By ORHAN KEMAL CENGİZ,
Last week I was talking to a law professor from the US. To give him a glimpse into the level of nationalism found in Turkey, I said, “Just look at how all these Turkish people with different worldviews around this table unite when I say something.” Then I proceeded to say, “Turkey still denies the Armenian genocide.” Just as I had predicted, the professor witnessed quite a heated debate over my words.
Most people in Turkey united behind Doğu Perinçek in his case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on Tuesday. It’s a long story, but for those of you who do not know the Perinçek v. Switzerland case, it can be summarized as follows: During a conference in Switzerland, Perinçek said that the “Armenian genocide is an international lie.” He was given a prison sentence and fine under Swiss laws punishing the denial of genocide. According to these laws, to my understanding, denying any genocide constitutes hate speech or racism.
Perinçek brought this case to the ECtHR, and the ECtHR found that he breached Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights regulating freedom of expression. This past Thursday an appeal hearing on the case was held in Strasbourg.
I am personally a little ambivalent about punishing the denial of any genocide unless the words concerned clearly constitute hate speech targeting a certain vulnerable group. When it comes to freedom of expression, the stakes are too high, and therefore limitations to it should really be exceptional.
However, when I look at the comments and reactions to the case in Turkey, I see that people see this case as the ECtHR’s refusal to define the events of 1915 as genocide. People in Turkey should focus on another case: the Taner Akçam v. Turkey case, in which the ECtHR criticized and condemned Turkey for limiting the debate on Armenian genocide with prosecution and the threat of prosecution under the infamous Article 301 that prohibits “denigrating Turkishness.”
If people genuinely defend Perinçek’s freedom of expression concerning the Armenian genocide, they should then defend people in Turkey who claim that what happened in 1915 was genocide.
When it comes to freedom of expression, as I said above, there is a clear and undisputable exception to it that should be banned and punished: hate speech and threats. Just remember how “The Cut,” a film shot by Fatih Akın whose central theme is the events of 1915, was received in Turkey. Even before it was shown in cinemas, Akın and Agos, the Armenian-Turkish weekly that interviewed him about the film, were openly threatened by several ultranationalist organizations. In some of these threats posted on Twitter they even dared to say, “We are watching you with our white berets.” This was a reference to the fact that Hrant Dink’s murderer was wearing a white beret when he shot Dink from behind. I have not heard about anyone being arrested for these threats. When Akın’s film hit theaters, only viewers above the age of 18 were allowed to watch it.
You see, if we really wish to discuss “freedom of expression” and the Armenian genocide debate, there is still a long way to go in Turkey. And focusing on the Perinçek case, in which the ECtHR rejected using a prison sentence to punish genocide denial, would not bring anyone in Turkey closer to furthering freedom of expression or enriching democracy in this country.