'More likely to extinguish sexual desire' ... Guillaume Apollinaire. Photograph: APIC/Getty
Turkey violated freedom of expression laws and prevented access to Europe's literary heritage when it banned Guillaume Apollinaire's classic French erotic novel The Eleven Thousand Rods, the European court of human rights ruled yesterday.
The court found in favour of Turkish publisher Rahmi Akdaş, who complained to it after he was convicted under the Turkish criminal code "for publishing obscene or immoral material liable to arouse and exploit sexual desire among the population" when he released a Turkish translation of Les onze milles verges (The Eleven Thousand Rods) in 1999. The book details the erotic adventures of the debauched Romanian aristocrat Mony Vibescu and his fellow sybarites, containing graphic scenes of intercourse, sadomasochism, paedophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia and vampirism. It was banned in France until 1970 and Apollinaire himself never claimed authorship, fearing prosecution under France's public obscenity statute.
Akdaş had argued that the book was fiction, that it used techniques such as exaggeration and metaphor, that it contained no violent overtones "and that the humorous and exaggerated nature of the text was more likely to extinguish sexual desire", but the Turkish courts ordered the destruction of all copies of the book and fined the publisher approximately €1,100. An appeals court later quashed the destruction order, but upheld the conviction.
Akdaş subsequently complained to the European Court of Human Rights, saying the ruling violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Strasbourg-based court ruled yesterday that although states can interfere to protect morals, Turkey was wrong to do so in this case as more than a century had elapsed since Les onze milles verges was published. The erotic novel had also been released in many different languages in a number of countries, and had gained literary acclaim, it said, so its ban and Akdaş's conviction "hindered public access to a work belonging to the European literary heritage".
"The heavy fine imposed and the seizure of copies of the book had not been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and had thus not been necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of Article 10. There had therefore been a violation of that provision," the ruling said.
