Tweet
WET AND DRY
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/07/03/87430/
July 3, 2012 13:16
As always, the legal, political and moral aspects have been intermixed
in the case of Vahe Avetyan's murder. If any worker of Aravot I own,
God forbid, kills someone, it doesn't mean that I am a murderer and
that anyone has the right to call me so. However, naturally, I am
morally responsible, because I should know whom and why I employ.
Ruben Hayrapetyan certainly is under that heavy moral burden and I
can't imagine yet how he is going to pull through this situation.
About the political aspect: it is clear that political forces will
squeeze everything, to the last drop, out of this tragedy for reasons
of propaganda. It is also clear that for the politically active youth,
shouting "Nemets, the murderer" is a way of maturing and showing
courage. However, when representatives of the government call for
not politicizing that terrible crime, it is also hypocrisy. I cannot
help but politicize for two reasons: 1. Murder is a result of the
system created and maintained since the 1990s (so-called period of
the Yerkrapah) - the government has bred its favorites, first of all,
oligarchs, who don't give a damn about the law and the latter have
bred zombies who are called bodyguards; 2. The president's bodyguard
who committed a similar crime at Aragast Cafe received a three-year
suspended sentence, since Cuckoo has "got away" with that, they can
do the same thing with this murderer too.
And eventually about terrorism: first of all, it seems to me, if
a person has decided to blow up a building, he blows it up and not
enters the premises and states that he wants to blow it up, engaging
in some incomprehensive negotiations. Let's put this aside, however.
Say the threat of terrorism is real. What is to be welcomed and to
be happy about here? If the restaurant was really blown up and let's
say a maid of Harsnakar was killed, what is she guilty of, why should
she compensate? Would that crime differ from Vahe Avetyan's murder
in any way?
We seem to struggle against violence in general and in order that
laws are in force in Armenia. I cannot understand appeals for arson,
blowing up and quartering against that background. One shouldn't do
anything with criminals but what is provided for by the law and what
will be voiced in the court as a verdict. The very problem is that such
verdicts have not been brought in so far. What was voiced wasn't in
any way proportionate to the crimes committed. The Norwegian society
doesn't protest against the fact that Breivik will not be executed.
From: A. Papazian
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/07/03/87430/
July 3, 2012 13:16
As always, the legal, political and moral aspects have been intermixed
in the case of Vahe Avetyan's murder. If any worker of Aravot I own,
God forbid, kills someone, it doesn't mean that I am a murderer and
that anyone has the right to call me so. However, naturally, I am
morally responsible, because I should know whom and why I employ.
Ruben Hayrapetyan certainly is under that heavy moral burden and I
can't imagine yet how he is going to pull through this situation.
About the political aspect: it is clear that political forces will
squeeze everything, to the last drop, out of this tragedy for reasons
of propaganda. It is also clear that for the politically active youth,
shouting "Nemets, the murderer" is a way of maturing and showing
courage. However, when representatives of the government call for
not politicizing that terrible crime, it is also hypocrisy. I cannot
help but politicize for two reasons: 1. Murder is a result of the
system created and maintained since the 1990s (so-called period of
the Yerkrapah) - the government has bred its favorites, first of all,
oligarchs, who don't give a damn about the law and the latter have
bred zombies who are called bodyguards; 2. The president's bodyguard
who committed a similar crime at Aragast Cafe received a three-year
suspended sentence, since Cuckoo has "got away" with that, they can
do the same thing with this murderer too.
And eventually about terrorism: first of all, it seems to me, if
a person has decided to blow up a building, he blows it up and not
enters the premises and states that he wants to blow it up, engaging
in some incomprehensive negotiations. Let's put this aside, however.
Say the threat of terrorism is real. What is to be welcomed and to
be happy about here? If the restaurant was really blown up and let's
say a maid of Harsnakar was killed, what is she guilty of, why should
she compensate? Would that crime differ from Vahe Avetyan's murder
in any way?
We seem to struggle against violence in general and in order that
laws are in force in Armenia. I cannot understand appeals for arson,
blowing up and quartering against that background. One shouldn't do
anything with criminals but what is provided for by the law and what
will be voiced in the court as a verdict. The very problem is that such
verdicts have not been brought in so far. What was voiced wasn't in
any way proportionate to the crimes committed. The Norwegian society
doesn't protest against the fact that Breivik will not be executed.
From: A. Papazian