Arkin - As you agree that there was a massacre, there is no problem of free speech.

Perhaps it would be wiser to discuss the Turks being murdered by Armenian-Russian Army during the WWI instead of discussing Armenian issue, which indeed would be fair enough under current Swiss Laws. There seems to be no other way to defend Turkish thesis on this matter.

An appeals court has confirmed the sentence against a Turkish politician, Doğu Perinçek, for denying that the killings of Armenians early last century were genocide.
Perinçek, leader of the Turkish Workers' Party, is to lodge a further appeal at Switzerland's highest instance, the Federal Court, his lawyer said on Wednesday.


http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/d...=1182406064000

I have to confess that my knowledge of this history is somewhat lacking but, from the brief searches I have made it is obvious that, if a discussion was held, there are eminent historians who would argue that it is not established beyond a reasonable doubt that a genocide did occur. Unfortunately such a discussion could not take place in Switzerland and I can well understand that Blocher feels that this is incompatible with freedom of expression, as the contributors to this thread seem to agree.

What next ? We’ve made up our minds that global warming is caused by man and therefore you must not discuss it ?

Dogu Perincek came to Switzerland, repeatedly and publicly denied the Armenian genocide knowing that he'd be dragged to court for this and that he's likely to lose the case. Basically he came here to get the doubtful honor of being the first person on this planet that got convicted for denying the Armenian genocide. I'm sure this supposed martyr has earned quite some respect among his fellow Turk nationalists for his low-risk trip to Switzerland.

I wrote the above paragraph last April in another forum and am not surprised that Perincek plans to take his case to the Federal Court (and maybe later to the European Court of Human Rights) - however both courts aren't obligated to accept the case and it will be interesting to observe their reactions.

Perincek is so full of it and as long as only people of his mindset get fined, I have no problem with the existence of free speech limitations.

Actually - the facts are recognized by most non Turkish historians.
If someone has any facts refuting previous research - he/she should present them. so far - none did. A short walk in the Armenian quarter in Jerusalem (or any other Armenian neighborhood in the world) would provide plenty of Survivors descendants with horrifying family stories.

As i said before, i am not going to discuss the Armenian part of the story because it is not allowed to refuse it. Anything that cannot be falsified cannot be defined as science, but perhaps this whole thing became like a religion for Armenians.
This luckily, does not mean we cannot discuss the turkish side of the story.

After a quick research on google, here is what I found:

Turks murdered in Eastern Turkey by the Russia supported Armenian Army.

http://www.armenianreality.com/massa...massacre2.html

And more recently these are from Karabagh genocide. (I am sure Turks call this one genocide as well, they just don't have the money to spend on propaganda, and they cannot use the religion as well, they are muslim at the end.)

http://www.armenianreality.com/massa..._massacre.html

Well, apparently Armenian anger caused the lives of some Turkish diplomats as well, shall we call this, hmm, what, oh yes, "terrorism".
http://www.armenianreality.com/armen...l_rundown.html

Oh, yes there are non-turkish historians refusing the Armenian propaganda. http://www.armenianreality.com/armen...r/mccarthy.htm

I am just sick of this Armenian propaganda. It's just becoming crazy. Come on, find something else to define yourselves.

I said my knowledge of this history was lacking and one of the first references I found about this subject was the BBC which said: Whether or not the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians during World War I amounted to genocide is a matter for heated debate.

I also noted that the judge at the trial of Doğu Perinçek said that the Armenian genocide is "an established historical fact according to the Swiss public". Did they have a referendum about this ?

You say « …most non-Turkish historians » so it’s not unanimous then and there are some that do not recognize the events as being genocide but, in Switzerland, they would not now be allowed to present their opinions, it’s illegal.

You say if someone has any facts refuting previous research - he/she should present them, but they can’t, not in Switzerland, it’s illegal.

You say listen to the Armenian’s stories. Yes, OK, but I can’t listen to the what a Turkish historian may say if it’s said in Switzerland, it’s illegal.

Obviously BonJon would like to say more but he can't, it’s illegal.

If I wanted to improve my knowledge of this history can I still buy a book that argues that it was not genocide or is that also illegal ? Have they burnt them ?

If I wish to improve my knowledge about this subject is it not reasonable that I should hear all sides of the question before forming an opinion ?

Christopher Blocher announced that Switzerland's anti-racism legislation was incompatible with freedom of expression. Don’t you think he’s right ?

One of the sites quotes calls to protest against "Sylovestore Stallone" - I dare say we will hear more about it soon.

Swiss law doesn't prohibit academic research - saying "I can't present any counter facts because it's illegal" is a cop-out.

I'm not Armenian, nor anti Turkish. The facts here speak for themselves - Armenian civilians were murdered on a massive scale, made to leave their homes without providing them any food and shelter (within the Ottoman empire, their "own" country) - thus causing the deaths of many more.

Unfortunately - this wasn't the only genocide in the 20th century, but raising awareness helps pervent similar things now (see Darfur)

"Swiss law doesn't prohibit academic research ",
Before the the Turkish politician, there was a turkish historian fined.

"In 2005, Swiss authorities also launched criminal investigations against the historian Yusuf Halacoglu, the president of the Turkish History Organisation, for allegedly denying the 1915 Armenian massacre while in Switzerland."
(http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/d...05&sid=7946615)

So what kind of a research is allowed, is it described in the law?


I,personally welcome the protests; at least turkish courts do not put fines on Slyvester Stallone.

There are pages here contradict with this statement:
"...without providing them any food and shelter."

http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/ya...n_armenian.htm

Thanks indeed, I didn't know any of these, now I do.

I don't think I am breaking any law here, since I am still not mentioning what I think about all this issue. Oh, this is hard man.

a gov.tr site is hardly a credible source on this.

Yusuf Halacoglu - says that only 50,000 died, when other sources quote figrues between 1.5 - 2 million. he should do my taxes (but using the same math, he'll surely go to jail then)...

Let me clarify my position. I am not arguing whether these events were, or were not, genocide as I have not studied the subject enough to form an opinion. You obviously have formed an opinion and I fully respect your right to do so.

My problem is that the Swiss law does not allow a free discussion as, if anybody takes the view that it was not genocide, they could be arrested and convicted of being a racist.

Turkey has proposed that an international commission of historians should research the issue but, such a commission could obviously not meet here as freedom of expression is denied. Turkish historian Yusuf Halacoglu is being investigated by Swiss prosecutors for comments he made during a speech in Winterthur in 2004 and prosecutors said that they have not been able to interview him in person, but presumably they will do so if he returns.

You say that Swiss law doesn't prohibit academic research. Perhaps not, but it would clearly does prohibit publication of the research if it concluded that there was no genocide.

On the basis of ‘innocent until proved guilty’ suppose the Swiss law said: As the charge of genocide has not been tested and proven in the International Criminal Court it is an offence to refer to the events as genocide. How would you feel about that ?

My point is that discussion or research of the subject is not possible in Switzerland when one side are not allowed to express their opinions. Do you think this is reasonable ?

Bloneybear speaks quite clear

As a Turkish guy I am pretty tired of being blamed for some (self-censored) distant historical conflict, especially of which I have a view, but also I am open to all possibilities.

And when I mean (s-censored) it means an international court...not some politically motivated parliament or a newspaper or people who live in a village.

The Nazi's were tried in Nuremberg...right ? Only then it can be said that there was the holocaust. So why not have another court and have this Armenian issue put on trial ? I will be looking for it as a Turk, as a person who is already judged and sentenced without even having the most basic right to defend myself.

But I assure you there will be no international courts, no trial. If there were, it would be internationally known that :

a- The Armenians violently revolted against the collapsing Ottoman Empire in support of neighboring Russia. (I can't continue this argument due to Swiss laws prohibiting my free speech)
b- Russians were not alone. There were other European countries at war with the Ottomans supporting Russia & Armenians.
c- Those European countries have African blood on their hands. Not just some little blood but organized massive killings so serious that they may be regarded as genocide. For example, Algerian blood on French hands.

No, European governments do not seek serious investigations, forensic anthropology, international courts and so on. They are quite happy to let parliaments decide on history.

And most European media goes by "It is generally accepted that..."

And some, probably most, European citizens care little about historical facts as long as they have a ready-to-cook human rights soup...with Armenian Issue flavor.

Honestly, do you have an open mind and a desire to promote productive free speech ? If so, why not write to the Swiss Parliament and ask them to cancel those laws ?

Erdogan is treathening Armenians living in Turkey:

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setime...10/03/17/nb-03

If they are there illegally why they haven't sent them out by now, and only realized after recent historical genocide mentionings,...?

I had a history seminar a couple years back, on a graduation paper on the Armenian Genocide. I then told the speaker I wasn't sure if calling it Genocide in the very title of the paper was appropriate, for as far as I know there was no concensus among historian upon this issue, and the fact that you could only access second-hand litterature because the main sources were in turkish didn't help. The teachers in charge agreed with me.
I don't know if it's qualify as Genocide denial, but if it does, when a whole university section of historians are guilty. (My understanding though, is that you're judged differently in respect of your intention. Academical debate is OK. Public ranting is not.)

Not that I'm saying there wasn't a genocide. I would even go as far as to say that, for what little I know, there was .
But in historical term it has a quite precise definition: organized mass-murder aimed at eliminate a whole group of people in reason of their race, religion , etc.
It's kind of a dead-end : Any turkish historian who claims these massacres don't qualify under this definition is considered with suspicion abroad, whereas any international historian who claim there was a genocide is questioned about what kind of documentation he had access to. And if he's right ''by law'', what is the need for factual accomptability ?

Anyhow all the historians are quite feed up of the so-called ''memorial laws'' passed by different parlement aroud the world. History is no politician's turf and they should know their place ! Those are just politicaly motivated attempts to regain some legitimacy, and hold no regard for the facts or the historical method. Which is not to say what they are wrong in their particular opinion about the armenian genocide, it's the whole concept of memorial law I find flawed.

It doesn't help that the word Genocide ( with a big G) has been overused and overpublicized by the media, and is used in as a weapon of mass destruction in international politic. For a variety of reasons, the Armenian Genocide is still too hot an issue to be serenely studied and thought upon.
As far as I'm concerned though, I confess I find little difference between Genocide and gruesome mass massacres. They both kill you just as dead.

One last word to end this too long entry: perhaps I gave the impression I was against the antiracial law of switzerland itself, as it curtails free speech. I am not.
For once there always is censorship, there isn't such a thing a absolute free speech, for obvious reason. If you go on the lawn of the white house professing your intetion to kill Obama, wait and see what happens to you, even if you haven't done anything but speak yet.

Seriously, the infamous Radio Mille-colline in rwanda actively professed on the wave the mass-killing of tutsis, and have a huge part in it. Speech isn't always ''just speech''. It precedes action.

Another thing are racial slurs, which are considered ''emotional'' attacks and thus punished by law (as they should). Now in switzerland denying the holocaust is also illegal.

From what I read some of you may think that public statements of such nature, so obviously wrong and ludicrous, should be allowed under free speech because no one would pay intention, and the censorship partisan are hypocrites, only like-minded opinons.

I disagree. First because there was such a thing as Nazy Germany. And second, the rationale being Holocause has been historicaly proven beyond any kind of doubt. It's denial is but a weapon in the arsenal of Antisemits, aimed at the very identity of the jewish people. Armadinejhad and his ilk who pose as reasonnable apprenty historians just waiting for a fair trial , so to speack, of their ideas , a tribune for their hate should not find it in switzerland. There should be no mistaking it: denial of Holocaust is a hate crime, and should be punished as such.

And the same goes for those ultranationalist turk: they are not interested in facts and historical truth, they just push forward their misguided nationalism, and their contempt and lack of compassion toward their country's minority. They maybe not guilty law-wise in their home country, but they're dicks just the same.

Sorry for the too long, non-humourus intervention. Just the kind of stuff I actually care about.

I personaly don't think the whole issue is around the word "genocide" but to admit that something wrong and brutal was done, at certain time in that country against certain people.
Talking about Nazis, if you look at German TVs, there is seldom one week without at least one program showing WWii and Nazis and .... quite unbiased.
Such a thing is missing by countries like Turkey. Another example of sacrificing humanity for the sake of national pride.

Admitting past mistakes is the best step toward avoiding happening of similar things in the future.

Even though he is a PM, I suggest you do not take him seriously. He made very unfortunate remarks yet I doubt he can understand what he said.

No, just clever in their choice of words and in terms of leaving things unsaid but understood.

If Norman Stone visits Switzerland will they prison him ? He says no genocide happened.

This is not my view by the way as explained previously. I also do not believe in the official Turkish explanation. What I know is that there was a major massacre, maybe a genocide in response to a violent uprising by Armenians as they warred against the Ottoman Empire to create an independent Armenia.

Armenians know very well that if there were like a Nuremberg kind of court, then no matter what the outcome would be (massacre or genocide) then it would be publicly known that they had first engaged in a war against the Ottoman empire. This fact would prohibit them from achieving their ultimate goal which is to demand billions of dollars from Turkey. So the issue is more about money then historical. That's why they go to parliaments, not to courts.

Also the death tolls could be (far) smaller than that is claimed. A very old Turkish relative of mine who as a state prosecutor traveled around Turkey in 1930s and 40s (when things were fresh) says the numbers are much smaller than the claimed 1.5m. So I think the Armenians have inflated the death toll by a large margin but in any case there is a major massacre.



Norman Stone is Professor Emeritus of Modern History at the University of Oxford and head of the Russian-Turkish Institute at Bilkent University, Ankara

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7053138.ece


Some excerpts from this article...

But genocide? No, if by that you mean the sort of thing Hitler did. The Armenian leader was offered a job in the government in October 1914 to sort things out (he refused on the ground that his Turkish was not up to it). The Turks themselves put 1,600 men on trial for what had happened and executed a governor. The British had the run of the Turkish archives for four years after 1918 and failed to find incriminating documents. Armenians in the main cities were not touched. Documents did indeed turn up in 1920, but they turned out to be preposterous forgeries, written on the stationery of a French school

You cannot really describe this as genocide. Horrors, of course, happened but these same horrors were visited upon millions of Muslims (and Jews) as the Ottoman Empire receded in the Caucasus and the Balkans. Half of its urban population came from those regions and, in many cases, the disasters of their families occurred at Armenian hands

You write with common sense. I agree with you but need to add one thing.

There has been a major terrorist campaign against Turkish foreign office members and also civilians by the Armenian terrorist organization Asala during the 70s and 80s. Asala was supported not only by Armenia and the diaspora but also by the Western countries. After the Orly airport attack, the French government decided to terminate Asala.

Most Asala terrorism took place in France or in French speaking cities such as Geneva. Terrorists then sought shelter from the French police.

We Turks need to reassess our own history for sure. But this should (and will only) happen within an objective environment.