Armenian News... A Topalian... 'GENOCIDE IS BECOMING MORE COMMONPLACE IN THE UK
The following two articles are included to show that the word 'genocide'i
s becoming more commonplace in the UK despite the efforts of Her
Majesty's Government.
Let's see what happens at the Westminster Abbey service.
The substantial articles then follow.
thegaurdian.com
Armenian devil reappears after being erased from centuries-old gospel
Creature removed from manuscript by pious reader can be seen again using hyperspectral imaging, and will go on show as part of Bodleian Library exhibition
Maev Kennedy
14 October 2015
A demon lurking in the corner of a precious 17th-century Armenian gospel has reappeared centuries after he was deliberately scraped from the page by pious readers.
The creature is no longer visible to the naked eye, but once vied with the angel opposite him for the souls being weighed in the balance on judgment day, captured in the superbly illustrated gospel made by the renowned Armenian manuscript scribe, illuminator and theologian, Mesrop of Xizan, almost 400 years ago.
Hidden devil is revealed using hyperspectral imaging processHidden devil is revealed using hyperspectral imaging process. Photograph: Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford
The demon will be revealed again by David Howell, head of conservation research at the Bodleian library in Oxford, using hyperspectral imaging as part of an exhibition of Armenian treasures . Opening on 23 October, it will mark the centenary of the attempted genocide of the Christian minority under the Ottoman empire, which scattered surviving Armenian families and their possessions across the world.
The Bodleian, one of the largest and oldest university libraries in the world, began collecting Armenian manuscripts in the 17th century, but many of the pieces are far older, including an 11th-century manuscript copy of John Chrysostom’s commentaries, and the only known copy of the first book printed in Iran, a book of psalms dating from 1638.
Another item on display, a matchbox-sized prayer book printed in Venice in 1831, has lengthy notes in frequently incorrect Mandarin, written in minute script by a former owner, the orientalist Solomon Caesar Malan who left his collection to the university. On one page he wrote “this is the wrong prayer”.
The exhibition will span more than 2,000 years of Armenian culture. Richard Ovenden, the director of the library, said the exhibition would have many objects of exceptional beauty.
“The Bodleian Libraries is honoured to take part in the commemorations for the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide by helping to share the history and culture of the Armenian people,” Ovenden said.
A crimson silk altar curtain, embroidered in silver thread, was given in 1788 to the monastery of Surb Karapet in Taron, in present-day south-east Turkey. The monastery, founded in the fourth century, was destroyed after 1915.
As well as the spectacular manuscripts, the exhibition will include more humble objects precious to the Armenian families who have loaned them, including photographs and textiles. There is a lace collar that was made in 1890 for a donor’s grandmother, and a tattered copy of a book of mystical poems by Saint Gregory of Narek passed down through generations of the same family and believed to protect the household.
A samovar and a set of coffee cups and saucers – which traditionally were used for telling fortunes from the dregs after the coffee was finished – has been loaned by the Chalvardjian family. The history of the objects illustrates the wandering lives of many Armenians after 1915. They were first used in Cilicia – now southern Turkey – and then brought with the family to Milan, Cairo and then the UK. The samovar was made in Russia, but the cups and saucers completed a circuit, originally made for export in Staffordshire.
telegraph.co.uk
Coruscating image of an unfamiliar culture
At the Bodleian in Oxford, 100 objects tell the story of Armenia's triumph over exile, invasion and worse
24 Oct 2015
The picture is of St John the Evangelist, and the Word of God is descending to his mouth from heaven above. One hand is raised in prayer, the other pointing, with fingers in the position of blessing, towards his scribe, conventionally named Prochorus, who is faithfully writing down the words from his lips.
The Evangelist’s head is surrounded by a golden halo, as we’d expect, but his whole body is enclosed in a shimmering nimbus, as though he were electrified. Above him is a dignified dome, of suitably exotic appearance to English eyes, for this is a manuscript illumination painted by an Armenian in New Julfa, adjoining the city of Isfahan in the middle of Iran.
This is one of 100 objects on show in Oxford in the Bodleian Library’s new exhibition room next to Blackwell’s in the Broad. The objects tell the story of Armenia, and the show’s subtitle is Masterpieces from an Enduring Culture. Armenians have been through a lot and survived, thanks to the closeness with which they embrace their language, religion and families.
I was lucky enough to be shown round by the earnest but humorous Professor of Armenian Studies, Theo Maarten van Lint, its co-curator. Stupendously learned, and at home with medieval cursive Armenian (in its attractive alphabet of 36 letters invented in AD 405), he clearly loves all things Armenian. But the story told by objects calls for no previous knowledge.
The book of Gospels with the glowing image of St John was copied in New Julfa because it was to there that in 1604 the Persian ruler Shah Abbas deported several hundred thousand Armenians, from the wide valley below Mount Ararat. It was not the first or worst catastrophe for the nation.
So it is surprising how open Armenians remained to outside cultural influences. Often, a group afflicted by hostile forces clams up and becomes a closed sect. The Armenians soon made New Julfa a thriving hub, trading diamonds, silk and other precious goods between far Asia, Africa and Europe. They had trading colonies in Lvov, Moldavia, the Crimea, Russia and Constantinople – an Armenian cultural capital in the 18th century.
Rich merchants became patrons of the production of religious manuscripts, as had formerly been the great families, the naxarar, who held strongly independent sway in the mountainous landscape of Armenia.
In one aspect, Armenians did define themselves against other Christian peoples, for in 451 they had not sent bishops to the Council of Chalcedon, which hammered out formulae of orthodox belief about Jesus Christ. From then on the Apostolic Church of Armenia resisted attempts by the Catholics to bring it into their sheepfold. A novel Akabi (1851), written in Turkish with Armenian script, is a love story about an Apostolic and Catholic Armenian.Misunderstandings from Chalcedon were untangled by Karekin I, Catholicos of all Armenians, and Pope John Paul II in 1996. This year (Sacred Mysteries, February 28), Gregory of Narek (951-1003), the great saint of Armenia, was declared a Doctor of the Universal Church by Pope Francis. One of the most poignant objects in the exhibition is an 18th-century copy of Gregory’s famous Book of Lamentation (which Prof van Lint says bears affinities with John Donne). It was kept in the home as a sort of sign of the saint’s abiding presence. Wrapped in textile devoutly, this book was a place for little card holy pictures, and (gathered before the family was driven out during the Ottoman genocide of 1915) a tiny cloth knot containing earth from the homeland of Armenia.
thegaurdian.com
Armenian devil reappears after being erased from centuries-old gospel
Creature removed from manuscript by pious reader can be seen again using hyperspectral imaging, and will go on show as part of Bodleian Library exhibition
Maev Kennedy
14 October 2015
A demon lurking in the corner of a precious 17th-century Armenian gospel has reappeared centuries after he was deliberately scraped from the page by pious readers.
The creature is no longer visible to the naked eye, but once vied with the angel opposite him for the souls being weighed in the balance on judgment day, captured in the superbly illustrated gospel made by the renowned Armenian manuscript scribe, illuminator and theologian, Mesrop of Xizan, almost 400 years ago.
Hidden devil is revealed using hyperspectral imaging processHidden devil is revealed using hyperspectral imaging process. Photograph: Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford
The demon will be revealed again by David Howell, head of conservation research at the Bodleian library in Oxford, using hyperspectral imaging as part of an exhibition of Armenian treasures . Opening on 23 October, it will mark the centenary of the attempted genocide of the Christian minority under the Ottoman empire, which scattered surviving Armenian families and their possessions across the world.
The Bodleian, one of the largest and oldest university libraries in the world, began collecting Armenian manuscripts in the 17th century, but many of the pieces are far older, including an 11th-century manuscript copy of John Chrysostom’s commentaries, and the only known copy of the first book printed in Iran, a book of psalms dating from 1638.
Another item on display, a matchbox-sized prayer book printed in Venice in 1831, has lengthy notes in frequently incorrect Mandarin, written in minute script by a former owner, the orientalist Solomon Caesar Malan who left his collection to the university. On one page he wrote “this is the wrong prayer”.
The exhibition will span more than 2,000 years of Armenian culture. Richard Ovenden, the director of the library, said the exhibition would have many objects of exceptional beauty.
“The Bodleian Libraries is honoured to take part in the commemorations for the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide by helping to share the history and culture of the Armenian people,” Ovenden said.
A crimson silk altar curtain, embroidered in silver thread, was given in 1788 to the monastery of Surb Karapet in Taron, in present-day south-east Turkey. The monastery, founded in the fourth century, was destroyed after 1915.
As well as the spectacular manuscripts, the exhibition will include more humble objects precious to the Armenian families who have loaned them, including photographs and textiles. There is a lace collar that was made in 1890 for a donor’s grandmother, and a tattered copy of a book of mystical poems by Saint Gregory of Narek passed down through generations of the same family and believed to protect the household.
A samovar and a set of coffee cups and saucers – which traditionally were used for telling fortunes from the dregs after the coffee was finished – has been loaned by the Chalvardjian family. The history of the objects illustrates the wandering lives of many Armenians after 1915. They were first used in Cilicia – now southern Turkey – and then brought with the family to Milan, Cairo and then the UK. The samovar was made in Russia, but the cups and saucers completed a circuit, originally made for export in Staffordshire.
telegraph.co.uk
Coruscating image of an unfamiliar culture
At the Bodleian in Oxford, 100 objects tell the story of Armenia's triumph over exile, invasion and worse
24 Oct 2015
The picture is of St John the Evangelist, and the Word of God is descending to his mouth from heaven above. One hand is raised in prayer, the other pointing, with fingers in the position of blessing, towards his scribe, conventionally named Prochorus, who is faithfully writing down the words from his lips.
The Evangelist’s head is surrounded by a golden halo, as we’d expect, but his whole body is enclosed in a shimmering nimbus, as though he were electrified. Above him is a dignified dome, of suitably exotic appearance to English eyes, for this is a manuscript illumination painted by an Armenian in New Julfa, adjoining the city of Isfahan in the middle of Iran.
This is one of 100 objects on show in Oxford in the Bodleian Library’s new exhibition room next to Blackwell’s in the Broad. The objects tell the story of Armenia, and the show’s subtitle is Masterpieces from an Enduring Culture. Armenians have been through a lot and survived, thanks to the closeness with which they embrace their language, religion and families.
I was lucky enough to be shown round by the earnest but humorous Professor of Armenian Studies, Theo Maarten van Lint, its co-curator. Stupendously learned, and at home with medieval cursive Armenian (in its attractive alphabet of 36 letters invented in AD 405), he clearly loves all things Armenian. But the story told by objects calls for no previous knowledge.
The book of Gospels with the glowing image of St John was copied in New Julfa because it was to there that in 1604 the Persian ruler Shah Abbas deported several hundred thousand Armenians, from the wide valley below Mount Ararat. It was not the first or worst catastrophe for the nation.
So it is surprising how open Armenians remained to outside cultural influences. Often, a group afflicted by hostile forces clams up and becomes a closed sect. The Armenians soon made New Julfa a thriving hub, trading diamonds, silk and other precious goods between far Asia, Africa and Europe. They had trading colonies in Lvov, Moldavia, the Crimea, Russia and Constantinople – an Armenian cultural capital in the 18th century.
Rich merchants became patrons of the production of religious manuscripts, as had formerly been the great families, the naxarar, who held strongly independent sway in the mountainous landscape of Armenia.
In one aspect, Armenians did define themselves against other Christian peoples, for in 451 they had not sent bishops to the Council of Chalcedon, which hammered out formulae of orthodox belief about Jesus Christ. From then on the Apostolic Church of Armenia resisted attempts by the Catholics to bring it into their sheepfold. A novel Akabi (1851), written in Turkish with Armenian script, is a love story about an Apostolic and Catholic Armenian.Misunderstandings from Chalcedon were untangled by Karekin I, Catholicos of all Armenians, and Pope John Paul II in 1996. This year (Sacred Mysteries, February 28), Gregory of Narek (951-1003), the great saint of Armenia, was declared a Doctor of the Universal Church by Pope Francis. One of the most poignant objects in the exhibition is an 18th-century copy of Gregory’s famous Book of Lamentation (which Prof van Lint says bears affinities with John Donne). It was kept in the home as a sort of sign of the saint’s abiding presence. Wrapped in textile devoutly, this book was a place for little card holy pictures, and (gathered before the family was driven out during the Ottoman genocide of 1915) a tiny cloth knot containing earth from the homeland of Armenia.
VICTORY OR WHAT?: EXPERTS ARGUE OVER PERINCEK CASE
IMPACT ON CRIMINALIZATION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE DENIAL
27.10.15
By Sara Khojoyan
The year of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide registered
quite a few successes for Armenian diplomacy, but the ruling of the
European Court of Human Rights' (ECHR) Grand Chamber earlier this
month in the "Perincek v. Switzerland" case is not taken by all in
Armenia as "victory".
2015 has seen reaffirmations of the Armenian Genocide by the European
Union, the Pope, the president of Germany, Austria and other countries,
which is seen by observers as an unequivocal triumph of justice on the
year marking the centennial of the mass killings and deportations of
Armenians in Ottoman Turkey. However, for some the ECHR ruling in favor
of a Turkish national denying the Armenian Genocide was a case when
Ankara also "scored its points" in an otherwise defeated situation.
On October 15, the ECHR upheld Armenia's demands in the case where it
acted as a third party. But still it ruled in favor of Dogu Perincek,
a Turk who had described the Armenian Genocide as "an international
lie". Some believe that the case won by Perincek against Switzerland,
where denial of the Armenian Genocide is criminalized, may have a
negative impact on the process in other countries, such as France,
that have been considering making Armenian Genocide denial a crime.
But official Yerevan's position is that despite the overall decision in
favor of the Turkish citizen the ECHR's ruling opens new opportunities
for the Armenian side, because, according to it, from now on Armenians
may raise the question of liability in courts against those who openly
deny the Genocide, thus insulting the Armenian identity.
"The court ruling notes that Armenians can protect their identity. And
the Genocide has had a significant impact on the Armenian identity.
There is almost no Armenian family whose ancestors were not affected
by the Genocide committed against the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
In other words, the court's decision creates an important platform for
Armenian identity protection," international law expert Ara Ghazaryan
said during a meeting at the Media Center in Yerevan on Monday.
The case was sparked by a Swiss court's 2007 conviction of Perincek,
chairman of the Turkish Workers' Party, after he publicly denied the
Armenian Genocide.
The Swiss court then ordered the Turkish politician to pay a fine
after finding him guilty of racial discrimination for his remarks,
which he repeated on several occasions.
After his conviction, Perincek took the case to the ECHR, arguing
that his freedom of speech was infringed. A lower chamber of the ECHR,
ruling in December 2013, rejected the Swiss court's conviction, saying
that the Turk's remarks fell within the boundaries of free speech.
Switzerland appealed that ruling, and the case came before the ECHR's
Grand Chamber this year.
Armenia's purpose in participating in the trial as a third party was to
make sure that the Grand Chamber did not use some of the wording that
was used in the lower chamber's ruling as it could call into question
the very fact of the Armenian Genocide, Armenia's Deputy Minister
of Justice Arman Tatoyan said. According to him, the new decision
stipulates that the court is not competent to give definitions and
estimations regarding the occurrence of genocide, which was very
weakly presented in the previous decision.
However, Chairman of the Helsinki Committee of Armenia Avetik
Ishkhanyan believes that the ECHR decision means Perincek's victory.
"This is a fact. Whatever is said, we see that at the ECHR Perincek's
conviction by the Swiss court was considered as restriction of rights,
and this is a major blow to the process of criminalizing Armenian
Genocide denial," the Armenian human rights activists said.
Yet, as California Courier Publisher Harut Sassounian put it in his
recent article, since 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, "Greece, Cyprus, and Slovakia
also do not need to change their laws on criminalizing denial of the
Armenian Genocide."
The Armenian Weekly
Turkey Rights Groups React to ECHR Ruling on Perincek v. Switzerland
October 21, 2015
ISTANBUL, Turkey (A.W.)—The Human Rights Association of Turkey (HRA) and the Truth Justice and Memory Center—both Turkey-based organizations— on Oct. 16 reacted to the judgment issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the case of Perincek v. Switzerland. The statment criticized the ECHR for failing to take into account the realities in place in Turkey that threaten the livelihood and safety of the Armenian community. Both organizations, along with a third Toronto-based institute, presented a Third-Party Intervention file to the court ahead of the hearing leading up to the contentious Oct. 15 ruling. They further argued that the ECHR ruling “does not invalidate” the arguments proffered in the file.
“The ECHR Grand Chamber’s recent verdict will by no means invalidate the veracity of our warnings that genocide denial cannot be considered solely within Swiss borders and that it will exacerbate threats against the Armenian society in Turkey, including their right to life,” read the statement.
The organizations also noted that the ECHR judgment was based on a “technical point of view,” as a main consideration was geographical—the consequences of Perincek’s statements were assessed strictly within the Swiss context, ignoring the effect they might have on the Armenian community in Turkey.
“Racism against Armenians in Turkey was included neither in the ECHR’s deliberations, nor in the rationale for the ruling,” read the statement.
The organizations also criticized the Turkish media for misrepresenting the verdict. “In certain segments of the Turkish media, both the initial ECHR ruling in favor of Perincek’s freedom of expression and the Grand Chamber’s ruling on Oct. 15 are presented as evidence for the ECHR’s confirmation of the view that there was no Armenian Genocide; in other words, for their claim that the ECHR also denies genocide,” read the statement, adding that “The above constitutes a blatant and intentional distortion, and in fact a lie.”
Finally, the Human Rights Association and the Memory Center vowed to continue their struggle in Turkey to confront the past, struggle against genocide denial, and work towards the restitution of justice.
Below is the statement in its entirety.
***
ECHR’s Ruling on Perincek Does Not Invalidate Our Reasons for Becomıng Intervening Party
In the Oct. 15 hearing, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) pronounced its final ruling on Perincek v. Switzerland, which was a retrial after the appeal to ECHR’s previous decision. According to the ruling, the Grand Chamber found that Dogu Perincek’s declarations impugning the Armenian Genocide are protected under freedom of expression, and concluded that the Court of Lausanne violated clause 10 on freedom of expression of the European Convention on Human Rights, by sentencing Perincek on account of his statements.
Three human rights organizations, the Turkey-based Human Rights Association (HRA), the Truth Justice and Memory Center (the Memory Center), as well as the Toronto-based International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (IIGHRS), appealed to the ECHR in July to present a Third Party Intervention file to the Grand Chamber. After due consideration, the ECHR approved this request.
As the HRA and the Memory Center, whose appeal to make a case was accepted by the ECHR, we declare that the Grand Chamber’s ruling does not invalidate the rationale we presented in our Third Party Intervention file.
The ECHR Grand Chamber’s recent verdict will by no means invalidate the veracity of our warnings that genocide denial cannot be considered solely within Swiss borders and that it will exacerbate threats against the Armenian society in Turkey, including their right to life.
The ECHR Grand Chamber deliberated on the issue from what can be called a technical point of view and asked whether the Swiss court breached clause 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights by convicting Perincek on account of his declarations, concluding that the said events did not constitute incitement to hatred within Swiss borders.
The consequences of the issue outside of Switzerland, especially in the country where the genocide took place, were not taken into consideration. And yet, ECHR decisions are binding throughout the confines of the European Council; they set a precedent. The decision will thus cause problems in the resolution, in accordance with universal human rights laws, of the cases of human rights violations caused by genocide denial in all of these countries, including Turkey.
In certain segments of the Turkish media, both the initial ECHR ruling in favor of Perincek’s freedom of expression and the Grand Chamber’s ruling on Oct. 15 are presented as evidence for the ECHR’s confirmation of the view that there was no Armenian Genocide; in other words, for their claim that the ECHR also denies genocide.
The above constitutes a blatant and intentional distortion, and in fact a lie: blatant, because the Grand Chamber decision has been published, for all to see. In the ruling, this lie is explicitly refuted in paragraph 102 of the section, “The Scope of the Case,” which reads: “ As regards the scope of the case, the Court underlined that it 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 could be characterized as genocide within the meaning of that term under international law; unlike the international criminal courts, it had no authority to make legally binding pronouncements on this point. ” It is clear from this passage that the question of whether the mass deportations and massacres of Ottoman Armenians constitute genocide was left outside the scope of the case.
This prevarication, that the ruling of the ECHR Grand Chamber disproves the “claims” on the Armenian Genocide, is intentional as well as blatant, because it aims to encourage individuals, circles, and even public servants who provoke hatred against the Armenians in Turkey; it seeks to obstruct investigations on such declarations or acts, and to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice.
Most recently, the announcements made through a megaphone by special operations units in Cizre—“You are Armenian. You are all Armenians. You are Armenian bastards.”—clearly demonstrate the connection between the denial of the Armenian Genocide and the current living conditions of the Armenian people, who are deprived of the security of life. As human rights defenders, we witness this connection every single day. The fact that the Armenian people have no security of life in Turkey, a country of denial, is evidenced by the murders of Hrant Dink, Sevag Balikci, and Maritsa Kucuk in Samatya, all of which took place in the last few years. In fact, these cases will most probably be taken to the ECHR, which will in turn have to take into consideration the consequences of genocide denial in Turkey.
The ruling of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR was restricted to a narrow interpretation of clause 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and contented itself with investigating whether Perincek’s pronouncements (worded rather differently than the violent language he uses in Turkey), that “What was done does not constitute genocide,” fall within the scope of freedom of expression. Racism against Armenians in Turkey was included neither in the ECHR’s deliberations, nor in the rationale for the ruling, as also evident in the ECHR press release on the ruling. Furthermore, the decision was reached by 10 votes against 7, which demonstrates the disagreement within the Grand Chamber on the question.
The Human Rights Association and the Memory Center will persevere, independently of the Grand Chamber’s decision, in their efforts to confront the past, expose historical facts, and pave the way for the restitution of justice in Turkey, as well as in their struggle—on the basis of the international law of human rights—against genocide denial, which continues to threaten the lives of and incite hatred against members of the Armenian community in Turkey.
Human Rights Association
Truth Justice Memory Centre
Open Democracy
The European Court of Human Rights violates my rights
Vicken Cheterian
27.10.15
By Sara Khojoyan
The year of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide registered
quite a few successes for Armenian diplomacy, but the ruling of the
European Court of Human Rights' (ECHR) Grand Chamber earlier this
month in the "Perincek v. Switzerland" case is not taken by all in
Armenia as "victory".
2015 has seen reaffirmations of the Armenian Genocide by the European
Union, the Pope, the president of Germany, Austria and other countries,
which is seen by observers as an unequivocal triumph of justice on the
year marking the centennial of the mass killings and deportations of
Armenians in Ottoman Turkey. However, for some the ECHR ruling in favor
of a Turkish national denying the Armenian Genocide was a case when
Ankara also "scored its points" in an otherwise defeated situation.
On October 15, the ECHR upheld Armenia's demands in the case where it
acted as a third party. But still it ruled in favor of Dogu Perincek,
a Turk who had described the Armenian Genocide as "an international
lie". Some believe that the case won by Perincek against Switzerland,
where denial of the Armenian Genocide is criminalized, may have a
negative impact on the process in other countries, such as France,
that have been considering making Armenian Genocide denial a crime.
But official Yerevan's position is that despite the overall decision in
favor of the Turkish citizen the ECHR's ruling opens new opportunities
for the Armenian side, because, according to it, from now on Armenians
may raise the question of liability in courts against those who openly
deny the Genocide, thus insulting the Armenian identity.
"The court ruling notes that Armenians can protect their identity. And
the Genocide has had a significant impact on the Armenian identity.
There is almost no Armenian family whose ancestors were not affected
by the Genocide committed against the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
In other words, the court's decision creates an important platform for
Armenian identity protection," international law expert Ara Ghazaryan
said during a meeting at the Media Center in Yerevan on Monday.
The case was sparked by a Swiss court's 2007 conviction of Perincek,
chairman of the Turkish Workers' Party, after he publicly denied the
Armenian Genocide.
The Swiss court then ordered the Turkish politician to pay a fine
after finding him guilty of racial discrimination for his remarks,
which he repeated on several occasions.
After his conviction, Perincek took the case to the ECHR, arguing
that his freedom of speech was infringed. A lower chamber of the ECHR,
ruling in December 2013, rejected the Swiss court's conviction, saying
that the Turk's remarks fell within the boundaries of free speech.
Switzerland appealed that ruling, and the case came before the ECHR's
Grand Chamber this year.
Armenia's purpose in participating in the trial as a third party was to
make sure that the Grand Chamber did not use some of the wording that
was used in the lower chamber's ruling as it could call into question
the very fact of the Armenian Genocide, Armenia's Deputy Minister
of Justice Arman Tatoyan said. According to him, the new decision
stipulates that the court is not competent to give definitions and
estimations regarding the occurrence of genocide, which was very
weakly presented in the previous decision.
However, Chairman of the Helsinki Committee of Armenia Avetik
Ishkhanyan believes that the ECHR decision means Perincek's victory.
"This is a fact. Whatever is said, we see that at the ECHR Perincek's
conviction by the Swiss court was considered as restriction of rights,
and this is a major blow to the process of criminalizing Armenian
Genocide denial," the Armenian human rights activists said.
Yet, as California Courier Publisher Harut Sassounian put it in his
recent article, since 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, "Greece, Cyprus, and Slovakia
also do not need to change their laws on criminalizing denial of the
Armenian Genocide."
The Armenian Weekly
Turkey Rights Groups React to ECHR Ruling on Perincek v. Switzerland
October 21, 2015
ISTANBUL, Turkey (A.W.)—The Human Rights Association of Turkey (HRA) and the Truth Justice and Memory Center—both Turkey-based organizations— on Oct. 16 reacted to the judgment issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the case of Perincek v. Switzerland. The statment criticized the ECHR for failing to take into account the realities in place in Turkey that threaten the livelihood and safety of the Armenian community. Both organizations, along with a third Toronto-based institute, presented a Third-Party Intervention file to the court ahead of the hearing leading up to the contentious Oct. 15 ruling. They further argued that the ECHR ruling “does not invalidate” the arguments proffered in the file.
“The ECHR Grand Chamber’s recent verdict will by no means invalidate the veracity of our warnings that genocide denial cannot be considered solely within Swiss borders and that it will exacerbate threats against the Armenian society in Turkey, including their right to life,” read the statement.
The organizations also noted that the ECHR judgment was based on a “technical point of view,” as a main consideration was geographical—the consequences of Perincek’s statements were assessed strictly within the Swiss context, ignoring the effect they might have on the Armenian community in Turkey.
“Racism against Armenians in Turkey was included neither in the ECHR’s deliberations, nor in the rationale for the ruling,” read the statement.
The organizations also criticized the Turkish media for misrepresenting the verdict. “In certain segments of the Turkish media, both the initial ECHR ruling in favor of Perincek’s freedom of expression and the Grand Chamber’s ruling on Oct. 15 are presented as evidence for the ECHR’s confirmation of the view that there was no Armenian Genocide; in other words, for their claim that the ECHR also denies genocide,” read the statement, adding that “The above constitutes a blatant and intentional distortion, and in fact a lie.”
Finally, the Human Rights Association and the Memory Center vowed to continue their struggle in Turkey to confront the past, struggle against genocide denial, and work towards the restitution of justice.
Below is the statement in its entirety.
***
ECHR’s Ruling on Perincek Does Not Invalidate Our Reasons for Becomıng Intervening Party
In the Oct. 15 hearing, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) pronounced its final ruling on Perincek v. Switzerland, which was a retrial after the appeal to ECHR’s previous decision. According to the ruling, the Grand Chamber found that Dogu Perincek’s declarations impugning the Armenian Genocide are protected under freedom of expression, and concluded that the Court of Lausanne violated clause 10 on freedom of expression of the European Convention on Human Rights, by sentencing Perincek on account of his statements.
Three human rights organizations, the Turkey-based Human Rights Association (HRA), the Truth Justice and Memory Center (the Memory Center), as well as the Toronto-based International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (IIGHRS), appealed to the ECHR in July to present a Third Party Intervention file to the Grand Chamber. After due consideration, the ECHR approved this request.
As the HRA and the Memory Center, whose appeal to make a case was accepted by the ECHR, we declare that the Grand Chamber’s ruling does not invalidate the rationale we presented in our Third Party Intervention file.
The ECHR Grand Chamber’s recent verdict will by no means invalidate the veracity of our warnings that genocide denial cannot be considered solely within Swiss borders and that it will exacerbate threats against the Armenian society in Turkey, including their right to life.
The ECHR Grand Chamber deliberated on the issue from what can be called a technical point of view and asked whether the Swiss court breached clause 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights by convicting Perincek on account of his declarations, concluding that the said events did not constitute incitement to hatred within Swiss borders.
The consequences of the issue outside of Switzerland, especially in the country where the genocide took place, were not taken into consideration. And yet, ECHR decisions are binding throughout the confines of the European Council; they set a precedent. The decision will thus cause problems in the resolution, in accordance with universal human rights laws, of the cases of human rights violations caused by genocide denial in all of these countries, including Turkey.
In certain segments of the Turkish media, both the initial ECHR ruling in favor of Perincek’s freedom of expression and the Grand Chamber’s ruling on Oct. 15 are presented as evidence for the ECHR’s confirmation of the view that there was no Armenian Genocide; in other words, for their claim that the ECHR also denies genocide.
The above constitutes a blatant and intentional distortion, and in fact a lie: blatant, because the Grand Chamber decision has been published, for all to see. In the ruling, this lie is explicitly refuted in paragraph 102 of the section, “The Scope of the Case,” which reads: “ As regards the scope of the case, the Court underlined that it 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 could be characterized as genocide within the meaning of that term under international law; unlike the international criminal courts, it had no authority to make legally binding pronouncements on this point. ” It is clear from this passage that the question of whether the mass deportations and massacres of Ottoman Armenians constitute genocide was left outside the scope of the case.
This prevarication, that the ruling of the ECHR Grand Chamber disproves the “claims” on the Armenian Genocide, is intentional as well as blatant, because it aims to encourage individuals, circles, and even public servants who provoke hatred against the Armenians in Turkey; it seeks to obstruct investigations on such declarations or acts, and to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice.
Most recently, the announcements made through a megaphone by special operations units in Cizre—“You are Armenian. You are all Armenians. You are Armenian bastards.”—clearly demonstrate the connection between the denial of the Armenian Genocide and the current living conditions of the Armenian people, who are deprived of the security of life. As human rights defenders, we witness this connection every single day. The fact that the Armenian people have no security of life in Turkey, a country of denial, is evidenced by the murders of Hrant Dink, Sevag Balikci, and Maritsa Kucuk in Samatya, all of which took place in the last few years. In fact, these cases will most probably be taken to the ECHR, which will in turn have to take into consideration the consequences of genocide denial in Turkey.
The ruling of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR was restricted to a narrow interpretation of clause 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and contented itself with investigating whether Perincek’s pronouncements (worded rather differently than the violent language he uses in Turkey), that “What was done does not constitute genocide,” fall within the scope of freedom of expression. Racism against Armenians in Turkey was included neither in the ECHR’s deliberations, nor in the rationale for the ruling, as also evident in the ECHR press release on the ruling. Furthermore, the decision was reached by 10 votes against 7, which demonstrates the disagreement within the Grand Chamber on the question.
The Human Rights Association and the Memory Center will persevere, independently of the Grand Chamber’s decision, in their efforts to confront the past, expose historical facts, and pave the way for the restitution of justice in Turkey, as well as in their struggle—on the basis of the international law of human rights—against genocide denial, which continues to threaten the lives of and incite hatred against members of the Armenian community in Turkey.
Human Rights Association
Truth Justice Memory Centre
Open Democracy
The European Court of Human Rights violates my rights
Vicken Cheterian
24 October 2015
The EHCR has upheld the right of the Turkish politician Dogu Perincek
to deny the Armenian genocide. It's a bad decision with dangerous
implications.
On 15 October 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) made a
controversial ruling: Switzerland had violated Dogu Perincek's right
to freedom of speech. Perincek is a Turkish politician who made a
series of provocative speeches in Switzerland saying there was `no
Armenian genocide'; this historical event in the Ottoman empire in
1915 and after was an `imperialist lie'. Swiss courts condemned him
under anti-racist laws. In its decision, the ECHR considered that the
Swiss courts had `censured (Perincek) for having simply expressed an
opinion divergent from those in Switzerland.'
The case of Perincek vs Switzerland concerned whether denial of the
Armenian genocide in Europe would be tolerated or penalised.The ECHR
opted for the former. It said that `it was not required to determine
whether the massacres and mass deportation suffered by the Armenian
people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards could be
characterized as genocide.' Elsewhere the court refers to the genocide
as `tragic events'.
By its decision, the European court has violated my right to justice.
Perincek was using the fundamental right to freedom of expression to
commit a crime; in fact, it was the latest act in a long chain of 100
years of crime without punishment, the negation of genocide. For in
talking about the Armenian genocide, we are not talking about the
past, about history, but about a crime that has continued to take
place. As many scholars have argued, denial is the last stage of
genocide.
I argued in my recent book Open Wounds: Armenians, Turks, and a
Century of Genocide that Turkey's denial of the crime of genocide
allowed it to perpetuate its policy of victimising various groups that
it defined as undesirable: `agents of imperialism' and `minorities'.
That contrast with modern Germany, which has has fully assumed its
inherited responsibility regarding the Holocaust; today, denialism
comes only from marginal groups. Whereas in Turkey, the state
continues to deny its own responsibility.
The impunity given to the Turkish state made it possible to perpetuate
a culture of crime. Those Armenians who had survived the death marches
and the massacres during the first world war continued to be targeted
by the Turkish state; thousands who were able to return home after the
genocide fell victim to Kemalist massacres and new deportations
between 1921 and 1929; thousands of survivors were forced to convert
to Islam; Armenian property was confiscated by the state. The over
2,500 Armenian churches and monasteries were occupied, converted to
warehouses or prisons, or destroyed. Today, only thirty-five Armenian
churches remain in Turkey.
State repression targeted other groups as well: in 1934, pogroms
decimated the Jewish community of Turkey. More pogroms in September
1955 put an end to the Greek presence in Istanbul. Throughout the
Turkish republic, Kurdish identity was denied and Kurdish political
demands were violently repressed, a policy that continues to this day.
In Turkey, many intellectuals, journalists, and scholars suffer from
limitations of freedom of speech. The Turkish authorities harass
hundreds of journalists every year; a single example is the arrest in
early October of Bulent Kenes, the editor-in-chief of Today's Zaman, a
major paper whose editorial line opposed the party in power.
But Perincek himself is no martyr of free speech. When his trial
opened in Lausanne in 2007, he did not go alone: a delegation of 160
people flew with him on a chartered plane, including ex-generals and
politicians. One of the latter was Rauf Denktas, the former president
of the unrecognised republic of Northern Cyprus, the part of the
island under Turkish occupation since the 1974 invasion. In 2009, a
Turkish court convicted Perincek for his association with the
so-called Ergenekon, a secret organisation within the state that was
alleged to be preparing a coup against the elected government.
For a century, survivors of the Armenian genocide and their
descendants have struggled for justice. In 1965 there were massive
demonstrations in Beirut, Paris and Los Angeles demanding both
international recognition of the genocide and reparations. A decade
later, amid general international indifference, Armenian young people
became radicalised and some opted to launch violent attacks. The
decade of terrorism was followed by Armenian diaspora communities in
democratic countries using legal means to obtain recognition. Others
engaged with courts to demand symbolic justice in opposition to
Turkish state denialism. But only by overturning this official
denialism can appeals for real justice proceed.
The European Court of Human Rights' decision concerns not only
descendants of Armenian survivors, but all victims of crimes against
humanity. The court has sent the wrong message, by denying victims and
future generations the possibility of obtaining symbolic redress
through the courts.
If after 100 years I cannot obtain my rights by going to court, I beg
the judges to tell me where to turn to seek justice.
The EHCR has upheld the right of the Turkish politician Dogu Perincek
to deny the Armenian genocide. It's a bad decision with dangerous
implications.
On 15 October 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) made a
controversial ruling: Switzerland had violated Dogu Perincek's right
to freedom of speech. Perincek is a Turkish politician who made a
series of provocative speeches in Switzerland saying there was `no
Armenian genocide'; this historical event in the Ottoman empire in
1915 and after was an `imperialist lie'. Swiss courts condemned him
under anti-racist laws. In its decision, the ECHR considered that the
Swiss courts had `censured (Perincek) for having simply expressed an
opinion divergent from those in Switzerland.'
The case of Perincek vs Switzerland concerned whether denial of the
Armenian genocide in Europe would be tolerated or penalised.The ECHR
opted for the former. It said that `it was not required to determine
whether the massacres and mass deportation suffered by the Armenian
people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards could be
characterized as genocide.' Elsewhere the court refers to the genocide
as `tragic events'.
By its decision, the European court has violated my right to justice.
Perincek was using the fundamental right to freedom of expression to
commit a crime; in fact, it was the latest act in a long chain of 100
years of crime without punishment, the negation of genocide. For in
talking about the Armenian genocide, we are not talking about the
past, about history, but about a crime that has continued to take
place. As many scholars have argued, denial is the last stage of
genocide.
I argued in my recent book Open Wounds: Armenians, Turks, and a
Century of Genocide that Turkey's denial of the crime of genocide
allowed it to perpetuate its policy of victimising various groups that
it defined as undesirable: `agents of imperialism' and `minorities'.
That contrast with modern Germany, which has has fully assumed its
inherited responsibility regarding the Holocaust; today, denialism
comes only from marginal groups. Whereas in Turkey, the state
continues to deny its own responsibility.
The impunity given to the Turkish state made it possible to perpetuate
a culture of crime. Those Armenians who had survived the death marches
and the massacres during the first world war continued to be targeted
by the Turkish state; thousands who were able to return home after the
genocide fell victim to Kemalist massacres and new deportations
between 1921 and 1929; thousands of survivors were forced to convert
to Islam; Armenian property was confiscated by the state. The over
2,500 Armenian churches and monasteries were occupied, converted to
warehouses or prisons, or destroyed. Today, only thirty-five Armenian
churches remain in Turkey.
State repression targeted other groups as well: in 1934, pogroms
decimated the Jewish community of Turkey. More pogroms in September
1955 put an end to the Greek presence in Istanbul. Throughout the
Turkish republic, Kurdish identity was denied and Kurdish political
demands were violently repressed, a policy that continues to this day.
In Turkey, many intellectuals, journalists, and scholars suffer from
limitations of freedom of speech. The Turkish authorities harass
hundreds of journalists every year; a single example is the arrest in
early October of Bulent Kenes, the editor-in-chief of Today's Zaman, a
major paper whose editorial line opposed the party in power.
But Perincek himself is no martyr of free speech. When his trial
opened in Lausanne in 2007, he did not go alone: a delegation of 160
people flew with him on a chartered plane, including ex-generals and
politicians. One of the latter was Rauf Denktas, the former president
of the unrecognised republic of Northern Cyprus, the part of the
island under Turkish occupation since the 1974 invasion. In 2009, a
Turkish court convicted Perincek for his association with the
so-called Ergenekon, a secret organisation within the state that was
alleged to be preparing a coup against the elected government.
For a century, survivors of the Armenian genocide and their
descendants have struggled for justice. In 1965 there were massive
demonstrations in Beirut, Paris and Los Angeles demanding both
international recognition of the genocide and reparations. A decade
later, amid general international indifference, Armenian young people
became radicalised and some opted to launch violent attacks. The
decade of terrorism was followed by Armenian diaspora communities in
democratic countries using legal means to obtain recognition. Others
engaged with courts to demand symbolic justice in opposition to
Turkish state denialism. But only by overturning this official
denialism can appeals for real justice proceed.
The European Court of Human Rights' decision concerns not only
descendants of Armenian survivors, but all victims of crimes against
humanity. The court has sent the wrong message, by denying victims and
future generations the possibility of obtaining symbolic redress
through the courts.
If after 100 years I cannot obtain my rights by going to court, I beg
the judges to tell me where to turn to seek justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment