FRENCH CONSTITUTED NUMEROUS GENOCIDES AGAINST THE ALGERIANS
Prof. Dr. Ali Al-Hail
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Oct 21 2006
* The French Definition of ‘Genocide’
No one, I suppose, would disagree with the French parliamentary
minority Socialist MPs’ definition of genocide as “the organized
killing of a people to end their collective existence.”
However, these MP’s, whose parliament building overlooks the Seine
river, seem to have a short memory about the Seine river graveyard.
Thousands of Algerians were reported to have been thrown into the
river, and left to be drowned during the late 20th century (Ahmed
Bin Billa, al-Jazeera TV, 2004). Isn’t that ‘genocide,’ an “organized
killing of a people to end their collective existence?”
The minority Socialist MPs, whose country traditionally favors art,
literature, theatre and poetry, should remember that those who
live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Beginning with banning
the hijab (a woman’s head scarf) in public places and schools, to
satirizing the Prophet of mercy for all humanity, Mohammed (pbuh),
to more recently considering any denial of the Armenian ‘genocide’,
as a crime, the French National Assembly, who the Statue of Liberty
to the United States, appears to have lots of memory lapses.
Long before the notorious alleged Armenian ‘genocide’ took place in
Turkey in 1915, the brutal and barbaric colonization by the French
constituted numerous genocides against the Algerians, both inside
Algeria and in France itself, from 1832 to 1962, when the Algerians
eventually achieved their independence. About seven million Algerians
were killed during French colonization in Algeria while resisting
French occupation (President Ahmed Bin Billa, al-Jazeera TV, 2004).
Despite requests and appeals from the Algerian president, Butaflieqa
recently publicly asked France to apologize for its horrendous
‘genocides’ in Algeria. France has not yet responded.
Although many Turks, including influential thinkers and politicians,
will not deny that hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed in
1915 during a relocation arrangement to other parts of the Ottoman
Empire, the issue of a ‘genocide’ was reported to have been conceived
as highly controversial. Some argue that those Armenians who died were
caught amid inter-communal warfare. Thus, it was not “the organized
killing of a people to end their collective existence.”
In other words, it was not a ‘genocide.’ A few others in Turkey and
beyond, however, would argue that it was conscious, and as such it was
a ‘genocide.’ Despite worldwide contentious differentiation regarding
the event, Socialists in the French Assembly National, apparently
for election reasons, are determined to legalize their mind-set.
Many in France make the case that sheer politics are behind the
minority Socialists initiative. As such, there are no ethics, good
merits, or otherwise genuine concerns about the Armenian ‘genocide.’
The minority Socialists, by proposing such a bill in order to push
for a law criminalizing denial of an Armenian genocide, aim to gain
Armenian votes during next year’s presidential elections.
One presumes, as do many, that the minority Socialists also aim
to spread anti-Turkish sentiment in order to make it impossible
for Turkey, as a predominantly Muslim country, to join the European
Union. That Turkey already has an appointment from the European Union
for 2010 to negotiate its membership must be kept in mind.
Since there are more or less six million Arabs in France, mainly
from Algeria and other north African countries, this would be an
opportunistic moment for the Socialists in France to push for a
law that considers Israeli occupation forces killings in Gaza and
other Palestinian lands as ‘genocide.’ Approximately 750 Palestinian
civilians, including women and children, were killed by the Israeli
occupation forces since Jan. 25, since Hamas was voted into office
democratically. More than 3,000 civilians, including women and
children, have been either injured or maimed since then.
Additionally, nearly 4,000 civilians, again including women and
children, were arrested. If these killings are not genocide, what
can genocide be? Isn’t this an “organized killing of a people to end
their collective existence?”
Instead of crying over controversial history, without, of course,
endorsing genocides against any human race, genocides in Palestine
are clearly committed daily by Israeli occupation forces, which escape
controversy and global documentation by satellite cameras, including
French TV, the press and media. Had the French Socialists been sincere
about human suffering, they would have assuredly considered Israeli
‘genocides’ against Palestinians since as early as 1948 as real
‘genocides.’ In addition, this would certainly bring them at least
three million votes by Arab French.

PICKING THE NEXT CHAMP
By David R. Sands
Washington Times, DC
Oct 21 2006
Having just settled the question of who is the real world champion,
we immediately move on to figuring out who will be the next world
champion.
Russian GM Vladimir Kramnik’s overtime win over Bulgaria’s Veselin
Topalov in their reunification title match in Elista, Russia, last
week was barely over when all attention turned to the next championship
cycle. The hopes of FIDE, the international chess organization, to end
the disastrous civil war in the game over the past dozen years may
hinge on its ability to organize and run a credible and competitive
process to determine Kramnik’s next challenger.
Right now, through a quirk in the qualifying process, Topalov isn’t
even in the field of candidates with a shot at the next title bout,
although it looks likely FIDE organizers will find a way to get him
a slot.
Many of the likely challengers were in action last week at the 2006
Europe Club Cup in the Austrian city of Fuegen, won on tiebreaks by
the Russian Tomsk-400 squad. Tomsk top board GM Alexander Morozevich
is one of four players automatically seeded into the next candidates
cycle, along with Kramnik, Viswanathan Anand of India and Peter
Svidler of Russia.
Brooklyn GM Gata Kamsky, the only American in the FIDE field, plays
France’s Etienne Bacrot in one of eight knockout matches for a chance
to play in the candidates tournament. Hungarians Peter Leko and Judit
Polgar (the only woman in the running) and budding Norwegian superstar
Magnus Carlsen are among the other hopefuls.
The darkest horse in the field may be Russian GM Vladimir Malakhov,
who was in action in Austria as a top member of the powerful
Ural Sverdlovskaya team, which lost out to Tomsk on tiebreaks. The
26-year-old Malakhov is not well known outside Russia and is a rarity
in elite chess these days in that he has a day job as a physics
researcher in Moscow.
Still, the part-timer flashed some solid form in the European club
event, as can be seen by his quality win over Artashes Minasian, a
strong Armenian grandmaster. Biding his time on the Black side of a
Maroczy Bind Sicilian, Malakhov times his break perfectly and batters
White’s king with some nice tactical shots.
By 19. g4 h6 20. Bd2 e6, Black has yet to advance a piece beyond
his third rank, but the bristly Hedgehog-like formation of his pawns
along the third rank is famously hard to crack.
An inaccuracy leaves Minasian open to a nasty counterpunch: 21.
Qe1? (a4 Qc7 22. Qe2 holds things together, although already Black is
at least equal) g5! 22. fxg5?! (giving Black the critical e5-square
too easily; seeking complications in lines like 22. Ned1 Nxg4 23. Qg3
Bd4+ 24. Kf1 f5 25. exf5 exf5 26. Nd5 was better) hxg5 23. Nc2 Nxg4
24. e5 Bxe5.
White’s hopes for a king-side attack are dashed on 25. Rh5 Bxh2+!
(clarifying and consolidating Black’s edge with minimal risk) 26.
Rxh2 Nxh2 27. Kxh2 Ne5, and Black’s liberated pieces flood the zone,
with tempting targets all around the lonely White king.
It’s over on 28. Be2 (see diagram) Rxc4! 29. Kg3 (Bxc4 Nf3+) Qf6
30. Qg1 Rxc3+!, and the rampaging rook removes another critical
defender. Since 31. Bxc3 (Be3 Qf4+ 32. Kh3 Qh4 mate) Qf4+ 32. Kh3
Qh4 is mate, White resigned.
Congratulations to West Pointer David Jacobs and the Army for winning
martial bragging rights for the next year at last weekend’s 47th Armed
Forces Open, held on the grounds of the Armed Forces Retirement Home
in the District.
Jacobs, a third-year cadet, won his third straight individual title
in the all-service event with a 51/2-1/2 score, a half-point ahead of
Virginia expert and Navy retiree Larry Larkins, whom Jacobs defeated
in their individual encounter in the penultimate round.
Among the eight players finishing in a tie for third with 41/2 points
were Air Force Lt. Col. Doug Taffinder, who chaired this year’s event
and held Jacobs to his only draw; and retired Air Force Maj. Zachary
Kinney, a prime force behind this tournament for years and a good
friend of this column.
Jacobs’ win also propelled the Army platoon to a narrow one-point
victory over the Air Force squadron in the interservice team
competition.
Some close-quarters maneuvering, followed by a quick artillery strike,
produced Jacobs’ best win of the event, a hard-fought victory over
Reserve Sailor Pete Andreas, a Class A player. Andreas’ Alekhine
Defense is a nice break for the parade of Sicilians and Petroffs we
see these days at the grandmaster level, and Black acquits himself
well in the early going.
But White’s powerful pawn center gives him a slight pull for most of
the game, and a moment’s lapse allows Jacobs to cash in: 28. d6 cxd6
29. cxd6 Ne4 30. Rd1 Rf6? (the queen is typically a poor blockader,
and here White uses a queen sacrifice to illustrate what Nimzovich
called the passed pawn’s “lust to expand”) 31. Qc4+ Re6 32.
Qxe6+! (ouch) Qxe6 33. d7, and Black resigned as it will cost him
his queen to stop the advanced White pawn.
22nd European Club Cub, Fuegen, Austria, October 2006 Minasian Malakhov
1. e4 c5 16. Rh3 Nf6 2. Nf3 Nc6 17. Bd3 Nbd7 3. d4 cxd4 18. Ne3
a6 4. Nxd4 g6 19. g4 h6 5. c4 Nf6 20. Bd2 e6 6. Nc3 d6 21. Qe1 g5
7. Nc2 Bg7 22. gxf5 hxg5 8. Be2 0-0 23. Nc2 Nxg4 9. 0-0 Nd7 24. e5
Bxe5 10. Bd2 Nc5 25. Rh5 Bxh2+ 11. b4 Nd7 26. Rxh2 Nxh2 12. Rb1 b6
27. Kxh2 Ne5 13. f4 Bb7 28. Be2 Rxc4 14. Be1 Rc8 29. Kg3 Qf6 15. Rf3
Ncb8 30. Qg1 Rxc3+ White resigns
47th Armed Forces Open, Washington, October 2006 Jacobs Andreas 1. e4
Nf6 18. Nc5 Bxc5 2. e5 Nd5 19. Bxc5 Rf7 3. c4 Nb6 20. f3 Nd6 4. d4 d6
21. Ra2 b6 5. exd6 exd6 22. Bf2 e4 6. Nc3 Nc6 23. fxe4 Nxe4 7. Be3 Bf5
24. Rae2 Nf6 8. a3 Be7 25. Rxe8+ Nxe8 9. b4 a6 26. c5 bxc5 10. Bd3
Bxd3 27. bxc5 Nf6 11. Qxd3 0-0 28. d6 cxd6 12. Nf3 Qd7 29. cxd6
Ne4 13. 0-0 Rae8 30. Rd1 Rf6 14. d5 Ne5 31. Qc4+ Re6 15. Nxe5 dxe5
32. Qxe6+ Qxe6 16. Rfe1 Nc8 34. d7 Black 17. Ne4 f5 resigns
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

‘WE CONSIDER THE BENEFITS OF OUR COUNTRY IN RELATIONS WITH OUR FRENCH PARTNERS’
Sabah, Turkey
Oct 21 2006
Oyak Holding General Manager Coþkun Ulusoy told that they will evaluate
their relations with French partners within the framework of Turkey’s
benefits. Ulusoy asked the government to shed light on this issue.
Oyak Holding General Manager Coþkun Ulusoy has gathered with reporters
in Ereðli factory of the Oyak Holding and evaluated the relations with
France after it approved the bill which imposes penalty on those who
deny the Armenian genocide. Ulusoy said: “I do not understand why we
always try to do something at the very last moment. Why don’t we pursue
a deterrent policy? We have partner companies which would defend us
in their own countries. What do we gain if we boot them? As Oyak we do
not only have partners in France but we also have partners from other
countries. We do not oppose the benefits of our country. But what
we need is the government shedding light on this issue. Boycotting
France is not a decision we can make all by ourselves.”
–Boundary_(ID_RHM1bp39bwbN0yi0K 0WD3g)–

U.S. OFFICIAL CRITICIZES FRENCH LAW THAT WOULD BAN DENIAL OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
By Steven Ross Johnson
San Diego Union Tribune, CA
Oct 21 2006
Associated Press
2:57 p.m. October 20, 2006
BRUSSELS, Belgium – A senior U.S. official denounced on Friday a French
bill that would make it a crime to deny the killings of Armenians in
Turkey during World War I was a genocide.
Turkey denies allegations that Turkey was responsible for the deaths
of 1.5 million Armenians during the war, contending that many died
as a result of fighting during the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried said the proposed law would
hamper Turkish-Armenian dialogue and also does not help EU-Turkey
relations. The bill was approved by lawmakers in France’s lower
house last week, but still needs approval from the French Senate and
President Jacques Chirac to become law.
“The job of outsiders is to encourage Turkish-Armenian dialogue,
not to take positions which make that dialogue harder,” said Fried,
who was in Brussels to discuss current tensions in the Caucuses with
officials from NATO, the European Union and the Belgian government.
“This legislation criminalizing discussion doesn’t seem to make any
sense,” Fried said. “We have certainly encouraged Armenians and Turks
to look at this issue honestly and painfully. Every nation that I know
of, including my own, has things in its past of which it is not proud.”
Fried said the U.S. had dealt with such events in its own history in
an “honest way” and encouraged Turkey to do the same. He said he did
not think the French legislation would encourage this process.
Tensions between France and Turkey have escalated since last week’s
vote in favor of the bill. It sparked a boycott of French goods and
a proposed blackout of French media by Turkish television stations.
The EU has taken the U.S. position in the matter, saying the French
move discourages dialogue and hinders possible Turkish accession into
the 25-member nation bloc.
Fried’s visit comes one day after a stop in Tblisi to meet with
Georgian officials and opposition party leaders. He is scheduled to
travel to Russia to speak with leaders there as a prelude to November’s
NATO summit in Riga, Latvia.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FRENCH AGAINST TURKS: TALKING ABOUT ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
>From the desk of James McConalogue
Brussels Journal, Belgium
Oct 21 2006
Why has the French government now chosen to punish its citizens for
denying the Armenian genocide? On Thursday 12 October, the lower house
of the French Parliament adopted a bill which would provide a jail
sentence and a heavy fine to anyone denying the genocide committed
by Ottoman Turks against the Armenians in 1915. The bill was passed
in the National Assembly by 106 votes to 19. The punishment to be
issued for the denial of the Armenian genocide – set at a maximum
of one year prison term and 45,000 euros (£30,000) fine – is equal
to the punishment already dealt under French law for the denial
of the holocaust. To many states in the international community –
in particular Turkey – this move aggressively counters an already
problematic Turkish law, under which a writer may be prosecuted for
the opposite: proposing that there were a set of atrocities in 1915
that the government should accept as “genocide”.
To be clear, according to the UN and many Western scholars, the
Armenian genocide did happen. International authorities do recognise
the event as the Armenian genocide of 1915, a direct case of that
led to the persecution and death of 1.5 million Ottoman Armenians. To
date, the Turkish government and a number of Turkish nationalists do
not recognise those series of events as constituting anything like
“genocide.” There is, in this sense, a huge open public space prepared
for discussion.
Yet in this new legislative development, it seems important to ask
why the French government has adopted the bill? Will this bill greatly
disturb Franco-Turk relations? Why have the French chosen to intervene
on the free expression of the Armenian genocide at this peculiar time,
marked by the attempted Turkish EU-membership and the high profile
controversies surrounding the freedom of speech in Turkey? In my view,
there is a decisive background to how the French authorities have
adopted the “denial bill” – but there is a huge vacuum in explaining
why it has asserted the bill at the cost of infuriating Turkey. The
French government has passed a bill which first, not only threatens the
freedom of expression on the Turk-Armenian genocide issue but second,
will possibly damage Euro-Turk political and economic relations
irretrievably.
The adoption of the French “anti-denial bill” was taken as an insult
by the Turkish government. The Turkish had warned France not to pass
the legislation. Furthermore, almost as soon as the bill had been
passed in the National Assembly, the Turkish Foreign Ministry issued
the following statement: “Turkish-French relations, which have been
meticulously developed over the centuries, took a severe blow today
through the irresponsible initiatives of some short-sighted French
politicians, based on unfounded allegations.” Given the degree of
disgust experienced by the Turkish authorities, why did the French even
choose to consider the nightmare legislation? The only alleviation
of the tension seems to have come from President Chirac’s subsequent
half-hearted apology to the Turkish Prime Minister – and perhaps the
fact that the bill has yet to pass before the Senate and the President
before it can finally become law.
In several high profile literary controversies, it became immediately
noticeable that the Turkish penal system opposed the free discussion,
publishing and writing on the Armenian genocide. The most influential
of those trials were those of Orhan Pamuk – who has since won the
Nobel Prize for Literature – and Elif Shafak – who courageously gave
birth as her trials were being held. Both authors faced charges
of “insulting Turkishness” under the notorious Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code. In late December 2005, Orhan Pamuk was charged
with “insulting Turkishness” after the author had claimed in a Swiss
newspaper that 30,000 Kurds and one million Ottoman Armenians were
killed in Turkey yet nobody in the Turkish population would dare
talk about it. The trial was dismissed by the Turkish Ministry of
Justice at the beginning of 2006. Later this year, author of Bastard
of Istanbul, Elif Shafak, also faced charges of “insulting Turkishness”
under the antediluvian legislation. Subsequent to an earlier dismissal
in the year, the seventh High Criminal Court had revived the charges
made by Kemal Kerincsiz’s nationalist jurist group, ‘The Unity of
Jurists.’ Fortunately, in the final week of September, Shafak was
immediately acquitted – but not without significant intimidation of
her novel-writing which delved into the dialogues of the 1915 genocide.
The suppression of free expression in Turkey has occurred for writers
and journalists such as Pamuk and Shafak because of the notorious
Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, prohibiting “insulting
Turkishness”. Ironically, the troubled legislation was passed in
2005 as a measure of bringing Turkish law into alignment with the
Copenhagen criteria of the European Union. After the Shafak trial,
the EU Commission spokesperson, Krisztina Nagy, insisted that Article
301 “continues to pose a significant threat to freedom of expression
in Turkey and all those who express a non-violent opinion.” That,
in many respects, reflects the majority-opinion of the EU.
Then, more recently, it became visible that the Turkish genocide
issue was not only angering the French government but it was an
identifiable issue upon which the French were pushing for Turkish
EU-access membership to be granted – i.e. ‘the Turkish should be
pushed to admit the Armenian genocide, and if they refuse, then they
shall forfeit a place as an EU-member state’. The opposing French
Socialist Party – which pushed through the legislation – held that
the bill protects and rewards the Armenians in exile from a country
that still refuses to accept the atrocity. Then, on 30 September,
in a visit to Yerevan, the French President confirmed his position:
“Should Turkey recognize the genocide of Armenia to join the EU? … I
believe so. Each country grows by acknowledging the dramas and errors
of its past. … Can one say that Germany which has deeply acknowledged
the holocaust, has as a result lost credit? It has grown.”
I subsequently reported on how France had been left alone on this
position since other EU-member states seemed ready to treat Turkey
softly on this issue – I also speculated, quite rightly, that
this would have detrimental diplomatic relations with the Turkish
government, by arguing: “It might also be thought that Chirac
could not afford to push the condition too far, since it may bring
substantial damage to Franco-Turk relations before Turkey has even
begun to attempt its progress towards European harmonization.” Now,
that problematic tension has evolved, it is clear enough for us
all to see the aggravation caused, illustrating both bilateral and
multilateral tensions.
The various European institutions, eager not to be seen as possessing
double-standards, have been as strong in their condemnations of
France’s new bill as they have been of Turkey’s Article 301 in the
past. Both pieces of legislation condemn the freedom of discussion on
the 1915 genocide issue; in opposition, the respective governments
only recognise the acceptance of the genocide (France) or the
rejection of it (Turkey). EU Enlargement commissioner, Olli Rehn,
has issued many warnings to Turkey over the literary controversies for
“insulting Turkishness” but on 9 October, he turned to France to issue
a similar warning: “…The French law on the Armenian genocide is of
course a matter for French lawmakers, but there is a lot at stake for
the European Union as well, and the decision may have very serious
consequences for EU-Turkey relations … This [legislation] would
put in danger the efforts of all those in Turkey – intellectuals,
historians, academics, authors – who truly want to develop an open
and serious debate without taboos and for the sake of freedom of
expression.” That is to say, in a nutshell, that the predicament of
problematic tensions is characterised by a removal of free expression
on a very pertinent political issue as well as the damage to Turkey’s
future relations in Europe.
The most flawed of all the French proponents of the bill was French
MEP, Patrick Gaubert, claiming that “Europe is a continent where
freedom of speech is guaranteed in an extraordinary manner. But free
speech ends when the memories of a people are abused and their feelings
are suffering from lies.” Obviously, Gaubert needs to radically revise
his reviews since that is not the accepted view of defending free
expression and contrary of his opinion, it is more important to talk
about sensitive issues such as “genocide” than to lock people up for
them. Unfortunately for France, it is widely recognised that one of the
most fundamental defences of free expression in relation to a diversity
of religious and political doctrines derives not from a French source
but from one of Britain’s great philosopher’s, John Stuart Mill. In
the doctrine of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, published in 1859,
the right to freedom of expression and its conditions are stated
concisely and transparently.
The most fundamental principle of a freely operating liberal society
is the right to the “freedom of opinion.” The only exception in
which Mill could conceive that this freedom might be limited was if
it were to impose severe physical harm onto others – and only under
very rare conditions could this exception be true. As a result,
the French government’s intervention into a literary controversy
should not have been at all possible. In France’s peculiar rationale,
it somehow thought that the socialist cause, with the backing of
the free vote from the ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP),
was enough to bar free expression. For the rest of Europe, that is
not reason enough to bar the fundamental right to free expression. Nor
does the new French reasoning seem reasonable enough to destroy further
diplomatic relations with Turkey – whether it enters the EU or not.
— Boundary_(ID_HMkRoH70E4VfIG6JJ/jtOw)–

FRENCH LAW TO RECOGNISE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CRITICISED
The Universe, UK
Oct 21 2006
By The Universe: Plans to introduce legislation in France which would
make it illegal to deny that the massacre of Catholic Armenians living
under the rule of the Ottoman Empire as genocide have been criticised
by a leading member of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Apostolic Vicar of Anatolia, Luigi Padovese, said the law,
which was approved by France’s lower house of parliament last week,
has been engineered just to “humiliate Turks.” The bill still needs
to be passed by the upper house senate to become law.
“Even the fact that French president Jacques Chirac has taken a stance
against the bill is significant,” said Padovese.
“The Christian reality in Turkey is very complex. There are Catholics
– both Latin and Orthodox – there’s the [Orthodox] Ecumenical
Patriarchy [of Constantinople (Istanbul)] and the one in Antioch,
Armenian Catholics, Gregorians, Chaldeans Sirio-Orthodox and other
denominations that participate in our liturgy (services).
“There is a significant number of families who were originally
Christian, but out of necessity and for reasons of survival,
they renounced their religious identity, at least from showing it
externally,” he added.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A LIFE REMEMBERED
by Lydia Hall
Tufts Observer Online, MA
Oct 21 2006
Tufts alumna Ricanne Annik Hadrian had a passion for campus activism,
a commitment to fighting for social justice, and a love for the color
purple. At the end of her life, she also had breast cancer, a disease
that one in every eight women will contract during her lifetime,
to which Hadrian succumbed ten years ago, leaving behind a husband,
a four-year-old daughter, and a group of friends committed to keeping
her memory alive. Hadrian was raised in Providence, Rhode Island,
in a traditional Armenian family. After attending a high school at
which she was involved in student government and she came to Tufts as
a member of the Class of 1978. As a freshman she lived in Carmichael
with future close friend Liz Schnee. “Living with Ricanne was great,”
Schnee remembered. “She was extremely outgoing, warm, and very tidy
and organized. She made our room a welcoming place for friends to hang
out.” Schnee also recalled that her roommate was a supportive friend,
helping her to learn college-level study skills and introducing her
to new people.
Throughout her time at Tufts, Hadrian was well-known on campus. Robyn
Gittleman, Director of the Experimental College, who worked closely
with Hadrian, remembered that “Ricanne was so energetic and passionate
about what she believed in that she seemed ‘bigger than life.'” Schnee
says her friend was “a radical, independent thinker, [a] risk taker
who spurned conventions, wore outrageous, clown-like colorful (purple,
red, turquoise) clothes, [and] was not shy to speak her mind.”
Hadrian brought this dynamism to many activities at Tufts, including
theatre, the Women’s Center, and the Committee on Student Life,
as well as activist work that extended beyond campus. She was an
involved member of the Tufts Political Action Committee (TPAC).
Schnee noted that at one point Hadrian even “led a student takeover
of [a campus] hall in protest of the apartheid government.” Gittleman
also remembers this determination, recalling that Hadrian “never took
no for an answer. If things did not work out as she wanted, she would
come back with a new approach or a different focus on a proposal she
thought was important and keep trying until she got a positive answer.”
Surprisingly, love turned out to be among the many things that
Hadrian’s activist work brought to her life. During a summer internship
at the Somerville United Neighborhoods she met her husband, Scott
Spencer. Spencer reminisced about his initial attraction to his
future wife: “She was beautiful and smart and committed to social
justice, and cared deeply about others and was fun to be with,”
he remembered. “She loved a good argument and was very passionate
about what she believed in and cared about.” They married in 1987,
and Hadrian gave birth to their daughter Annik several years later.
Even after her graduation from Tufts in 1978, Hadrian remained in the
area. As Gittleman noted, “Her interest in our neighboring community
kept her nearby.” Gittleman and Hadrian also remained friends after
Hadrian graduated. Gittleman recalled, “I always looked forward to her
visits and found she was someone I wanted to talk with, argue with,
and hug.”
Hadrian found another passion after graduation in her work as an
affordable housing activist, after training as an urban planner at
MIT, lobbying for lower-cost homes for the underprivileged. She was
an effective community leader, as Schnee remembered, “she harnessed
her excellent people skills, her keen intelligence, her ability to see
opportunity in tough times, her perseverance and her manners, to make
incredible things happen for low-income people.” Indeed, this last
quality was one that, according to Schnee, served Hadrian very well
in building ties with the local community, “developing professional
relationships with banks and other financial institutions in her work
in affordable housing.”
Hadrian tackled her unexpected breast cancer diagnosis with strength.
She was “brave but realistic throughout her illness,” Schnee noted,
adding that Hadrian’s selfless spirit prevailed and even then:
“She worried more about the impact of her death on Scott, Annik and
her mother than she feared the process for herself.” Towards the end
of her life, Hadrian entered a hospice, where she continued to make
friends among the patients and nurses, some of whom told Schnee that
“she was the person they were the saddest to lose in all of their
time at the hospice.”
During her last days at the hospice, Hadrian held a small “letting go”
ceremony, involving prayer, song, and expressions of her thankfulness
for the time she had with those she loved. Said Schnee, “I think
we were all a little taken aback at her ability to organize such
a selfless and also such an attention getting event at the very
end of her life.” In 1996, just shy of her 40th birthday, Hadrian
finally succumbed to breast cancer. At her funeral, even those with
whom she had sparred during her life came out in support. As Scott
Spencer recalled, “At the end of her professional career she was an
absolute ‘thorn in the side’ to the banking community as she lobbied
for affordable housing. Nonetheless, at her funeral dozens of bankers
were there to honor and celebrate her work.”
It has been ten years since Ricanne Hadrian died, but her extraordinary
presence is still felt in the lives of her husband, her daughter,
Annik, who is now 14, and her friends. This October is Breast Cancer
Awareness Month, as well as the ten-year anniversary of Hadrian’s
death. Schnee wanted to remember her friend’s life. Along with Annik,
Scott Spencer, and a group of Hadrian’s friends, Schnee will walk
in the American Cancer Society Breast Cancer walk in Providence on
October 22. There has been an outpouring of donations from those who
knew Hadrian, which makes her daughter happy: “Ricanne Hadrian loved
to bring people together for a good cause and I think she would be
touched to know that we are all supporting such a worthwhile event,”
she wrote in a letter to sponsors. “From the many pictures, stories
and memories friends and family have shared with me, I realize what
an astounding person she was.”
“We remember her most deeply in our hearts and how she lives through
the actions and life decisions of people she touched and influenced,”
Scott Spencer said. Schnee, for her part, will never forget a
speech that Hadrian made at their 1978 Tufts graduation. Hadrian
“encourage[ed] each graduate to take our education and play a role
in making the world a better place.” As Schnee remembers, “It was
beautiful, and her life and words have inspired [my] work.”

USD AVERAGE WEIGHTED EXCHANGE RATE ON ARMEX AMD 384/$1
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Oct 20 2006
YEREVAN, October 20. /ARKA/. The USD average weighted exchange rate
was AMD 384/$1 on ARMEX on October 20, 2006 – a 0.9% rise compared
to October 19.
Twenty-seven transactions with USD worth $1,450ths (AMD 556.8mln)
have been effected. No transactions with EURO have been effected.
The Central Bank of Armenia (CBA) set the following exchange rates:
AMD 381.76/$1, and AMD 478.84/EUR 1.

ARMENIAN-KAZAKH RELATIONS HAVE POTENTIAL
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Oct 20 2006
YEREVAN, October 20. /ARKA/. Armenian-Kazakh relations have
serious potential, RA Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan stated at
his meeting with the newly appointed Kazakh Ambassador to Armenia
Aimdos Bozdjigitov.
In his turn, the Kazakh Ambassador expressed the confidence that
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan’s forthcoming visit to Kazakhstan
will give an impetus to the development of bilateral relations in
various spheres, considering the planned meeting of the Armenian-Kazakh
Intergovernmental Commission.
The sides pointed out the importance of encouraging business contacts,
increasing bilateral trade turnover, developing investment policy,
increasing exports and establishing close contacts between the two
countries’ businessmen.
He also pointed out the important mission of the Armenian community
in Kazakhstan, which may play an active role in developing bilateral
cooperation.
Premier Margaryan wished Ambassador Bozdjigitov success, expressing
his willingness to render all possible assistance to him.

REFORMED CONSTITUTION CREATES NEW POSSIBILITIES FOR SOLUTION TO YEREVAN STATUS
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Oct 20 2006
YEREVAN, October 20. /ARKA/. The reformed Constitution creates new
possibilities for a solution to the issues about the Yerevan status,
the councilor of the Armenian president Seyran Avagyan reported Friday
at the seminar “European Experience in Local Governing”.
“The reformed Constitution gives new possibilities and resources
for solving this issue, and I believe that this solution within
the frameworks of the updated Constitution can yield good results,”
Avagyan said.
He reported that adoption of the law “On Yerevan” has been postponed
until the formation of a new legal field exactly for this reason that
we give a direct solution to the problem, but not look for difficult
solutions.
According to the provision 108 of the updated Constitution, Yerevan
becomes a municipality. The peculiarities of local government
and formation of local governing bodies in the city of Yerevan are
established by the law. The law can institute direct or proxy voting
for a Yerevan mayor.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress