Tweet
Armenian-Turkish Solidarity Against Hatred: The Perincek Case before
the European Court
24/1/2015
Payam Akhavan, Professor of International Law
Payam Akhavan is a Professor of International Law at McGill University
in Montreal, Canada, and a Visiting Fellow at Oxford University. He
was previously a UN prosecutor at The Hague and has served as counsel
in leading cases before international courts and tribunals. He spoke
to CivilNet about his representation of a Coalition of Armenian and
Turkish NGOs that have intervened in the Perincek case, which will be
heard by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg on January 28th. Dogu Perincek, an ultra-nationalist
Turkish politician and member of the Talat Pasha Committee, had been
convicted in Switzerland for incitement to discrimination for having
called the Armenian Genocide an "international lie". Before the
European Court, he succeeded in arguing that his freedom of expression
had been violated, and that he was not promoting hatred, because he
was only questioning the legal classification of the events of 1915,
which he did not deny. After a campaign by Armenian and Turkish NGOs,
the Swiss Government was persuaded to appeal the case to the Grand
Chamber of the European Court, to try and reverse this flawed
decision.
Professor Akhavan, how did you become involved with the Perincek case?
I was first alerted to the Perincek decision by my friends at the
Zoryan Institute in Toronto. They were very concerned about this
legal precedent being used by the Turkish Government as well as
ultranationalist politicians to argue that the European Court denies
that the events of 1915 constituted genocide. That of course is not
what the Court said, but its decision was twisted and misrepresented,
to reinforce the long-standing policy of denial and incitement to
hatred against Armenians. Zoryan led a costly campaign to publish
advertisements in Swiss newspapers in both French and German and to
cooperate with other Armenian organizations to persuade Switzerland to
appeal the case. They had to overcome the opposition of Turkey which
of course did not want the case to be appealed. Turkey had intervened
in support of Perincek even though its own courts, the Istanbul Penal
Court, had convicted him of being a leading member of the Ergenekon
terrorist organization! It is important that Turkish NGOs such as the
Turkish Human Rights Association, the oldest and biggest human rights
NGO in Turkey with thousands of members, had also written to the Swiss
Government in favour of an appeal. Once Switzerland agreed to appeal
the case, we decided to put together a coalition of Armenian and
Turkish NGOs to intervene in the case. We thought that the
composition of the coalition itself would be a powerful message to the
Court that this was not an "Armenian" issue; it was a human rights
issue. Perincek was not interested in academic debates on
international law, and whether the term "genocide" applies to the
events of 1915 or not. He is an ultranationalist politician whose
platform is incitement to hatred against Armenians, based on paranoid
conspiracy theories and historical revisionism. It was also
imperative for the Court to know the details of the Ergenekon judgment
and for this we needed qualified and dedicated Turkish lawyers and
activists and translators and months of work in coordination with
knowledgeable and diligent researchers at Zoryan and the lawyers in
London and Oxford to go through the 17,000 pages of the decision, the
international case-law, and complex arguments, to find what was most
relevant to establishing the discriminatory motives of Perincek. So
in the end, the coalition was Zoryan, or rather then Institute for
Genocide and Human Rights Studies, which is under Zoryan's umbrella,
together with the Turkish Human Rights Association and the Truth
Justice Memory Centre in Istanbul, and the combined efforts of this
team, I think, had outstanding results in terms of the quality and
importance of the submission, which could have significant impact on
the Court's decision, and which represents evidence that no other
party has brought forward in this case. In other words, without this
intervention, without this NGO coalition, the facts of the Ergenekon
judgment, and Perincek's true agenda, would not have come to light.
Is the case about the historical truth of the Armenian Genocide? What
is really at issue?
We have emphasized that the case is not about the historical truth as
such. From the perspective of human rights law, freedom of expression
under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is
subjected to certain limitations. One of those is when speech amounts
to incitement to discrimination and hatred. So debates about the
historical truth or legal classification of atrocities as genocide or
some other label are not the real issue. The fundamental issue is
whether Perincek's statements when considered in their proper context
constitute incitement to discrimination and hatred.
What does the intervention of the coalition add that the other parties
to the case have not already said? Why is it significant?
The Court did not consider the impact of Perincek's statements on
Armenians in Turkey. It may be more difficult to argue that his
inflammatory statements threaten Armenians in Switzerland. But anyone
that knows about the murder of Hrant Dink and the continuing cover-up
in failing to punish the culprits knows that calling the Armenian
Genocide "a big lie" is clearly hateful, and can even result in
violence against Armenians in Turkey. The Swiss judgment against
Perincek did refer to his membership of the Talat Pasha Committee, so
this fact is in the record. All that we did was to provide the Grand
Chamber with a fuller picture of the significance of that Committee,
which of course, is also referred to by the Istanbul Penal Court in
the Ergenekon judgment. Indeed, that judgment refers to Perincek as
the head of "propaganda" and "psychological war", refers to his
promotion of hatred against Armenians, and further links Ergenekon
with the murder of Dink and members of other Christian minorities in
Turkey. Turkey's intervention argues desperately that only what
Perincek did in Switzerland is relevant; that the Court should somehow
ignore who Perincek really is and why he is on this relentless
campaign to deny the Armenian Genocide. Clearly, the case is not
about whether international lawyers could dispute legal classification
of those events as genocide, and it would be a mistake to go to Court
and argue that it is a genocide as if that is the issue. The issue is
whether Perincek has discriminatory motives and the answer to that
question is rather obvious.
How do you contrast the intervention of this NGO coalition with that
of Armenia and Turkey?
Governments are obviously important given that they are the ones that
signed the European Convention that established the Court. But
Governments have political interests and their perspectives are shaped
by different considerations than civil society actors such as human
rights NGOs. I think it is important that in this second round,
Armenia has intervened, just as Turkey did in the first round, and
now, in the second round. Perhaps their respective submissions will
neutralize each other. But I think the Court will take notice that
Armenian and Turkish human rights NGOs, that are not motivated by
political interests, are joining forces to expose Perincek's hateful
and violent agenda. And I believe that the details of the Ergenekon
judgment will be crucial evidence of his motivations, based on the
decision of Turkey's own courts! Finally, I think that with all the
media hype and attention being given to this case, we must not forget
that the real heroes are the Turkish human rights activists and
intellectuals that are standing in solidarity with their fellow
Armenians in Turkey, who face a life of increasing pressure and
intimidation and even violence. The Turkish activists face hate mail
and death threats for having stood in solidarity on the issue of the
Armenian Genocide. They are courageous and righteous, and deserve our
praise and recognition as one of the most important voices in the
Perincek affair.
http://civilnet.am/2015/01/24/armenian-turkish-solidarity-against-hatred-the-perincek-case-before-the-european-court/#.VMTMk_l_tqV
From: Baghdasarian
the European Court
24/1/2015
Payam Akhavan, Professor of International Law
Payam Akhavan is a Professor of International Law at McGill University
in Montreal, Canada, and a Visiting Fellow at Oxford University. He
was previously a UN prosecutor at The Hague and has served as counsel
in leading cases before international courts and tribunals. He spoke
to CivilNet about his representation of a Coalition of Armenian and
Turkish NGOs that have intervened in the Perincek case, which will be
heard by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg on January 28th. Dogu Perincek, an ultra-nationalist
Turkish politician and member of the Talat Pasha Committee, had been
convicted in Switzerland for incitement to discrimination for having
called the Armenian Genocide an "international lie". Before the
European Court, he succeeded in arguing that his freedom of expression
had been violated, and that he was not promoting hatred, because he
was only questioning the legal classification of the events of 1915,
which he did not deny. After a campaign by Armenian and Turkish NGOs,
the Swiss Government was persuaded to appeal the case to the Grand
Chamber of the European Court, to try and reverse this flawed
decision.
Professor Akhavan, how did you become involved with the Perincek case?
I was first alerted to the Perincek decision by my friends at the
Zoryan Institute in Toronto. They were very concerned about this
legal precedent being used by the Turkish Government as well as
ultranationalist politicians to argue that the European Court denies
that the events of 1915 constituted genocide. That of course is not
what the Court said, but its decision was twisted and misrepresented,
to reinforce the long-standing policy of denial and incitement to
hatred against Armenians. Zoryan led a costly campaign to publish
advertisements in Swiss newspapers in both French and German and to
cooperate with other Armenian organizations to persuade Switzerland to
appeal the case. They had to overcome the opposition of Turkey which
of course did not want the case to be appealed. Turkey had intervened
in support of Perincek even though its own courts, the Istanbul Penal
Court, had convicted him of being a leading member of the Ergenekon
terrorist organization! It is important that Turkish NGOs such as the
Turkish Human Rights Association, the oldest and biggest human rights
NGO in Turkey with thousands of members, had also written to the Swiss
Government in favour of an appeal. Once Switzerland agreed to appeal
the case, we decided to put together a coalition of Armenian and
Turkish NGOs to intervene in the case. We thought that the
composition of the coalition itself would be a powerful message to the
Court that this was not an "Armenian" issue; it was a human rights
issue. Perincek was not interested in academic debates on
international law, and whether the term "genocide" applies to the
events of 1915 or not. He is an ultranationalist politician whose
platform is incitement to hatred against Armenians, based on paranoid
conspiracy theories and historical revisionism. It was also
imperative for the Court to know the details of the Ergenekon judgment
and for this we needed qualified and dedicated Turkish lawyers and
activists and translators and months of work in coordination with
knowledgeable and diligent researchers at Zoryan and the lawyers in
London and Oxford to go through the 17,000 pages of the decision, the
international case-law, and complex arguments, to find what was most
relevant to establishing the discriminatory motives of Perincek. So
in the end, the coalition was Zoryan, or rather then Institute for
Genocide and Human Rights Studies, which is under Zoryan's umbrella,
together with the Turkish Human Rights Association and the Truth
Justice Memory Centre in Istanbul, and the combined efforts of this
team, I think, had outstanding results in terms of the quality and
importance of the submission, which could have significant impact on
the Court's decision, and which represents evidence that no other
party has brought forward in this case. In other words, without this
intervention, without this NGO coalition, the facts of the Ergenekon
judgment, and Perincek's true agenda, would not have come to light.
Is the case about the historical truth of the Armenian Genocide? What
is really at issue?
We have emphasized that the case is not about the historical truth as
such. From the perspective of human rights law, freedom of expression
under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is
subjected to certain limitations. One of those is when speech amounts
to incitement to discrimination and hatred. So debates about the
historical truth or legal classification of atrocities as genocide or
some other label are not the real issue. The fundamental issue is
whether Perincek's statements when considered in their proper context
constitute incitement to discrimination and hatred.
What does the intervention of the coalition add that the other parties
to the case have not already said? Why is it significant?
The Court did not consider the impact of Perincek's statements on
Armenians in Turkey. It may be more difficult to argue that his
inflammatory statements threaten Armenians in Switzerland. But anyone
that knows about the murder of Hrant Dink and the continuing cover-up
in failing to punish the culprits knows that calling the Armenian
Genocide "a big lie" is clearly hateful, and can even result in
violence against Armenians in Turkey. The Swiss judgment against
Perincek did refer to his membership of the Talat Pasha Committee, so
this fact is in the record. All that we did was to provide the Grand
Chamber with a fuller picture of the significance of that Committee,
which of course, is also referred to by the Istanbul Penal Court in
the Ergenekon judgment. Indeed, that judgment refers to Perincek as
the head of "propaganda" and "psychological war", refers to his
promotion of hatred against Armenians, and further links Ergenekon
with the murder of Dink and members of other Christian minorities in
Turkey. Turkey's intervention argues desperately that only what
Perincek did in Switzerland is relevant; that the Court should somehow
ignore who Perincek really is and why he is on this relentless
campaign to deny the Armenian Genocide. Clearly, the case is not
about whether international lawyers could dispute legal classification
of those events as genocide, and it would be a mistake to go to Court
and argue that it is a genocide as if that is the issue. The issue is
whether Perincek has discriminatory motives and the answer to that
question is rather obvious.
How do you contrast the intervention of this NGO coalition with that
of Armenia and Turkey?
Governments are obviously important given that they are the ones that
signed the European Convention that established the Court. But
Governments have political interests and their perspectives are shaped
by different considerations than civil society actors such as human
rights NGOs. I think it is important that in this second round,
Armenia has intervened, just as Turkey did in the first round, and
now, in the second round. Perhaps their respective submissions will
neutralize each other. But I think the Court will take notice that
Armenian and Turkish human rights NGOs, that are not motivated by
political interests, are joining forces to expose Perincek's hateful
and violent agenda. And I believe that the details of the Ergenekon
judgment will be crucial evidence of his motivations, based on the
decision of Turkey's own courts! Finally, I think that with all the
media hype and attention being given to this case, we must not forget
that the real heroes are the Turkish human rights activists and
intellectuals that are standing in solidarity with their fellow
Armenians in Turkey, who face a life of increasing pressure and
intimidation and even violence. The Turkish activists face hate mail
and death threats for having stood in solidarity on the issue of the
Armenian Genocide. They are courageous and righteous, and deserve our
praise and recognition as one of the most important voices in the
Perincek affair.
http://civilnet.am/2015/01/24/armenian-turkish-solidarity-against-hatred-the-perincek-case-before-the-european-court/#.VMTMk_l_tqV
From: Baghdasarian