Hrant Dink to deny the Armenian Genocide?
Hrant Dink, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2005
In a strange twist to news that France has passed a bill making denial of the Armenian Genocide a crime, ethnic Armenian journalist Hrant Dink says that he is prepared to deny the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians to defend freedom of speech. It’s worth noting that Dink is already under pressure in Turkey because he called the massacres and deportations of Armenians living in Ottoman Turkey Genocide.
Among the first to condemn the bill was journalist Hrant Dink, who is among a handful of taboo-breaking intellectuals in Turkey who have openly argued that the massacres were genocide, drawing nationalist ire and landing himself in court.
“This is idiocy,” the Turkish-Armenian Dink said in remarks to the liberal daily Radikal. “It only shows that those who restrict freedom of expression in Turkey and those who try to restrict it in France are of the same mentality.”
Dink, editor of the Turkish-Armenian bilingual weekly Agos, received a six-month suspended sentence last year for “insulting Turkishness” in an article about the 1915-1917 massacres.
He is scheduled to go on trial again under the same provision, this time for saying the killings were genocide.
Dink said he was ready to defend freedom of expression even if it means running the risk of imprisonment in France.
“I am standing trial in Turkey for saying it was genocide. If this bill is adopted, I will go to France and, in spite of my conviction, I will say it was not genocide,” he said in a television interview. “The two countries can then compete to see who throws me in jail first.”
As I mentioned in the comments section of the previous post, the issue of making denial of Genocide a criminal offence is controversial. In particular, the case of Robert Faurisson who denied the Jewish Holocaust is a well-known example of activists such as Noam Chomsky taking on their case to defend freedom of speech.
Chomsky has acquired many critics from both the right and left ends of the political spectrum. Despite his Jewish heritage he has been accused of antisemitism for his views on Israel’s foreign policy and his involvement in the Faurisson affair, among other issues. Chomsky has argued that his actions in the Faurisson affair were limited to a defense of the rights of free expression of someone he disagrees with, and that critics subsequently subjected this limited defence to various interpretations. [6] His critics contend that Chomsky went further than a defence of free speech, effectively protecting the character of a holocaust denier as well as supporting the legitimacy of his research.
It’s also interesting to note that the French bill is alarming other Armenian activists in Turkey who fear that the criminalization of denial will lead to Turkey reversing current trends that are actually pushing discussion of the Genocide in the open. The AFP article also touches upon this issue.
Another Armenian journalist, Etyen Mahcupyan, said Turks see the proposed law as an imposition on them to accept the genocide and feared the French move could scupper a fledgling, timid debate in Turkey to question its past.
“Initiatives like the one in the French parliament are awkward,” he told AFP. “They push the Turks closer to the state and make them more vulnerable to manipulation.”
Discussing the massacres was a near-taboo in Turkey until recently and an open debate on the issue — one of the most controversial in Turkish history — still sends nationalist sentiment into frenzy.
Mahcupyan, a columnist for the conservative daily Zaman, called on European countries to back efforts to improve democracy in Turkey, which he said was the only way to ensure free debate and challenge Ankara’s official line.
The Armenian Patriarchate said the French bill only created obstacles to frank dialogue between Armenians and Turks.
“All initiatives creating obstacles to freedom of expression endanger the process of dialogue between the Turkish and Armenian societies, and reinforce nationalist and racist tendencies on both sides,” the head of the Armenian Church said in a statement.
Ara Kocunyan, editor of the small Armenian-language daily Jamanak, criticized what he called the feeling of “self-victimization” with which the Armenian diaspora in the West is pursuing its campaign to have the massacres internationally recognized as genocide.
He urged instead increased efforts to combat the dire economic situation in Armenia, to which Turkey has contributed by sealing its border.
“If we stick to the current priorities, I fear those weeping today for a father killed 90 years ago will find themselves weeping for little Armenia in 50 years’ time,” Kocunyan said.
Interestingly, a former French official of Armenian descent, Patrick Devedjian, had tried to get a clause included in the French bill that allowed free academic discussion on the Genocide, but it was rejected by Parliament.
Devedjian proposed an amendment to a proposed bill criminalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide on 9 October, 2006 that read, “These regulations do not apply to academic and scientific researches and studies.” Devedjian added a statement to the amendment that according to panarmenian.com would “prevent any provocations and political demonstrations organized by a foreign country.”
Anyway, I think Dink threatening to deny the Genocide is a bit too much, but I understand the arguments against this bill and not least because it looks like France is using the issue to prevent Turkish membership of the European Union. Nothing should also restrict academic research on the Genocide as well as the Holocaust for that matter.
The full article is here.
Right, as has been mentioned in all reports so far and which was used to get Faurisson. As I mentioned, the same arguments re. criminalization of denial and freedom of speech apply there as well.
Anyway, one difference between denial of the Holocaust and the Genocide is simply that Germany has ackowledged its past whereas Turkey hasn’t. What Dink and others fear is that discussion in Turkey will be even harder now.
Seems to me that the debate here is rather how to get Turkey to do that i.e. as a natural but slow process within Turkish society or through measure like this which have more to do with a large ethnic Armenian electorate and French opposition to Turkey’s EU bid than anything else.
Time will tell.
To be honest, I don’t think this bill is going to change much, and it hasn’t even been approved by the Senate yet so it might not even become law. On the other hand, I’d feel happier with it if Devedjian’s clause safeguarding academic research were in there somewhere.
Comment by Onnik — October 13, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
Initially, I was happy that this law was passed. We all should realize that France really doesn’t have the best interests of Armenians as their guiding political and moral positions. The large majority of the French Assembly were absent at the vote. No surprise here!!! We can use this opprotunity to promote pan-Armenian interests but with the knowledge that the genocide issue is conveniently being manipulated like a pin-pong ball by Europe and Turkey. Many believe that the diaspora is “genocide-driven”, to the exemption of many other issues which might seem more current and immediate. Whatever Europeans say or do vis-a-vis the genocide, the reality is public opinion in Turkey has a long way to go before it even contemplates a more objective look at Turkey’s past history. Some may see Pamuk as a writer with a conscience but most in Turkey brand him a traitor. It’s hard to see how Turkey will be “pressured” into recognizing the reality of the genocide any time soon.
Armenians should be exploring new avenues & approaches to facilitate Genocide recognition.
Comment by YAFTAJI — October 13, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
Turkish pitiful state maintains it position of denial. As if these Armenians were just going to the picnic with a lot of food and will be provided with new houses in the settled areas….Turkey is a criminal state and continue to be criminal….and criminals deny most of the time….The crime is full of evidence it is proven there is no need to listen the debate but to bring just conclusion to the Armenian issue….
Comment by Garo — October 14, 2006 @ 1:41 am
I think it’s worth pointing out that Dink and others who are trying to engage society in Turkey on the subject of the Genocide are not against bills recognizing the massacres and deportations as such, but rather they’re against criminalizing denial.
Anyway, as I said, I think the bill would have been better if it had excluded academia. Basically, as with the Holocaust, the truth is undeniable anyway, and to try to make believe it didn’t happen would make anyone who did look pretty stupid.
Still, time will tell. Firstly, the bill might not even pass the Senate. Secondly, we have yet to see how Turkey reacts in terms of closing down the small spaces that did emerge recently for discussion and debate within society on its past.
Comment by Onnik — October 14, 2006 @ 2:17 am
RFE/RL has more on the latest developments following the bill in two stories.
Comment by Onnik — October 14, 2006 @ 2:41 am
I have to say that there are other forces at work here to see to it that the Armenian Genocide doesn’t get the recognition it deserves. Who would lose if recognition of The Armenian Genocide gets universal acceptance? Who keeps telling the Armenians that most of Armenia’s problems are of its own doing? Who are the greatest supporters for Turkish inclusion into the Europian Union and why? I think most Armenians know the who’s and whys.
Comment by Darwin Jamgochian — October 14, 2006 @ 5:44 am
I actually don’t see that Holocaust / Genocide Recognition and Holocaust / Genocide Denial are the same thing. Then again, now I’m digging into the matter to try to make up my own mind up on the matter, there are those who think otherwise although there are arguments on both sides of the divide.
However, it’s worth pointing out that even though recognition of the Holocaust is widespread, the criminalization of denial isn’t.
Anyway, it’s an interesting question and not least because denial of the Holocaust and the Genocide isn’t illegal in Armenia.
Indeed, when the idea of making denial of the Genocide illegal in Armenia following statements by the Israeli Ambassador was proposed, the Prime Minister made a point of resisting such calls arguing there was no need to criminalize denying the undeniable.
Still, the idea that Turkey will display a knee-jerk reaction to possible passage of the French bill and close up all discussion there is worrying. Then again, the EU should be on that case so maybe they can’t, I don’t know.
Comment by Onnik — October 14, 2006 @ 9:55 am
And now comes the turn of Orhan Pamuk:
http://oneworld.blogsome.com/2006/10/14/nobel-prize-winner-denounces-french-genocide-bill/
Comment by Onnik — October 14, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Hrant Dink has been shot dead in Istanbul:
http://oneworld.blogsome.com/2007/01/19/hrant-dink-shot-dead/
Comment by Onnik — January 19, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
Mythomania is a pathological sickness. Turks have admitted that Armenian citizens have died during the war time. But calling it a genocide will put Armenians in the same sack. It is a fact that even more Turks have been killed by Armenians back then. Their archives are open to all who are willing to read the truth. Either both countries should accept that they attempted a genocide or both should close their mouths and try to live happily as neighbours. Let historians write the history and not politicians or jounalists or crazy Austrian writers like Franz Werfel. That is the only way to stop this silly fight. Let historians decide. And not just Turkish or Armenian historians but International Historians. If you are not afraid to face the truth..
Comment by Historian — January 20, 2007 @ 9:39 am