The and of Obscenity: Rise of the European Literary Heritage - Akdaş V. Turkey

Müstehcenliğin Sonu: Avrupa Edebi Mirasının Yükselişi - Akdaş / Türkiye

Türker ERTAŞ

Akdaş v. Turkey, held by the European Court of Human Rights, is about an interesting and crucial new freedom of expression case. In this case, the Court was called upon to render a decision on a novel. However it came up with the fact that this was not just a novel, but something more afterwards. According to that case if a literary work becomes part of the it will be a violation of Article 10 forbidding its publication regardless of its offensiveness to local sensibilities..

Actually, no one could imagine that it was a beginning of a process which would be complemented with a significant departure among its former kind when the applicant (Rahmi Akdaş) published a Turkish translation of the well known novel by French writer Guillaume Apollinaire, which contains graphic descriptions of scenes of sexual intercourse, with various practices such as sadomasochism or vampirism. Mr. Akdaş was convicted under Criminal Code for publishing obscene or immoral material liable to arouse and exploit sexual desire among the population. The seizure and destruction of all copies of the book was ordered, also he was given a heavy fine. Afterwards Court of Cassation quashed the part of the judgement concerning the the order to destroy copies of the book, in view of legislative amendment, but upheld the reminder of the judgement. The case was considered by the Second Section of Court of Human Rights thereafter due to application of Mr. Akdaş.

Despite the fact that just like in Handyside v. UK, Court emphasized that, the requirements of morals varied from time to time and from place to place, even within the same State, therefore the national authorities are in a better position than the international judge to pass judgement on the case in point; the Court indicated that, that situation cannot go so far as to prevent public access in a particular language, in this case Turkish, to a work which forms part of the European Literary Heritage.

In this study I am going to try to find out why the Court made such a unique decision by examining how clear the borders of the concept of European Literary Heritage and what kind of an effect that notion itself has in the way of protecting public morality. I am going to figure out the underlying reasons because of which Court took another path as well by comparing and clarifying the tendencies of Court in similar cases named Handyside v. UK and Muller and The Others v. Switzerland and conclude study with several criticisms and suggestions related to that decision of the Court and the implementation of Article 10 in the name of protecting public morality.

Obscenity, Public Morality, Freedom of Expression, Literary Heritage, Art.

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin ifade özgürlüğü kapsamında vermiş olduğu Akdaş/Türkiye kararı ilginç ve önemli içeriği ile karşımıza çıkmakta olup, bu davada Strasbourg Mahkemesi başlangıçta her ne kadar bir roman hakkında karar verecek gibi görünse de daha sonra bunun sadece bir roman davası değil, daha fazlası olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Mahkeme’nin kararı uyarınca eğer bir eser nın parçası ise, bunun yayınlanmasını yasaklamak esere karşı yerel hassasiyetler ne olursa olsun Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi m. 10’un ihlalini oluşturacaktır.

Aslında yayıncı Rahmi Akdaş, yazar Guillaume Apollinaire’in cinsel içerikli tasvirler içeren dünyaca ünlü romanı ’in Türkçe çevirisini yayınladığında hiç kimse bu durumun AİHM’nin müstehcenlik içtihatında yeni bir kavramı benimseyeceği bir sürecin başlangıcı olacağını düşünemezdi. Yayıncı Akdaş, 765 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu’nun 426/1 ve 427/2 maddeleri uyarınca müstehcen içerikli materyal yayınlamaktan ötürü suçlu bulunup ağır para cezasına çarptırılmış; kitabın nüshalarının da müsadere ve imha edilmesine karar verilmiştir. Yargıtay, hükmün kitabın nüshalarının imhası ile ilgili kısmını 765 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu’nun 427/2. maddesine 2003 yılında yapılan değişikliği göz önüne alarak bozmuş, geri kalan kısmını ise onamıştır. Bunun üzerine yayıncı, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’ne başvurmuştur.

Her ne kadar Strasbourg Mahkemesi, Handyside/Birleşik Krallık Kararı’nda da belirttiği gibi ahlaki gerekliliklerin zamandan zamana ve mekandan mekana hatta aynı ülke içerisinde değişmekte olduğunu ve bu sebepten dolayı ahlakın korunması adına yapılacak kısıtlamaların gerekliliği konusunda ulusal otoritelerin uluslararası otoritelerden daha iyi karar verecek durumda olduğunu vurgulamış olsa da bu durumun, kamunun Avrupa Edebi Mirası’na dahil olan bir yapıta kendi dilinde, ki bu durumda Türkçe; ulaşmasının engellenmesi anlamına gelemeyeceğinin altını çizmiştir.

Bu çalışma, Avrupa Edebi Mirası kavramının sınırları ve bu kavramın ahlakın korunması amacı olgusu içerisindeki yeri çerçevesinde AİHS’nin altına imzasını attığı bu özgün kararın sebep ve gerekçelerini tartışmaya ve anlamaya yöneliktir. Ayrıca AİHS’nin bu şekilde bir kavram oluşturarak farklı bir yolu tercih etmesinin nedenleri, Mahkeme’nin konuyla ilgili olan Handyside/Birleşik Krallık ve Müller ve Diğerleri/İsviçre Davaları’nda göstermiş olduğu tutumu ve yaklaşımı da göz önüne alınarak irdelenecektir. Nihayet, kararla bağlantılı olarak AİHS’nin 10. maddesinde belirtilen ifade özgürlüğü kapsamında ahlakın korunması ve müstehcenlik hususunda eleştiri ve önerilere yer verilerek çalışma sonlandırılacaktır.

Müstehcenlik, Genel Ahlak, İfade Özgürlüğü, Edebi Miras, Sanat.

Examples of censorship of literature on the grounds of obscenity in the way of protecting public morality have always been an interesting and important case. In the case, Akdas v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights was called upon to render a decision on a novel. However, it came up with the fact that this was not just a novel, but something more afterwards¹. According the Court when a literary work becomes part of the ‘’ European Literary Heritage’’ it will be a violation of Article 10 forbidding its publication regardless of offensiveness to local sensibilities².

All process began when the applicant publisher Rahmi Akdaş, published a Turkish translation of a well known novel Eleven Thousand Roads (Onbir bin Kırbaç in Turkish) by a French writer Guillaume Apollinaire, which contains graphic description scenes of sexual intercourse with various practices such as sadomasochism or vampirism. Mr. Akdaş was convicted under Criminal Code for publishing obscene or immoral material liable to arouse and exploit sexual desire among the population³. The seizure and destruction of all copies of the book was ordered, also he was given a heavy fine – a fine that may be converted into days of imprisonment – of 684.000.000 Turkish liras. Afterwards, Court of Cassation quashed the part of the judgement concerning the order to destroy copies of the book, in view of a 2003 legislative amendment, but upheld the remainder of the judgement. According to the applicant the book was a work of fiction, using literary techniques such as exaggeration or metaphor and that the postface to the edition in question was written by specialists in literary analysis. He also indicated that the book did not contain any violent overtunes and that the humorous and exaggerated nature of the text was more likely to extinguish sexual desire⁴.

Mr. Akdaş was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights ultimately and the case was considered by the Second Section of the Court. After stating that the application was admissible under the Article 35⁵, the court emphasized that there had been interference, that it had been prescribed by the law and that it had pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of morals. According to the Court, there was only remained to find out if the interference was necessary in a democratic society by taking into consideration previous examples⁶.