Armenian Genocide - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Ixa
#1005618
NY Times wrote:French Pass Bill That Punishes Denial of Armenian Genocide

Thomas Crampton, International Herald Tribune, Oct. 12, 2006

The National Assembly, defying appeals from Turkey, approved legislation Thursday that would make it a crime to deny that the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey during and after World War I were genocide.

The legislation, which was criticized by Turkey’s government and some European Union officials, could further complicate talks for Turkey’s admission to the Union.

With 106 deputies voting in favor and 19 against, the law sets fines of up to 45,000 euros, or about $56,000, and a year in prison for denying the genocide. Of the 577 members of the Assembly, 4 abstained and 448 did not vote at all, raising the question of whether there would be enough political will to push the law through the Senate.

Scholars and most Western governments have recognized the killing of more than a million Armenians by Ottoman Turks from 1915 to 1919 as genocide. But the subject is still taboo in Turkey, and charges have been pressed against writers and others who have brought attention to the genocide, including Orhan Pamuk, who was just awarded the Nobel Prize in literature.

“The Turkish people refuse the limitation of freedom of expression on the basis of groundless claims,” the Turkish Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “With this draft law, France unfortunately loses its privileged status in the eyes of Turkish public opinion.”

Ali Babacan, the Turkish economy minister and the country’s lead negotiator on talks with Europe, said he could not rule out consequences for French companies.

“What happened in France today, we believe, is not in line with the core values of the European Union,” Mr. Babacan said, adding that the government would not encourage a boycott of French goods.

In Brussels, the European Union warned that the law could have a harmful effect on negotiations. “It would prohibit dialogue which is necessary for reconciliation on the issue,” said Krisztina Nagy, a spokeswoman for the Union. “It is not up to law to write history. Historians need to have debate.”

Turkey’s potential membership in the European Union has been a hot political topic here ahead of the presidential elections next spring. The leading candidates to succeed President Jacques Chirac, including Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal, have agreed that Turkey must acknowledge the genocide before gaining membership. But the new legislation has been more of a campaign issue in France, which has one of Europe’s largest Armenian populations.

Although most of France’s top politicians supported the European Union’s planned constitution, the French rejected it last year in a referendum that was also seen as a vote against further European expansion. The problem for politicians seeking to succeed Mr. Chirac is how to oppose Turkish entry without taking on the xenophobic tones of the far right.

After the vote, Mr. Chirac’s government, which opposed the legislation, expressed eagerness for dialogue with Turkey and said the bill was unnecessary and inopportune. “We are very committed to dialogue with Turkey, as well as to the strong ties of friendship and cooperation which link us to that country,” said Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry.

{snip}
Swissinfo.org wrote:Blocher Insists On Revised Anti-Racism Law

SwissInfo.org, Oct.6, 2006

Swiss Justice Minister Christoph Blocher says he is intent on revising Switzerland's anti-racism law, confirming comments he made in Turkey earlier this week.

Blocher's original remarks, made in Ankara, caused an uproar in Switzerland among politicians and the media. The cabinet is to discuss the minister's statement soon.

Speaking in Zurich on Friday, Blocher said he was surprised by the criticism he faced back home after making his comments. He added that what bothered him in the legislation was the "tense relationship" between freedom of speech and anti-racism legislation.

Freedom of expression was essential to democracy, affirmed the minister. "I want people to be able to express themselves in Switzerland, even if their opinion doesn't appeal to everyone," he added.

During his trip to Turkey, Blocher had remarked that part of the anti-racism law - adopted in 1994 and including sections aimed at preventing revisionist views about the Holocaust - gave him a "headache".

The law has led to investigations against two Turks, including a historian, in Switzerland for allegedly denying the 1915 Armenian massacre.

Blocher said a working group at his ministry was re-examining the law, in particular article 261bis, adding that it was up to the government, parliament and possibly the population, to decide on any changes.

Blocher said on Friday that he had not many any promises to the Turkish government on the matter.

Armenians say around 1.8 million of their people were killed in the massacre. Turkey disputes this, putting the figure closer to 200,000. Under Swiss law any act of denying, belittling or justifying genocide is a violation of the country's anti-racism legislation.

Storm of protest

Blocher's comments unleashed a storm of protest in Switzerland. On Thursday Interior Minister Pascal Couchepin said that the justice minister's remarks were "unacceptable".

For his part, President Moritz Leuenberger said he was surprised, adding that the cabinet would discuss the issues arising from Blocher's comments.

Three of the main political parties in government have also condemned the remarks. Blocher's own rightwing Swiss People's Party has so far declined to comment.

However, the House of Representatives, which has just ended its autumn parliamentary session, has decided against debating on the issue.

Several political commentators have called the comments provocative and have questioned whether the anti-racism law, voted on by the population, could be changed.

Marcel Niggli, professor of law of Fribourg University, told swissinfo that it was strange that Blocher should have made the remarks during a trip abroad and that he should have defended and not criticised the law.

Blocher said that on the whole the trip has been positive and that his Turkish counterpart Cemil Cicek had assured him that he was ready to create a commission made up of historians from different countries that would have access to Turkish and Armenian archives.
-----------
By armenica
#1055889
Hi!

We have at last got a copy of the DVD from the Genocide Conference in Stockholm, Sweden on November 15, 2005. We have edited and put online a 60 minute long lecture by Prof. Vahakn N. Dadrian on the subject of the Armenian Genocide: http://www.armenica.org/multimedia

Since earlier we have also an interview with Prof. Taner Akcam (about 20 min. long).
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1055913
Scholars and most Western governments have recognized the killing of more than a million Armenians by Ottoman Turks from 1915 to 1919 as genocide.


Armenians say around 1.8 million of their people were killed in the massacre.


Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

George Orwell
User avatar
By N'Djamena
#1055976
There is also an Armenian lobby in America fighting for this:

"old" Armenian borders

Map of Armenia in accordance to the treaty of Sevres, vertical red stripes lands from Turkey, horizontal red stripes from Azerbaijan, oblique from left to right from Georgia (Javakhk), and oblique from right to left Nakhichevan. These are the lands demanded by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation: "United Armenia". Image scanned from 2005-2006 Armenian Agenda "2005-2006 Tasatsouyts" pg 129.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1056039
There is also an Armenian lobby in America fighting for this:


Thankfully, there is a Jewish lobby protecting Turkey.
I think Armenia should do something about its crappy economy, declining population and oppression of Azebaijan before it bitches about this.
User avatar
By ~Magius~
#1057443
Doomhammer:
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
Why is this relevant to the matter of the Armenian genocide?
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1058378
Why is this relevant to the matter of the Armenian genocide?


Its relevant because we can know the truth about the past. History is a subjective science, even if ou find official documents, these documents may still be false, or simply subjective. On the other hand, even if the evidenvce were true, it could still be interpreted in a different way (because everyone thinks differently).

On the other, people can also "write" history in a way which is advantageous and favorable towards them. Hence the expression "history is written by the victors."

Ergo, the past is what we make of it.
User avatar
By Looter
#1058386
Bit off topic, but I just learned a new reason to hate Turkey: Istanbul Pogrom.
Once we are done with Imperialism, Turkey is next.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1058397
^Legitimate reason, kind of... :|

Although I don't approve of these attacks (and fell sorry for the victims), I can't care less, because it only involved those specific mobs in Istanbul in that specific time-frame. It doesn't involve me or the Turkish government or the Turkish nation. By your logic, I should hate the US for butchering Iraqis, or French people for butchering Algerians, or the Germans for butchering the Jews.

Its a fact that many people in a given population are assholes. I know always say I hate Arabs, but I don't hate all arabs (Only ultra-religious one) because I don't know all Arabs, and because it is very much possible that there are Arabic people whom I won't disagree with vis-a-vis issues of religion, culture etc. Ergo, by saying you hate Turks you are generalizing those thugs with all Turks.

But hey, I'm just saying that... you are free to hate or love anything you wish.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1060099
n fact the Kemalists proceeded to take all but a small portion of Armenia? With the Kemalists victorious over the Armenians


WTF? Kemalists fighting the Armenians? No such thing happened. The Kemalists fought against the Greek invaders and technically against the sultan, but not the Armenians. The only land they may have taken was not taken by force, but rather by the Treaty of Laussane.
ought to apply to the Turks rather than the Armenians

I was actually refering to the US, Britain and France, who won the war.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1060114
Seems like you're playing a game of semantics. Turks fought Armenia in late 1920.


So they did, who cares? :|

The hypocrisy of that is astounding considering that the Turks were the ones who invaded and stole the Greeks' land.


So the defeated Ottoman Empire invaded Greece in 1919 as if it didn't have enough problems already?

Plus, the Greeks through the treaty of Sevres were allowed to take East Thrace and Smyrna.


Finea nd dandy, but why did they then invade the rest of Anatolia?
User avatar
By ~Magius~
#1060756
Doomhammer:
Its relevant because we can know the truth about the past. History is a subjective science, even if ou find official documents, these documents may still be false, or simply subjective.
My question was why this is relevant to the Armenian genocide.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1060772
^In the sense that altough there may evidence for or against something (i.e. the Armenian Genocide), we still can't be sure that:

a) the evidence is true
b) the evidence is not subjective (for either side)
c) even an official document with true infor may be perceived or interpreted in such a way that that we can understand the past in a wrong way.


Thus history is a subjective discipline and we can never be certain about the past. We choose to interpret the past according to our own subjective views.

Ok?
User avatar
By ~Magius~
#1060779
Doomhammer:
In the sense that altough there may evidence for or against something (i.e. the Armenian Genocide), we still can't be sure that:

a) the evidence is true
b) the evidence is not subjective (for either side)
c) even an official document with true infor may be perceived or interpreted in such a way that that we can understand the past in a wrong way.
I had the feeling you were referring to this, but I disagree with your conclusion, that we must distrust all history. It is true, that history is one of the least exact sciences, particularly in this day and age in which forgeries are easy to create. However, we can still rely on certain historical tools to establish probable fact. In the case of the Armenian genocide, the main question is whether or not it was premeditated and how spontaneous the killings were (also, what percentage of the deaths can be attributed to direct killing, but I think this is a less essential point). Regarding these questions I accept your skepticism, and it may be that the truth will never be known; however, I do not think this skepticism should be so extremely applied to all history.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1060785
I had the feeling you were referring to this


Then why did you ask? :lol:

Ottoman soldiers probably did kill many Armenians with the intention of killing them. But again, what were the circumstances, how many were killed intentionally and how many died as a result of the conditions caused by conditions brought about by the ongoing war (i.e. famine, disease, exposure to enemy). To what extent are sceptics correct? To what extent are the Armenian claims legitmate and true? These are all questions with different answers.
I hope that one day historians will stop squabbling and actually cooperate to find an answer to the truth.

Note: Yes, I believe in social constructivism and my scepticizm may get annoying at times, I apoligize.
User avatar
By ~Magius~
#1061993
Doomhammer:
Then why did you ask?
Just to be sure. I thought it would ook (even more) ridiculous if I began to criticize the approach and finding that you were referring to something else alltogether.

I hope that one day historians will stop squabbling and actually cooperate to find an answer to the truth.
I agree completely. I look foreword to the "Ankara historical conference on the Armenian genocide". And yes, even the veracity of calling the Armenian massacres a genocide can and should be discussed.

Yes, I believe in social constructivism and my scepticizm may get annoying at times, I apoligize.
Fair enough, I suppose. I just think that that position, taken to an extreme, will be very inconvenient for you. Not my place to make these decisions for you, though.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]