Tweet
HRANT DINK CASE DRIVES AWARENESS OF 1915 EVENTS
By Semih Idiz
Hurriyet Daily News
Jan 20 2012
Turkey
The verdict against those who murdered Turkish-Armenian journalist
Hrant Dink has the country in uproar. The details of the legal debacle
are featured in the Hurriyet Daily News, so there is no need to waste
space here. Judging by the reactions, the general sentiment is that
justice has not been served in this case.
The government is trying to douse the anger by arguing that the legal
process is not over yet since there is still the appeal stage. But it
is hard, looking at this verdict, not to conclude that the Turkish
judiciary has acted with subjective selectivity again. As always,
the problem in Turkey is not the laws but how they are implemented.
There are students whose only "crime" is protesting the government,
who are in prison and being tried as "members of a terrorist
organization." There are journalists and ranking generals in similar
situations. But we are still expected to believe that those who
murdered Hrant Dink acted on their own and not as a "terrorist gang."
Everyone is also aware that the authorities blocked any investigation
into officials accused of criminal negligence or culpability in
the Dink case. The comedy is that one of the accused, Erhan Tuncel,
was cleared of being an organizer of the murder and released, while a
respected journalist, Nedim Å~^ener, is in prison over a book he wrote
about official negligence and legal irregularities in the Dink case.
This Kafkaesque anomaly appears to suggest that the saying "you
can't sue the devil if the court sits in hell" was coined for the
legal system in this country. At any rate, as many are pointing out,
"the Dink case is not over, it has just begun." The short of it is
that while the gut instinct of officialdom may be to close ranks,
in order to "protect Turkishness," all that this atavism achieves is
to sully the reputation of the country.
But as long as this instinct remains in place, those like the Dink
family will not get justice in Turkey. They must nevertheless get
some satisfaction knowing that the murder of Hrant Dink has also led
to increased awareness about the events of 1915 and the plight of
Armenians. Meanwhile tens of thousands of Turks have taken to the
streets for Hrant Dink, and are still doing so, carrying banners
proclaiming "We are all Armenian."
Even Robert Fisk of the Independent, whom Armenians have admired for
his abrasive support of their cause, is surprised. In a column on
the Armenian issue (Dec.30, 2011) Fisk said he had just finished 21
interviews on Turkish radio and television and in newspapers.
"The occasion was the launching of the Turkish-language edition
of my book 'The Great War for Civilization' - which includes an
entire and detailed chapter on the genocide - and which has just
appeared in Turkey without any imposition of the infamous law 301
[the "anti-Turkishness" law] nor any threats to Ithaki, my Turkish
publishers."
He went on to say, "for the most part, Turkish journalists and
television presenters simply didn't question the veracity of what
I wrote. And I think I know why. For many hundreds of thousands of
Turks, the Armenian genocide is now a fact of history."
The key fact here is that it is not the French Parliament, or any
other outside pressure, that is forcing Turks to look at 1915 from a
perspective other than that of the official Turkish narrative. It is
developments like the Hrant Dink murder that is doing this. Outside
pressure only provides ultranationalists with fuel for their
traditional argument that "wily Westerners only aim to achieve what
they could not during WWI by using the Armenians."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By Semih Idiz
Hurriyet Daily News
Jan 20 2012
Turkey
The verdict against those who murdered Turkish-Armenian journalist
Hrant Dink has the country in uproar. The details of the legal debacle
are featured in the Hurriyet Daily News, so there is no need to waste
space here. Judging by the reactions, the general sentiment is that
justice has not been served in this case.
The government is trying to douse the anger by arguing that the legal
process is not over yet since there is still the appeal stage. But it
is hard, looking at this verdict, not to conclude that the Turkish
judiciary has acted with subjective selectivity again. As always,
the problem in Turkey is not the laws but how they are implemented.
There are students whose only "crime" is protesting the government,
who are in prison and being tried as "members of a terrorist
organization." There are journalists and ranking generals in similar
situations. But we are still expected to believe that those who
murdered Hrant Dink acted on their own and not as a "terrorist gang."
Everyone is also aware that the authorities blocked any investigation
into officials accused of criminal negligence or culpability in
the Dink case. The comedy is that one of the accused, Erhan Tuncel,
was cleared of being an organizer of the murder and released, while a
respected journalist, Nedim Å~^ener, is in prison over a book he wrote
about official negligence and legal irregularities in the Dink case.
This Kafkaesque anomaly appears to suggest that the saying "you
can't sue the devil if the court sits in hell" was coined for the
legal system in this country. At any rate, as many are pointing out,
"the Dink case is not over, it has just begun." The short of it is
that while the gut instinct of officialdom may be to close ranks,
in order to "protect Turkishness," all that this atavism achieves is
to sully the reputation of the country.
But as long as this instinct remains in place, those like the Dink
family will not get justice in Turkey. They must nevertheless get
some satisfaction knowing that the murder of Hrant Dink has also led
to increased awareness about the events of 1915 and the plight of
Armenians. Meanwhile tens of thousands of Turks have taken to the
streets for Hrant Dink, and are still doing so, carrying banners
proclaiming "We are all Armenian."
Even Robert Fisk of the Independent, whom Armenians have admired for
his abrasive support of their cause, is surprised. In a column on
the Armenian issue (Dec.30, 2011) Fisk said he had just finished 21
interviews on Turkish radio and television and in newspapers.
"The occasion was the launching of the Turkish-language edition
of my book 'The Great War for Civilization' - which includes an
entire and detailed chapter on the genocide - and which has just
appeared in Turkey without any imposition of the infamous law 301
[the "anti-Turkishness" law] nor any threats to Ithaki, my Turkish
publishers."
He went on to say, "for the most part, Turkish journalists and
television presenters simply didn't question the veracity of what
I wrote. And I think I know why. For many hundreds of thousands of
Turks, the Armenian genocide is now a fact of history."
The key fact here is that it is not the French Parliament, or any
other outside pressure, that is forcing Turks to look at 1915 from a
perspective other than that of the official Turkish narrative. It is
developments like the Hrant Dink murder that is doing this. Outside
pressure only provides ultranationalists with fuel for their
traditional argument that "wily Westerners only aim to achieve what
they could not during WWI by using the Armenians."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress