Author: Kalantarian Kevo

The Guardian, UK
Oct 19 2006

This is the moment for Europe to dismantle taboos, not erect them

Far from criminalising denial of the Armenian genocide, we should
decriminalise denial of the Holocaust

Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday October 19, 2006
The Guardian

What a magnificent blow for truth, justice and humanity the French
national assembly has struck. Last week it voted for a bill that
would make it a crime to deny that the Turks committed genocide
against the Armenians during the first world war. Bravo! Chapeau bas!
Vive la France! But let this be only a beginning in a brave new
chapter of European history. Let the British parliament now make it a
crime to deny that it was Russians who murdered Polish officers at
Katyn in 1940. Let the Turkish parliament make it a crime to deny
that France used torture against insurgents in Algeria.

Let the German parliament pass a bill making it a crime to deny the
existence of the Soviet gulag. Let the Irish parliament criminalise
denial of the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. Let the Spanish
parliament mandate a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment for anyone who
claims that the Serbs did not attempt genocide against Albanians in
Kosovo. And the European parliament should immediately pass into
European law a bill making it obligatory to describe as genocide the
American colonists’ treatment of Native Americans. The only pity is
that we, in the European Union, can’t impose the death sentence for
these heinous thought crimes. But perhaps, with time, we may change
that too.

Oh brave new Europe! It is entirely beyond me how anyone in their
right mind – apart, of course, from a French-Armenian lobbyist – can
regard this draft bill, which in any case will almost certainly be
voted down in the upper house of the French parliament, as a
progressive and enlightened step. What right has the parliament of
France to prescribe by law the correct historical terminology to
characterise what another nation did to a third nation 90 years ago?
If the French parliament passed a law making it a crime to deny the
complicity of Vichy France in the deportation to the death camps of
French Jews, I would still argue that this was a mistake, but I could
respect the self-critical moral impulse behind it.

This bill, by contrast, has no more moral or historical justification
than any of the other suggestions I have just made. Yes, there are
some half a million French citizens of Armenian origin – including
Charles Aznavour, who was once Varinag Aznavourian – and they have
been pressing for it. There are at least that number of British
citizens of Polish origin, so there would be precisely the same
justification for a British bill on Katyn. Step forward Mr Denis
MacShane, a British MP of Polish origin, to propose it – in a spirit
of satire, of course. Or how about British MPs of Pakistani and
Indian origin proposing rival bills on the history of Kashmir?

In a leading article last Friday, the Guardian averred that
"supporters of the law are doubtless motivated by a sincere desire to
redress a 90-year-old injustice". I wish that I could be so
confident. Currying favour with French-Armenian voters and putting
another obstacle in the way of Turkey joining the European Union
might be suggested as other motives; but speculation about motives is
a mug’s game.

It will be obvious to every intelligent reader that my argument has
nothing to do with questioning the suffering of the Armenians who
were massacred, expelled or felt impelled to flee in fear of their
lives during and after the first world war. Their fate at the hands
of the Turks was terrible and has been too little recalled in the
mainstream of European memory. Reputable historians and writers have
made a strong case that those events deserve the label of genocide,
as it has been defined since 1945. In fact, Orhan Pamuk – this year’s
winner of the Nobel prize for literature – and other Turkish writers
have been prosecuted under the notorious article 301 of the Turkish
penal code for daring to suggest exactly that. That is significantly
worse than the intended effects of the French bill. But two wrongs
don’t make a right.

No one can legislate historical truth. In so far as historical truth
can be established at all, it must be found by unfettered historical
research, with historians arguing over the evidence and the facts,
testing and disputing each other’s claims without fear of prosecution
or persecution.

In the tense ideological politics of our time, this proposed bill is
a step in exactly the wrong direction. How can we credibly criticise
Turkey, Egypt or other states for curbing free speech, through the
legislated protection of historical, national or religious
shibboleths, if we are doing ever more of it ourselves? This weekend
in Venice I once again heard a distinguished Muslim scholar rail
against our double standards. We ask them to accept insults to Muslim
taboos, he said, but would the Jews accept that someone should be
free to deny the Holocaust?

Far from creating new legally enforced taboos about history, national
identity and religion, we should be dismantling those that still
remain on our statute books. Those European countries that have them
should repeal not only their blasphemy laws but also their laws on
Holocaust denial. Otherwise the charge of double standards is
impossible to refute. What’s sauce for the goose must be sauce for
the gander.

I recently heard the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy going
through some impressive intellectual contortions to explain why he
opposed any laws restricting criticism of religion but supported
those on Holocaust denial. It was one thing, he argued, to question a
religious belief, quite another to deny a historical fact. But this
won’t wash. Historical facts are established precisely by their being
disputed and tested against the evidence. Without that process of
contention – up to and including the revisionist extreme of outright
denial – we would never discover which facts are truly hard.

Such consistency requires painful decisions. For example, I have
nothing but abhorrence for some of David Irving’s recorded views
about Nazi Germany’s attempted extermination of the Jews – but I am
quite certain that he should not be sitting in an Austrian prison as
a result of them. You may riposte that the falsehood of some of his
claims was actually established by a trial in a British court. Yes,
but that was not the British state prosecuting him for Holocaust
denial. It was Irving himself going to court to sue another historian
who suggested he was a Holocaust denier. He was trying to curb free
and fair historical debate; the British court defended it.

Today, if we want to defend free speech in our own countries and to
encourage it in places where it is currently denied, we should be
calling for David Irving to be released from his Austrian prison. The
Austrian law on Holocaust denial is far more historically
understandable and morally respectable than the proposed French one –
at least the Austrians are facing up to their own difficult past,
rather than pointing the finger at somebody else’s – but in the
larger European interest we should encourage the Austrians to repeal
it.

Only when we are prepared to allow our own most sacred cows to be
poked in the eye can we credibly demand that Islamists, Turks and
others do the same. This is a time not for erecting taboos but for
dismantling them. We must practice what we preach.

Amnesty International gives sharp reaction against France

Sabah, Turkey
Oct 20 2006

"The legislative proposal which imposes a penalty to those who
deny the Armenian genocide is violating the freedom of speech. The
legislative proposal is against the 10th article of the European
Court of Human Rights."

Amnesty International has announced that the legislative proposal which
was approved in France last week is "seriously violating the freedom
of speech." In a statement published by the Amnesty International
it was stated that the organization fears of approval of the bill
in the French Parliament. The statement asked Jacques Chirac to
preclude the proposal to become a law. The statement also indicates
that the proposal violates the 10th article of the European Court of
Human Rights.

GARBAGE NOT FAR FROM THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING

A1+
[05:54 pm] 20 October, 2006

At the center of Yerevan, not far from the Republic square, a new
garbage site is being created.

The crossroad of Buzand the Republican streets can be characterized
as a place for throwing away plastic bottles. The reason is that the
garbage has not been removed from here for a long time. Of course
there are garbage cans, but our compatriots have thrown away the
garbage in and around them.

According to the people working on the construction of the nearby
building, citizens often throw away their plastic bags around
the area. "We have removed the garbage with our cars several
times. Sometimes they blame us for polluting the area, but how can
we do it if we are the first ones to breathe the polluted air?"
the head of the construction said.

By the way, the crossroad is in the neighborhood of the RA Ministry
of Finance and the third building of the RA Government. The state
officials pass it by every day and fail to notice the situation. We
met an official walking along the street and tried to find out his
opinion. He agreed to answer anonymously.

"It is too bad we are careless about preserving our city clean. There
are very few garbage cans. For instance, I don’t know where to throw
my cigarette now", he said.

SWISS CABINET REBUKES JUSTICE MINISTER

Swiss Info, Switzerland
Oct 19 2006

The cabinet says it regrets comments made by Justice Minister Christoph
Blocher in Turkey earlier this month that he wanted to change the
Swiss anti-racism law.

Swiss President Moritz Leuenberger said this gave the impression that
Switzerland could be pressured into changing its laws depending on
the circumstances.

"The cabinet remains opposed to a pure and simple abolition of the
anti-racism law," Leuenberger said on Wednesday. "This text will
remain in force and will continue to be used."

He said it was legitimate to propose making modifications, but said
the cabinet regretted that the discussion had been started during a
visit abroad.

Blocher, a leading light of the rightwing Swiss People’s Party, had
remarked during his Turkish trip that part of the anti-racism law –
which was adopted in 1994 and includes sections aimed at preventing
revisionist views about the Holocaust – gave him a "headache".

The law has led to investigations in Switzerland against two Turks,
including one historian, for allegedly denying the 1915 Armenian
massacre.

Armenians say around 1.8 million of their people died as a result of
a forced mass evacuation by the Turkish government during the Ottoman
Empire. Turkey puts the figure closer to 200,000. Under Swiss law any
act of denying, belittling or justifying genocide is a violation of
the country’s anti-racism legislation.

However, Blocher said at the time that it was ultimately up to the
government, parliament and possibly the population, to decide on
any changes.

What’s this? Federal Commission against Racism Under scrutiny

According to Leuenberger, Blocher has told his cabinet colleagues
that a working group at his ministry was already re-examining the law,
in particular article 261bis, the cause of Blocher’s headache.

The justice minister was ready to include a member of the Federal
Commission against Racism in this work, Leuenberger added, refusing
to any further questions on the matter – which caused a media and
political outcry in Switzerland – saying the content of cabinet
meetings was confidential.

For his part, Blocher, speaking at a different media conference
earlier in the day, said he was simply waiting for the feedback from
his working group by the end of the year.

"It’s about making the anti-racism law clearer, more secure and
unambiguous," he said.

TURKISH NATIONALISTS TO PROTEST FRENCH BILL ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

PanARMENIAN.Net
18.10.2006 16:45 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ October 21 in Paris the Talaat Pasha Committee
and Turkish Labor Party will hold a rally in protest against the
French bill penalizing the Armenian Genocide denial. As reported by
"Armenia" Greek edition, Labor Party leader Dogu Perincek will also
take part in the action. The party is known for its ultra-nationalist
and kemalist position and collaborates with the radical party of
nationalistic movement.

PARLIAMENT TO TACKLE FRANCE PASSAGE OF ARMENIAN BILL

The New Anatolian, Turkey
Oct 16 2006

Ahead of the Seker Bayram recess starting next weekend, Parliament
has a busy schedule this week as it’s set to counter its French
counterpart passing a controversial Armenian "genocide" bill as well
as the contentious foundations bill.

The repercussions of the French Parliament passing a bill to heavily
penalize those who deny an Armenian "genocide" will dominate the full
Parliament as a special agenda issue.

On Tuesday, after Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul briefs Parliament
on the issue, political parties will then voice their concerns and
opinions.

The controversial 93-article foundations bill will be assessed by
Parliament as a basic law in three different parts.

The bill, after significant changes, paves the way for community
foundations to officially register what they own.

Under the bill, foreigners would be able to establish foundations in
Turkey or be in the administration of existing foundations.

Foundations would also be entitled to open offices abroad. The
implementation of the regulation depends on the principle of
international reciprocity.

Deputies debating the seeds legislation — which aims to increase
the efficiency and quality in seed production and to restructure the
sector as called for in the latest European Union progress report —
are expected to submit their report to Parliament on Tuesday.

The same day the Justice Commission will debate a bill submitted
by a group of ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party deputies,
led by Yozgat Deputy Bekir Bozdag. It proposes amendments to seven
laws in line with the adaptation of basic penal laws.

The only commission to meet on Wednesday is one probing the threat
of cancer posed by industrial waste in Dilovasi, Gebze.

ARMENIA SHOULD PREPARE TO MITIGATING CONSEQUENCES OF RUSSIA-GEORGIA OPPOSITION IN ADVANCE

PanARMENIAN.Net
17.10.2006 16:06 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ At the given phase of the protracted confrontation
between Georgia and Russia there are no significant and moreover
catastrophic consequences for Armenia expected from economic and
political pressure put by Moscow upon Tbilisi, analyst of Spectrum
Center for Strategic Analysis Sergey Sargsyan told PanARMENIAN.Net. In
his words, firstly, the matter does not concern economic blockade
yet, but economic and psychological pressure. "Moreover, Russia is
interested to make these addressed, thus limitations will not concern
transit. Secondly, the next peak of anti-Russian campaign in Georgia,
marking local authorities elections is already overcome. Another matter
is that Russia used the occasion – the detention of its servicemen –
to radically reconsider its policy towards Tbilisi. Thus, one should
not rule out further aggravation of Russian-Georgian relations, up
to introducing complex sanctions. Thus, it would be good to prepare
to it in advance, e.g. changing transportation routes," he remarked.

Besides, Sargsyan underscored that in the current situation repair
and expanding of Poti-Akhalkalaki-Gyumri road could be lobbied within
the Millennium Challenge Account. "Its sponsors will meet the idea
with understanding, as otherwise the cargo will go through Iran,
and this will tie Armenia with IRI even closer – both in economic
and political respects," the Armenian analyst said.

"ECHO": ON THE VERGE OF CONFRONTATION

Ïðaâî Âûaîða, Azerbaijan
Democratic Azerbaijan
Oct 17 2006

What does Iran attempt to build on occupied territories of Azerbaijan?

Today authorities of Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) continue
construction of dam at frontier river Araz, the region of historical
bridge Khudaferin, which unites occupied Jabrail region of our
country and South Azerbaijan. As head of Committee on Defense of
National Movement of South Azerbaijan, Jahandar Bayoglu, informed
"Echo" referring to local population of right bank (Iranian part,
author’s remark) of frontier river Araz, there are working heavy
technics and engineering installations.

It should be pointed out that recently "Echo" has published statement
of the Ministry of Energy of Iran, Parviz Fatahi, who during his
visit to Yerevan (September 28, 2006 – author’s remark) promised
to discuss construction process of dam "Khodaaferin" (Khudaferin,
author’s remark ) with Armenian part.

In this case the matter concerns the area neighboring Khudaferin bridge
on Araz river built in XII-XIII centuries between North Azerbaijan
and South Azerbaijan (Iran of today, author’s remark). On Azerbaijani
part, bridge is situated on now occupied Jabrail region.

Moreover, on the right bank of Araz river of this area there is
Iranian town Khoda-Aferin.

In turn, as Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan informed
referring to Embassy of our country to Iran, the said information is
denied by Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran.

Chief of administration of information policy and press of Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, Tair Tagizade, informs that authorities
of Tehran make believe that any information on any works carried out
by Iran on occupied territories of Azerbaijan is false.

At the same time chief of administration of Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Ambassador of Azerbaijan to Tehran, stresses that Iranian part
recognizes that Iran and Armenia have energy project "being realized
on officially recognized territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan".

Head of the Committee, Jahandar Bayoglu, was not satisfied with
position of head of diplomatic representatives of Azerbaijan to
Tehran. Accordingly to him, our diplomat "decided to insist on denying
the fact of construction of reservoir". Head of the Committee thinks
that such conduct of Ambassador contradicts to national interests
of Azerbaijan. As J. Bayoglu underlines words of Iranian officials
(P. Fatahi, author’s remark) concerning ongoing works on construction
of dam, are confirmed by our officials, living on the region near
Khudaferin bridge, on Iranian bank of Araz.

In this connection he urges authorities of the country to clarify this
issue and to explain what is really going on in the region neighboring
Khudaferin bridge. Bayoglu stresses that local population say that
construction works are not large-scale.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan informed that they intend
"to be content with official response of Iran". "If such information
concerning continuation of construction works is received in future,
then our Ambassador to Iran will have additional tasks", Tagizade says.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs also informs that if after official
assurance of Iran, Azerbaijani part will make effort to clarify any
details again, then accordingly to international practice this stage
will be understood as rather confrontational one.

–Boundary_(ID_8LB6q+wgMJPOnvlQc2h3zg)–

IN TURKEY, WRITING HISTORY’S WRONGS
By Roshni Sharma

Jerusalem Post
Oct 17 2006

Last September, the rising young Turkish novelist Elif Shafak was
charged with "public denigration of Turkishness" under Article 301
of the Turkish Penal Code. The subsequent legal case became only one
of a series of trials aimed at suppressing internal discourse about
the 1915 Armenian massacre, with the Turkish government continuing
to reject responsibility and the term "genocide" when describing the
fate of 1.5 million Armenians in the country during World War I.

Since the Article’s induction last year, a number of distinguished
Turkish writers and journalists have faced similar charges, including
Orhan Pamuk, who received the 2006 Nobel Prize for literature last
week. (In a well-publicized interview with Swiss journal Tages
Anzeiger, Pamuk had stated, "One million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds
were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares talk about it."

The case against him stalled and was eventually dismissed against a
backdrop of growing international outrage.)

France’s lower house of parliament approved a bill making it a crime
to deny the Armenian genocide last week, just as Pamuk was announced
as the Nobel prize winner. President Chirac is expected to block the
bill’s progress, but if the law is passed the Armenian genocide will
join the Holocaust as something illegal to deny in France. The law
cuts to the heart of European-Turkish tensions, with Turkey’s highly
contested "literature trials"threatening to undermine the Muslim
country’s application for European Union membership.

The case against Shafak, a critically acclaimed, bestselling
novelist, was considered exceptional even among the recent court
scandals. In contrast to Pamuk, Shafak was prosecuted not because of
public statements she had made, but because of the opinions of her
fictional characters.

The novel at the heart of the controversy, The Bastard of Istanbul,
follows four generations of women in two families – one in Turkey
and the second a group of migr s based in the United States. Among
the book’s offending statements is the line, "I am the grandchild
of genocide survivors who lost all their relatives at the hands of
Turkish butchers in 1915, but I myself have been brainwashed to deny
the genocide because I was raised by some Turk named Mustapha!"

Originally written in English, the novel was released in Turkey last
March and became an overnight bestseller, selling over 60,000 copies.

>From her home in Istanbul, Shafak spoke recently with the Jerusalem
Post.

You didn’t attend the September hearing against you because of your
pregnancy, but why was The Bastard of Istanbul a political target in
the first place?

I gave birth four days before my trial, so both the trial and the
delivery took place in the same week. The book became the target
of ultra-nationalists. These groups compose a very small segment
of the society, but because their voices are so loud and message so
aggressive, they manage to dominate the political agenda. There is
this nationalist backlash that wants to prevent Turkey’s European
Union membership. So they are targeting intellectuals deliberately.

We’re not the main targets. The main target is Turkey’s EU process.

What was the initial response to the novel? Were there changes to
this response during or following your trial?

The book came out on March 8, International Women’s Day. It was read
and circulated freely. The feedback that I received from different
segments of Turkish society has been incredibly positive … This
nationalist reaction, the backlash, came much later. My experience
with Turkish society is yes, I think people are discussing issues.

It’s not easy, but the civil society here is quite dynamic. That’s
why [the trials are] a pity, because nationalist groups are giving
the whole country a black eye.

Did thoughts of flight cross your mind during the trial, or did you
expect the verdict?

I wasn’t expecting this trial. It caught me by surprise, but I never
thought about abandoning Turkey, going away once and for all.

There is a metaphor I like very much in the Koran: it’s a tree called
Tuba that’s supposed to have roots up in the air. Sometimes when
my nationalist critics accuse me of having no roots, I say I feel
like the Tuba tree … My roots are in the air, not in the ground,
and when your roots are in the air you can feel connected to more
than one country, culture, and identity. I like that flexibility.

What is your response to this notion of a "clash of civilizations"?

What was your take on the Pope’s controversial recent statements
about Islam?

I found the Pope’s recent statements worrisome because we are living in
an increasingly polarized world and we don’t need further polarization
… There are very rigid ultra-religious within the Muslim world,
in the Christian world, and in the Jewish world, and I think that
these hardliners have a lot in common. They have the same mentality
based on exclusion, and they think they are better than others …

I do not believe there is a clash of civilizations between Islam and
the West, but I think there is a clash of opinions in each country. I
think Islam is … not one color or one voice. It is composed of
different voices, different interpretations, just like every other
religion. There are progressive, heterodox forces within Islamic
history and the Islamic domain. What worries me most is to see how
people on both sides believe in a clash of civilizations. I think
this is very dangerous.

What is the Turkish writer’s relationship with censored history?

For me, history is important, memory is important, a sense of
continuity is important. Turkey is a dynamic, future-oriented society,
but that potential for transformation came at the expense of memory
… The events of 1915 are part of that. Many Turks do not have a sense
of curiosity for our past. There is this mentality to let bygones be
bygones and a tendency to draw a clear demarcation line between past
and present.

Walter Benjamin has a metaphor I like very much. He said, "sometimes I
feel like I’m walking on a pile of rubble and I try to listen to the
sounds coming from beneath, to understand if there is still something
alive underneath that rubble." Sometimes I try to see if there are
still stories or words that are alive under the ground and, when I
encounter something, I pull it from the ground, I shake off its dust
and put it in my novels so that it can live and circulate.

In fall 2005, you taught a course entitled "Gender Issues and Women’s
Literature in the Middle East" at the University of Arizona. You
asked, "Do women write differently than men? Are there essential
differences between Western women writers and those coming from the
Middle East?" How would you answer those questions?

These are questions that are very dear to me. I think about these
questions a lot. I don’t think there are fundamental differences
between women writers and male writers that are biologically determined
… our pen, our writing, should be bi-sexual; it should transcend
gender boundaries. And I am against making a distinction between
Middle Eastern writers and Western writers. I prefer to see each and
every writer in his or her own individuality.

Did you receive any threats to you or your family during the trial?

I have received some very poisonous letters, few in numbers, but
they were quite full of hatred and rage. That being said, it was
interesting to see that most of the [negative] letters came from Turks
living abroad, in America or in Europe. I tend to think immigrant Turks
[are] much more nationalist, religious or conservative than the Turks
in Turkey.

You’ve quoted Bertolt Brecht, "Unhappy the country that needs
heroes." How would you respond to this, in terms of your relationship
with national heroes?

It troubles me very much. I think only true democracy can come from
below, from civil society, and it can be achieved collectively,
not individually.

When Turkish writers are persecuted, sometimes the Western media
treats us as if we were victims, and I don’t like that. I’m not a
victim. I’m not a hero, either. We don’t need individual heroes. We
need collective networks, collective movements of progressive people.

I think there should be more collaboration between progressive,
democratic forces in Turkey, in Israel, progressive democratic forces
in France. We don’t need heroes, but we need these movements, civil
society movements coming from below.

NOBEL WINNER PAMUK SLAMS FRENCH PARLIAMENT’S GENOCIDE LAW

Deutsche Presse-Agentur
October 14, 2006 Saturday 9:56 AM EST

DPA POLITICS Turkey Diplomacy France Pamuk Nobel winner Pamuk slams
French parliament’s genocide law Ankara Turkish Nobel Literature Prize
winner Orhan Pamuk has hit out at a French parliament decision to
make it a crime to deny the massacres of Armenians during the First
World War,

describing the move as a blow to freedom of speech.

Speaking to the private NTV television station, Pamuk said late
Friday the move was not in the French tradition – but that Turkey
should not overreact.

"We all know of the French traditions which defend freedom of
speech… We have all been affected by this. This move however does
not fit with the traditional French ideals," Pamuk said.

Pamuk was awarded the Nobel prize on Thursday, the day the lower
house of the French parliament passed a bill making it a criminal
offence to deny that a genocide took place in Turkey by Ottoman Turks

on Christian Armenians.

While Turkey admits that massacres took place, it vehemently denies
that the deaths of Armenians during the war were part of a planned
genocide.

Earlier this year Pamuk was has himself on trial for "insulting
Turkishness" for his comments on the matter.

He was tried, but found not guilty on a technicality, for having told
a Swiss newspaper "30,000 Kurds and a million Armenians were killed
in these lands and nobody but me dares talk about it."

While no official sanctions have been announced by the Turkish
government, public campaigns have already begun to boycott French
goods.

Pamuk though warned that Turkey should not go too far in reaction to
the French move, saying "one should not burn the whole quilt for the
sake of a single flea".

Pamuk’s winning the Nobel prize has been widely welcomed by Turks
although nationalists have claimed the prize was awarded not for
his writing but for his politics, in particular his comments on the
killings of Armenians.