Tweet
A BLACK DAY FOR GENOCIDE PREVENTION, A FEAST DAY FOR GENOCIDE DENIERS
Strasbourg, 17th December 2013:
18.12.2013 21:17
http://www.aga-online.org/comment/detail.php?locale=de&commentId=2
Nachfolgend veröffentlichen wir den Kommentar der AGA-Vorsitzenden
Tessa Hofmann zur Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs fur
Menschenrechte (EGMR).
A personal comment
Yesterday's publication of the decision of the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR) on the complaint by the Turkish nationalist Dogu
Perincek came as a shock and as a surprise. My personal relationship
to the claimant dates back into the year 2000, when I became a victim
of a slander campaign by Turkish media, started by Perincek and his
obscure party paper "Aydinlik", and spread by Turkey's largest daily,
"Hurriyet". The occasion was a petition by several Germany based
human rights NGOs to the German parliament, requesting the German
lawmakers' official recognition of the crimes, committed against
the Ottoman Christian population and the Armenians in particular as
genocide according to the UN Convention of 1948. In his revelations,
Perincek had tried to depict me as a leading German agent with NATO
connections, whose special mission was the destabilization of Turkey
by inflaming interethnic hatred. Towards this goal I had, according
to "Aydinlik/Hurriyet", allegedly freed the scholar Taner Akcam from
his prison in Turkey in armed action and brainwashed poor Taner,
until he became a propagandist of the "Armenian lies", as Perincek
put it. In two subsequent court trials here in Germany I could at
least fight the repetition of such slander by "Hurriyet". But that
did not stop Perincek and his comrades. Their next action was touring
Germany, France and Switzerland, where they purposefully denied the
Armenian genocide in public events (manifestations, speeches). But the
second and perhaps main purpose of these tours was the provocation of
European law systems on national levels. In Berlin, the head of our
police reacted rather sharpish by prohibiting public manifestations.
Perincek then addressed to Berlin courts and achieved the permission of
the manifestation, albeit with the condition to refrain from offensive
slogans such as "Armenian genocide lie" or "so-called genocide". These
condition Perincek and his followers violated at many occasions, albeit
in Turkish language. In Switzerland, a descendant of Armenian genocide
survivors, Sarkis Shahinian filed a court case against Perincek for
violating the anti-discrimination law of the Swiss Penal Code. On
9th March 2007, Perincek had been sentenced accordingly in Lausanne,
and I had the dubious joy to see the man during his trial when I gave
expert witness to the court. In the course of the following months
the Lausanne sentence has been approved by two higher courts of
Switzerland, including the highest. As a citizen of a country, which
is applying for full EU membership, Perincek had only one option left,
the ECHR. And the amazing thing happened: The highest court in the EU
criticized the Swiss court decisions and fully confirmed Perincek's
right to deny the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians (or overall 3.5
Ottoman Christians, if Perincek would ever consider these lesser
known co-victims).
To receive this outrageous decision, the judges argue more or less
in the following way:
A long period passed since 1915.
In difference to the genocide of the European Jewry, the Armenian
genocide (AG) is no internationally acknowledged or established fact.
As evidence, the ECHR points to the fact that even in Switzerland
exist opposing opinions about the AG, which subsequently has been
acknowledged only by one of the two legislative chambers of the
country. Furthermore there is no international court decision on
the AG.
The ECHR believes that Perincek did not violate the existing
anti-racist legislation of Switzerland, for he 'just' articulated
a personal opinion and allegedly did not act in order to offend
Armenians. After the above mentioned provocative tours of Perincek
in several EU states, this is a highly refutable allegation. Having
closely monitored his denialist and propagandist activities over the
years I know one thing for sure: Perincek does what he is doing with
full intent to humiliate Armenian communities and to encourage his
compatriots in Europe to follow his example and to provoke European
legislation without fear.
What are the general implications of the recent decision? The ECHR
has given greater weight to freedom of expression than the protection
against racism and xenophobia, including the protection of genocide
victims from denialism and continuing pain. The ECHR refuses to realize
the pain that, under the continuing official denial by the Turkish
Republic, purposeful genocide denial causes. At the same time the
ECHR decision continues a European trend that has started at the time
of Perincek's denial tours in Europe and led, in 2008, to the Appel
de Blois. Although this appeal was in its majority signed by French
historians, German scholars, too, articulated their discomfort with
any 'restrictions' of the liberty of opinion. To their mind, liberty
must include the right to deny genocide, for a genocide is either
generally acknowledged as a historic fact or not. In the first case
those, who deny facts, ridicule themselves, but must not be prosecuted
by the law. In the second case, the topic seems under-researched, and
sceptics have even more a right to doubt and deny. It must be admitted,
that the recent court decision has put the AG into the second category,
which is perhaps the most negative effect. Genocide is first of all
not a subject for the approval or disapproval by historians, but the
most severe crime and hence a subject for prosecutors and trials. In
this context the reluctance of the sovereign Armenian state to seek
an international court decision on the AG once again appears as
a failure. It is a comfort that laws and legal decisions are not
written in stone. They can and must be changed. If its political
will is strong enough, Switzerland can demand a revision of the
current decision at the Grand Chamber of the ECHR. But for this aim,
Armenian communities and NGOs in Europe have at least once to act in
synergic ways. It is a second comfort that two of the five involved
judges--Ms VuÄ~MiniÄ~G from Montenegro and Mr Pinto de Albuquerque
from Portugal-- expressed a very clear dissident statement.
We residents and citizens of EU states must decide which values
we give the highest priority, both on national, and EU levels. EU
politicians like to relate on Europe as a community of shared values.
As a European, however, I refuse to share a definition of liberty that
allows every chauvinist to confront, offend and humiliate minorities
under the pretext of liberty of opinion. It is an additional irony
that the chauvinist Perincek was guaranteed this liberty by the
EU's highest court, while his homeland still clings to a restrictive
legislation against dissenters: Whereas Europe allows the denial of the
Armenian genocide, Turkish penal laws prosecute those who acknowledge
historic facts. European problems with the concept of liberty are
manifold and not limited to genocide denial. In the last pre-election
campaign the extremist rightist part NPD ("National Democratic Party of
Germany") sent hate letters to foreign born candidates for the German
Bundestag. The candidates were urged to leave Germany voluntarily, in
order to prevent that they commit crimes. When some of the offended
addressees sought the protection of German law authorities, their
claims were turned down by the state attorney on the grounds that it is
the lawful right of German Neo-Nazis to express their opinion. Is this
really what we want when allowing liberty of expression to chauvinists?
Further reading:
ECHR court decision
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#%7B%22languageisocode%22:[%22FRA%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-139276%22]%7D
Swiss and German decisions on Dogu Perincek:
http://www.aga-online.org/criminallaw/index.php?locale=de
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Strasbourg, 17th December 2013:
18.12.2013 21:17
http://www.aga-online.org/comment/detail.php?locale=de&commentId=2
Nachfolgend veröffentlichen wir den Kommentar der AGA-Vorsitzenden
Tessa Hofmann zur Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs fur
Menschenrechte (EGMR).
A personal comment
Yesterday's publication of the decision of the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR) on the complaint by the Turkish nationalist Dogu
Perincek came as a shock and as a surprise. My personal relationship
to the claimant dates back into the year 2000, when I became a victim
of a slander campaign by Turkish media, started by Perincek and his
obscure party paper "Aydinlik", and spread by Turkey's largest daily,
"Hurriyet". The occasion was a petition by several Germany based
human rights NGOs to the German parliament, requesting the German
lawmakers' official recognition of the crimes, committed against
the Ottoman Christian population and the Armenians in particular as
genocide according to the UN Convention of 1948. In his revelations,
Perincek had tried to depict me as a leading German agent with NATO
connections, whose special mission was the destabilization of Turkey
by inflaming interethnic hatred. Towards this goal I had, according
to "Aydinlik/Hurriyet", allegedly freed the scholar Taner Akcam from
his prison in Turkey in armed action and brainwashed poor Taner,
until he became a propagandist of the "Armenian lies", as Perincek
put it. In two subsequent court trials here in Germany I could at
least fight the repetition of such slander by "Hurriyet". But that
did not stop Perincek and his comrades. Their next action was touring
Germany, France and Switzerland, where they purposefully denied the
Armenian genocide in public events (manifestations, speeches). But the
second and perhaps main purpose of these tours was the provocation of
European law systems on national levels. In Berlin, the head of our
police reacted rather sharpish by prohibiting public manifestations.
Perincek then addressed to Berlin courts and achieved the permission of
the manifestation, albeit with the condition to refrain from offensive
slogans such as "Armenian genocide lie" or "so-called genocide". These
condition Perincek and his followers violated at many occasions, albeit
in Turkish language. In Switzerland, a descendant of Armenian genocide
survivors, Sarkis Shahinian filed a court case against Perincek for
violating the anti-discrimination law of the Swiss Penal Code. On
9th March 2007, Perincek had been sentenced accordingly in Lausanne,
and I had the dubious joy to see the man during his trial when I gave
expert witness to the court. In the course of the following months
the Lausanne sentence has been approved by two higher courts of
Switzerland, including the highest. As a citizen of a country, which
is applying for full EU membership, Perincek had only one option left,
the ECHR. And the amazing thing happened: The highest court in the EU
criticized the Swiss court decisions and fully confirmed Perincek's
right to deny the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians (or overall 3.5
Ottoman Christians, if Perincek would ever consider these lesser
known co-victims).
To receive this outrageous decision, the judges argue more or less
in the following way:
A long period passed since 1915.
In difference to the genocide of the European Jewry, the Armenian
genocide (AG) is no internationally acknowledged or established fact.
As evidence, the ECHR points to the fact that even in Switzerland
exist opposing opinions about the AG, which subsequently has been
acknowledged only by one of the two legislative chambers of the
country. Furthermore there is no international court decision on
the AG.
The ECHR believes that Perincek did not violate the existing
anti-racist legislation of Switzerland, for he 'just' articulated
a personal opinion and allegedly did not act in order to offend
Armenians. After the above mentioned provocative tours of Perincek
in several EU states, this is a highly refutable allegation. Having
closely monitored his denialist and propagandist activities over the
years I know one thing for sure: Perincek does what he is doing with
full intent to humiliate Armenian communities and to encourage his
compatriots in Europe to follow his example and to provoke European
legislation without fear.
What are the general implications of the recent decision? The ECHR
has given greater weight to freedom of expression than the protection
against racism and xenophobia, including the protection of genocide
victims from denialism and continuing pain. The ECHR refuses to realize
the pain that, under the continuing official denial by the Turkish
Republic, purposeful genocide denial causes. At the same time the
ECHR decision continues a European trend that has started at the time
of Perincek's denial tours in Europe and led, in 2008, to the Appel
de Blois. Although this appeal was in its majority signed by French
historians, German scholars, too, articulated their discomfort with
any 'restrictions' of the liberty of opinion. To their mind, liberty
must include the right to deny genocide, for a genocide is either
generally acknowledged as a historic fact or not. In the first case
those, who deny facts, ridicule themselves, but must not be prosecuted
by the law. In the second case, the topic seems under-researched, and
sceptics have even more a right to doubt and deny. It must be admitted,
that the recent court decision has put the AG into the second category,
which is perhaps the most negative effect. Genocide is first of all
not a subject for the approval or disapproval by historians, but the
most severe crime and hence a subject for prosecutors and trials. In
this context the reluctance of the sovereign Armenian state to seek
an international court decision on the AG once again appears as
a failure. It is a comfort that laws and legal decisions are not
written in stone. They can and must be changed. If its political
will is strong enough, Switzerland can demand a revision of the
current decision at the Grand Chamber of the ECHR. But for this aim,
Armenian communities and NGOs in Europe have at least once to act in
synergic ways. It is a second comfort that two of the five involved
judges--Ms VuÄ~MiniÄ~G from Montenegro and Mr Pinto de Albuquerque
from Portugal-- expressed a very clear dissident statement.
We residents and citizens of EU states must decide which values
we give the highest priority, both on national, and EU levels. EU
politicians like to relate on Europe as a community of shared values.
As a European, however, I refuse to share a definition of liberty that
allows every chauvinist to confront, offend and humiliate minorities
under the pretext of liberty of opinion. It is an additional irony
that the chauvinist Perincek was guaranteed this liberty by the
EU's highest court, while his homeland still clings to a restrictive
legislation against dissenters: Whereas Europe allows the denial of the
Armenian genocide, Turkish penal laws prosecute those who acknowledge
historic facts. European problems with the concept of liberty are
manifold and not limited to genocide denial. In the last pre-election
campaign the extremist rightist part NPD ("National Democratic Party of
Germany") sent hate letters to foreign born candidates for the German
Bundestag. The candidates were urged to leave Germany voluntarily, in
order to prevent that they commit crimes. When some of the offended
addressees sought the protection of German law authorities, their
claims were turned down by the state attorney on the grounds that it is
the lawful right of German Neo-Nazis to express their opinion. Is this
really what we want when allowing liberty of expression to chauvinists?
Further reading:
ECHR court decision
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#%7B%22languageisocode%22:[%22FRA%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-139276%22]%7D
Swiss and German decisions on Dogu Perincek:
http://www.aga-online.org/criminallaw/index.php?locale=de
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress