Tweet
Denial of Armenian Genocide in Yerevan
Stepan Sargsyan
tp://blog.ararat-center.org/?p=375
`ARAR AT' Center for Strategic Research
An unprecedented case is being tried in the Armenian courts. For the
first time ever a lawsuit against the denial of the Armenian Genocide
within Armenia has been brought against an Armenian non-governmental
organization. The `ARARAT' Center for Strategic Research is suing the
Yerevan-based `Caucasus Institute' Foundation for publishing a book
that contains an explicit denial of the Armenian Genocide. That a
Yerevan-based Armenian organization would think of publishing
denialist material is shocking enough. Yet, even more troubling is the
handling of this case by the Armenian courts, which have implied that
it is permissible to publicly deny the Armenian Genocide in Armenia.
According to the court case filed by the `ARARAT' Center, the
`Caucasus Institute' published a book in Yerevan in 2008 entitled
`Caucasus Neighborhood: Turkey and The South Caucasus,' which also
includes an article by a Turkish expert, Aybars Görgülü. In the said
article the author disputes the historical fact of the Armenian
Genocide committed in the Ottoman Empire and Western Armenia in
1893-1923 by using explicit statements and enclosing the word genocide
in quotation marks. In one passage of the article we read the
following:
`Turkey felt aggrieved that Armenia accused Ottoman Turkey of having
committed a genocide about which serious doubts remain and intense
discussion is still going on.'
In his article Görgülü also uses the expressions ``genocide' claims'
and ``genocide' allegations' numerous times as he decries the
international recognitions of the Armenian Genocide:
`On the other hand, even the EP, let alone the parliaments of leading
EU member countries such as Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Italy
and Netherlands, adopted the `genocide' allegations.'
So why would any self-respecting Armenian think of publishing this
pseudo-academic regurgitation of the Turkish denialist propaganda in
Yerevan? According to the director of the `Caucasus Institute'
Alexander Iskandaryan, those in Armenia must know what their neighbors
think. Mr. Iskandaryan must be reminded that the Diaspora's
decades-long familiarity and ongoing reintroduction to these Turkish
`viewpoints' have cost the Diaspora Armenians millions of dollars in
various education initiatives on genocide prevention, denial
interdiction and efforts to counter campaigns of outright political
lobbying by Turkey's denialist allies. Perhaps the director of the
`Caucasus Institute' thinks that the Diaspora should not be the only
theater of the denialist Turkish propaganda war and their brethren in
Armenia should also savor the taste of this `Turkish delight'? In that
case, Mr. Iskandaryan should also communicate his `progressive' ideas
regarding this matter to the Israelis so that they too publish the
viewpoints of the Nazi henchmen and the Ahmedinejads of this world on
the Holocaust.
Asked to Publicly Retract Statement
These same thoughts must also have baffled the director of the
`ARARAT' Center Armen Ayvazyan, who has requested that the court
compel the `Caucasus Institute' to publicly retract the false
statements found in this book, prohibit any further use of the word
genocide in quotation marks, and further dissemination of all copies
of the book as well as order the payment of a symbolic one Armenian
Dram for moral damage.
The outcome of this court case directly affects the national security
of Armenia, because denial, as unanimously acknowledged by lawyers and
genocide scholars, is the continuation of genocide. Here is what the
`Genocide Watch', a well-respected international organization focusing
on the problem of genocide, states regarding this matter:
`Denial is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is
among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The
response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or
national courts.'
A similar view is expressed by the President of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars Gregory Stanton:
`Denial is the final stage of genocide. It is a continuing attempt to
destroy the victim group psychologically and culturally, to deny its
members even the memory of the murders of their relatives. That is
what the Turkish government today is doing to Armenians around the
world.'
As a logical consequence of this view, genocide denial has been
criminalized in a number of countries. For example:
In 2007 the Court of Lausanne of Switzerland sentenced the leader of
the Party of Turkish Workers Dogu Perinchek to 90 days of provisional
imprisonment and sentenced him to pay 3000 Swiss francs, because he
had been found guilty of publicly denying the Armenian Genocide.
In 1995 a French Court ordered Bernard Lewis to pay moral damages for
denying the Armenian Genocide in the Le Monde newspaper and publish a
retraction of his statement.
As renowned philosopher Bernard-Henry Levi states, `... Deniers are not
merely expressing an opinion; they are perpetrating a crime.' Clearly,
Alexander Iskandaryan has not read this quote; otherwise, he would
know to distinguish valid scientific discussion from criminal
propaganda. The lawsuit brought by the ARARAT Center for Strategic
Research outlines how this offense directly damages vital national
security interests of the Republic of Armenia, in particular:
The denial of the Armenian Genocide is the continuation and integral
part of the genocidal policy adopted by Turkey against the Armenians;
i.e. it is implemented within the framework of a long-term general
plan to ultimately destroy the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian
nation and is an explicit and dangerous hostile act against vital
interests of Armenia.
By denying the Armenian Genocide, Turkey is trying to kill the
historical memory of Armenians, deprive them from the political
experience achieved at an ineffable and immense price and prevent the
authorities of the Republic of Armenia from adopting correct strategic
decisions in foreign policy and, in particular, in her policy towards
Turkey.
The denial of the Armenian Genocide is aimed at the ratification and
legalization of the consequences of the Genocide, particularly,
expropriation and deportation of Armenians from their homes, as well
as the colonization of the cultural heritage of the Armenian people by
the Turks.
By denying the Armenian Genocide Turkey maligns the Republic of
Armenia and the whole Armenian nation, impertinently accusing them of
propagating lies, racial enmity and hatred. Thus, Turkey and its
servants compromise the Republic of Armenia at the international
level, insult the honor and the national dignity of the whole Armenian
nation.
Considering that denial is the continuation of genocide, given the
existence of legal precedents of prosecuting genocide denial in
foreign courts and the obvious threats that the denial of the Armenian
Genocide poses to Armenia's national security, one would assume that
this case would have been a no-brainer for the Armenian courts. Yet,
this has not been the case. At every stage of the process this case
has been met with challenges and impediments.
The Court Said That There Was Not Enough Evidence
After accepting the case for trial in the Armenian court system, the
Court of First Instance determined in December of 2009 that there was
not enough legal basis for trying the case, thus, denying the
plaintiff his right to a fair trial. Specifically, Judge Karine
Petrosyan ruled that the use of the word genocide in quotation marks
does not constitute a matter of dispute and, consequently, the case
must be dismissed. First, one wonders why the case was accepted for
trial if there was no dispute to start with. Second, perhaps we should
address Karine Petrosyan henceforth as `Honorable' Judge, or Honorable
`Judge', or both, since her ruling implies that it is not offensive.
Furthermore, what the `Judge' missed is the fact that the case did not
reside solely on the objection to the use of the word genocide in
quotation marks, but it also challenged explicit denial of the
Armenian Genocide, as quoted above. It must also be noted that this
`Judge' had also failed to name the appropriate body that has the
authority to hear this case, as is mandated by the Armenian law in
instances when the court is not the appropriate venue. This and other
glaring omissions by the Court of First Instance formed the basis for
`ARARAT' Center's appeal to the Court of Appeal. Unfortunately, the
Armenian Court of Appeal could not see the gaping holes in the
decision of the Court of First Instance and in March of 2010 upheld
the latter's decision. According to Armen Ayvazyan, the `ARARAT'
Center is going to appeal to the final authority, Armenia's Court of
Cessation, and, if necessary, go all the way to the European Court of
Human Rights.
Something Is Seriously Wrong With the Entire Armenian Legal System
Let us stand back for a moment and try to grasp the reality: the
Armenian Genocide has been denied in Armenia and the Armenian courts
of justice have only condoned this denial by their posture. If denial
can take place thanks to a mere legal technicality, then something is
seriously wrong with the entire Armenian legal system. Clearly, the
sloppy and incompetent manner in which this case was handled by the
Armenian courts also betrays the political meddling of Armenian
authorities in these Judges' decisions. Some senior officials, such as
the head of the National Assembly's Commission on State and Legal
Affairs Davit Harutyunyan, were so brazen as to claim that
strengthening the punishment of the denial of the Armenian Genocide in
Armenia will harm the ongoing Turkish-Armenian negotiations. As a
result, now a legal precedent that encourages the blatant denial of
the Armenian Genocide in Armenia is being forged.
The Diaspora spends millions around the world combating genocide
denial, forcing major publications to overturn their policy of using
`so-called genocide' or enclosing the word genocide in quotation
marks. What is the value of that effort if the Armenian Genocide can
be openly denied in Yerevan and an Armenian Judge may say that the
word genocide may be used in quotation marks? Wouldn't the editors of
The Economist refer to this ruling in Armenia to justify their refusal
to drop quotation marks or call the Armenian Genocide by its name? As
if emboldened by this impunity, the `Caucasus Institute' invited the
very same author who had written this article to Yerevan. Only 2 weeks
after the decision of the Court of First Instance genocide denier
Aybars Görgülü arrived in Yerevan to participate in a seminar behind
closed doors. What's more, the head of Yerevan's Armenian Genocide
Museum-Institute Hayk Demoyan attended the same seminar. One wonders
what Mr. Demoyan discussed with a genocide denier behind closed doors.
Perhaps, the `Caucasus Institute' and Alexander Iskandaryan next will
invite the infamous Justin McCarthy during the centennial of the
Armenian Genocide to be the key-note speaker at an event commemorating
the `Armenian-Turkish Mutual Massacres of 1915' attended by Yerevan's
ultra-progressive beau monde. If we do not want to witness this, we
all should ensure that this seminal case reaches its successful
conclusion.
Stepan Sargsyan
tp://blog.ararat-center.org/?p=375
`ARAR AT' Center for Strategic Research
An unprecedented case is being tried in the Armenian courts. For the
first time ever a lawsuit against the denial of the Armenian Genocide
within Armenia has been brought against an Armenian non-governmental
organization. The `ARARAT' Center for Strategic Research is suing the
Yerevan-based `Caucasus Institute' Foundation for publishing a book
that contains an explicit denial of the Armenian Genocide. That a
Yerevan-based Armenian organization would think of publishing
denialist material is shocking enough. Yet, even more troubling is the
handling of this case by the Armenian courts, which have implied that
it is permissible to publicly deny the Armenian Genocide in Armenia.
According to the court case filed by the `ARARAT' Center, the
`Caucasus Institute' published a book in Yerevan in 2008 entitled
`Caucasus Neighborhood: Turkey and The South Caucasus,' which also
includes an article by a Turkish expert, Aybars Görgülü. In the said
article the author disputes the historical fact of the Armenian
Genocide committed in the Ottoman Empire and Western Armenia in
1893-1923 by using explicit statements and enclosing the word genocide
in quotation marks. In one passage of the article we read the
following:
`Turkey felt aggrieved that Armenia accused Ottoman Turkey of having
committed a genocide about which serious doubts remain and intense
discussion is still going on.'
In his article Görgülü also uses the expressions ``genocide' claims'
and ``genocide' allegations' numerous times as he decries the
international recognitions of the Armenian Genocide:
`On the other hand, even the EP, let alone the parliaments of leading
EU member countries such as Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Italy
and Netherlands, adopted the `genocide' allegations.'
So why would any self-respecting Armenian think of publishing this
pseudo-academic regurgitation of the Turkish denialist propaganda in
Yerevan? According to the director of the `Caucasus Institute'
Alexander Iskandaryan, those in Armenia must know what their neighbors
think. Mr. Iskandaryan must be reminded that the Diaspora's
decades-long familiarity and ongoing reintroduction to these Turkish
`viewpoints' have cost the Diaspora Armenians millions of dollars in
various education initiatives on genocide prevention, denial
interdiction and efforts to counter campaigns of outright political
lobbying by Turkey's denialist allies. Perhaps the director of the
`Caucasus Institute' thinks that the Diaspora should not be the only
theater of the denialist Turkish propaganda war and their brethren in
Armenia should also savor the taste of this `Turkish delight'? In that
case, Mr. Iskandaryan should also communicate his `progressive' ideas
regarding this matter to the Israelis so that they too publish the
viewpoints of the Nazi henchmen and the Ahmedinejads of this world on
the Holocaust.
Asked to Publicly Retract Statement
These same thoughts must also have baffled the director of the
`ARARAT' Center Armen Ayvazyan, who has requested that the court
compel the `Caucasus Institute' to publicly retract the false
statements found in this book, prohibit any further use of the word
genocide in quotation marks, and further dissemination of all copies
of the book as well as order the payment of a symbolic one Armenian
Dram for moral damage.
The outcome of this court case directly affects the national security
of Armenia, because denial, as unanimously acknowledged by lawyers and
genocide scholars, is the continuation of genocide. Here is what the
`Genocide Watch', a well-respected international organization focusing
on the problem of genocide, states regarding this matter:
`Denial is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is
among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The
response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or
national courts.'
A similar view is expressed by the President of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars Gregory Stanton:
`Denial is the final stage of genocide. It is a continuing attempt to
destroy the victim group psychologically and culturally, to deny its
members even the memory of the murders of their relatives. That is
what the Turkish government today is doing to Armenians around the
world.'
As a logical consequence of this view, genocide denial has been
criminalized in a number of countries. For example:
In 2007 the Court of Lausanne of Switzerland sentenced the leader of
the Party of Turkish Workers Dogu Perinchek to 90 days of provisional
imprisonment and sentenced him to pay 3000 Swiss francs, because he
had been found guilty of publicly denying the Armenian Genocide.
In 1995 a French Court ordered Bernard Lewis to pay moral damages for
denying the Armenian Genocide in the Le Monde newspaper and publish a
retraction of his statement.
As renowned philosopher Bernard-Henry Levi states, `... Deniers are not
merely expressing an opinion; they are perpetrating a crime.' Clearly,
Alexander Iskandaryan has not read this quote; otherwise, he would
know to distinguish valid scientific discussion from criminal
propaganda. The lawsuit brought by the ARARAT Center for Strategic
Research outlines how this offense directly damages vital national
security interests of the Republic of Armenia, in particular:
The denial of the Armenian Genocide is the continuation and integral
part of the genocidal policy adopted by Turkey against the Armenians;
i.e. it is implemented within the framework of a long-term general
plan to ultimately destroy the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian
nation and is an explicit and dangerous hostile act against vital
interests of Armenia.
By denying the Armenian Genocide, Turkey is trying to kill the
historical memory of Armenians, deprive them from the political
experience achieved at an ineffable and immense price and prevent the
authorities of the Republic of Armenia from adopting correct strategic
decisions in foreign policy and, in particular, in her policy towards
Turkey.
The denial of the Armenian Genocide is aimed at the ratification and
legalization of the consequences of the Genocide, particularly,
expropriation and deportation of Armenians from their homes, as well
as the colonization of the cultural heritage of the Armenian people by
the Turks.
By denying the Armenian Genocide Turkey maligns the Republic of
Armenia and the whole Armenian nation, impertinently accusing them of
propagating lies, racial enmity and hatred. Thus, Turkey and its
servants compromise the Republic of Armenia at the international
level, insult the honor and the national dignity of the whole Armenian
nation.
Considering that denial is the continuation of genocide, given the
existence of legal precedents of prosecuting genocide denial in
foreign courts and the obvious threats that the denial of the Armenian
Genocide poses to Armenia's national security, one would assume that
this case would have been a no-brainer for the Armenian courts. Yet,
this has not been the case. At every stage of the process this case
has been met with challenges and impediments.
The Court Said That There Was Not Enough Evidence
After accepting the case for trial in the Armenian court system, the
Court of First Instance determined in December of 2009 that there was
not enough legal basis for trying the case, thus, denying the
plaintiff his right to a fair trial. Specifically, Judge Karine
Petrosyan ruled that the use of the word genocide in quotation marks
does not constitute a matter of dispute and, consequently, the case
must be dismissed. First, one wonders why the case was accepted for
trial if there was no dispute to start with. Second, perhaps we should
address Karine Petrosyan henceforth as `Honorable' Judge, or Honorable
`Judge', or both, since her ruling implies that it is not offensive.
Furthermore, what the `Judge' missed is the fact that the case did not
reside solely on the objection to the use of the word genocide in
quotation marks, but it also challenged explicit denial of the
Armenian Genocide, as quoted above. It must also be noted that this
`Judge' had also failed to name the appropriate body that has the
authority to hear this case, as is mandated by the Armenian law in
instances when the court is not the appropriate venue. This and other
glaring omissions by the Court of First Instance formed the basis for
`ARARAT' Center's appeal to the Court of Appeal. Unfortunately, the
Armenian Court of Appeal could not see the gaping holes in the
decision of the Court of First Instance and in March of 2010 upheld
the latter's decision. According to Armen Ayvazyan, the `ARARAT'
Center is going to appeal to the final authority, Armenia's Court of
Cessation, and, if necessary, go all the way to the European Court of
Human Rights.
Something Is Seriously Wrong With the Entire Armenian Legal System
Let us stand back for a moment and try to grasp the reality: the
Armenian Genocide has been denied in Armenia and the Armenian courts
of justice have only condoned this denial by their posture. If denial
can take place thanks to a mere legal technicality, then something is
seriously wrong with the entire Armenian legal system. Clearly, the
sloppy and incompetent manner in which this case was handled by the
Armenian courts also betrays the political meddling of Armenian
authorities in these Judges' decisions. Some senior officials, such as
the head of the National Assembly's Commission on State and Legal
Affairs Davit Harutyunyan, were so brazen as to claim that
strengthening the punishment of the denial of the Armenian Genocide in
Armenia will harm the ongoing Turkish-Armenian negotiations. As a
result, now a legal precedent that encourages the blatant denial of
the Armenian Genocide in Armenia is being forged.
The Diaspora spends millions around the world combating genocide
denial, forcing major publications to overturn their policy of using
`so-called genocide' or enclosing the word genocide in quotation
marks. What is the value of that effort if the Armenian Genocide can
be openly denied in Yerevan and an Armenian Judge may say that the
word genocide may be used in quotation marks? Wouldn't the editors of
The Economist refer to this ruling in Armenia to justify their refusal
to drop quotation marks or call the Armenian Genocide by its name? As
if emboldened by this impunity, the `Caucasus Institute' invited the
very same author who had written this article to Yerevan. Only 2 weeks
after the decision of the Court of First Instance genocide denier
Aybars Görgülü arrived in Yerevan to participate in a seminar behind
closed doors. What's more, the head of Yerevan's Armenian Genocide
Museum-Institute Hayk Demoyan attended the same seminar. One wonders
what Mr. Demoyan discussed with a genocide denier behind closed doors.
Perhaps, the `Caucasus Institute' and Alexander Iskandaryan next will
invite the infamous Justin McCarthy during the centennial of the
Armenian Genocide to be the key-note speaker at an event commemorating
the `Armenian-Turkish Mutual Massacres of 1915' attended by Yerevan's
ultra-progressive beau monde. If we do not want to witness this, we
all should ensure that this seminal case reaches its successful
conclusion.