Last post I asked whether you saw words as playthings or tools. If written well, I believe they can be both. Poetry and meaning. Lyricism and results. Something that activates, excites and changes behaviour. In some countries, words can still get you thrown in jail; even executed.

When prominent Turkish journalist, Hrant Dink, was assassinated in January last year he was about to go to trial for the sixth time on charges of speaking against his country. Dink was not afraid of making the bold statement that the Turks committed genocide against neighbouring Armenians during 1915 – 1917. His was not a new statement. Armenia has a Genocide Museum… they believe him.

But many of his nationalistic countrymen don’t. Whilst the Turkish government denounced the assassination, it was their endorsed public prosecutor who pursued Dink on charges under Article 301, which allows the punishment of a person who “insults Turkishness.”

The prosecutor’s relentless attacks on Dink surely contributed to his early demise. I find it particularly absurd and bizarre that, after his death, the Turkish government continued to pursue Dink’s family in court, over his words.

Hrant Dink was killed on January 17, 2007. His son Arat was sentenced to a one year suspended prison term on 11 October 2007. This pursuit to the death and beyond the grave, is suppressing any opposing voice in Turkey. It is denying basic human rights to free speech and suppressing any fostering of alternative opinions.

Advocating the removal of Article 301 altogether is a big ask. It is hotly debated locally and internationally. Those pushing to keep it argue that there are at least five other European countries, which have and use a similar law in order to maintain national pride and support local culture: France, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Austria have all been referenced.

However, many of those work within countries less extreme than Turkey. As with anything, Article 301 becomes about interpretation. When that interpretation denies the fundamental principles of humanity: the right to be an individual, to support freedom of expression and to cherish life, then we need stand against it.

ABC’s Foreign Correspondant recently interviewed Asli Erdogan, a leading novelist and friend of Hrant Dink. When asked if she thought writers could afford to stay silent she replied, “I think on the contrary that we have never had that luxury to be silent… these kind of threats are just the number one reason that the writers should speak up.” Whilst looking down the barrel, her final statement inspired me, “Who is going to defend freedom of talk more than the writers and journalists. It is our job.”

When I read their stories I realise my words and actions pale into insignificance when compared with the hardships Dink and his colleagues endure. I love to write and do so from the safety of Australian shores, behind the protection of my laptop. I write on vagaries and for companies selling their wares. My job won’t kill me but for some like Dink, writing for a living becomes writing to the death.

If you would like to protest against such inhumanities, please follow these prompts to call for action against Article 301. This movement is led by International PEN – a fellowship of writers is working together to promote literature and defend the freedom to write. On their website you will find hundreds of stories, many less publicised than Dink’s crimes against freedom in countries as diverse as China, Thailand, Peru and Zimbabwe. Fellow Aussies can join my local, Sydney PEN or any of five Australian PEN centres listed here.  

Have you read or heard anything recently that has inspired you to act beyond the commercial interests of your everyday? Let us know, by posting your comment on this blog. Please forward this post to anyone who may be interested.

Let’s get this conversation started,
Charlotte