Time for a second look at laws
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Haziran 15, 2009 00:00
A survey of the male staffers at the Daily News yesterday revealed that all had broken the law. None of us were charged. None of us expect to be. Our crime? We did not wear hats.
Yes, there is still a forgotten law on the books dating to the hat reform of the 1920s, the banning of the "fez" and the westernization of male headgear. At the time, a hat of some kind was pretty much worn by all men. And a law was promulgated that specified the kind that Turkish men should wear in public. The law was not changed, but tastes and conventions did.
Most countries have this dilemma. In Japan for example, it is illegal for journalists to read newspapers out loud in public. This apparently dates to a time when reporters doubled as strolling marketing staff.
It is also illegal to tie a crocodile to a fire hydrant in the American state of Michigan or push a live moose from an airplane in Alaska.
Should America’s legislatures or Japan’s Diet get around to cleaning up the books? Of course, they should. But in the meantime, we don’t expect too many prosecutors to be on the lookout for reporters reading newspapers to passersby or lawyers to be monitoring the creatures tied to fire hydrants.
Which is how we feel about the decision by a prosecutor in the Digor district of provincial Kars who declined to pursue a complaint against three members of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party, or DTP, who made speeches last February in their native language. The local prosecutor, Ömer Tütüncü, argued quite reasonably that at a time when the state TV network is broadcasting in Kurdish 24 hours a day, and state officials have routinely used Kurdish in speeches, the charges were a bit ridiculous.
We agree in theory with Oktay Vural of the National Movement Party, or MHP, that the proper way to get rid of a law Ğ in this case a clause in the Political Parties Law Ğ is to introduce a legal amendment in Parliament and put the matter to a vote. We agree with the concern that when prosecutors begin interpreting the law, this can set dangerous precedents in motion. We certainly do not advocate robbing the Constitutional Court or other high tribunals of their proper place in the administration of justice.
But sometimes common sense must prevail. And in this case it did. The "Digor Criteria" as it has been dubbed by the Turkish media, is a proper decision even it it came about in a less than perfect way.
The government should move quickly to square the law on the books with increasingly common convention. The dilemmas real and implied in this case should also be on the table of the commissions now readying to write a new constitution for Turkey. Perhaps the matter of interpretive authority should be addressed there. While the lawmakers are it, we would also ask that they do something about the hat law as well.
Most countries have this dilemma. In Japan for example, it is illegal for journalists to read newspapers out loud in public. This apparently dates to a time when reporters doubled as strolling marketing staff.
It is also illegal to tie a crocodile to a fire hydrant in the American state of Michigan or push a live moose from an airplane in Alaska.
Should America’s legislatures or Japan’s Diet get around to cleaning up the books? Of course, they should. But in the meantime, we don’t expect too many prosecutors to be on the lookout for reporters reading newspapers to passersby or lawyers to be monitoring the creatures tied to fire hydrants.
Which is how we feel about the decision by a prosecutor in the Digor district of provincial Kars who declined to pursue a complaint against three members of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party, or DTP, who made speeches last February in their native language. The local prosecutor, Ömer Tütüncü, argued quite reasonably that at a time when the state TV network is broadcasting in Kurdish 24 hours a day, and state officials have routinely used Kurdish in speeches, the charges were a bit ridiculous.
We agree in theory with Oktay Vural of the National Movement Party, or MHP, that the proper way to get rid of a law Ğ in this case a clause in the Political Parties Law Ğ is to introduce a legal amendment in Parliament and put the matter to a vote. We agree with the concern that when prosecutors begin interpreting the law, this can set dangerous precedents in motion. We certainly do not advocate robbing the Constitutional Court or other high tribunals of their proper place in the administration of justice.
But sometimes common sense must prevail. And in this case it did. The "Digor Criteria" as it has been dubbed by the Turkish media, is a proper decision even it it came about in a less than perfect way.
The government should move quickly to square the law on the books with increasingly common convention. The dilemmas real and implied in this case should also be on the table of the commissions now readying to write a new constitution for Turkey. Perhaps the matter of interpretive authority should be addressed there. While the lawmakers are it, we would also ask that they do something about the hat law as well.