Relations with Turkey Articles
PRESIDENT GUL ADMITS STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DINK
MURDER
BIAnet.org
Aug 17 2010
Turkey
President Abdullah Gul accepted the state's responsibility for the
murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Gul said that Dink
died because "necessary precautions" had not been taken prior to
the murder.
Burcin BELGE burcin@bianet.org Ankara - BÄ°A News Center17 August 2010,
Tuesday In an announcement made prior to a state visit to Azerbaijan
on Monday (16 August), President Abdullah Gul said that "necessary
precautions" to prevent the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist
Hrant Dink had not been taken. Gul admitted the responsibility of
the state for the killing of the journalist.
Gul is currently paying an official visit to Baku, the capital of
Azerbaijan. In a press conference at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul held
prior to his departure, Gul stated, "Unfortunately, Hrant Dink died
because the necessary precautions had not been taken".
With Gul's statement, the state's responsibility for the murder of
the then editor-in-chief of the Armenian Agos newspaper was admitted
on the highest level.
Foreign Minister claimed Dink to have "insulted Turkishness" When Dink
had been sentenced to prison on the grounds of his writings, he had
applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). One week later,
on 19 January 2007, he was assassinated. While the case at the ECHR
was still pending, the Dink family opened another trial and raised the
question why the murder had not been prevented. In the defence of the
Turkish government before the ECHR the government had just recently
claimed, "Dink insulted Turkishness, he wrote a hate speech. This kind
of writing incites the public to hatred and creates a public offence".
Pointing to the fact that the person who threatened employees of
the Agos newspaper had been penalized, the government said, ""If it
is agreed that the protection of freedom of thought is a positive
responsibility of the state, then the ideas expressed on a disputable
matter as in the letters sent by this person should also be agreed
on as discussable and these thoughts must be protected as well. It
is however impossible to protect thoughts of hatred".
The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that this defence was a technical
statement based on previous defences. (BB)
[what does this last sentence mean?]
BIAnet.org
Aug 17 2010
Turkey
President Abdullah Gul accepted the state's responsibility for the
murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Gul said that Dink
died because "necessary precautions" had not been taken prior to
the murder.
Burcin BELGE burcin@bianet.org Ankara - BÄ°A News Center17 August 2010,
Tuesday In an announcement made prior to a state visit to Azerbaijan
on Monday (16 August), President Abdullah Gul said that "necessary
precautions" to prevent the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist
Hrant Dink had not been taken. Gul admitted the responsibility of
the state for the killing of the journalist.
Gul is currently paying an official visit to Baku, the capital of
Azerbaijan. In a press conference at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul held
prior to his departure, Gul stated, "Unfortunately, Hrant Dink died
because the necessary precautions had not been taken".
With Gul's statement, the state's responsibility for the murder of
the then editor-in-chief of the Armenian Agos newspaper was admitted
on the highest level.
Foreign Minister claimed Dink to have "insulted Turkishness" When Dink
had been sentenced to prison on the grounds of his writings, he had
applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). One week later,
on 19 January 2007, he was assassinated. While the case at the ECHR
was still pending, the Dink family opened another trial and raised the
question why the murder had not been prevented. In the defence of the
Turkish government before the ECHR the government had just recently
claimed, "Dink insulted Turkishness, he wrote a hate speech. This kind
of writing incites the public to hatred and creates a public offence".
Pointing to the fact that the person who threatened employees of
the Agos newspaper had been penalized, the government said, ""If it
is agreed that the protection of freedom of thought is a positive
responsibility of the state, then the ideas expressed on a disputable
matter as in the letters sent by this person should also be agreed
on as discussable and these thoughts must be protected as well. It
is however impossible to protect thoughts of hatred".
The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that this defence was a technical
statement based on previous defences. (BB)
[what does this last sentence mean?]
ARMENIAN AMERICAN CLAIMS FOR TURKISH COMPENSATION
'LEGALLY INVALID'
news.az
Aug 17 2010
Azerbaijan
Compensation claims from Armenians in the USA for Ottoman-era property
in Turkey are "legally invalid", according to a Turkish historian.
The issue was closed with the payment of $900,000 by Turkey following
an agreement signed by Turkey and the United States in 1934, the head
of Armenian studies at the Turkish Historical Society, Prof Dr Kemal
Cicek, said.
On claims that buildings such as the Cankaya Palace and Erzurum
Congress Building were Armenian properties, Cicek said, "Documents
on the history of the buildings are in the archives of Cankaya Palace.
The issue is over for us."
He said that suits for compensation filed by two Armenians living in
the United States did not stand up.
"These suits are legally invalid, because according to my research,
commissions were established in the United States and Turkey on
Armenian compensation demands during the period between the Treaty of
Lausanne (1923) and 1937. The commissions put an end to these demands
under the international agreement."
news.az
Aug 17 2010
Azerbaijan
Compensation claims from Armenians in the USA for Ottoman-era property
in Turkey are "legally invalid", according to a Turkish historian.
The issue was closed with the payment of $900,000 by Turkey following
an agreement signed by Turkey and the United States in 1934, the head
of Armenian studies at the Turkish Historical Society, Prof Dr Kemal
Cicek, said.
On claims that buildings such as the Cankaya Palace and Erzurum
Congress Building were Armenian properties, Cicek said, "Documents
on the history of the buildings are in the archives of Cankaya Palace.
The issue is over for us."
He said that suits for compensation filed by two Armenians living in
the United States did not stand up.
"These suits are legally invalid, because according to my research,
commissions were established in the United States and Turkey on
Armenian compensation demands during the period between the Treaty of
Lausanne (1923) and 1937. The commissions put an end to these demands
under the international agreement."
Dink Family Demands Eradication of Controversial Turkish Article 301
asbarez
Thursday, August 19th, 2010
ISTANBUL (Huriyet) - The infamous Article 301 will disrupt any sort of
settlement between the Turkish state and the family of murdered
journalist Hrant Dink, according to his brother, Khosrov Dink.
Article 301, which took effect on June of 2005, is a controversial
article of the Turkish Penal Code which makes it illegal to insult
Turkey, the Turkish ethnicity, or any Turkish governmental
institution.
The proposal comes after Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu
expressed regret over the defense that the Turkish state used at the
European Court of Human Rights in which it drew parallels between
Dink's perspectives and Neo-Nazism.
Davutoglu said the defense could not be withdrawn but added that the
state could settle with the victim's family. `The statements of the
foreign minister are important,' said Hosrof Dink.
However, he also said that there could be no deal with the state as
long as Article 301 continues to exist, adding that the article's
abolishment was a `struggle of honor' since his brother was condemned
because of it.
`Hrant wanted to go to the European court to show the injustice of the
sentence he received and to explain that he was not an `enemy of
Turkey. It was the last thing he did before he was murdered.'
Khosrov Dink said that as long as Article 301 could be used to
sentence people, it would be as though his brother is still lying on
the sidewalk that he was shot on.
After Hrant Dink was murdered by an ultranationalist in January 2007;
his body lay on the sidewalk of a busy Istanbul street in what became
a famous image.
The journalist's brother recalled Turkish President Abdullah Gul's
comment that the state had its share of neglect in the assassination,
saying, `We expect the president to mobilize the State Control Board
[DDK] which operates under him.'
Davutoglu spoke on the matter in Kahramanmaras on Wednesday, saying:
`I feel regret for sending a defense to the European Court regarding
the freedom of expression.A defense like this could not have come to
mind. As an intellectual and a minister, I could not come to terms
with this.'
The minister claimed he was against the state confronting citizens in
the matter of freedom of speech at the European court and that he has
ordered his civil servants to not present such cases for his approval.
asbarez
Thursday, August 19th, 2010
ISTANBUL (Huriyet) - The infamous Article 301 will disrupt any sort of
settlement between the Turkish state and the family of murdered
journalist Hrant Dink, according to his brother, Khosrov Dink.
Article 301, which took effect on June of 2005, is a controversial
article of the Turkish Penal Code which makes it illegal to insult
Turkey, the Turkish ethnicity, or any Turkish governmental
institution.
The proposal comes after Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu
expressed regret over the defense that the Turkish state used at the
European Court of Human Rights in which it drew parallels between
Dink's perspectives and Neo-Nazism.
Davutoglu said the defense could not be withdrawn but added that the
state could settle with the victim's family. `The statements of the
foreign minister are important,' said Hosrof Dink.
However, he also said that there could be no deal with the state as
long as Article 301 continues to exist, adding that the article's
abolishment was a `struggle of honor' since his brother was condemned
because of it.
`Hrant wanted to go to the European court to show the injustice of the
sentence he received and to explain that he was not an `enemy of
Turkey. It was the last thing he did before he was murdered.'
Khosrov Dink said that as long as Article 301 could be used to
sentence people, it would be as though his brother is still lying on
the sidewalk that he was shot on.
After Hrant Dink was murdered by an ultranationalist in January 2007;
his body lay on the sidewalk of a busy Istanbul street in what became
a famous image.
The journalist's brother recalled Turkish President Abdullah Gul's
comment that the state had its share of neglect in the assassination,
saying, `We expect the president to mobilize the State Control Board
[DDK] which operates under him.'
Davutoglu spoke on the matter in Kahramanmaras on Wednesday, saying:
`I feel regret for sending a defense to the European Court regarding
the freedom of expression.A defense like this could not have come to
mind. As an intellectual and a minister, I could not come to terms
with this.'
The minister claimed he was against the state confronting citizens in
the matter of freedom of speech at the European court and that he has
ordered his civil servants to not present such cases for his approval.
WEIGHT OF HISTORY: UPHOLDING GENOCIDE STUDY GUIDE
Worcester Telegram
Aug 17 2010
MA
A federal appeals court has ruled that Massachusetts education
officials were within their rights to issue curriculum guidelines
that excluded specific references to materials suggesting the Armenian
genocide did not happen.
The ruling is being hailed by some as a major defeat for those who
would revise history to exonerate the Ottoman Turkish government of
its role in the mass killings of Armenians in the early 20th century;
it is being lamented by others who, whatever their view of that
history may be, believe it marks a loss for First Amendment rights
of free expression.
We believe the ruling was correct, and that neither reaction captures
the subtleties of what the appeals court was saying.
The case began in 1999 when David Driscoll, then state Commissioner of
Education, circulated draft history curriculum guidelines addressing
the study of genocide. After complaints from Turkish groups, officials
added websites and references questioning the Armenian genocide;
following further objections from Armenian groups, most of those
references were dropped before the guidelines were finally issued.
A district court upheld the state~Rs action. Turkish cultural groups
appealed, arguing that their First Amendment rights to ~Sinquire,
teach and learn free from viewpoint discrimination~T had been violated.
The appeals court has now upheld the lower court, finding that states
have considerable discretion in issuing curriculum guidelines, and
noting ~S~E the government~Rs authority to choose viewpoints when
the government itself is speaking.~T
But the critical point to understand is that the court found that
this case simply does not implicate First Amendment rights.
~S~Ethe terms of the Guide,~T the court wrote, ~Sallow teachers to
look beyond it, and its directions to sources with a particular point
of view are not meant to declare other positions out of bounds in
study or discussion ~E~T
The weight of historical fact weighs heavily against the view that
the Ottoman government did not perpetrate a genocide. We believe that
view remains a serious barrier to reconciliation between Turkish and
Armenian populations everywhere.
But this federal court ruling makes clear that Turkish cultural groups
and others remain free to advance their arguments that what happened
to the Armenian people was not a genocide.
Mr. Driscoll~Rs initial wavering on this issue was regrettable,
even if understandable given the intense pressures that attend
this topic. His ultimate decision, however, was sound. The state
guidelines will point students and teachers to solid sources, from
which they will surely learn that this is very contentious history,
indeed. Yet most teachers and students, when viewing the sources with
an open mind, will come to agree with the standard and, we believe,
incontrovertible view that the Armenian genocide is a historical fact.
Worcester Telegram
Aug 17 2010
MA
A federal appeals court has ruled that Massachusetts education
officials were within their rights to issue curriculum guidelines
that excluded specific references to materials suggesting the Armenian
genocide did not happen.
The ruling is being hailed by some as a major defeat for those who
would revise history to exonerate the Ottoman Turkish government of
its role in the mass killings of Armenians in the early 20th century;
it is being lamented by others who, whatever their view of that
history may be, believe it marks a loss for First Amendment rights
of free expression.
We believe the ruling was correct, and that neither reaction captures
the subtleties of what the appeals court was saying.
The case began in 1999 when David Driscoll, then state Commissioner of
Education, circulated draft history curriculum guidelines addressing
the study of genocide. After complaints from Turkish groups, officials
added websites and references questioning the Armenian genocide;
following further objections from Armenian groups, most of those
references were dropped before the guidelines were finally issued.
A district court upheld the state~Rs action. Turkish cultural groups
appealed, arguing that their First Amendment rights to ~Sinquire,
teach and learn free from viewpoint discrimination~T had been violated.
The appeals court has now upheld the lower court, finding that states
have considerable discretion in issuing curriculum guidelines, and
noting ~S~E the government~Rs authority to choose viewpoints when
the government itself is speaking.~T
But the critical point to understand is that the court found that
this case simply does not implicate First Amendment rights.
~S~Ethe terms of the Guide,~T the court wrote, ~Sallow teachers to
look beyond it, and its directions to sources with a particular point
of view are not meant to declare other positions out of bounds in
study or discussion ~E~T
The weight of historical fact weighs heavily against the view that
the Ottoman government did not perpetrate a genocide. We believe that
view remains a serious barrier to reconciliation between Turkish and
Armenian populations everywhere.
But this federal court ruling makes clear that Turkish cultural groups
and others remain free to advance their arguments that what happened
to the Armenian people was not a genocide.
Mr. Driscoll~Rs initial wavering on this issue was regrettable,
even if understandable given the intense pressures that attend
this topic. His ultimate decision, however, was sound. The state
guidelines will point students and teachers to solid sources, from
which they will surely learn that this is very contentious history,
indeed. Yet most teachers and students, when viewing the sources with
an open mind, will come to agree with the standard and, we believe,
incontrovertible view that the Armenian genocide is a historical fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment