can't do. The European Convention has some limitations, too. Here it is:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

[french frank]

Whatever the law states (or appears to state), judicial practice will surely reflect national culture. Would FS be charged if he had tweeted comments insulting black people? Or Christians?

[Pabmusic]

Whatever the law states (or appears to state), judicial practice will surely reflect national culture. Would FS be charged if he had tweeted comments insulting black people? Or Christians?

I think the problem in this case (which is in Turkey, and not covered by the ECHR) is that it seems to be at least partly about insulting people's beliefs. Not people, but their religion. Inciting hatred against people is an understandable reason for limiting free speech, and that seems to be involved here, too. Blasphemy - or anything like it, where the 'victim' is not human, but rather a belief-system - should not be.