Tweet
ANKARA: Turkey'S Duty That Arise From The French "Genocide Legislation"
BIAnet.org, Turkey
http://www.bianet.org/english/diger/134951-turkeys-duty-that-arise-from-the-french-genocide-legislation
Dec 22 2011
Turkey's Duty That Arise from the French "Genocide Legislation" In
order to develop the necessary juridical and ethical norms in Turkey,
it is imperative to accept the notion that the brutality imposed upon
Armenians by those who held political power in the Ottoman state in
1915 cannot be legitimized, rationalized, defended nor downplayed.
Osman KAVALA Ä°stanbul - BÄ°A Haber Merkezi22 Aralık 2011, PerÅ~_embe
The French Parliament aims to pass a legislation that will criminalize
defending, denying, disputing and deeming inferior the crimes against
humanity, genocides and war crimes.
Defending or legitimizing crimes against humanity, genocides or ethnic
cleansing can also be seen as hate crimes; therefore the argument
that places these efforts under the protection of freedom of speech
is highly disputable.
Yet, any intellectual activity or scientific work that doesn't
propagate such intent should be excluded from the scope of those
legislations.
The French legislation and its predecessors in other countries remain
problematic because they don't make this distinction.
As a result, those who demand the massacre and exile of Anatolian
Armenians to be recognized as genocide could utilize this legislation
without making the distinction mentioned above. The French courts
should be beware of this distinction.
Nonetheless, during the debate around the legislation in question,
we should not overlook the fact that it's scope isn't limited to the
events of 1915 but universal.
Theoretically, the same legislation could be used regarding the war
crimes or crimes against humanity committed by France or the US.
This is why the Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan's reaction, saying
"They should mind their own business", doesn't make sense. Each and
every state should look into its own history, face up to the realities
and invite others to do the same.
The Turkish government can only do good to progress the international
humanitarian law by bringing up the war crimes and crimes against
humanity committed in Rwanda, Iraq or Algeria.
Yet, if these efforts are aimed at creating a rationale for the
insensitivity towards the events of 1915 or legitimization of what
had happened, the sincerity of those who bring up these issues would
be scrutinized and they could lose their plausibility.
The dimension of the forced exile, massacre and despoliation of
hundreds of thousands of people living in Ottoman land in and following
1915, just because they are Armenians, is surely wide ranging than
those committed later in Dersim.
Therefore, in order to develop the necessary juridical and ethical
norms in Turkey, it is imperative to accept the notion that the
brutality imposed upon Armenians by those who held political power
in the Ottoman state in 1915 cannot be legitimized, rationalized,
defended nor downplayed.
Only with this acceptance, debating if what happened in 1915 can be
classified as genocide or not, could be seen as an effort within the
realm of freedom of speech. (OK/BA/EU)
BIAnet.org, Turkey
http://www.bianet.org/english/diger/134951-turkeys-duty-that-arise-from-the-french-genocide-legislation
Dec 22 2011
Turkey's Duty That Arise from the French "Genocide Legislation" In
order to develop the necessary juridical and ethical norms in Turkey,
it is imperative to accept the notion that the brutality imposed upon
Armenians by those who held political power in the Ottoman state in
1915 cannot be legitimized, rationalized, defended nor downplayed.
Osman KAVALA Ä°stanbul - BÄ°A Haber Merkezi22 Aralık 2011, PerÅ~_embe
The French Parliament aims to pass a legislation that will criminalize
defending, denying, disputing and deeming inferior the crimes against
humanity, genocides and war crimes.
Defending or legitimizing crimes against humanity, genocides or ethnic
cleansing can also be seen as hate crimes; therefore the argument
that places these efforts under the protection of freedom of speech
is highly disputable.
Yet, any intellectual activity or scientific work that doesn't
propagate such intent should be excluded from the scope of those
legislations.
The French legislation and its predecessors in other countries remain
problematic because they don't make this distinction.
As a result, those who demand the massacre and exile of Anatolian
Armenians to be recognized as genocide could utilize this legislation
without making the distinction mentioned above. The French courts
should be beware of this distinction.
Nonetheless, during the debate around the legislation in question,
we should not overlook the fact that it's scope isn't limited to the
events of 1915 but universal.
Theoretically, the same legislation could be used regarding the war
crimes or crimes against humanity committed by France or the US.
This is why the Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan's reaction, saying
"They should mind their own business", doesn't make sense. Each and
every state should look into its own history, face up to the realities
and invite others to do the same.
The Turkish government can only do good to progress the international
humanitarian law by bringing up the war crimes and crimes against
humanity committed in Rwanda, Iraq or Algeria.
Yet, if these efforts are aimed at creating a rationale for the
insensitivity towards the events of 1915 or legitimization of what
had happened, the sincerity of those who bring up these issues would
be scrutinized and they could lose their plausibility.
The dimension of the forced exile, massacre and despoliation of
hundreds of thousands of people living in Ottoman land in and following
1915, just because they are Armenians, is surely wide ranging than
those committed later in Dersim.
Therefore, in order to develop the necessary juridical and ethical
norms in Turkey, it is imperative to accept the notion that the
brutality imposed upon Armenians by those who held political power
in the Ottoman state in 1915 cannot be legitimized, rationalized,
defended nor downplayed.
Only with this acceptance, debating if what happened in 1915 can be
classified as genocide or not, could be seen as an effort within the
realm of freedom of speech. (OK/BA/EU)