The weakness in your argument is that one of the persons who declined to stop the Pamuk legal trial (and who berated a 'revisionist' academic conference on the Armenian issue) is the minister of Justice of the ruling party.
Hardline nationalists, whether religiously tinged or otherwise, have pursued Pamuk. But ultimately they are cocking a snoot at the EU for what they see with some justification as its hostility towards Turkey and Turks -- and also more ancient memories of European humiliation of the Ottomans. The nastier Europe is, the nastier these hardliners will become. By the way, one of the controversial cases, that of the novelist and writer Perihan Magden, for criticising military conscription, ended in her acquittal yesterday.
Of course people involved in the Pamuk case were connected to the government. That's not a weakness in my argument at all. The authorities who ultimately decided to drop the charges were not connected to the government?
You are both wrong. Pamuk was taken to court under article 301(which was introduced in September 2004). Under article 301 the minister of Justice has no rights to interfere. According to old penal code, section 159, Prosucution had to ask the the minister of Justice before bringin in the case. In December 2005 the court asked the Ministry, as "the offence" was commited before article 301 introduced, should they obtain the minister's aproval. The minister of Justice replied "yes" and refused to give the aproval and the case was dismissed.
Commenting by HaloScan
