Wednesday, Switzerland will face before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights Dogu Perinçek, who had publicly denied the existence of the Armenian genocide. The lawyer and National Councillor Yves Nidegger (UDC / GE) has heard the voice of the 130,000 Turks living in Switzerland defending the position of the Federation of Turkish Associations in Western Switzerland
Wednesday, Switzerland will face Dogu Perinçek before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. The chairman of the Turkish Workers’ Party had publicly denied the existence of the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire in 1915. Convicted of racial discrimination by the police court in Lausanne (judgment upheld by the Federal Court), the Everyone has enjoyed the support of the ECHR, the latter believing that Switzerland had violated his freedom of expression. The lawyer and National Councillor Yves Nidegger (UDC / GE) has heard the voice of the 130,000 Turks living in Switzerland defending the position of the Federation of Turkish Associations in western Switzerland.
Time: Why the term genocide is it not applicable to events of 1915?
Yves Nidegger: It is up to historians to say whether this term is applicable or not, and a commission of Turkish and Armenian historians was specifically formed for this in the context of the Zurich protocols. As this historic debate is ongoing, there is no sanction opinions, even if they are false or hateful, from either party.
The National Council has acknowledged the existence of such a genocide in 2003 …
It is always a mistake for a parliament to play the historians, this is not its role. In a democracy, we can not have the same people who say the official story as a resolution and enact a criminal provision to punish those who have the bad taste to disagree with it. If it were possible in the Soviet Union, this can not be in Switzerland.
Why Dogu Perinçek’s statements do not they fall within the scope of Article 261 bis of the Penal Code, which con damns those who “minimize crimes against humanity”?
The article speaks of one who “grossly minimizes” a crime against humanity. But the killings are not denied by Mr Perinçek. He does not say that the Armenians have not suffered or are suffering dummy. It simply says that to qualify these genocidal events to accuse Turkey is an international lie. You can be completely disagree with what he says. Freedom of speech has limits, of course, but the limits that the state may make the exercise of freedom of expression is also limited. The issue is there.
How to explain the vigor with which the Turkish authorities are fighting to deny the term genocide?
The explanation is pretty much the same as for a Swiss who does not want to be condemned by the ECHR for violating freedom of expression. The Turks do not want to be called a Nazi. Who would want, anyway?
It’s still funny that the UDC that you are defending an opinion which is against Switzerland, which is more a court that your party tries to kill, right?
(Laughs) For the first time, you will see the UDC invoke the infallible law of the Court and the superiority of international law. If the Grand Chamber disclaims Switzerland, or be amended article 261 bis, or you leave the ECHR.
If one recognizes Dogu Perinçek the right to speak, would it would not allow the construction of an Armenian memorial in the Ariana Park, close to the UN?
Not in the Ariana park under UN windows. And one that is here is the city of Geneva, it is the state, even if all this was done at the insistence of the Armenians. When the state is the official history by saying, “I think it is genocide,” this is not quite the same thing as a private memorial erected on a private plot, for example the Armenian church. I am in the opinion of Didier Burkhalter: mark the UN territory with an extremely serious charge of a people against another is not in the spirit of Geneva or that of international Geneva.
Stéphane © armenews.com