ARMENIAN NEWS...A TOPALIAN...I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THESE ARTICLES...
New York Times
100 Years Later, a Genocide Haunts the Armenian Psyche
For surviving Armenians and their descendants, the genocide by
Ottoman Turks became a central marker of their identity, the psychic
wounds passed through generations.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2015/04/18/world/europe/100-years-later-a-genocide-haunts-the-armenian-psyche/s/xxx-ARMENIA-slide-45X3.html
Sunday's Zaman, Turkey
Oct 18 2015
Case of principles v. Perinçek: The winner is the ECHR
SAMÄ°M AKGÃ-NÃ`L
We are living in strange days, days in which the three fundamental
principles of the Council of Europe (CoE) -- democracy, human rights
and the rule of law -- are constantly being violated in Turkey.
And the same Turkey, a founder state of the CoE, is becoming a `grand
contributeur' of this institution in charge of protecting and
respecting these three principles. We are living in really strange
days.
Nullifying the results of the most democratic election of the country
where 95 percent of the voting public elected their representatives
violates the simple principles of democracy. The campaign before the
June 7 election was undemocratic and unfairwhat happened
after the election was undemocratic and unfair. But still, the
election itself was the most democratic since the founding of the
republic.
Fundamental human rights are being violated in Turkey every day. If
one observes the period between July 20 -- the Suruç mass murders --
and Oct. 10 -- the Ankara attack -- it is easy to see that the right
to life (Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR]);
the prohibition of torture (Article 3); the right to liberty and
security (Article 5); the right to a fair trial (Article 6); no
punishment without law (Article 7); the right to respect for private
and family life (Article 8); freedom of thought, conscience and
religion (Article 9); freedom of expression (Article 10); freedom of
assembly and association (Article 11); and prohibition of
discrimination (Article 14), etc., are all violated daily, repeatedly
and systematically.
The rule of law principle is violated in a country where the president
himself openly declares he has de facto changed the political system
and it is time to adapt the legal framework to this new situation.
Hypocrisy, in my world, is the worst of the sins. When it comes to
defending its official interests, Turkey instrumentalizes the same
principles, as we saw during the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland,
where the applicant, DoÄ?u Perinçek, accused Switzerland of violating
Article 10 of the ECHR by condemning him due to his denial of the
`genocide' of Armenians in 1915 (Application no. 27510/08).
I think Perinçek is right and the final judgment of the grand chamber
of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of Oct. 10 is one of the
best examples of the defense of the principles (Perinçek v.
Switzerland):
`¦the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:
a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
`The case concerned the criminal conviction of a Turkish politician
for publicly expressing the view, in Switzerland, that the mass
deportations and massacres suffered by the Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire in 1915 and the following years had not amounted to genocide.
`Being aware of the great importance attributed by the Armenian
community to the question whether those mass deportations and
massacres were to be regarded as genocide, the European Court of Human
Rights held that the dignity of the victims and the dignity and
identity of modern-day Armenians were protected by Article 8 (right to
respect for private life) of the convention. The court therefore had
to strike a balance between two convention rights -- the right to
freedom of expression and the right to respect for private life --
taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the
proportionality between the means used and the aim sought to be
achieved.
`The Court concluded that it had not been necessary, in a democratic
society, to subject Mr Perinçek to a criminal penalty in order to
protect the rights of the Armenian community at stake in the case.
`In particular, the Court took into account the following elements: Mr
Perinçek's statements bore on a matter of public interest and did not
amount to a call for hatred or intolerance; the context in which they
were made had not been marked by heightened tensions or special
historical overtones in Switzerland; the statements could not be
regarded as affecting the dignity of the members of the Armenian
community to the point of requiring a criminal law response in
Switzerland; there was no international law obligation for Switzerland
to criminalise such statements; the Swiss courts appeared to have
censured Mr Perinçek simply for voicing an opinion that diverged from
the established ones in Switzerland; and the interference with his
right to freedom of expression had taken the serious form of a
criminal conviction.'
Perinçek and his supporters from all political movements played a
game. And they think they won. They are wrong. The final judgment of
the ECtHR is the victory of principles against hypocrisy. Democrats
and human rights defenders are telling Perinçek: `We claim you are
free to say whatever you want against us. We claim this while clearly
knowing you will never do the same thing in our favor.' This is
because freedom of speech is a principle, an unconditional value.
This is blasphemy and the worst kind because it is hypocritical. It's
the epitome of `symbolic violence' as conceptualized by Pierre
Bourdieu. But nevertheless, just as we defended the right of blasphemy
by Charlie Hebdo, even if we disagreed with the means, we defend your
right to blasphemy. Those who live with their throats slit claim you
have the right to injure them again and again in the name of
principles, coherence and values. Everyone has his way of atoning for
their sins. Ours is to refuse hypocrisy.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2015/04/18/world/europe/100-years-later-a-genocide-haunts-the-armenian-psyche/s/xxx-ARMENIA-slide-45X3.html
Sunday's Zaman, Turkey
Oct 18 2015
Case of principles v. Perinçek: The winner is the ECHR
SAMÄ°M AKGÃ-NÃ`L
We are living in strange days, days in which the three fundamental
principles of the Council of Europe (CoE) -- democracy, human rights
and the rule of law -- are constantly being violated in Turkey.
And the same Turkey, a founder state of the CoE, is becoming a `grand
contributeur' of this institution in charge of protecting and
respecting these three principles. We are living in really strange
days.
Nullifying the results of the most democratic election of the country
where 95 percent of the voting public elected their representatives
violates the simple principles of democracy. The campaign before the
June 7 election was undemocratic and unfairwhat happened
after the election was undemocratic and unfair. But still, the
election itself was the most democratic since the founding of the
republic.
Fundamental human rights are being violated in Turkey every day. If
one observes the period between July 20 -- the Suruç mass murders --
and Oct. 10 -- the Ankara attack -- it is easy to see that the right
to life (Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR]);
the prohibition of torture (Article 3); the right to liberty and
security (Article 5); the right to a fair trial (Article 6); no
punishment without law (Article 7); the right to respect for private
and family life (Article 8); freedom of thought, conscience and
religion (Article 9); freedom of expression (Article 10); freedom of
assembly and association (Article 11); and prohibition of
discrimination (Article 14), etc., are all violated daily, repeatedly
and systematically.
The rule of law principle is violated in a country where the president
himself openly declares he has de facto changed the political system
and it is time to adapt the legal framework to this new situation.
Hypocrisy, in my world, is the worst of the sins. When it comes to
defending its official interests, Turkey instrumentalizes the same
principles, as we saw during the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland,
where the applicant, DoÄ?u Perinçek, accused Switzerland of violating
Article 10 of the ECHR by condemning him due to his denial of the
`genocide' of Armenians in 1915 (Application no. 27510/08).
I think Perinçek is right and the final judgment of the grand chamber
of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of Oct. 10 is one of the
best examples of the defense of the principles (Perinçek v.
Switzerland):
`¦the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:
a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
`The case concerned the criminal conviction of a Turkish politician
for publicly expressing the view, in Switzerland, that the mass
deportations and massacres suffered by the Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire in 1915 and the following years had not amounted to genocide.
`Being aware of the great importance attributed by the Armenian
community to the question whether those mass deportations and
massacres were to be regarded as genocide, the European Court of Human
Rights held that the dignity of the victims and the dignity and
identity of modern-day Armenians were protected by Article 8 (right to
respect for private life) of the convention. The court therefore had
to strike a balance between two convention rights -- the right to
freedom of expression and the right to respect for private life --
taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the
proportionality between the means used and the aim sought to be
achieved.
`The Court concluded that it had not been necessary, in a democratic
society, to subject Mr Perinçek to a criminal penalty in order to
protect the rights of the Armenian community at stake in the case.
`In particular, the Court took into account the following elements: Mr
Perinçek's statements bore on a matter of public interest and did not
amount to a call for hatred or intolerance; the context in which they
were made had not been marked by heightened tensions or special
historical overtones in Switzerland; the statements could not be
regarded as affecting the dignity of the members of the Armenian
community to the point of requiring a criminal law response in
Switzerland; there was no international law obligation for Switzerland
to criminalise such statements; the Swiss courts appeared to have
censured Mr Perinçek simply for voicing an opinion that diverged from
the established ones in Switzerland; and the interference with his
right to freedom of expression had taken the serious form of a
criminal conviction.'
Perinçek and his supporters from all political movements played a
game. And they think they won. They are wrong. The final judgment of
the ECtHR is the victory of principles against hypocrisy. Democrats
and human rights defenders are telling Perinçek: `We claim you are
free to say whatever you want against us. We claim this while clearly
knowing you will never do the same thing in our favor.' This is
because freedom of speech is a principle, an unconditional value.
This is blasphemy and the worst kind because it is hypocritical. It's
the epitome of `symbolic violence' as conceptualized by Pierre
Bourdieu. But nevertheless, just as we defended the right of blasphemy
by Charlie Hebdo, even if we disagreed with the means, we defend your
right to blasphemy. Those who live with their throats slit claim you
have the right to injure them again and again in the name of
principles, coherence and values. Everyone has his way of atoning for
their sins. Ours is to refuse hypocrisy.
EuroTopics, EU
Oct 18 2015
Holocaust not more important than Armenian genocide
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that denying the
Armenian genocide is not an incitement to racial hatred and should
therefore not be punishable by law. With their decision the judges are
making awkward comparisons, the centre-left daily Tages-Anzeiger
complains: "The problem is not so much that a person who denies the
Armenian genocide will now go unpunished. ¦ Far more worrying is
Oct 18 2015
Holocaust not more important than Armenian genocide
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that denying the
Armenian genocide is not an incitement to racial hatred and should
therefore not be punishable by law. With their decision the judges are
making awkward comparisons, the centre-left daily Tages-Anzeiger
complains: "The problem is not so much that a person who denies the
Armenian genocide will now go unpunished. ¦ Far more worrying is
that the ECHR is treating genocides differently. Those who deny the
Holocaust are automatically inciting racial hatred, but those who
Holocaust are automatically inciting racial hatred, but those who
deny the Armenian genocide don't necessarily do so with the
intention of inciting hatred. This distinction is incomprehensible.
Whether the Armenians and Turks will ever reconcile is questionable.
The ECHR's ruling has weakened the position of the minority and
therefore achieved nothing in terms of mediating between the two
peoples."
armradio.am
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ISSUE ON THE AGENDA OF MERKEL
armradio.am
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ISSUE ON THE AGENDA OF MERKEL
-DAVUTOGLU TALKS
19 Oct 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and German Chancellor Angela
Merkel referred to the Armenian Genocide issue at a meeting Sunday,
according to a report posted on the German Government's official
website.
The parties talked about certain issues related to the year 1915
and the resolution pending at the German Bundestag, Davutoglu told
a press conference following the meeting.
Davutolgu reiterated his long-standing view that the issue should
be discussed on an 'academic level' by a commission of historians,
which would include German scholars, inter alia.
"We are ready to provide any assistance in this regard. We want of
course, to reach a historical reconciliation between Turkey and the
Armenia and are ready for any cooperation," Davutoglu said.
Chancellor Merkel, in turn, expressed gratitude for the "offer on the
Armenian-Turkish issue." "I believe we can and will continue our work
intensively," she said.
To Ban Genocide Denial, Court Incites Armenians to Commit Violence
By Harut Sassouian
Publisher, The California Courier
In the case of Dogu Perincek vs. Switzerland, the Grand Chamber of the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sustained in a 10-7 vote the
Turkish politician's right to free expression, finding that Swiss
courts had wrongly convicted him for denying the Armenian Genocide.
More importantly for Armenians, the Grand Chamber contradicted the
Lower Chamber's unwarranted opinion of Dec. 17, 2013, which had
questioned the validity of the Armenian Genocide. On October 15, 2015,
ECHR's Grand Chamber rectified that jurisdictional issue, ruling that
the Court was not required to determine whether the massacres
and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of
the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards can be characterized as genocide
within the meaning of that term under international law, but has no
authority to make legally binding pronouncements, one way or another,
on this point.' This was the judgment of the majority of 10 judges who
ruled in favor of Perincek.
19 Oct 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and German Chancellor Angela
Merkel referred to the Armenian Genocide issue at a meeting Sunday,
according to a report posted on the German Government's official
website.
The parties talked about certain issues related to the year 1915
and the resolution pending at the German Bundestag, Davutoglu told
a press conference following the meeting.
Davutolgu reiterated his long-standing view that the issue should
be discussed on an 'academic level' by a commission of historians,
which would include German scholars, inter alia.
"We are ready to provide any assistance in this regard. We want of
course, to reach a historical reconciliation between Turkey and the
Armenia and are ready for any cooperation," Davutoglu said.
Chancellor Merkel, in turn, expressed gratitude for the "offer on the
Armenian-Turkish issue." "I believe we can and will continue our work
intensively," she said.
To Ban Genocide Denial, Court Incites Armenians to Commit Violence
By Harut Sassouian
Publisher, The California Courier
In the case of Dogu Perincek vs. Switzerland, the Grand Chamber of the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sustained in a 10-7 vote the
Turkish politician's right to free expression, finding that Swiss
courts had wrongly convicted him for denying the Armenian Genocide.
More importantly for Armenians, the Grand Chamber contradicted the
Lower Chamber's unwarranted opinion of Dec. 17, 2013, which had
questioned the validity of the Armenian Genocide. On October 15, 2015,
ECHR's Grand Chamber rectified that jurisdictional issue, ruling that
the Court was not required to determine whether the massacres
and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of
the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards can be characterized as genocide
within the meaning of that term under international law, but has no
authority to make legally binding pronouncements, one way or another,
on this point.' This was the judgment of the majority of 10 judges who
ruled in favor of Perincek.
The remaining seven judges, not only disagreed with the majority's
ruling in support of Perincek, but went on to set the record straight
on the Armenian Genocide: `That the massacres and deportations
suffered by the Armenian people constituted genocide is
self-evident.... The Armenian genocide is a clearly established
historical fact. To deny it is to deny the obvious. But that is not
the question here. The case is not about the historical truth, or the
legal characterization of the events of 1915. The real issue at stake
here is whether it is possible for a State, without overstepping its
margin of appreciation [limited room to maneuver], to make it a
criminal offence to insult the memory of a people that has suffered
genocide. In our view, this is indeed possible,' the seven judges
wrote in their dissenting opinion.
Nevertheless, the Grand Chamber still reached some unwarranted
conclusions that defy logic and common sense. The majority of the
judges advanced the meaningless argument that since 90 years had
passed between Perincek's statements and `the tragic events' of 1915,
there was no need for Switzerland to regulate his speech. Supposedly,
the passage of time had made his denial less traumatic on
Armenians. As the dissenting seven judges pointed out, the majority's
position violates `the principle that statutory limitations are not
applicable to war crimes and crimes against humanity.'
The majority of the judges also put forward a questionable argument to
justify why denying the Holocaust was a crime, and not a violation of
freedom of expression. They considered Holocaust denial an
`antidemocratic ideology' and `anti-Semitism,' whereas they claimed
that Perincek's denial of the Armenian Genocide did not result `in
serious friction between Armenians and Turks' in
Switzerland. Furthermore, while asserting that there was a direct link
between Holocaust denial and many of the European `States which had
experienced the Nazi horrors,' they found no such link between
Switzerland and the Armenian Genocide.
There are several problems in the Judges preceding arguments:
-- There should not be a double standard in dealing with denial of any
genocide. If denial of the Holocaust is a crime, so should the denial
of other genocides. The preferential treatment of victims of certain
genocides, but not others, is shameful and disgraceful. As editor of a
newspaper in the United States, I naturally support the highly
protective American notion of freedom of expression rather than the
European model of a more restrictive freedom of speech. However,
regardless of which legal system one adheres to, discrimination among
genocide victims is not acceptable.
Majority of the judges repeatedly claimed that since Perincek's
denial did not result in causing public disorder by the Armenian
community, Swiss courts should not have convicted him. Ironically, by
making such a dangerous assertion, the Grand Chamber is actually
inciting Armenians to resort to violence to satisfy the Court's
requirement that genocide denial could only be criminalized if it is
followed by some sort of violent reaction. Since Swiss-Armenians acted
in a civilized manner by calling the police and filing a lawsuit
instead of bashing Perincek's head, they are now being told that their
legal claim is invalid because they did not cause a public
disturbance!
It is historically wrong to state that there was no link between
Switzerland and the Armenian Genocide. Over 400,000 Swiss citizens
signed a petition in 1890's to protest the Hamidian massacres. Swiss
missionaries saved countless orphans during the Genocide and helped
provide new homes for them in Switzerland.
Fortunately, the Grand Chamber did not require Switzerland to amend
its laws on genocide denial, implying that the law was simply
misapplied in Perincek's case. Therefore, Greece, Cyprus, and Slovakia
also do not need to change their laws on criminalizing denial of the
Armenian Genocide.
Thankfully, the Court rejected Perincek's claim that he is entitled to
135,000 euros ($142,000) in damages and court costs.
International lawyers Geoffrey Robertson and Amal Clooney, and
Armenia's Prosecutor General Gevork Kostanyan should be commended for
their exceptional efforts in representing Armenia in Court and
defending the truth of the Armenian Genocide.
No comments:
Post a Comment