Tweet
NO 'ARMENIAN' SIDE OR 'TURKISH' SIDE TO HISTORY: TURKISH SCHOLAR ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND HRANT DINK
epress.am
10.28.2011
On Wednesday I attempted to summarize the European Court of Human
Rights' (ECtHR) judgment in the case of Taner Akcam v. Turkey,
in which the court found that Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code
(TCK), which concerns the denigration of Turkishness, violates freedom
of expression, writes Today's Zaman columnist Orhan Kemal Cengiz.
I believe this was a landmark decision and will force Turkey to
eliminate this law in the future. I asked Akcam (pictured) what
he thinks about the decision and about Article 301, whether he
feels more comfortable after receiving this judgment in the case,
and whether this decision will help Turkey confront its past. Akcam
sent me some thought-provoking responses to my questions and remarks
on the importance of confronting the past in general. I would like
to share Professor Akcam's comments with you:
"This ruling will in fact work in Turkey's favor. The decision
helps the country take a step forward on a matter which is a problem
everyone's been aware of for years now. There's this law out there but
the executive branch obstructs its implementation and enforcement. In
other words, they [the government] are behaving as though the very
law they created doesn't exist. Could this situation get any more
ridiculous?
"We [Turkey] act like this with every single issue. We know there's
a problem but instead of really resolving it, we act 'as if' we are
solving it. We wait for a ruling from the ECtHR even with respect to
a simple and ordinary application on freedom of speech and the rule
of law. Was that really necessary? For this reason alone, I cannot
take any joy in this decision.
"But let me draw your attention to a much more important aspect of
this issue: The ruling is historically important because the court
points out the close relationship between discourse on history
and democracy. Very simply said, in 1915, around 1 million Ottoman
Armenian citizens were annihilated. I know that just saying these words
outrages many people, and actually it's this anger that has fuelled
the government's equating historical discourse with 'crime' under
Article 301. Even our newspapers prefer to refer to 'the historian
who defends the Armenian side's arguments' rather than 'the historian
whose freedom of speech has been impeded' when covering news on this
case. What we need to realize is this: If you cannot speak freely
on history, you cannot call your country a democracy and you cannot
create a society and a future that respect human rights. There is no
'Armenian' side or 'Turkish' side to history. To discuss what really
happened in history is to speak freely and openly about it, without
legends or myths. Today, no one refers to a 'German version' or a
'Jewish version' when they're discussing the Holocaust.
"Turkey has made huge progress in democratization by way of the Balyoz
and Ergenekon investigations in recent years. It has acted to reduce
the influence of the military's guardianship regime. But democracy
won't be achieved solely by taking the military out of politics.
Everybody needs to focus on this connection: Those who organized
hatred against Armenians and Christians in Turkey, those who staged
smear campaigns against Hrant Dink and myself, and those who ran the
campaigns against the 'genocide lies' by defending the murderers
of 1915 are basically members of the Ergenekon circle. Article
301 is essentially a law propounded by the Ergenekon circle. Now
the pro-Ergenekon figures are locked up in prison, but their law,
Article 301, is still in effect. Let us not forget that it was the
pro-Ergenekon figures who criminalized speaking about history and
equated it to treason and insulting Turkishness. They were the ones
behind all the cases filed against Hrant and it was because of them
that I initiated the application process to the ECtHR. If we do not
want Turkey to fall under the influence of the military guardianship
once again, if we do not want to revive Ergenekon, we have to learn
how to speak about what happened in 1915 and admit that a grave
injustice was done in the past. The ECtHR reminded us of this fact
with its ruling.
"Now we, as a nation in the midst of creating a new constitution,
need to rid ourselves of those bits of law which are the final
remnants of Ergenekon. There is a direct link between denying what
happened in 1915, accusing those who want to talk about it of being
'pro-Armenian' and 'traitors,' and being pro-Ergenekon. I know it
is hard for many of us to accept this, but this is the crux of the
matter. We are either on the side of Article 301 and those who accuse
others of being traitorous when they discuss history freely, or we are
people of free conscience who are part of a free Turkey that speaks
freely about its own history and views the future with confidence,
while condemning the murders of the past. We have no third option.
"I consider myself a part of Turkish civil society and will continue
together with it to do whatever I can to make sure that Article 301
is removed from the TCK. That article was the murderer of Hrant Dink.
This murderous provision must be removed immediately. Turkey is
better than that. I am dedicating the court's ruling to Parliament
Speaker Cemil Cicek. In the past, he has expressed support for this
murderous provision. Now it is up to him to clear up the mess. This
is his duty to Hrant Dink and all victims."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
epress.am
10.28.2011
On Wednesday I attempted to summarize the European Court of Human
Rights' (ECtHR) judgment in the case of Taner Akcam v. Turkey,
in which the court found that Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code
(TCK), which concerns the denigration of Turkishness, violates freedom
of expression, writes Today's Zaman columnist Orhan Kemal Cengiz.
I believe this was a landmark decision and will force Turkey to
eliminate this law in the future. I asked Akcam (pictured) what
he thinks about the decision and about Article 301, whether he
feels more comfortable after receiving this judgment in the case,
and whether this decision will help Turkey confront its past. Akcam
sent me some thought-provoking responses to my questions and remarks
on the importance of confronting the past in general. I would like
to share Professor Akcam's comments with you:
"This ruling will in fact work in Turkey's favor. The decision
helps the country take a step forward on a matter which is a problem
everyone's been aware of for years now. There's this law out there but
the executive branch obstructs its implementation and enforcement. In
other words, they [the government] are behaving as though the very
law they created doesn't exist. Could this situation get any more
ridiculous?
"We [Turkey] act like this with every single issue. We know there's
a problem but instead of really resolving it, we act 'as if' we are
solving it. We wait for a ruling from the ECtHR even with respect to
a simple and ordinary application on freedom of speech and the rule
of law. Was that really necessary? For this reason alone, I cannot
take any joy in this decision.
"But let me draw your attention to a much more important aspect of
this issue: The ruling is historically important because the court
points out the close relationship between discourse on history
and democracy. Very simply said, in 1915, around 1 million Ottoman
Armenian citizens were annihilated. I know that just saying these words
outrages many people, and actually it's this anger that has fuelled
the government's equating historical discourse with 'crime' under
Article 301. Even our newspapers prefer to refer to 'the historian
who defends the Armenian side's arguments' rather than 'the historian
whose freedom of speech has been impeded' when covering news on this
case. What we need to realize is this: If you cannot speak freely
on history, you cannot call your country a democracy and you cannot
create a society and a future that respect human rights. There is no
'Armenian' side or 'Turkish' side to history. To discuss what really
happened in history is to speak freely and openly about it, without
legends or myths. Today, no one refers to a 'German version' or a
'Jewish version' when they're discussing the Holocaust.
"Turkey has made huge progress in democratization by way of the Balyoz
and Ergenekon investigations in recent years. It has acted to reduce
the influence of the military's guardianship regime. But democracy
won't be achieved solely by taking the military out of politics.
Everybody needs to focus on this connection: Those who organized
hatred against Armenians and Christians in Turkey, those who staged
smear campaigns against Hrant Dink and myself, and those who ran the
campaigns against the 'genocide lies' by defending the murderers
of 1915 are basically members of the Ergenekon circle. Article
301 is essentially a law propounded by the Ergenekon circle. Now
the pro-Ergenekon figures are locked up in prison, but their law,
Article 301, is still in effect. Let us not forget that it was the
pro-Ergenekon figures who criminalized speaking about history and
equated it to treason and insulting Turkishness. They were the ones
behind all the cases filed against Hrant and it was because of them
that I initiated the application process to the ECtHR. If we do not
want Turkey to fall under the influence of the military guardianship
once again, if we do not want to revive Ergenekon, we have to learn
how to speak about what happened in 1915 and admit that a grave
injustice was done in the past. The ECtHR reminded us of this fact
with its ruling.
"Now we, as a nation in the midst of creating a new constitution,
need to rid ourselves of those bits of law which are the final
remnants of Ergenekon. There is a direct link between denying what
happened in 1915, accusing those who want to talk about it of being
'pro-Armenian' and 'traitors,' and being pro-Ergenekon. I know it
is hard for many of us to accept this, but this is the crux of the
matter. We are either on the side of Article 301 and those who accuse
others of being traitorous when they discuss history freely, or we are
people of free conscience who are part of a free Turkey that speaks
freely about its own history and views the future with confidence,
while condemning the murders of the past. We have no third option.
"I consider myself a part of Turkish civil society and will continue
together with it to do whatever I can to make sure that Article 301
is removed from the TCK. That article was the murderer of Hrant Dink.
This murderous provision must be removed immediately. Turkey is
better than that. I am dedicating the court's ruling to Parliament
Speaker Cemil Cicek. In the past, he has expressed support for this
murderous provision. Now it is up to him to clear up the mess. This
is his duty to Hrant Dink and all victims."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress