!ßÈÀ="justify">Orhan Pamuk could have not been put on trial or a better judicial procedure could have been used. Those with a negative reaction towards Pamuk could have controlled themselves and refrained from resorting to violence. The police could have taken better control of the situation. Unfortunately, none of this has been the case.

  Identity-related issues always have the potential to trigger turmoil like this. Three factors combined to create an explosive mixture: Pamuk's “identity-less identity”; the European Union's aggressive identity resulting from their historical prejudices against us; and the Turks' wounded and defensive identity.

  This is not a simple case of freedom of expression. Pamuk is a writer of international renown. And the opinion for which there is an attempt to punish him is not an “ordinary” one. By saying that 1 million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds have been killed, Pamuk meant that Turks have committed genocide against the Armenians and massacred the Kurds. These allegations are embraced by many in the EU. In other words, the EU gives the impression that it is defending the very idea that Pamuk has articulated in the name of freedom of expression.

  Well-versed in the ways of the West, Pamuk says he made that statement with the aim of destroying the Armenian taboo. He makes it sound as if we have a black spot in our history that we try to omit -- until a “hero” comes along to smash that taboo and make us reckon with the “realities” of our past. Then, the “primitive” nationalist segment of society attacks the hero who dares tell the truth and representatives of the “superior” Western civilization rush to protect the hero from his own state and his own people. Well, we have had enough of this!

  The only problem in this drama is that there is no icon in sight this great iconoclast can destroy. Armenian “genocide” books are on sale everywhere in Turkey. Actually, an undersecretary of the Turkish Foreign Ministry already published a book -- 22 years ago -- in which he points out that some 300,000 Armenians might have been killed in 1915. He said it was a big tragedy. So where is the taboo? It is only recently that the killing of nearly 8,000 Bosnians in Srebrenica has come to be considered genocide by the relevant international tribunal. There was no reason for Pamuk to join in the auction to raise the number of casualties on an issue with which he is not familiar. However, since Aristophanes, great writers seem to know about everything under the sun. So why should ours not be the same?

  Yes, there is, indeed, a taboo subject; however, it is not in Turkey. Some European countries have banned “negation” of the Armenian “genocide” despite the fact that the genocide convention says that nobody can be accused of committing genocide in the absence of a verdict by a competent court. In fact, Dogu Perincek was interrogated in Switzerland and Bernard Lewis was convicted in France for saying that the Armenian “genocide” did not happen. One cannot help but wonder why, with this profound sense of the rule of law, they fail to punish the British government as well for “negating” the Armenian “genocide”!

  The awesome EU delegation that was present at Pamuk's trial has issued a threat: “If Pamuk gets convicted, you will not be able to become an EU member.” The EU is a grand civilization project that happens to be punishing expression of any ideas against the Armenian “genocide.” If Turkey joins that project, will it mean that Turkey has risen to a higher level in the realm of freedom of expression?

  Certain Western columnists who fail to become acquainted with Turkey are backing Pamuk, harping on the “dictator state” theme with clichés about Islam and democracy. With the assumption that Pamuk is going to be acquitted, anyway, like the EU they express “deep concern” about Pamuk. When acquittal comes they will be able to present the verdict as a fresh victory for Western civilization. Bravo!

  Some of us have gone beyond ourselves with grief. They say that our image has been marred. Yet our image had already been devastatingly damaged by Western historical racial prejudices. I wonder whether it can be destroyed any further than that. Would our image be really improved if the court had ended with an acquittal at the very first session? It would be better for us not to attach too much value to the views expressed in the West as long as the wheels of the anti-Turkey prejudice-perpetuating mechanisms continue to turn there.

  The “We must not make any mistake because there are those in the West who are looking for a chance to destroy our image,” kind of attitude is not valid. Look at all these EU dignitaries rushing to Turkey on every occasion to display a militant attitude, hurling threats. Are they doing all this for our good? They better try to analyze the motives behind their own behavior as well.

  This cannot go on like this. Let the EU abandon this militant stance. Let them wait for the outcome of the judicial process. Then let them, if they want, criticize in their progress reports or parliamentary resolutions the opening of the case, its progress, the relevant laws and the court's verdict. If, as a result of that, they decide not to admit Turkey into the EU, so be it.

  If such interventions are the norm, then why can't Turkish members of parliament, for example, some 100 of them, be able to observe the trials of Fehriye Erdal or Muslim defendants when charges are brought against them in EU member countries?

  Before this goes too far, the Turkish government should contact the EU and make sure that such scandalous interventions do not occur again. Otherwise, the masses in Turkey, fed up with the identity-less posture of some intellectuals, may take actions of an even graver nature.