http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/d...05&sid=7603245

Switzerland actually taking a side ! a good start, IMHO.

Yes, Blocher doesn't like the anti-racism laws in Switzerland - there's a surprise.

But just in case I'm missing something here - It seems to be that this is a Turkish politician, who lives in Turkey, with the comments occurring outside of Turkey. So what an earth does this matter have to do with the Swiss courts? Surely the turks could just tell Switzerland to butt out and mind their own business?

Surely this ranks up alongside with US courts making decisions about things outside the US? Or have I missed something?

I 100% agree that there was planned Armenian genocide. That said I am for freedom of speech even if it means that some idiot tries to twist historical facts.

Btw Blocher is a *** HAT.

Must say I agree with you there JR. If you get up an actually incite racial hatred it's one thing (e.g. total SVP BS arriving in the letterbox with alarming frequency), but denying a holocaust? I mean if there is plenty of evidence then why not let people make up their own mind. There are people that deny the WW2 holocaust. Let them - there are enough people who know that such claims are rubbish, so why should it bother us if they say it? Instead we pass laws which prevent someone from expressing an opposing point of view...

Then when it comes to free speech we should consider Umran Javed [bbc.co.uk] who grabbed a megaphone and shouted "bomb Denmark, bomb USA" at a protest rally about the cartoons of Mohammed... (itself a free speech issue). As far as I remember he was convicted in the UK for inciting terrorism, but I can't find the link about his conviction now.

Here's another classic story (from Israel) a deaf/mute is being held in prison accused of shouting down a megaphone to agitate the Palestinian masses against Israel. Story here [Guardian.co.uk]

The comments were made IN Switzerland
He's therefore broken Swiss Law... ?

my presumption

"Perinçek, the head of the left-wing Turkish Workers' Party, stands accused of racial discrimination after he called the genocide "an international lie" during a public speech in the city of Lausanne in July 2005."

He broke the law in Switzerland.

Classic urban myth, that is. No credible news source confirms it.

I found it on the Guardian's website while googling for the first article. Is that not a credible news source?

Hi,

When I saw the words "Turkish politician" on the main forum page (in the last messages section) I could not stop commenting since I am Turkish.

Mr. Perincek is one very angry guy who subscribes to an extremist ideology. He has the habit of speaking with anger and he speaks very blunt.

Yet, what Mr. Perincek did was an act of civil disobedience. He did not mean to break the law so as to inflict damage to Switzerland but to show that at the very center of Europe you are forbidden to express your views.

I do not wish to go into historical details but just to provide some insight to the Turkish view :

1. Ottoman Empire was multinational and multicultural by definition.
2. Armenians were always of special importance and were called "milleti sidika" meaning the loyal people.
3. During the collapse of Ottoman Empire, Armenians sided with Russians and started massacres in Eastern Anatolia. I do know Turks who lost their grand relatives during these massacres.
4. The Ottomans obviously responded to these Amerian massacres but they overkilled, literally.
5. Europe has always supported Armenian views, including France who harbored the Armenian terrorist organization Asala in 70's and 80's.

Regarding the Ottoman response, I do not know if it was a massacre or a genocide. My "logical belief" is that it was a massacre based upon the historical facts just described yet should substantial evidences come out in favor of a genocide I will of course accept it. Are we not human, lacking empathy, compassion and understanding ? Do you think we will deliberately refuse a proven genocide ? No ! Would you ?

I believe the real problem is that a good number of people enjoy making authoritative comments on issues they have little information.

These important historical problems should be solved not by politicians but by an international group of historians, forensic anthropologists and similar experts. The UN would be a perfect organization for this.

And all countries need to open up their historical archives (Russia, Armenia, Turkey, England, France etc.) But ironically things do not go this way. How come French Parliament and Swiss cantons decide on historical issues ?

Let me paraphrase this issue in a different way.

If there is a murder who solves the crime ?

Turks say detectives, (unfortunately) many Europeans say politicians, and so far with the exception of the Swiss Justice Minister most Europeans are just comfortable with their selection.

Interesting... Ok, I see these comments were made in Switzerland, so under Swiss law the authorities have a right to poke their nose into this affair.

However, I do find it ironic that we sharply criticise Turkey for violations of human rights, including free speech, while simultaneously demonstrating that we also punish certain forms of speech, rather than simply ignoring them.

By prosecuting a case against a Turkish politician that infringes his own speech we only serve to highlight this irony.

Ironic too that it was Blocher who stated that this law 'gave him a headache' last year...

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/search/...=1160060771000

It is frankly a stupid situation that people can be prosecuted for having a slanted view of history (as opposed to inciting racism). If nutters want to deny the holocaust, or say the earth is flat - why shouldn't they? If they use this to incite racism, than that should be reason for prosecution...

I agree with you, but when we start setting conditions where it is OK to prevent free speech (e.g. racism) then it can be a very slippery slope wouldn't you agree?

In the case of the Muslim in the UK (mentioned above) who shouted "Bomb the US" to a crowd of just 40 people the prosecution originally intended to bring a charge of "attempted murder" before settling on "inciting terrorism". That's a perfect example of a slippery slope greased with extra slippery grease if you ask me Let's hope Switzerland manages to show more restraint in the application of these types of laws.

As for Blocher and the SVP, I guess they are exempt from laws governing racism, since nobody has managed to nail them for it yet.

The Guardian's "comment is free" section is as credible as the tobbaco companies smoking research. not mentioning the Guardians bias... In this particular case - even the comment is heresay, without any facts to back it up.

In think that any Genocide "refutation" (saying it didn't happen, when it did - the excact word escpaes me for the moment) should be illegal. Doing it does great injustice to the victims. Research it, by all means, but don't say it didn't happen.

Arkin - which detectives should resolve the question ? Maybe the Armenians did kill civilians (please forward any non Turkish links), but mass murders and deporatations of Armenians are proven by many non Turkish, Non Armenian sources (German army officers, Ottoman allies during WWI, etc).

Debatable. Unless you mean it ruled various nations and cultures


You bet they were special

Maybe Armenians were fed up of being "special" people? Like Pashosh said provide non Turkish links. And also prove that they were on a large scale

Some "overkill" it was

http://www.armgate.com/genocide/pictures.html


I personally don't think much of French history. On the same note I don't think much of Turkish history.

Btw I also don't think much of any empire! By default empires subjugate conquered lands and apply one set of values/religion/culture on others.

***Please understand that technically I may be prosecuted in Geneva if I were to talk about those Armenian and Turkish tragedies on this forum should the forum server be on Swiss soil or maybe because it can be considered as Swiss media due to .ch extention (What a shame) ***

And I am a law abiding person, have been all my life. I do not intend to break your or other laws. Once your country provides me with the opportunity for free speech, I will gladly discuss more, peacefully and respectfully of course.

For once, I will try to give a short answer to your q's.

- Detectives from many countries including politically neutral ones such as Japan.
- I think no one will argue that mass murders and deportations occured. As far I know, they did. You have a wrong impression, you think I deny that tragedies occurred. I do not.

If you want me to speak more than please support freedom of speech in Switzerland and in France especially, when accusing Turks of genocide (and lack of free speech) and then forbidding us the right to defend ourselves.

Isn't this a basic legal right ? The right to defend oneself...

An excellent point Arkin - although we are asking you to back up your arguments, you rightly point out that to correctly argue your case may cause you to fall foul of this particular legislation which prevents you from denying something.

This server is on Swiss soil (well in a datacenter with a raised floor, rather than soil), so I guess if you hadn't censored yourself I would have technically had to ask you to shut up, or risk getting myself into hot water by "publishing" such remarks.

A sticky mess indeed...

Arkin I gathered from your post that you are not completely unreasonable chap So good on you that you don't deny it fully.
You would be surprised how many people do deny it.

Well the banners in that and other demos in London/UK were lot sicker than just "bomb xyz".

"Be prepared for real holocaust"
"behead those who insult islam"
"liberalism go to hell"
"butcher those who mock islam"
"exterminate those who slander islam" and many more BUT I still think as long as the demo is non-violent such idiots should have right to free speech. On the same note racists should have right to free speech as well. The moment they turn violent their ass should be dealt with severely.

Not actually. Our Turkish history books accept the fact that Turks massacred and deported Armenians as they tried to control their massacres. As far as I know, most (maybe ultranationalists excluded) Turks accept this fact.

What we are not comfortable to accept is being blamed for genocide without even a trial or international investigation. Furthermore our right for self defense is being silenced by undemocratic laws.

I personally love Armenians. They are hardworking people, they are good at arts and crafts and they have so much of a contribution to Turkish society. And I am not alone in my views.

If you will permit me, this will be my share of discussion.

See, this is a nice forum. Even on a highly sensitive subject, people can communicate in a civilized manner.

I agree with Arkin - so far this has been a civilised discussion. let's keep it that way.

So far we all agree that the Armenians were massacared. Arkin claims this was a response to Armenians killing Turks. As the Turks had an Army and the armenians didn't - I find it hard to believe that Armenians did it on a large scale. Considering Turkish road & rail infrastructure at the time (more presicely - lack of), it would be very hard for anone, bar the authorities, to do it.

Arkin - please provide contradicting info.

Pashosh,

You seem to be willing to go into a detailed discussion for which I am not qualified since I am not a historian and also I am facing free speech limitations.

Should you wish to learn more about the Turkish view I would suggest you to start with searching for the phrase "Armenian Issue" on Google. There you will find one site with authoritative info on the Turkish view.

Arkin