Fatih GÖKHAN DİLER
is fgdiler@agos.com.t

Agos: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), 17 December, 2013, the ‘PERİNÇEK there. Switzerland announced its decision in the case. The Court, by a majority vote, the European Convention on Human Rights ‘Freedom of Expression’ 10 titled Article has been violated by the Swiss court ruled. Two of the seven judges on the court, it was decided to offer opposing views. the proceedings in the Court, East Perinçek by the Swiss courts, the existence of the Armenian Genocide denial in the public domain convict was about.

Rationale

Court decisions in the text of the application itself, the real action targeting the Armenian people, whether or not on the ability to legally qualify as genocide explains.

Swiss courts, Perinchek prisoners, while the point at which the decision is based on the events of 1915 on the legal definition, a general consensus was that, especially in the academic community. However, the Court of Swiss court of the existence of the Armenian Genocide where a general consensus of the opinion that the judgment is not possible to participate. The Court The Swiss Parliament, in the opinion of the existence of the Armenian Genocide, despite the differences of opinion between political bodies in Switzerland and that only 20 of 190 countries stressed that acknowledged the existence of the genocide. The Court of Perinchek on this subject ‘to explain their views on hotly contested thinks.

The Court’s decision, ‘genocide’ is defined in a detailed manner, that there is a legal concept, drawing attention

The Court Perinchek’s speech ‘will create hatred against Armenians in nature’ decided not. According to the Court, ‘1915 ‘ta tragic genocide is occurring to deny, to deny that the Holocaust was genocide consequences will be so great.

International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court’s decision in accordance with “the crime of genocide have occurred, the act only of the particular community of some members, but the whole community or a section with intent to destroy must be done” testimony is given.

The Court, in this respect, ‘genocide a narrow legal terms and that proved difficult to say that they, and in this context the present case, Holocaust denial about the lawsuits separates, in these cases by the Nazi regime of crimes are denied and that crimes of international defined as genocide by a court says.

Holocaust comparison

Temsa approach over another in the Court’s decision, the denial of genocide, incitement to hatred and hostility on the relationship between the structural. The main purpose of the laws deny race, religion or ethnic identity is formed around a community-oriented, this denial of the crimes committed against society by generating hatred to prevent. Holocaust denial is seen as an act of discrimination directly.

The Court, in its decision, “the primary carrier of the idea of ​​the Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism today,” the opinion is expressed. Perinçek a person’s human dignity race, ethnicity or faith-based, with the motive to harm criminalizing the denial of genocide was judged according to the laws of Switzerland. However, the Court Perinchek’s speech “will create hatred against Armenians in nature” to be decided. According to the Court, “the tragic events that occurred in 1915,” I deny that the Holocaust, the genocide of the Holocaust is to deny the consequences will be so great.

According to the Court’s opinion, at some point, the denial of the facts of a particular society at the same time is interpreted as the denial of the existence. However, according to the ECHR, the expression of Perinchek be punished by the Swiss courts, does not correspond to an essential social needs.

——————————————————————

 

---

Perinchek – Swiss case how do you start?

 

Perinçek of 2005, May, July and September in Switzerland in various conferences attended and open to the public this medium in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and in subsequent years the Armenian people for the genocide crimes that have denied the Armenian genocide “an international lie” had described.

Thereupon, the Switzerland-Armenia Association, 15 July 2005 Perinçek about the criminal complaint and Perinchek March 9, 2007, Lausanne police by the Court, the Swiss Penal Code, according to the racial discrimination she had been convicted. The court’s statement of Perinchek contained racist tendencies and history had been identified to contribute to the debate.

Perinçek in Switzerland cantonal and federal appeals were rejected. Cantonal appeals court decision, the Armenian Genocide, just like the Holocaust, so you will not need to resort to the works of historians and accepted by the Swiss Parliament, as proven history was a real highlight. Federal appeals court, the doctor of law, politician, writer and historian who has an identity Perinchek an impartial commission in the opposite direction to a conclusion if there even on the Armenian Genocide change their views that the expression of the movement, deliberate moves to the conclusion reached.

Perinçek, 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights Based on Article 10, apply to the Court in June 2008, and the government of Turkey joining the court case had presented a written evaluation.

———————————————————————–

“Court legitimizes inkârcılık invite you to review the position”

Dr.. Daniel’s Feierste
(Genocide Studies Center Director and President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars)

Perinçek of the Court – judgment in Switzerland worrying.

I am against freedom of expression to be punished, but his arguments in the court’s decision and the rationale behind the entire decision, denialist views and in no way serve to legitimize unacceptable. In spite of all the overwhelming evidence to be made disbelief, not a court of law must be the primary.

Even more striking aspects of the Court’s Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide trying to demonstrate the difference between the ‘double standards’ implementation. This is to banalize the suffering of the Armenian community. The Court’s logic, it only served to inkârcılık strongly believe that. This truth, justice and ethics that we have to look for supplies will have a devastating impact on efforts. Court legitimize the decisions taken and disbelief invite you to review the position.

—————————————————————————

The Court’s decision reveals that the two main problems

Dr.. Sevena Garibian
(Geneva and Neuchâtel university lecturer, Switzerland)

ECHR judgment of 17 December 2013, to say the least, surprising, and can be regarded as problematic. In sum, the Court

Perinçek of the Armenian Genocide “international imperialist lie” statements that define two separate opinions of the judge against the five-judge’s vote, with 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights described in the article on the restriction of the freedom of thought, 17 substances prohibited by ‘abuse of rights’ basis for the ban to be in the ‘overriding public interest’ within the evaluated. Because Perinçek According to the Court, massacre and deportation of Armenians, not only to deny the legal definition of genocide was and such a denial, was not qualified to hatred.

Meaningless the distinction made by the five judges. A legal definition of genocide to deny it, exactly, that crime which characterizes the special caste, national, ethnic, racial or religious union of a community which all or a portion of the intent to destroy in denying the means. This special intent to deny, deny the Holocaust in 2003 of Roger Garaudy as to how he, “has revealed the reality of historical events” means to deny. This reality, only the Swiss courts and the government before the Court in the defense and decided dissenting judges Vucinic and Pinto de Albuquerque by as outlined in general and scientific consensus, not the Constantinople proceedings in the (1919-1920) is the subject. This judgment of the archives of the Armenian population of intent to destroy, and the Young Turk government of the evidence for this purpose reveals his plans. However, the Swiss-made by judges, and brought before the Court by the governments of the racist and nationalist-East Perinçek purpose sufficient to reveal the character of many items need to include the assessment. These items include, Perinchek to identify himself Talat Pasha, a committee set up his memory of the effort to whitewash the crimes committed and the Armenians, provocative act and accused include misrepresent history. This state crimes, whether ‘genocide’, or ‘other crimes against humanity’, whether it be legitimized and poses a cynical denial strategy.

Court decision brings two main problems arise. From a legal perspective, human rights judges, Switzerland 4 of Article 261bis of the Criminal Code in a way contrary to the letter and purpose of paragraph genocide, crimes against humanity by victims of victims of discrimination are doing. Rather than politically ‘crimes against humanity’ and ‘genocide’ to the emergence of the concepts underlying legal approaching centennial anniversary of the genocide, this decision serves to deniers.

—————————————————————–

“No discussion outside of Turkey of the Armenian Genocide”

Peter Balakian
(Colgate University, Donald M. and Constance H. Rebar Professor of the Social Sciences)

The rationale behind this decision, historically and ethically wrong. Apparently, the Court, in the world of the Armenian Genocide

engaged in genocide studies scholars accepted by an overwhelming majority, did not understand the historical and moral events. International Association of Genocide Scholars on this subject before, had sent open letters to the government of Turkey.

The Court does not understand the thing, about this historic event, no discussion in any place other than Turkey. Turkey’s government and people of Turkey offered by the government believes in the distorted history thesis, except one part, the rest of the world, not a matter of debate over the execution. Academics, Turkey’s Armenian Genocide in order to falsify the terms used to describe what they do, the ‘denial’.

Well-known genocide researcher Deborah Lipstadt wrote, “as denying the genocide, the Turkish Armenian Genocide or the Nazi Holocaust denial, historical re-interpret is not (…) Unbelievers purpose of the third party of the story is another aspect became more convinced that is to (…), it is not another direction. “We and the decision of the court decision and the reasons for denial, which in turn are supported by facts, have a devastating effect on consensus and believe that morality.

Nice news is an emerging sector in Turkey’s society, about the Armenians honestly confront the past and is moving towards 1915.

 

—————————————————————

‘White Man’s traditional Euro-centric idea

Taner Akcam
(Clark University Center for Holocaust Studies, which Kaloosdi / Mugar Professor)

Moreover, the Court is applying a double standard clearly. “To deny the Armenian Genocide should not be banned,” while

Taner Akcam: “The Court serious ideological narrow-mindedly, the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide of information, either as legally non-existent distinctions created, the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide between the categorical difference is that, in its decision mainly made ​​..”

“To deny the Holocaust is a punishable offense, it does not mean that the restriction of the freedom of thought” he says. A crime to deny genocide, is not a crime to deny the other … It could be argued that a double standard is wrong. One could say that both should be approached with the same approach to genocide. Someone ignore denial of crimes, to criminalize the other is a big contradiction and double standards. In fact, this kind of Holocaust ‘special treatment’ apply ‘White Man’s thinking is a product of traditional Eurocentric could say that.

In order to be considered as an act of crime, disturbing public order that action must be an attribute. For example, a European country, not far east of a genocide denier, may not mean anything in terms of public order. Therefore, such a denial, even though morally wrong can not be an issue of criminal law.

Thus, “if considered a crime to deny the Holocaust in Europe, all the other must also criminalized the denial of genocide” thesis morally pleasing to the ear, even if in terms of criminal law may not be an important argument.

I can understand all of them, but In justifying the decision of the Court asserted that it is impossible to accept. Both extremely important because the Court, has made an obvious factual errors, as well as vulnerability, the Turkish government’s denialist thesis owning, support this stance has emerged. This is unacceptable.

Court serious ideological narrow-mindedly, as knowledge of the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, has created a legal distinction does not exist; categorical difference between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, that has made their decision based on. This distinction is the White Man’s a bad idea based in Europe, as well as supporting the Turkish government’s denialist stance has a content. A moment ago I had hoped to avoid this mistake