Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • GagruleLive
  • Armenia profile

When Mother Nature gets angry, really angry

September 10, 2017 By administrator

On average, some 10,000 people die in earthquakes around the world annually. The temblors have often provoked tsunamis and wider devastation. DW takes a look at some of the most powerful earthquakes of the last century.

Most powerful earthquake ever recorded

The most powerful earthquake ever recorded hit Chile’s coast in May 1960. The quake, 9.5 on the Richter scale, lasted almost 10 minutes, resulting in massive infrastructure damage. Around 5,700 people were killed in Chile while the resulting tsunami left 130 people dead in Japan and another 61 in Hawaii. This picture shows the remains of Corral harbor in Chile’s Valdivia province.

Good Friday earthquake

The 1964 Alaskan earthquake, also known as the Great Alaskan earthquake and Good Friday earthquake, remains the strongest earthquake to hit the US to date. It occured on Good Friday, March 27, across south-central Alaska. The quake and the following tsunamis caused about 139 deaths. The picture above is from a small fishing village on Kodiak Island and it shows debris from houses and boats.

Most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan

A team member from Japan’s Rescue Dog Association and his dog search for victims. Northeastern Japan was struck by a devastating earthquake, measuring 9.1 on the Richter scale, followed by a massive tsunami. The natural disasters left almost 18,500 people dead, and crippled the Fukushima nuclear power plant, in what is considered the world’s worst atomic disaster of the past quarter-century.

2010 Haiti earthquake

A man walks amid the rubble of a destroyed building in Port-au-Prince following the devastating earthquake that rocked Haiti on January 12, 2010. Measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale, the quake destroyed thousands of buildings and left at least 200,000 people dead.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: angry, Gets, mother, Nature

What’s behind Erdogan’s recent angry outbursts?

March 24, 2017 By administrator

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan makes a speech during a meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, March 19, 2017. (photo by REUTERS/Murad Sezer)

AUTHOR: Pinar Tremblay,

What’s behind the embarrassing shenanigans of the Justice and Development Party (AKP)? What’s the reason for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s angry outbursts?

On March 22, just a few hours before the London terror attack, Erdogan appeared on live television and harshly criticized the West. He said, “Turkey is not a country you can pull and push around, not a country whose pride you can play with and turn its ministers away from the border. [It’s] not a country whose citizens you can drag on the ground. These developments are carefully followed around the world. If Europe continues this way, no European in any part of the world can walk safely on the streets. If you open this route, you [the West] will suffer the most.”

Yet when Reuters tweeted Erdogan’s statement after the attack, the pro-AKP newspaper Yeni Akit expressed its outrage and claimed that Reuters was insinuating that Erdogan was responsible for the attack.

This was just the latest mind-boggling and erratic act from the AKP and its ultranationalist coalition, which continues to rage against the West, in particular the European Union. Al-Monitor has reported on the details of the intense row between Turkey and the Netherlands and Germany.

In Turkey, the popular images and news coverage surrounding the conflict with the Netherlands and Germany have been out of control. For example, 40 cows were sent back to the Netherlands in protest, and young men have posed with sharp knives “murdering” tulips and squeezing oranges. Out of this public outrage, some comical images also surfaced, like protesters burning the French, not Dutch, flag. A prankster called a police station in Rotterdam, New York, rather than the Netherlands, and trolls mistakenly tweeted threats to French President Francois Hollande. Young men in Gumushane province even greeted the Turkish prime minister on horseback carrying a sign that read: “Dear prime minister, allow us to ride our horses upon the Netherlands.”

Turkish Minister of Family and Social Policies Fatma Betul Sayan Kaya, who was deported from the Netherlands, has repeated her story to the Turkish public, adding details to it with every telling. She complained that during her four-hour wait outside the Turkish Consulate in Rotterdam, the Dutch authorities did not even give her water, only to later claim that she had turned down the police officers’ offer of tea.

She said the events of the night made her relive the July 15 coup attempt. She was willing to die at the border had Erdogan not asked her to come back. Social media users ridiculed Kaya’s embellishments, which included her claim that she heard the Dutch police loading their guns. Even if Kaya’s statements are accurate, most of the Turkish public remains skeptical, given their previous experiences with the pro-government media’s manufactured grievances, in particular their bogus report of a secular group attacking a headscarf-wearing mother during the 2013 Gezi protests.

Kaya’s increasingly alarming story of being victimized by Dutch police was backed by Erdogan’s blustering and relentless EU-bashing. Erdogan suggested that Turks in Europe should have at least three to five babies, as they are the future of Europe. He also offered legal assistance to Muslim women in Europe.

Erdogan and Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu even directed threats to the EU that they may end the refugee deal. This threat even attracted the attention of the United States. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter tweeted, “Turkey’s Erdogan threatening to send Europe 15K refugees a month. So even Muslims consider Muslim migrants a threat.”

These are just a few of the scandalous events from the past 10 days, and besides being foreign policy disasters, they are also embarrassing moments for Turks and Turkophiles everywhere. Why won’t Erdogan stop embarrassing his country? The most frequently repeated explanation is that these ultranationalistic blunders are intended for domestic consumption and to sway undecided voters in the upcoming referendum. Erdogan’s efforts to destroy ties with the West are more about telling the AKP’s base to fall in line rather than winning over swing voters. This means Erdogan is concerned that significant portions of the AKP base will vote “no” in the referendum and that they will not be able to effectively guarantee his desired executive presidency.

The initial polls are not promising for the referendum’s “yes” camp. During the preliminary vote on the referendum in parliament in January, AKP members were forced to display their “yes” votes, even though the constitution mandated a secret ballot. On April 16, can Erdogan trust his own parliamentarians to vote “yes” and to mobilize their own constituents to fall in line?

Erdogan rushed into the referendum, hoping to ride the wave of national unity that overtook the public following the July 15 coup attempt. In view of the AKP and the Nationalist Action Party’s (MHP) number of supporters, Erdogan and his men initially envisioned the referendum passing with at least 60% approval. It has been an open secret in Ankara that more than 100 AKP lawmakers would vote “no” on the referendum. Several senior bureaucrats fear that in the institutional restructuring of the presidency they will lose their positions.

So far, the AKP has not been able to tackle the political wing of the Gulen movement. Prime Minister Binali Yildirim hastily passed the buck to the National Intelligence Organization (MIT), saying in an interview with the Turkish press: “I asked the MIT to tell me the names of lawmakers and politicians who are members of the organization. They said there is no such thing. If they are hiding information from me, they will pay the price.” Yet not many in Turkey were convinced that this was the MIT’s complete answer on the matter. The MIT is known for its detailed reporting on even minor issues. Plus, Ankara corridors, as well as social media, have been rocked by traces of AKP infighting, which has seen senior members accuse each other of being CIA spies or Gulen movement members.

Disarray inside the AKP has been so intense that Erdogan had to announce that, once the amendments are accepted on April 16, he would immediately become the leader of the party and that he would not wait until 2019 to assume the party leadership. This measure did not generate enough support among the AKP. So on March 20, Yildirim gathered former AKP ministers to join the campaign to rally for a “yes” vote. The former ministers issued serious criticisms about the amendments and the timing of the referendum, and they urged the government to soften its rhetoric and reassess the cost of an alliance with the MHP.

Yet as Yildirim told the former AKP ministers, the referendum on amending 18 articles of the constitution has now evolved into a vote of confidence for Erdogan. Despite all of Erdogan’s pleas, AKP elites fear that the proposed presidential system will only decrease their already dwindling administrative powers and increase the arbitrariness of the system. For most of them, the proposed change is more risky than the status quo. Erdogan and his immediate circle know this well, so the battle now is to coerce these elites to fall in line. One way is to make sure there is nowhere to run. Hence, Erdogan’s strategy is that offense is the best defense. Erdogan, by using erratic rhetoric, is observing who will be a partner in sullying Turkey’s reputation. So far, AKP elites are competing to prove their loyalty. For example, on March 20, Bulent Tufenkci, the customs and trade minister, told the press that if the referendum doesn’t pass, there will be chaos in the economy. But if the risk is so high for the precarious economy, why did the government insist on such a referendum?

There is a poignant caricature that may explain why Erdogan will not stop embarrassing his country. In it, Erdogan says, “The people of Turkey are behind me,” and the people are pictured behind bars. That’s the situation of the AKP elite. To win, Erdogan not only needs their votes but their dedication. Turkey’s reputation is part of that price.

Tremblay is a columnist for Al-Monitor’s Turkey Pulse and a visiting scholar of political science at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. She is a columnist for Turkish news outlet T24. Her articles have appeared in Time, New America, Hurriyet Daily News, Today’s Zaman, Star and Salom. On Twitter: @pinartremblay

Source: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/03/turkey-europe-erdogan-angry-outbursts.html#ixzz4cImDwu4x

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: angry, Erdogan, outbursts

JUDGES ANGRY Dean Spelmann President of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR Perinçek disagree with the stop

October 16, 2015 By administrator

arton117504-480x360Spelmann joint dissenting opinion of Judges Casadevall, Berro, De Gaetano, Sicilianos Sivil and Kuris

1. We are not able to agree with the conclusion that in this case there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

2. We note at the outset that the Court has shown a certain timidity reaffirming the position of the chamber in the sense that it is not required to say whether the massacres and deportations suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire can be qualified as genocide within the meaning assumed by the term in international law, but also that it has no jurisdiction to decide, one way or the other, a binding legal conclusion on this point (paragraph 102). The massacres and deportations suffered by the Armenian people were constitutive of genocide falls under “obvious”. The Armenian Genocide is a historical fact clearly établi.1 To deny is to deny the obvious. But that is not the issue. The case is not about historical truth, nor the legal qualification of the events of 1915. The real challenge of the case concerns the question whether it is possible for a State to criminalize the insult to the memory a people victim of a genocide without exceeding its discretion. We believe this is the case.

1. See for details, both on the facts and the intentional element of those who committed the crimes, Hans-Lukas Kieser and Donald Bloxham, in The Cambridge History of the First World War, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015, Vol. I, “Global War”, Ch. 22 (Genocide), pp. 585-614.

3. In these conditions, we can not follow the approach of the majority as to the assessment of what the applicant (I). The same applies to the assessment of the impact of geographical and historical factors (II), the implications of the time factor (III) and the lack of consensus (IV) of the lack of an obligation to criminalize (V), as well as the weighing performed by the national authorities (VI).

The assessment of the applicant’s comments

4. Our disagreement mainly concerns how the majority has understood the complainant’s statements (paragraphs 229-241). This speech, especially pernicious, and its consequences have been minimized throughout the stop. Although they do not necessarily form a discourse falling under Article 17 of the Convention – although for some of us this is indeed the case – the impugned constitute, in our view, a distortion of historical events that goes far beyond a simple denial of the Armenian genocide as a legal qualification. They contain the animus to insult people. Ils’agit a real diversion aimed Armenians as a group, trying to justify the actions of the Ottoman authorities by presenting almost as defensive and is of racist denigrating the memory of the victims, as has been judged rightly by the Federal Court. To the extent that it attempts to discredit the “evidence”, the speech in question – also confirmed by the applicant at the hearing very clearly – can even be considered a call if not hatred and violence, at least in intolerance against Armenians. Far from being liable to the historical, legal and political, it presents the Armenians as aggressors of the Turkish people. He calls “international lie” using the term “genocide” to describe the atrocities against Armenians. The applicant claims, moreover, Talaat Pasha, one of the events of the protagonists, presented at the hearing as a “Friend of the Armenians” (sic). This is in excess of place, in our view, which could be acceptable under Article 10 of the Convention.

5. Thus, the case concerns simply the limits of freedom of expression. By applying the sequential reading grid of Article 10 of the Convention, we have no difficulty concluding that the interference and the legality of it. The police court in Lausanne, in its decision of 9 March 2007, held that the applicant had denied the Armenian Genocide, justifying the massacres. The Federal Court, in its judgment of 12 December 2007, has length on the mental element of the offense (mobile racial discrimination, 5.1 and 5.2) arriving at the conclusion that the findings of fact “démontr [ed] the existence of sufficient motives in addition to nationalism, not p [ouvaie] be noted that the racial, ethnic, respectively. “ The applicant was prosecuted for violating Article 261 bis of the Penal Code, which does not, as such, no problem about its content and its legitimacy in the light of the values ​​protected by the Convention. The courts have considered the facts and assessed the impugned. The applicant knew that taking these he exposed himself to the application of Article 261 bis of the code. This provision also pursues the legitimate aims of protecting the rights of others and prevention of disorder.

The impact of geographical and historical factors

6. Beyond this aspect, it seems to us that the methodology used by the majority, here and there, problematic. This applies in particular “geographic and historical factors,” further developed in paragraphs 242-248 of the judgment. Downplay about the applicant by attempting to confine geographically leads to seriously relativize universal and erga omnes of human rights, which is the quintessence of their contemporary meaning. Indeed, as has been strongly affirmed by the Institute of International Law, the obligation for States to ensure respect for human rights is an obligation erga omnes; “It is incumbent upon every State vis-à-vis the international community as a whole, and every State has a legal interest in the protection of human rights” (Resolution on “the protection of human rights and principle of non-intervention in internal affairs of states “, Yearbook of the Institute of International Law, 1989, vol. II, p. 341, Article 1). In the same vein, the Declaration and Programme of Action of the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights states that “the promotion and protection of all human rights are a legitimate concern of the international community “(UN official documents A / CONF / 123, para. 4, 1993). 7. It is obvious that this universalist approach contrasts with that of the majority in this judgment. If one wanted to draw all the logical consequences of the geographically restricted approach appears to be that of the majority, one would think that the denial of genocides in Europe committed in other continents, such as the Rwandan genocide or that perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia would be protected by freedom of expression without limits or almost. It does not seem that such a view reflects the universal values ​​that are enshrined in the Convention.

The impact of the time factor

8. The emphasis on the time factor (paragraphs 249-254 of the judgment) seems to pose similar problems. Should we conclude that within 20 or 30 years, Holocaust denial itself would be acceptable under the freedom of expression? What about the compatibility of that factor with the principle of limitation for war crimes and crimes against humanity?

The lack of consensus

9. The lack of consensus on which is based the majority in paragraphs 258-268, could at most be seen also as a factor specific to widen the margin of appreciation of the Swiss authorities. At the risk of repeating ourselves, we believe that Parliament has every right to blame remarks like those uttered by the applicant. The issue of consensus as limit the discretion of national authorities would only arise in the event that there would be consensus on the explicit prohibition of such criminality. But this is not the case here.

The absence of an obligation to criminalize

10. As for the lack of an obligation for Switzerland to criminalize remarks in question (see paragraphs 258-268), we confess to have the greatest doubts about the relevance of the argument. Can we not say, instead, that a custom (regional) gradually emerges through the practice of States, the European Union (Framework Decision 2008/913 / JHA) and ECRI (Recommendation policy # 7)? Note also that beyond Europe, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has repeatedly recommended the criminalization of Holocaust denial discourse. Can we ignore these developments relate to a hand by standing on the ground of an alleged conflict of obligations? 11. Apart from these developments point in the opposite direction to that taken by the majority, it should be pointed out that the Supreme Court of the Canton of Vaud, in its decision of 13 June 2007, recalled that the particularity of the standard Swiss anti-racism was the fact that the national legislature had decided, acting is including genocide or other crimes against humanity, to go beyond the minimum requirements set by the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In our opinion, a legislature has every right to blame remarks like those uttered by the applicant. The Swiss national legislature, following lengthy parliamentary debates, said that speeches such as those made by the applicant deserved to be. We believe that the need for the criminalization falls in a democratic society, in this case, the state’s margin of appreciation.

The balancing of the rights in question

12. Finally, concerning the balancing of the rights in question (see paragraphs 274-280 of the judgment), it seems that the Federal Court has done an excellent job, measured, detailed and motivated. He dedicated point 6 to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention by speaking as follows:

“(…) The applicant essentially seeks, by a provocative approach to obtain Swiss judicial authorities for confirmation of his theses to the detriment of members of the Armenian community, for whom this issue plays a central role identity. The conviction of the appellant thus tends to protect the human dignity of the members of the Armenian community, who recognize themselves in 1915. The memory of the genocide repression of genocide denial finally constitutes a genocide prevention measure within the meaning of art. I of the Genocide Convention concluded at New York December 9, 1948, approved by the Federal Assembly March 9, 2000) (…) “

13. Balancing, there was in this case. Therefore, the conclusion in paragraph 280 is not justified.

14. In a word, we are convinced that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in this case.

Filed Under: Articles, Genocide Tagged With: angry, ECHR, JUDGES

An Armenian Genocide khachkar placed in Copenhagen (Denmark) angry Turkish Ambassador

May 19, 2015 By administrator

arton110351-480x320The Turkish Embassy in Denmark through the voice of its ambassador Mehmet Donmezi reacted strongly with the Danish authorities for the exhibition of an Armenian khachkar for 10 days on one of the most important places of the Danish capital Copenhagen. The work of the Armenian sculptor Alen khatchkar Sayeghi being dedicated to the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. The Turkish ambassador in Copenhagen in a letter to the Danish newspaper Politikan is “outraged” that the Danish authorities have granted permission to place this khatchkar in the city center of the capital of Denmark.

Krikor Amirzayan

Filed Under: Articles, Genocide Tagged With: angry, copenhagan, khachkar, Turk

Support Gagrule.net

Subscribe Free News & Update

Search

GagruleLive with Harut Sassounian

Can activist run a Government?

Wally Sarkeesian Interview Onnik Dinkjian and son

https://youtu.be/BiI8_TJzHEM

Khachic Moradian

https://youtu.be/-NkIYpCAIII
https://youtu.be/9_Xi7FA3tGQ
https://youtu.be/Arg8gAhcIb0
https://youtu.be/zzh-WpjGltY





gagrulenet Twitter-Timeline

Tweets by @gagrulenet

Archives

Books

Recent Posts

  • U.S. Judge Dismisses $500 Million Lawsuit By Azeri Lawyer Against ANCA & 29 Others
  • These Are the Social Security Offices Expected to Close This Year, Musk call SS Ponzi Scheme
  • Breaking News, Pashinyan regime has filed charges against public figure Edgar Ghazaryan,
  • ANCA’s Controversial Endorsement: Implications for Armenian Voters
  • (MHP), Devlet Bahçeli, has invited Kurdish Leader Öcalan to the Parliament “Ask to end terrorism and dissolve the PKK.”

Recent Comments

  • administrator on Turkish Agent Pashinyan will not attend the meeting of the CIS Council of Heads of State
  • David on Turkish Agent Pashinyan will not attend the meeting of the CIS Council of Heads of State
  • Ara Arakelian on A democratic nation has been allowed to die – the UN has failed once more “Nagorno-Karabakh”
  • DV on A democratic nation has been allowed to die – the UN has failed once more “Nagorno-Karabakh”
  • Tavo on I’d call on the people of Syunik to arm themselves, and defend your country – Vazgen Manukyan

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in