3152) New Armenian Genocide Book /Or A Movie: Gardens Of Grief: Through Eyes Of Young American Agent Of U.S Bureau Of Investigation

Boston Teran’s latest book Gardens of Grief is about the Armenian Genocide based on historical fact. It's set in Turkey 1915 – – a fierce retelling of events in 1915 Turkey seen through the eyes of a young American, an agent for the Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. State Department.

Gardens of Grief, a sequel to Boston Teran's literary classic, The Creed of Violence, is not only a powerful and thrilling piece of literature, it is also a forceful condemnation of one of the most monstrous and controversial events of the twentieth century-the Armenian genocide. In 1915, Islamic fundamentalists in Turkey annihilated two million innocent Armenians. Were the atrocities committed by the Turkish government an unfortunate act of war, or the methodical extermination of a people that was unequalled in history up to that time? The novel has been compared to Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls, where honor and bravery align with selflessness, to the impassioned advocacy for justice of Emile Zola's J'Accuse, the writer's 1898 open letter on the Dreyfus Affair, and to the work of Solzhenitsyn, for his treatment of the horrors of oppression.

---

About the Author:
Boston Teran became a literary sensation with a first novel God Is a Bullet. The winner of numerous international awards, the author has been compared to novelists such as Hemingway, Maupassant, and McCarthy, and because of a unique writing style, also compared to the painters Picasso and Bruegel, the composer Tchaikovsky, and filmmakers such as John Ford, Sergio Leone, and David Lean.

Boston Teran was born and raised in the South Bronx. He is the author of several books.


Universal Pictures bought one of Teran's recent books for $2.5 million. This book too might be a movie starring Kim Kardashian who wanted to make a film about the Armenian Genocide . .

---

Book Review

GARDENS OF GRIEF a brilliant, and socially important novel - is less a sequel to THE CREED OF VIOLENCE than an organic evolvement. It follows John Lourdes, an agent with the Bureau of Investigation, who is sent by the U.S. State Department to Constantinople in 1915. The Great War has begun and the British have been defeated at the Dardenelles. In Turkey the government means to see every Christian Armenian exterminated, in what will become the first genocide of World History. John Lourdes clandestine assignment is to help an outlaw priest named Malek get safely across the war-ravaged Ottoman Empire. The priest, hunted by the Turkish government because he is an Armenian, is a hero to his people and a political threat to the Central Powers.

The novel, very much a Homeric epic, has the sweep and grandeur of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. It will be to modern literature what the great chanson de geste THE SONG OF ROLAND was to the Middle Ages. A parabolic and visceral tale of sacrifice and martyrdom. It is not only compelling human drama, but it is also rich with detail about what truly took place in Turkey in 1915. The book is the definitive battlefield for those who say the genocide did happen, and those who say it did not. Regardless, the book presents the horror and the grandeur, in Kiplings words, Lest we forget...

There are other aspects of this work I would like to draw your attention to. The first, the parabolic nature of the style in which it is written. Many of the characters are addressed not always by their proper names, but by their symbolic name...the priest...the guide...the dragoman (county politico and translator)...the captain...the German... This gives the players in the drama an archetypal feel, a kind of cross-cultural timelessness. They are also written in a manner for the reader to imbue each of these characters with their own set of internal meanings and feelings, their own iconography.

This leads me to my second point, which I believe will make the book hotly debated beyond the fact it has taken a dynamic stand on one of the most controversial events of modern World History. GARDENS OF GRIEF can be viewed through many political prisms. The parabolic and cross-cultural feel of it, especially when focused on the central character...the priest, Malek.... can be read and seen many ways.

The priest.. a political figure, willing to die to free his people, takes up arms to fight, has killed, has been put in prison, has been tortured, but refuses to yield, escapes to fight again, is a hero to his people, understands who he is and what he is doing. This could be a George Washington type of personage, or a Nathan Hale who called out before his hanging "Give me Liberty or give me Death". From another perspective he could be a Robespierre or a Che Guevara. He could be John Brown inciting a war to free the slaves, or a member of the IRA. He could be Emperor Constantine merging Christianity and the flag of Rome, or a militant cleric from the Middle East rallying his followers. Malek is the vanguard of every revolution that ever was, or ever will be. I could imagine a child reading about Malek then going off to fight at Lexington and Concord, or in war torn Africa, the war torn states of Eastern Europe, the endless war torn states of everywhere and anywhere. And in that GARDENS OF GRIEF is a cautionary tale, a means by which we can view political friends and enemies, and how they become both.

Without giving details away, the climax of the book, much like the central struggle and drama of THE SONG OF ROLAND, an intentional act of sacrifice, could also be called Thermopyle or Bataan, Masada or the 47 Ronin or the Battle of Saragarhi. It was meant to be that kind of universal moment, but something else, and something more.

And that something else, something more is detailed in one particular instant near the end of the book, when John Lourdes is looking out over a potential site for the final, strategic confrontation between their small group of Armenian citizen/soldiers and a much larger enemy force, and he thinks to himself... From the first brutal murders on the quay in Constantinople, to the bombing at the Armenikend, he had been witness to the future, and the stark barbarity that gave birth to it. He saw that a new level of infamy had been ushered into all their lives. And he understood, they did not have the makings for a long fight, so one single and terrifying act would have to be enough to exact their will.

When the author uses the words "one single and terrifying act to exact their will" he is reminding us all fights ultimately now can lead to a Hiroshima or a 9/11.

---

.

Read More

3151) Southern Poverty Law Center Apologizes To Professor Guenter Lewy Over Armenian Genocide Charges

---

Related Posts

Meet David Holthouse, Premier Paid Liar At The Southern Preposterous Lie Center

Prof Guenter Lewy Sues Southern Poverty Law Center And David Holthouse...

Lewy Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center: Genocide Debate: Blood...

Labelling "Genocide Denial Websites"

An OPEN LETTER To Southern Poverty Law Center and in Particular Mr David Holthouse...

---

WASHINGTON — The storied Southern Poverty Law Center has agreed to formally apologize to a scholar it accused of being a Turkish agent because of his views on the long-ago slaughter of Armenians.

The public apology by the civil rights group ends a multimillion-dollar libel lawsuit filed by historian Guenter Lewy, author of the book "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide." The settlement does not, however, end a debate that still entangles lawmakers from regions with large Armenian-American populations. . .

"I think it was a long time coming," Lewy said of the lawsuit settlement in an interview Wednesday. "It not only clears me of these malicious charges, it's a victory for free inquiry."

The settlement of the 2-year-old lawsuit includes a confidential financial payment to Lewy as well as a three-paragraph apology and retraction that the Southern Poverty Law Center will be making public within a week.

Lewy initially asked for $8 million from the law center.

In its negotiated statement, the Alabama-based group said it "misunderstood" Lewy's scholarship and admitted it was "wrong to assume that any scholar who challenges the Armenian genocide narrative necessarily has been financially compromised by the government of Turkey."

The organization further stated that it was "wrong to assert" that Lewy was part of a genocide-denying network financed by Turkey.

"We're very pleased with this," David Saltzman, one of Lewy's attorneys, said in an interview Wednesday. "This shows it's possible for people like Guenter Lewy to research controversial topics and reach their conclusions."

Saltzman and his co-counsel, Bruce Fein, lead the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund, which took up Lewy's case. Saltzman said he believes the libel action was the first of its kind in the United States involving allegations about a scholar. Other lawsuits, though, have revolved around how textbooks characterize Ottoman Empire events.

A spokesperson for the Southern Poverty Law Center could not be reached to comment Wednesday.

An 87-year-old emeritus political science professor from the University of Massachusetts, Lewy concluded through his research that the murders and deportations of Armenians between 1915 and 1923 did not amount to a genocide. Lewy said in his extensively footnoted book that while many died, the Ottoman Empire's actions were not a premeditated effort to wipe out the Armenians.

Following 2005 publication of his book, Lewy was criticized sharply by Armenian-American activists. This was not unexpected. For years, questions of motivation and assertions of Turkish influence have shaped the Armenian genocide debate.

More than a decade ago, for instance, Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, secured House but not Senate approval of an amendment that cut U.S. aid to Turkey by the same amount the country spent on lobbying. Lawmakers complain that Turkey's political clout blocks Congress from approving resolutions that use the phrase "Armenian genocide."

"Turkey has an incredible lobbying effort and has historically spent millions of dollars a year keeping this resolution off the House floor," Radanovich declared in 2007.

Founded in 1971 and subsequently made famous by its work researching hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center entered the debate in 2008 with its Intelligence Report magazine. An article titled "State of Denial" enumerated Turkish lobbying and investment in academic think tanks, among other efforts.

"Lewy is one of the most active members of a network of American scholars, influence peddlers and website operators, financed by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from the government of Turkey, who promote the denial of the Armenian genocide," the periodical stated.

Lewy said the assertions distressed him.

"A scholar doesn't have much more than his reputation," Lewy said Wednesday. "If that's questioned, you're in trouble."

---

By Michael Doyle, McClatchy Newspapers, Sep. 29, 2010

---

EXHIBIT A

Retraction and Apology

In the summer 2008 issue of its Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that Guenter Lewy, a professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, was part of a network of persons, ?nanced by the Government of Turkey, who dispute that the tragic events of World War I constituted an Armenian genocide. We now realize that we misunderstood Professor Lewy's scholarship, were wrong to assert that he was part of a network ?nanced by the Turkish Government, and were wrong to assume that any scholar who challenges the Armenian genocide narrative necessarily has been ?nancially compromised by the Government of Turkey. We hereby retract the assertion that Professor Lewy was or is on the Government of Turkey's payroll.

To our knowledge, Professor Lewy has never sought to deny or minimize the deaths of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey; nor has he sought to minimize the Ottoman regime's grievous wartime miscalculations or indifference to human misery in a con?ict earmarked by widespread civilian suffering on all sides. What he has argued in his book, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, and elsewhere is that the present historical record does not substantiate a premeditated plan by the Ottoman regime to destroy because of ethnicity, religion ,or nationality, as opposed to deport for political-military reasons, the Armenian population. In this view, he is joined by such distinguished scholars as Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton University. As additional troves of archival information come to light, Professor Lewy advocates greater study of this contentious subject. We deeply regret our errors and offer our sincerest apologies to Professor Lewy.

Professor Lewy adds the following comment:

The SPLC has made important contributions to the rule of law and the struggle against bigotry. Thus I took no pleasure in commencing legal action against it. But the stakes, both for my reputation as a scholar and for the free and unhindered discussion of controversial topics, were compelling.It must be possible to defend views that contradict conventional wisdom without being called the agent of a foreign government.

---

FREE INQUIRY TRIUMPHS,
PROFESSOR GUENTER LEWY’S REPUTATION RESTORED:
Southern Poverty Law Center Retracts False Statements That Professor Lewy’s Scholarship Challenging the Armenian Thesis Was Compromised.

September 30, 2010, Washington, DC - In the summer 2008 issue of its Intelligence Report magazine and companion website, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), one of America’s most venerable civil rights organizations, accused Professor Guenter Lewy of being part of a network of academicians financed by the Turkish government to dispute the Armenian allegation of genocide. The magazine even attempted to draw a crude parallel between Professor Lewy and Neo-Nazis, even though Professor Lewy had been roughed up by Nazi thugs on Kristallnacht in 1938 and later fought against the Nazis in the British Army’s Jewish Brigade in World War II. Lewy, emeritus Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts, was taken to task by SPLC also for concluding in his 2005 book, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, A Disputed Genocide, that the historic record as presently known does not substantiate the charge of genocide against the Ottoman government of 1915.

Represented by the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund (TALDF), Professor Lewy sued to restore his good name and freedom of inquiry. Yesterday SPLC published a retraction and apology admitting that they, "misunderstood Professor Lewy's scholarship, were wrong to assert that he was part of a network financed by the Turkish Government, and were wrong to assume that any scholar who challenges the Armenian genocide narrative necessarily has been financially compromised by the Government of Turkey.” Professor Lewy commented, "The SPLC has made important contributions to the rule of law and the struggle against bigotry. Thus I took no pleasure in commencing legal action against it. But the stakes, both for my reputation as a scholar and for the free and unhindered discussion of controversial topics, were compelling. It must be possible to defend views that contradict conventional wisdom without being called the agent of a foreign government.” David Saltzman, one of Lewy’s co-counsel from the TALDF added, "Academic freedom requires that scholars not work under a cloud of suspicion of their motives. Professor Lewy has been transparent and objective in his work.” "SPLC did the right thing,” said Bruce Fein, Lewy’s other co-counsel, "By admitting and correcting their errors they not only rescued Professor Lewy’s reputation, but advanced a common goal of free inquiry as the best method of discovering truths.”

The TALDF is generously supported by the Turkish Coalition of America. Lincoln McCurdy, the organization’s President, observed, "Reconciliation between the Turkish and Armenian peoples will require a full accounting of history. TCA supports an open dialogue and unfettered academic inquiry into this controversial period of Ottoman-Armenian history and tragedy. We are proud of TALDF’s hard work which hopefully will contribute to this open debate and offer our congratulations to Professor Lewy."

SPLC will also provide Professor Lewy, whose lawsuit had sought damages of $8 million, a monetary settlement.

---

www.taldf.org/ProfessorLewysReputationRestored

---

Civil Rights Center Apologizes To Scholar Over Armenian Genocide Charges

The storied Southern Poverty Law Center has agreed to apologize formally to a scholar it accused of being a Turkish agent because of his views on the long-ago slaughter of Armenians.

The public apology by the civil rights group ends a multimillion-dollar libel lawsuit filed by historian Guenter Lewy, author of the book "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide." The settlement does not, however, end a debate that still entangles lawmakers from regions with large Armenian-American populations.

"I think it was a long time coming," Lewy said of the lawsuit settlement in an interview Wednesday. "It not only clears me of these malicious charges, it's a victory for free inquiry."

The settlement of the 2-year-old lawsuit includes a confidential financial payment to Lewy as well as a three-paragraph apology and retraction that the Southern Poverty Law Center will be making public within a week.

Lewy initially asked for $8 million from the law center.

In its negotiated statement, the Alabama-based group said it "misunderstood" Lewy's scholarship and admitted it was "wrong to assume that any scholar who challenges the Armenian genocide narrative necessarily has been financially compromised by the government of Turkey."

The organization further stated that it was "wrong to assert" that Lewy was part of a genocide-denying network financed by Turkey.

"We're very pleased with this," David Saltzman, one of Lewy's attorneys, said in an interview Wednesday. "This shows it's possible for people like Guenter Lewy to research controversial topics and reach their conclusions."

Saltzman and his co-counsel, Bruce Fein, lead the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund, which took up Lewy's case. Saltzman said he believes the libel action was the first of its kind in the United States involving allegations about a scholar. Other lawsuits, though, have revolved around how textbooks characterize Ottoman Empire events.

A representative for the Southern Poverty Law Center could not be reached to comment Wednesday.

An 87-year-old emeritus political science professor from the University of Massachusetts, Lewy concluded through his research that the murders and deportations of Armenians between 1915 and 1923 did not amount to a genocide. Lewy said in his extensively footnoted book that while many died, the Ottoman Empire's actions were not a premeditated effort to wipe out the Armenians.

After the 2005 publication of his book, Lewy was criticized sharply by Armenian-American activists. This was not unexpected. For years, questions of motivation and assertions of Turkish influence have shaped the Armenian genocide debate.

More than a decade ago, for instance, Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif., secured House but not Senate approval of an amendment that cut U.S. aid to Turkey by the same amount the country spent on lobbying. Lawmakers complain that Turkey's political clout blocks Congress from approving resolutions that use the phrase "Armenian genocide."

"Turkey has an incredible lobbying effort and has historically spent millions of dollars a year keeping this resolution off the House floor," Radanovich declared in 2007.

Founded in 1971 and subsequently made famous by its work researching hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center entered the debate in 2008 with its Intelligence Report magazine. An article titled "State of Denial" enumerated Turkish lobbying and investment in academic think tanks, among other efforts.

"Lewy is one of the most active members of a network of American scholars, influence peddlers and website operators, financed by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from the government of Turkey, who promote the denial of the Armenian genocide," the periodical stated.

Lewy said the assertions distressed him.

"A scholar doesn't have much more than his reputation," Lewy said Wednesday. "If that's questioned, you're in trouble."


By Michael Doyle, McClatchy Newspapers / www.kansascity.com

---

---

An Apology for Guenter Lewy
September 29, 2010, firstthings.com
Joseph Bottum

Back in 2005, the now-emeritus scholar Guenter Lewy published The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, a book that argued that there wasn’t much evidence that the massacre of Armenians during World War I was caused by a deliberate Turkish plan to destroy the Armenian people—and, thus, that the Armenian deaths didn’t qualify as a genocide.

Whereupon the Southern Poverty Law Center declared that “Lewy is one of the most active members of a network of American scholars, influence peddlers and website operators, financed by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from the government of Turkey, who promote the denial of the Armenian genocide.”

Lewy sued, and it has now been announced that the Southern Poverty Law Center will, in settlement, entirely retract their claims, publishing the retraction is several prominent places.

This is an important event to note. The bullying of scholars by political engines—the insistence that immediate and vicious attacks follow any deviation from a political useful account of science or history—has reached brutal proportions. Look at environmentalism, World War II, the Middle Ages, and much more.

Guenter Lewy is no friend to this magazine’s projects, but he deserves real praise for standing up to the pack and forcing this retraction.
-------------------
21 Comments

inch gitem
September 29th, 2010 | 2:26 pm

yeah, finally it is ok to deny the Armenian Genocide! Finally! Whew! Good on you First Things. So what about bullying of scholars by political smear machines that you are awfully quiet about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/04/AR2008070402408.html

Take a read here and post your response if you dare.
Kirlikovali
September 29th, 2010 | 5:43 pm

I am delighted that opinion thugs were given a simple lesson in law: stop slandering, intimidating and terrorizing dissenters.

Together with 9th Circuit court’s ruling in August of 2009 that genocide resolutions have no basis and they seek to contravene executive and federal authority, therefore, illegal, gives a strong message to all those Armenian falsifiers, fanatic Turk-haters, and their allies that bullying and/or political pressure will no longer be accepted as replacements for scholarly research, debate, and review.
Mary
September 29th, 2010 | 8:21 pm

Eh, the term “genocide” is insane in itself. Mass murder is a bad thing in itself.
Phantom
September 29th, 2010 | 11:49 pm

It took the Southern Poverty Law Center a year to apologize for an accusation. Meanwhile, 95 years later the Armenian people are still waiting for an apology for the deliberate murder of their ancestors.
M.Yakut
September 30th, 2010 | 12:05 am

I am glad to hear that the Southern Poverty Law Center retracted their political comments on Guenter Lewy’s views on the so-called Armenian genocide claims.

No doubt and undeniable that Armenians were relocated, massacred and suffered greatly in Ottoman Empire in the events of 1915. It would be inhumane not to accept the Armenian’s sufferings without forgetting the other’s suffering as well.

The so-called Armenian genocide claims were mainly built and maintained by major political, economical, social, territorial concerns.

The so-called Armenian genocide claims miss the humanitarian aspect of the events and want to push the Armenian’s political, economical, social, territorial agenda for the dream of Greater Armenia.

To accomplish this goal the Armenians want to shield their agenda behind the word of Genocide with which gain sympathy by exploiting human feeling.

I am glad o hear that the Southern Poverty Law Center retracted their political comments on Guenter Lewy’s views.

Now we are one step closer to the truth.
Random Armenian
September 30th, 2010 | 3:03 am

Despite Yakut’s descriptions, what happened to the Armenian population went beyond consequences of war. The Armenian population, the vast majority of whom were unarmed and represented no threat, was deliberately targeted by the Ottoman government, regardless of how far away they were from any front lines of war. Marching 100s of thousands of people through 100s of miles into the Syrian desert will result in deaths. And that is what happened. And yet the orders for marches kept coming for months on end. This is in addition to the outright massacres by Turkish troops and some Kurdish tribes.

Why were the Armenian’s being relocated from the lands they had lived on long before any Turks existed in Anatolia? There is characterization of the result of the marches and tragic and unfortunate, but why were there orders for deporting civilians to begin with?

Genocide scholars and including Turkish scholars know why. Read their work.

Kirlikovali, you should look into history of the Turkish Republic itself and see what bullying is.
M.Yakut
September 30th, 2010 | 8:09 am

@Random Armenian

“Why were the Armenian’s being relocated from the lands they had lived on long before any Turks existed in Anatolia?”

Relocation was one of the official policies of the Ottoman Empire. Many people were relocated in Ottoman Empire as a result of this policy, and this can be seen in the centuries old lyrics of Anatolian Turks and Turkmen tribes of Anatolia.

While Turks considered 3rd class citizen, suffered greatly by Ottoman policies and other ethnicities were relocated for centuries, the Armenians did do nothing to raise concerns. Why?

The point is the relocation was nothing different than those done during the past.

In Ottoman’s eyes, and the Ottoman parliament, with six Armenian members who also approved the relocation of Armenians was no different than previous ones.

Technically, Syria was an Ottoman territory and again technically Ottomans’s were relocation the Armenians in the Ottoman territory, not out of the Ottoman Empire.

Now, what went wrong during the relocation must be condemned collectively and inclusively for other races without labeling the events with a legal term Genocide to shield he Armenian’s political, economical, social, territorial agenda for the dream of Greater Armenia.

Sincerity will bring sincerity, and understanding!
john1915
September 30th, 2010 | 1:40 pm

What part of what the Southern Poverty Law Center said was not true? It is all true. 20 countries including 44 US States, all credible historians including the 126 members of the International Assoc of Genocide Scholars and even Rafael Lemkin, who invented the word “GENOCIDE”, already acknowledge the Armenian Genocide as fact.

It should be equally noted that besides the 1.5 million Armenians that were systematically murdered by the Turks, there were 500k Pontiff Greeks and nearly 1 million Christians Assyrians who were also liquidated at the same campaign of race extermination. None belonged to any army and most all were women and children and the elderly.

In fact The United States National Archives and
Record Administration holds extensive and thorough documentation on the Armenian Genocide, especially in its holdings under Record Group 59 of the United States Department of State, files 867.00 and
867.40, which are open and widely available to the public and interested institutions.

The Armenian Genocide is not in doubt. The main reason for the Armenian Genocide was theft. Turks wanted the money and property of their victims. Turks need to come to terms with their genocidal past.
john1915
September 30th, 2010 | 2:07 pm

One more thing, Turks want to invoke their “freedom of speech” whenever they peddle their historical revisionist stance about their genocidal past however they themselves have laws in Turkey, article, #301, that jails anyone and sometimes kills anyone who dares tell the truth. Apparently they have much to hide.
Dike
September 30th, 2010 | 5:40 pm

it is a late apoligy..but at least some people will know they cannot just say anything about anyone they dont like! if you want to know what really happened in 1915 you can just read first armenian pm s confession about it. that confessions itself shows there wasnt a genocide took place.
‘… The war with us was inevitable… We had not done all that was necessary for us to have done to evade war. We ought to have used peaceful language with the Turks…We had no information about the real strength of the Turks and relied on ours. This was the fundamental error. We were not afraid of war because we thought we could win… Our army was well fed and well armed and [clothed] but it did not fight. The troops were constantly retreating and deserting their positions ; they threw away their arms and dispersed in the villages. …In spite of the fact that the Armenians had better material and better support, their armies lost. ….. the advancing Turks fought only against the regular soldiers ; they did not carry the battle to the civilian sector. ….the Turkish soldiers were well-disciplined and that there had not been any massacres…’

Source: The 1923 Bucharest Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first PM of the Independent Armenian Republic, published by the Armenian Information Service Suite 7D, 471 Park Ave., New York 22 – 1955.
Dike
September 30th, 2010 | 5:42 pm

There was an Armenian problem for the Turks created by the advance of the Russians, and also there was a population with an anti-Turkish sentiment in the Ottoman Empire who sought independence, and they overtly sympathized with the Russians advancing from the Caucasus. Also, there were Armenian bands, the Armenians bragged about their heroic exploits in resistance, and the Turks had trouble to maintain order under the prevailing war conditions. For the Turks it was necessary to take the punitive and preventive measure against a hostile population in a region threatened by foreign invasion. For the Armenians it was liberating their land. However, both parties agree that the repression was geographically limited; for example, those measures did not affect the Armenians who lived in the other parts of the Ottoman Empire.http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/faq
John1915
September 30th, 2010 | 8:54 pm

Sorry DIKE: The Turks were horrible occupiers and by WW1 most other races had been free from hundreds of years of Turkish misrule. The Armenians were not as fortunate as their ancient homeland was in Anatolia itself so in 1915 the Turks decided upon Genocide and carried it out. Also,there were many eye witnesses to the Genocide including our own U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau who wrote extensively on “the Armenian race extermination”. He wrote specifically “And in my direct contact with Talaat he made no attempt to hide that fact”. The purpose of the deportations WAS THEFT BY DEATH and it came directly from the top of the government. It was state planned.. Henry Morgenthau knew what was happening. Talaat’s own memoirs, the Turkish genocidal mastermind, recently published by Turkish writer Murat Bardacki, accounts for accurate Armenian death tolls were Talaat wrote that between 1915-1916, one short year, 972,000 Armenians simply vanished from Ottoman records. The New York times published an article in 2009 on the memoirs. Also, just go to any official archival record of most modern countries and you will find the same actors, same circumstances and the same results all written in real time. Armenian Genocide is not in doubt. There is no question mark here. Only the Turks seem to hide from the Truth. Neither is the Pontiff Greek or the Christian Assyrian genocide in doubt either. Turks need and come to terms with their genocidal past. This will not go away.

In fact and not Turkish paid propaganda just wikipedia@

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
Random Armenian
October 1st, 2010 | 1:35 am

M.Yakut,

Your last post is nothing whitewashing of what happened. You did not answer why there was deportation to begin with. What happened starting in 1915 went beyond a deportation. Often the men were killed before the marches began, leaving mostly women, kids and old men in the caravans. Kurds and Turks were allowed to attack the caravans while under the guard Ottoman soldiers. In the north those rounded up were thrown into the Black Sea. These we know because of non-Armenian diplomatic sources as well survivor accounts. This was not a deportation but death marches. And we haven’t even talked about the outright in-situ massacres.

In all sincerity, if you had the power and saw that the deportations were causing such horrible destruction on a people, would you have not stopped it rather than have it continue for 2 years or more?

Of course the deportations did not go outside of the Ottoman boundaries because that would mean Ottoman soldiers marching into another country. Crossing the border is irrelevant, they were marched through desert conditions with no regard for safety, food or water.

“While Turks considered 3rd class citizen, suffered greatly by Ottoman policies and other ethnicities were relocated for centuries, the Armenians did do nothing to raise concerns. Why?”

This sentence is not clear and makes no sense. Please elaborate.
Random Armenian
October 1st, 2010 | 9:15 am

john1915,

I believe the issue regarding this lawsuit and judgment has to do with the SPLC accusing Lewy of being financed by the Turkish side for publishing his book but not being able to back it up with evidence. There is an active and financed effort by Turkey and Turkish groups against genocide recognition, but SPLC probably did not have the evidence to make that connection with Lewy. It’s a very strong accusation to make and SPLC should have left that to Armenians to make ;)

This decision and the 9th circuit ruling from 2009 don’t have anything to do with the scholarly and historical merits of the Armenian genocide. The 2009 decision had to do with California doing something what the court saw as going against the current foreign policy of the US government.

Here’s another recent court case:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/08/201081234955257668.html
Mark
October 1st, 2010 | 9:33 am

Bernard Lewis Speaking on Armenian Allegations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG70UWESfu4
Ctan
October 1st, 2010 | 10:01 am

This discussion should not be open to opinion, but knowledge. This below link is the diary of a Russian Lieutenant that was stationed in the eastern Ottoman Empire during the Russian invasion. It is in Turkish, English, and French. It also has the scanned version of the actual diary in Russian at the end.

http://www.tsk.tr/eng/ermeni_sorunu_salonu/arsiv_belgeleriyle_ermeni_faaliyetleri/pdf/yarbay_tverdohlebov.pdf
john1915
October 1st, 2010 | 12:06 pm

Why were the Assyrians and the Pontiff Greeks liquidated? Did they have armies? Did they side with the enemy? Hardly. They were Ottoman occupied citizens as well and should have been protected but instead were singled out en mass for their land and wealth and most were either murdered, raped, burned, drowned, sufficated, bludgeoned, beaten, thrown off cliffs, anything that the Turks could think of..

Lets be Clear: Only the Turks and a hand full of “paid scholars” disagree on the facts of the Armenian genocide. That is not opinion but fact. Also, one day the US State Department is not going to be able to purposely go counter to our well documented US archives in order to help the Turks distort the truth here in the US anymore. Those day are slowly coming to an end. The big 95 years Turkish amnesia is there to avoid an apology, compensation and return of land stolen. The theft after all was the whole purpose of the genocide and the Turks are not about to give it back. That is why the Turks have laws in Turkey banning anyone from speaking the truth of the Armenian Greek and Assyrian Genocide. They have much to hide.
vildan
October 1st, 2010 | 1:42 pm

someone asks, why the armenians population relocated? the reason is simple, there were uprising during WW1 and some Armenians sided with the Russians, and attacked Ottomans, No one, not even armenians can deny this, just google it. If mexicans sides with Germany, what would USA do during ww2? look at Japanese americans, even though they have not even sided or used any violence!!
google dashnak, tasnak, etc…

“In early 1915, a number of Armenian nationalist groups, such as the Armenakan, Dashnak and Hunchak organizations, joined the Russian forces”

“The army corps of Armenian volunteer units realigned under the command of General Tovmas Nazarbekian, with Dro as a civilian commissioner of the Administration for Western Armenia. The front line had three main divisions commanded by Movses Silikyan, Andranik, and Mikhail Areshian. Another regular unit was under Colonel Korganian. More than 40,000 men in Armenian partisan guerrilla detachments accompanied the main units.[66?
vildan
October 1st, 2010 | 1:49 pm

well John1915 asks why Greeks were deported, Turks of Greece were also deported, why not mention them?? dont be one sided, be objective. have empathy even towards your enemies. Who attacked and occupied who? Greece attacked and occupied Turkey in 1919!! and stayed there till 1922 and killed thousands of civilians, and burned villages! just google and find a objective historian. It is so unbelievable, that people who attack your country then turn the tables and say, they were killed, or deported!! simple question, who started the war in 1919? Greece!

“During the past nine months parties of regular Greek soldiers with
officers marched at intervals into villages in the neighbourhood of
Bozalfat (Eser Koy) near Aghva. The Greek brigand Katsaros had been a
visitor and behaved badly. Both Greek regular officers and men had
raped women and committed robberies and acts of violence.
Greek soldiers took everything of value such as money, cattle and
effects, having tortured the people. There were cases of murder and
rape. Some villages were totally or partly destroyed. The villages of
Mehter Koy, Lazlar Koyu, Armak Koy, Omer Aga Koyu and Aga Koy were
totally destroyed.
Everywhere the Greek soldiers behaved savagely, killing men and raping
women. They hung some peopler by their feet over straw fires. In the
Beykoz area many massacres took place at Cubuklu and bodies were
exhumed. They were buried fully clothed and shod, thrown together.
The historian Arnold J. Toynbee and his wife personally witnessed
these atrocities.29
Meanwhile, the Greek authorities, who were embarrassed (!) by these
excesses, were trying to turn the tables against the Turks by accusing
them of counter-atrocities. “
john1915
October 1st, 2010 | 6:24 pm

Vildan you have a million and one excuses anything but the truth. The truth is Turkey wanted the lands and the wealth of their victims including over one million Assyrians murdered. Who did they side with?Turkey also occupied other races for hundreds of years. By ww1 most all broke free of the horrible Turkish occupation however the GREEKS, Assyrians and the Armenians were not so lucky. Their lands were right in ANATOLIA SO IN 1915 THE TURKS DECIDED UPON GENOCIDE AND CARRIED IT OUT. It was a planned liquidation. ALL CALL IT GENOCIDE.

Also ALL those lands were either Greek or Armenian that you call Turkey today. All was stolen through murder. PS Why is it against the law to to confirm the Armenian genocide in Turkey today? You have much to hide?
Hagop Hagopian
October 1st, 2010 | 11:32 pm

I am hopeful that one day everyone will recognize the ASALA murders of Turkish Diplomats who were killed during their duties as Genocide. We did not forget it and we will never forget it.

---

---

---

Apology for Vilifying One Man, Yet no Apology for Killing 1.5 Million By Harut Sassounian

In 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an Alabama-based non-profit civil rights organization, published an article titled, “State of Denial: Turkey Spends Millions to Cover Up Armenian Genocide.” It was a hard-hitting exposé of the Turkish government’s elaborate and sinister efforts to pressure U.S. politicians and entice academics to deny the facts of the Armenian Genocide.

According to the SPLC article, “Turkey exerts political leverage and spends millions of dollars in the United States to obfuscate the Armenian genocide…. Revisionist historians who conjure doubt about the Armenian genocide…are paid by the Turkish government.”

Going beyond such general statements, SPLC specifically referred to Guenter Lewy as “one of the most active members of a network of American scholars, influence peddlers and website operators, financed by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from the government of Turkey, who promote the denial of the Armenian genocide….”

Lewy, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, had qualified the Armenian Genocide in his lectures and writings as a “bungling misrule” rather than a deliberately planned and executed mass murder. He had made similar claims in his controversial book published by the University of Utah Press in 2005: “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide.”

Shortly after publication of SPLC’s article, an $8 million defamation lawsuit was filed against the civil rights group on behalf of Prof. Lewy by attorneys David Saltzman and Bruce Fein from the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund (TALDF), which is “generously supported by the Turkish Coalition of America,” according to TALDF’s website.

Before a jury could judge the merits of the charges in court, however, SPLC agreed to settle the case by issuing “a retraction and apology” and promising to pay an undisclosed sum to Prof. Lewy. Had SPLC not settled the case, TALDF would have had a difficult task proving in court that Prof. Lewy was actually libeled. In order to win the lawsuit, TALDF had to prove that SPLC had made those accusations “with malicious intent” and “reckless disregard for the truth.” Furthermore, TALDF lawyers would have to show that the long-retired 87-year-old professor had suffered actual financial loss, such as getting fired from his job or having a contract canceled as a direct result of the article.

Some SPLC supporters have wondered why it chose to settle the lawsuit when its chances of losing in court were minimal. A knowledgeable source told this writer that SPLC may have settled the case in order to reduce its exposure to mounting attorney fees, combined with the likelihood that Prof. Lewy may have agreed to settle for far less than the $8 million he had originally demanded. With the lawsuit behind it, SPLC could once again dedicate itself to its actual mission of defending civil rights.

In its retraction, SPLC stated: “We now realize that we misunderstood Prof. Lewy’s scholarship, were wrong to assert that he was part of a network financed by the Turkish Government, and were wrong to assume that any scholar who challenges the Armenian genocide narrative necessarily has been financially compromised by the Government of Turkey. We hereby retract the assertion that Prof. Lewy was or is on the Government of Turkey’s payroll…. We deeply regret our errors and offer our sincerest apologies to Professor Lewy.”

In response to complaints from SPLC supporters opposing the settlement, however, Penny Weaver, a public affairs spokesman, stated: “Our settlement of this matter does not mean we are endorsing Mr. Lewy’s views or taking his side. But we are acknowledging that we mischaracterized his views and wrongly said that he was taking money from the Turkish government. It was an error, and we apologize for that.” The original article which precipitated the lawsuit is still posted on the SPLC’s website.

Needless to say, no one should be defamed because of his or her views on the Armenian Genocide, no matter how wrong or offensive they are. Unless one possesses evidence to the contrary, one cannot simply assume that those making distorted statements on the Armenian Genocide are motivated by greed or are paid agents of the Turkish government.

It is both commendable and ironic that lawyers for a Turkish interest group are eager to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit in the United States ostensibly to defend the civil rights of a client. In Turkey, however, anyone who dares to talk about the Armenian Genocide risks being charged for telling the truth and thrown into prison for years under the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code which bans “insulting Turkishness!”

If TALDF were truly interested in protecting civil rights, it would allocate its considerable resources to abolish Article 301, which would considerably lessen financial support from generous donors and bring its operations to an end.

---

ANOTHER LEGAL VICTORY FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH

by Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

ergun at turkla dot com

The tables are slowly but surely turning and Armenians are in visible panic. All this because of a recent legal defeat. Prof. Guenter Lewy is cleared of all defamations dished out by Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), perhaps a hapless tool in the Armenian propaganda. If this intrigues you, then fasten your seatbelt for what follows.

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), one of America’s revered civil rights organizations, accused in 2008 Professor Guenter Lewy of being part of a network of academicians financed by the Turkish government, based on input from SPLC, we now understand that an Armenian employee misled SPLC with falsified information (what else is new?)

SPLC even compared Prof. Lewy and Neo-Nazis, even though Prof. Lewy had been harassed by Nazi thugs on Kristallnacht in 1938 and later joined the British Army’s Jewish Brigade in World War II to fight Nazis. Armenian fanaticism, deception, and misrepresentations know no ends, in the true tradition of the master falsifier Aram Andonian of fake Tallat telegrams, and the above article is no exception.

The court battle forced the SPLC to publish an embarrassing apology and retraction, perhaps a first in their history, as a small price for trusting Armenian falsifiers and Turk haters in matters relating to the Turkish Armenian conflict. Reportedly, SPLC will also provide Prof. Lewy a monetary settlement.

Prof. Lewy was still kind when he commented, "The SPLC has made important contributions to the rule of law and the struggle against bigotry. Thus I took no pleasure in commencing legal action against it. But the stakes, both for my reputation as a scholar and for the free and unhindered discussion of controversial topics, were compelling. It must be possible to defend views that contradict conventional wisdom without being called the agent of a foreign government.”

David Saltzman, one of Lewy’s co-counsel from the TALDF was more to the point when he said, "Academic freedom requires that scholars not work under a cloud of suspicion of their motives. Professor Lewy has been transparent and objective in his work.”

Bruce Fein, Lewy’s other co-counsel reinforced this by stating, “SPLC did the right thing by admitting and correcting their errors” whereby they rescued Professor Lewy’s reputation and “… advanced a common goal of free inquiry as the best method of discovering truths.”

Lincoln McCurdy, president of Turkish Coalition of America, perhaps put it best when he observed, "Reconciliation between the Turkish and Armenian peoples will require a full accounting of history. TCA supports an open dialogue and unfettered academic inquiry into this controversial period of Ottoman-Armenian history and tragedy. We are proud of TALDF’s hard work which hopefully will contribute to this open debate and offer our congratulations to Professor Lewy."

THE FACTS ARE CLEAR FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO KNOW THE TRUTH

Jewish Holocaust is supported by due process and a court verdict by a competent tribunal (Nuremberg, 1945.) What due process and court verdict support Armenian claims of genocide? The answer might surprise you: none!

Armenian claims are based on a racist and dishonest version of history, not law or the truth. They are racist because they ignore the Turkish victims at the hands of Armenian revolutionaries (120,000 in the year 1914 alone, according to the dictionary of World War One, by Stephen Pope and Elizabeth-Anne Wheal, 2003, page 34.) And they are dishonest because they simply dismiss the six T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict. The “poor, starving Armenians myth” needs to be reconciled with these photos of the Armenian ultra-nationalists armed to the teeth (www.ethocide.com .)

Whereas the picture is crystal clear: Armenians took up arms against their own government. After a millennium of harmonious cohabitation, Armenians, thus chose to resort to revolts, terrorism, supreme treason, and territorial demands, causing countless Muslim/Turkish casualties, all of which triggered the TERESET (temporary resettlement of 1915). These are the plain facts.

Armenians must face up to their own unspeakable crimes against humanity before any closure can occur. If you are still in doubt, let me refer you to an Armenian source to see photos of Armenian murderers, gun-toting Armenian clergy, their Muslim, mostly Turkish, victims: Houshamatyan of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Centennial, Album-Atlas, Volume I, Epic Battles, 1890-1914 (The Next Day Color Printing, Inc., Glendale, CA, U.S.A., 2006)

These facts contradict with the embellished and falsified Armenian narrative, which in turn, creates "cognitive dissonance" in Armenian people. Modern psychology informs us that this trauma can be resolved in two ways:

1) accept the new facts and change your attitude accordingly, or

2) ignore/dismiss the new facts and demonize all dissenters.

Most Armenians, unfortunately, seem to still choose the latter, hence no closure after a century.

12/10/10

www.Turkla.com

---

A continuing war of words
Nearly a century on, the Armenian genocide still provokes controversy, tempers — and lawsuits By Alex Beam
Globe Columnist / January 4, 2011

I have a prurient interest in libel law, because defamation suits are an occasional — and unpleasant — cost of doing business in the newspaper industry. So I was quite astonished to see the monster retraction-cum-apology issued by the Southern Poverty Law Center a few weeks ago in response to a defamation suit filed by Guenter Lewy, 87, a professor emeritus from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

In the course of a lengthy philippic titled “Turkey Spends Millions to Cover Up Armenian Genocide,’’ SPLC author David Holthouse stated, inaccurately:

“[Guenter] Lewy is one of the most active members of a network of American scholars, influence peddlers and website operators, financed by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from the government of Turkey, who promote the denial of the Armenian genocide.’’

Lewy sued the SPLC, and after some back and forth in Alabama and District of Columbia courts, he forced the center to publish an embarrassing climb-down, in its own publication and also as advertisements in the Chronicle of Higher Education and the New York Review of Books. In its retraction, the Center acknowledged:

“[We] were wrong to assert that [Lewy] was part of a network financed by the Turkish Government, and were wrong to assume that any scholar who challenges the Armenian genocide narrative necessarily has been financially compromised by the Government of Turkey . . .

“To our knowledge, Professor Lewy has never sought to deny or minimize the deaths of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey; nor has he sought to minimize the Ottoman regime’s grievous wartime miscalculations or indifference to human misery in a conflict earmarked by widespread civilian suffering on all sides.’’

Reached at home, Lewy said, “I was not happy about bringing the lawsuit, because the SPLC has done some very good work. But their article attacked my personal reputation and at the same time raised the larger issue of free inquiry. Armenians have engaged in this kind of name-calling to intimidate people, and it frequently works, especially with younger scholars.’’

“I think we would have won the case on summary judgment,’’ center president Richard Cohen said. “We had a defense: Lewy is a public figure and we didn’t act with actual malice. On the other hand, it was clear to me that we had made a mistake. He is a proper guy, he has a sense of honor, and he felt we had defamed him. My main goal was to end litigation without further expense.’’

Although it might be a stretch to call Lewy and Cohen friends, the center president did bring a copy of Lewy’s 2005 book, “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide,’’ to the final settlement meeting. There, Lewy inscribed the book, “For Richard Cohen, a memorable day.’’

The story doesn’t end there. The center’s retraction prompted a quick retort from past presidents of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, including Helen Fein of Harvard’s Kennedy School. The genocide scholars accused Cohen of striking a legal deal “congruent with the Turkish government’s tactics of denying the Armenian genocide in order to falsify history for the purpose of its nationalist agenda.’’

“We understand that the weight of the historical evidence is in favor of characterizing the World War I-era slaughter of Armenians as genocide,’’ Cohen told me. “We haven’t changed our opinion about that. But we were still wrong to imply that Lewy was on the payroll of the Turkish government, which he wasn’t. The better part of valor was to settle the dispute.’’

Lewy’s work is cited in another piece of litigation, Harvey Silverglate’s long-running lawsuit against the state’s Department of Education. Silverglate’s clients, who include public school students and teachers, accuse Massachusetts of deleting “contra-genocide’’ views, i.e., views aligned with the Turkish account of the mass slaughter, from an advisory curriculum guide in 1999. Silverglate lost in Mark Wolf’s court, and more recently a panel of three appeals court judges, including retired Supreme Court justice David Souter, ruled against him.

To be fair, Silverglate has an interesting argument. He insists that the online curriculum materials are like a school library, which the Supreme Court ruled should be protected from political meddling in a famous 1982 decision.

Silverglate has asked for a hearing before the Supreme Court and expects his case to be accepted or rejected within the next few weeks.

Alex Beam is a Globe columnist. His e-dress is beam@globe.com

---

.

Read More

3150) Fake And Shake History By Teachers Of Cheaters

In “The Genocide of Truth” (Vol.1) book, ( Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/04/2429-new-e-book-genocide-of-truth-based.html )

I had elaborated in Chapter 16, “Propaganda Fabrications” (about 30 pages) on the various fabrications in press and in particular the “Blue Book” by British Propaganda Division . . “The Wellington House”, and also the famous book of Ambassador Morgenthau, plus a wide selection of some 30 pages of “distortions and fabrications”, . .

That was not enough, so in another (20 pages) Chapter 17, I had explained the forged documents discovered so far, starting with the Andonian Documents, the Vereschagen painting, the Ataturk photo’s forgery and the new refutation of the document attributed to Hitler’s speech, with relative internet links for viewing some of the documents.

However, some scholars and reputed universities continued to use the forged documents. Hence, this new chapter with some pictures is being added to those already given in Volume 1, with some personal remarks about the shamelessness of these forgeries and involvement of reputed professors or scholars in such acts of deceit, counterfeit and forgery under the cover of a university! . .

---

.

Read More

3149) I Am Honored By The Title -Abi- Daily By Turkish Kids & Youngsters, It Is Not A Word With They Honor Many: Vahe Avetian

---

Please Allow Me to Introduce Vahe Avetian (writer, publicist, politician) in this exclusive interview.

I hope you find the interview as captivating and fascinating as I do

Lara Kaplan
Editor

---

Vahe, Please tell us about your family and yourself

I was born as an Armenian in Yerevan and was thoroughly brainwashed as such by parents, elders, relatives, all kind of local authorities, teachers, statesmen and clergy. I was born again, as a Swede this time, in Stockholm, and was thoroughly brainwashed by the respective authorities and people of my second tribe, Swedes. I died as both in Washington D.C., USA, and since then I am trying to preserve myself as a human being instead, as much as I can. . . .

I was born in a family of a philosopher and a journalist. That has something to do with my writing skills probably. Both had linguistic background, so did my numerous aunts and uncles. In such a big family the news about me "becoming" a writer was considered natural. I have three Swedish sons who are going their own ways and a wonderful wife with 3 university degrees, so I have the best ever possible critic nearby and as such the best friend who makes sure I won't sink

When and why did you begin writing?

My first essay "Brighton Beach" was born in Brighton Beach, New York, at a very special night, when I suddenly realized that I don't know a single politician in the world who is not a crook (and I knew and know plenty of them personally). It was in 2003. It probably had something to do with the magic of the place, The Brighton Beach. Many writers were born there. One of them was Dovlatov, one of my favorites and "teachers". I started to write when no book had been published in Armenia for 2 years. I suddenly felt fear for my tribe, Armenians. A nation, which does not create literature, dies. I could not demand from anyone around me to write, so I started to write myself. I was saving my tribe's spirit, I might say..., or I had an illusion of doing so. Any way, the feeling was so genuine, that it does not make a difference if I was wrong or right: I would have died of shame if I wouldn't have come up with something... There is (was) another component in the complexity of one's writing in general and in my case in particular: people, women and men, were bitten, persecuted, executed, tortured physically and worse, psychologically in Armenia when they dared to write or pronounce a single word of truth in written, audio, video, TV/radio media. It was clear then that the "task" of a free speech lies on the shoulders of those Armenian citizens, who were far away from KGB executives, and lived in democracies and enjoyed freedoms and security. In my understanding it was a civil duty of any citizen who had a protection, to speak up for his or her sisters and brothers in homeland.

So did I...



Please tell us about your books

I have 8 of them. Two were published, "Independence Army" and EstablishMENT", the third publication was stopped in the printing house, the first ones were thrown away from the bookstores and, ever since, the public has no other access to them except through the Internet. I don't feel comfortable speaking about the literary qualities of my books: let literary critics do that. As a politician for 25 years now, I'll tell about the political consequences of writing books: I was charged with a crime in Armenia and became a persona non grata since the publications and I was also charged in the US by ARF representatives (a coalition partner of the Armenian government) for simply speaking up the fact that there are exiled writers from Armenia. I was forced to stay by judicial decree and fight a trial for almost 2 years and by doing so I was held from participation in the parliamentary elections in Armenia. They caused to hinder my entrance to the country so I would not be elected.

Do you have anything specific that you want to say to your readers ?

Nothing that hasn't been said a long before me by noble daughters and sons of humanity as well as by numerous Armenian writers. The problem with Armenians is that they have produced more writers than readers. So, if there is something specific in my books it is probably the style, the form.

How did you decide to move to Sweden and how it has affected your writing/political views/experiences ?

I didn't decide. It was the Soviet intelligence that took the power back in 1992 in Armenia that decided. Sweden was just the country that issued me a visa and a political asylum later. I would call it a coincidence if I would believe in such a concept. I don't. I just have no logical explanation for being in Sweden. It just happened so. "Non logical" explanations that I have are not presentable to a wide public. Being in Sweden changed me a lot of course, especially when I became a Swede. Being full-time Armenian and a Swede at the same time was an extraordinary practice where each of these identities of mine was sharply critical of each other. I shaped myself in that double critical stance. My current political views were also shaped in that inner dialogue, but I can't tell that they are popular in any of my countries. However, in the case of Sweden I should tell that in spite of ideological differences and a constant critical attitude towards the Swedish establishment, I have been twice nominated as a candidate for the parliamentary elections by my fellow Swedes.

What happened in Glendale and why?

I attended a literary evening organized in honor of the Armenian writer Vahe Oshagan; let him rest in peace, where the ARF establishment gathered from all over the world. I couldn't find a better place among Armenians to declare that there are writers in the motherland who were politically prosecuted and exiled, and that it is the duty of every public organization and gathering to condemn human rights violations. They violently attacked me from all sides and arrested me in the library, where the event was taking place, by American policemen with Armenian surnames (both ARF supporters as I found out later); two other Armenians (also ARF members) brought battery charges against me. This happened with the full cooperation of the attendants, who shut down their ears while their women at the helm of their voice released an endless lu-lu-lu-lu, like the ones you hear during a Middle Eastern marriage ceremony, so that they silence my voice. I went through a trial for a year-and-a-half in the US until the charges were dropped, and I came back to Sweden in 2008.

What can you tell about Exiled Armenians Writers you have initiated and what reaction you have ?

The Union of Exiled Armenian Writers was founded in 2006. Facebook became just one of those places where exiled writers placed their (our) declarations. More people got the information as a result, especially since no Armenian newspaper, TV channel, political or public organization, civil/human rights defender wants to speak about this phenomenon.

Why do all political and public organizations, figures, journalists, human rights defenders in Armenia and Diaspora keep silence about exiled writers?

Good question.
One need to know the modern post Soviet history of Caucasus and other post Soviet republics as well, to be able to understand why those above-mentioned in Armenia keep silence. The history of the republics, which were not welcome to join the European family, went different from East Germany’s or Baltic republics’ or the countries which collectively are called often “former Warsaw Pact members” or “east – European neighborhood.”

The other 12 former soviet republics were left under the patronage of the newly established Russian Federation which never denounced or reorganized the former security structures of USSR: KGB, GRU, and so on. As a consequence, in 1992, all former member republics were taken over back, so for the wide public and world community these countries were and are “independent”, but in reality all public and civil jobs, posts, the media, businesses and everything else in countries were and are driven by former KGB officers and network of undercover informers. All presidents, prime ministers, ministers, local leaderships were and are implemented by those structures through voting manipulations and organized crime.

As soon as the above mentioned organizations, public servants, journalists and human rights defenders pronounce a declaration through the media, an international recognition and international debate will follow, where those driven out writers will get an open auditorium; and when this happens, the people will see new concepts, so thoroughly hidden from them by the junta. And those concepts will force to step down that junta, and the entire corrupt establishment.

All the above-mentioned are the part of that establishment. They can’t provide international recognition to those who are not hiding their intention to bring down the criminal gang and send them to the courts, and those above-mentioned with them too, for participation in organized crime.

How did you get involved in politics and tell us about your experiences in your participation in founding of The Republican Party of Armenia? Is the Party still part of the Armenian election process?

It all started back in 1989/90 when some solders and commanders of the Independence Army decided to create a political party which will defend the country’s independence against the main aggressor, the USSR that time, and develop a prosperous and self-sufficient state. Since we were just a bunch of ethno-provincial young enthusiasts (and I was the youngest) with no knowledge, experience and tradition of state and governance, we concluded very easily that it is a task not beyond our capacities: And there it goes: it became the largest party today, has the majority of the seats in the parliament, a prime minister, a president. I had the number two party ticket.

For me everything went wrong in 1992, and here am I, in Sweden, since that time. I was nominated to parliamentary elections the first time in 2002, the second time in 2010. This last time I stepped down for personal and other reasons, which is a different topic of discussion about Swedish matters. Here we’re talking about Turkish-Armenian business.

What can you tell us about the ARF? / How did you get to be a representative of them in Scandinavia?

ARF is a coalition of small and relatively wealthy dealer-wheeler bunch of uneducated and brainwashed dupes as majority and some very sophisticated, well educated agents of KGB.

I was young then and was out there to save the world, which was the motherland and nothing else. Marukhian, the leader of the party then and exiled from Armenia that time, visited Sweden, where we met, talked a lot. He told me that the party wants to modernize itself and become a traditional social-democrat one, to quit all kinds of secret activities and voodoos. He asked me to join them and help them to start it all over from the scratch, since I already had experience with the republicans. I was thinking then, that Armenians need to have several established parties to be able to form democratic governance, so I agreed to help them until it starts rolling, and leave them then. I was republican. My only interest was to help to build up the plurality in the newborn political field of Armenia.

Sometime later, almost at the same time, two main leaders of the ARF died in very strange circumstances: To be more exact, one of them suddenly fell into a coma, remaining in that condition for quite long time, and died without waking up. And I was suddenly elected as the vice representative of the Scandinavian brunch. Since the day of the elections I haven’t seen any of those ARF members. Another exiled writer, who in exactly similar circumstances had joined the party then, had become witness to an official decision by the party Bureau to sack the Scandinavian branch. This was an extraordinary event in the history of the party to sack an entire organization. You need to have strong justifications. Their excuse was, according to my exiled friend that the Scandinavian branch was a few members short than a fully operating branch requires. This was hogwash, especially since the ARF, dying to recruit new members all over the world, has always allowed much smaller groups to operate, especially in regions where there aren’t that many Armenians like Lebanon or California. The real motive was, of course, to distance me and free-thinking with me and our Scandinavian democratically-minded Armenians, from the party. No ARF member has ever questioned the corrupt and criminal practices of its Middle-Eastern minded leaders who want to operate in total hegemony. It was some of these same people who tried to send me to jail in California, with false accusations, as if I kicked some two ARF buts.

What is the agenda of ARF, whether they have any contribution or hinder any positive steps etc. ?

No agenda except growing bellies, buts and thick heads. Shish kebab, Ishli kufta and ghavurma are the agenda of a dashnak.

How much do you follow developments in Armenia, and in what way you are optimistic about the future developments ?

I have access to information through my very unique sources and I could probably tell that I am often able to make quite thorough conclusions and speak harshly and nastily, even in public sometimes.

Optimism is the luxury of the citizen, who trusts his governance to administrators, with all right to believe that they know their business, exactly as passengers have the right to believe that the bus driver they are boarding on has a driving license, or the pilot of the plane they are boarding and so on. This are the words of my lovely teacher, friend, brother, father Ara Baliozian.

What are your experiences with Turks in general ?

The first Turk I met in my life was Tahibeh, a wonderful woman, mother of several kids, my neighbor. She knocked on my door the same day I moved to my apartment in Stockholm and offered some new home baked bread. I was very much surprised and told her that I don't need bread. She insisted. I accepted it. The bread was delicious. Her explanation of the move was that it is in her tradition to share bread with neighbors and I enjoyed that tradition of hers for many years until she passed away. May she be blessed and rest in peace. She was my introduction to my personal experiences with Turks. Later I had a couple of dozen pupils with Turkish origin in my studios and got to know their parents. I am honored by the title "abi" daily by the Turkish kids and youngsters of the neighborhood, and believe me, it is not a word with which they honor many. I can definitely tell today that my personal experience with Turks is very different from the "official line" and the brainwashing about Turks by the Armenian state, academicians, Diaspora, parents, grandparents, all kinds of authorities and priesthood.

Do you see any marked differences between present-day Armenians and Turks? If so, how ?

None: Turks probably are more open-minded now, I guess. Turkey is a democracy, weak yet, but a democracy. And not less important: Turkey is an independent state. Armenia is far away from two mentioned concepts yet.

How can the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation be achieved if you were to be an independent negotiator ?

Our countries are not in the shape today to let independent people be elected to negotiate. Our countries are not democracies yet. No one who is reasonable will be allowed to negotiate today. Both our governments keep the status quo and are in a total harmony with each other. If one day we become democracies for real, the personalities of negotiators will not play a big role, because the concepts will negotiate for themselves: concepts of human rights and dignity.

And those concepts are universal, for all human beings.

Do you think an Armenian-Turkish consensus is a possibility in our lifetime? What can be done to speed it up ?

Develop democracy farther and farther, plant human rights awareness all around on daily basis.

What are your current projects ?

To wake up in the morning, see the blue sky and the uprising sun and glorify the Lord in appreciation. That is my project of each day. Those thoughts that have something to do with longer periods of time than tomorrow morning, I call dreams, not project. I have dreams, plenty of them and the most complicated one is the life in the Caucasus with dignity.

---

Russian Version Of The Interview www.SouthCaucasus.com

---

.

Read More

3148) European Court: Turkey Failed To Protect Dink (Full Text Of Judgment)

Turkey to pay 100,000 Euros to Journalist’s Family

STRASBOURG, France (A.W.)—On Sept. 14, The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Turkish authorities “failed in their duty to protect the life and freedom of expression of the journalist Firat (Hrant) Dink. The Court decided that Turkey should pay 100,000 Euros to Dink’s wife, Rakel, and children and 5,000 Euros to his brother, in addition to 28,595 Euros to the applicants jointly for costs and expenses.

The Court decided that Turkey should pay 100,000 Euros to Dink’s wife, Rakel, and children and 5,000 Euros to his brother, in addition to 28,595 Euros to the applicants jointly for costs and expenses . .

The Court unanimously found that Turkey had committed two violations of Article 2 (right to life—lack of an effective investigation), a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the day the request is rejected.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

Below is the full-text of the judgment.

---

Chamber judgment

Not final

Dink v. Turkey (applications no. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09)

THE AUTHORITIES FAILED IN THEIR DUTY TO PROTECT THE LIFE AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION OF THE JOURNALIST FIRAT (HRANT) DINK

Unanimously:

Two violations of Article 2 (right to life – lack of an effective investigation),

violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and

violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2
of the European Convention on Human Rights

Principal facts

The applicants are six Turkish nationals: Fırat Dink, who was known under the pen name of Hrant Dink, his wife (Rahil Dink), his brother (Hasrof Dink) and Fırat and Rahil Dink’s three children (Delal Dink, Arat Dink and Sera Dink). Fırat Dink was born in 1954 and was assassinated on 19 January 2007. The remaining applicants were born in 1959, 1957, 1978, 1979 and 1986 respectively and live in Istanbul. Fırat Dink, a Turkish journalist of Armenian origin, was publication director and editor-in-chief of Agos, a bilingual Turkish-Armenian weekly newspaper published in Istanbul since 1996.

Between November 2003 and February 2004 Fırat Dink published eight articles in Agos in which he expressed his views on the identity of Turkish citizens of Armenian origin. In particular, in the sixth and seventh articles of the series, he wrote that Armenians’ obsession with having their status as victims of genocide recognised had become their raison d’être, that this need on their part was treated with indifference by Turkish people and that this explained why the traumas suffered by the Armenians remained a live issue. In his view, the Turkish element in Armenian identity was both a poison and an antidote. He added that Armenian identity could come to terms with its Turkish component in one of two ways. Either Turkish people could display empathy towards Armenians – something that would be difficult to achieve in the short term – or the Armenians could come to terms with the Turkish element by characterising the events of 1915 in a manner independent of the characterisation accepted by the world at large and by Turkish people. In the eighth article Mr Dink, pursuing the line of argument begun in the rest of the series, wrote that “the purified blood that will replace the blood poisoned by the ‘Turk’ can be found in the noble vein linking Armenians to Armenia, provided that the former are aware of it.” Mr Dink was of the view that the Armenian authorities should make more active efforts to strengthen ties with the country’s diaspora, as a basis for a healthier national identity. He published a further article in which he referred to the Armenian origins of Atatürk’s adoptive daughter. Extreme nationalist groups responded to the articles by staging demonstrations and writing threatening letters.

In February 2004 a nationalist extremist lodged a criminal complaint against Fırat Dink, alleging that the latter had insulted Turkish people with his use of the phrase “the purified blood that will replace the blood poisoned by the ‘Turk’ can be found in the noble vein linking Armenians to Armenia”. In April 2004 the Şişli (Istanbul) public prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against Fırat Dink under the article of the Turkish Criminal Code which made it an offence to denigrate “Turkishness” (Türklük) (Turkish identity). In May 2005 an expert report concluded that Fırat Dink’s remarks had not insulted or denigrated anyone, since what he had described as “poison” was not Turkish blood, but rather Armenians’ obsession with securing recognition that the events of 1915 amounted to genocide. In October 2005 the Şişli Criminal Court found Mr Dink guilty of denigrating Turkish identity and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, suspended. The court held that the public could not be expected to read the whole series of articles in order to grasp the real meaning of his remarks. On 1 May 2006 the Court of Cassation (Ninth Criminal Division) upheld the guilty verdict. On 6 June 2006 Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law, arguing that Mr Dink’s remarks had been incorrectly construed and that his freedom of expression should be protected. On 11 July 2006 the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Cassation sitting as a full criminal court. On 12 March 2007 the Criminal Court to which the case had been remitted discontinued the proceedings on account of the death of Fırat Dink.

On 19 January 2007 Fırat Dink was killed by three bullets to the head. The suspected perpetrator was arrested in Samsun (Turkey). In April 2007 the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against 18 accused. The proceedings are still pending.

In February 2007 investigators from the Ministry of the Interior and the gendarmerie opened an investigation in order to ascertain whether the Trabzon gendarmerie had been negligent or had failed in their duty to prevent the killing, given that an informant claimed to have warned two non-commissioned officers (NCOs) of the gendarmerie about the intended crime. The gendarmes denied having been informed about the preparations for the killing. The Trabzon provincial governor’s office authorised the institution of criminal proceedings against the two NCOs but not against their superior officers. The NCOs eventually admitted that an informant had warned them of a possible killing; they claimed to have passed on all the details to their superior officers, who had been responsible for acting on the information received. The NCOs further stated that they had been ordered by their superior officers during the investigation to deny having received the information. The proceedings in question are still in progress.

The Istanbul public prosecutor’s office also requested the Trabzon public prosecutor to start proceedings against the police authorities in Trabzon, on the ground that one of the accused, who was an informant of the Trabzon police, had also provided the latter with information on the preparations for the killing. The Trabzon police authorities had made no attempt to thwart these plans but had confined themselves to officially informing the Istanbul police of the likelihood of an assassination attempt. The Istanbul public prosecutor added that one of the Trabzon police chiefs had openly voiced extreme nationalist views and supported the accused. On 10 January 2008 the Trabzon prosecuting authorities decided to take no further action against the Trabzon police, noting in particular that the accusations made by the Istanbul public prosecutor had been based on a statement by one of the accused which had later been retracted. The prosecuting authorities were persuaded by the argument that the Trabzon police had not judged the information received to be credible. Finally, they stressed that the police chief suspected of supporting the defendants’ actions had denied the accusations against him. An objection lodged by the applicants against the decision to take no further action was dismissed.

The investigation by the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office confirmed that on 17 February 2006 the Trabzon police had officially informed the Istanbul police of the likelihood that Fırat Dink would be assassinated and had identified the suspects. The Istanbul police had not acted upon this information. Following the conclusions of three investigations into this failure to act, the management board of the Istanbul provincial governor’s office decided to bring criminal proceedings for negligence against certain members of the Istanbul police authorities. However, the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the corresponding orders on the ground that the investigation had been inadequate.

Finally, following a complaint by the applicants, a criminal investigation was opened concerning members of the Samsun police and gendarmerie on charges of defending the crime. While the suspected perpetrator was in police custody the persons concerned had had their photograph taken with the suspect, who was seen holding a Turkish flag: on the wall behind them were the words “Our country is sacred – its future cannot be left to chance”. In June 2007 the Samsun public prosecutor’s office decided to discontinue the proceedings against the officers in question, taking the view that defending a crime was only an offence if it was done in public. However, disciplinary action was taken against the officers.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying in particular on Article 2, the applicants other than Fırat Dink complained that the State had failed in its obligation to protect the life of Fırat Dink. Under the same provision, they alleged that the criminal proceedings brought against the State agents concerned for failing to protect the journalist’s life had been ineffective. On the latter point they also relied on Article 13. Under Article 10 in particular, they further alleged that the fact that Fırat Dink had been found guilty of denigrating Turkish identity had infringed his freedom of expression and made him a target for nationalist extremists.

The first application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 January 2007 by Fırat Dink. The remaining applications were lodged on 18 December 2007 and 21 May, 27 November and 22 December 2008 respectively by Rahil, Delal, Arat and Sera Dink following the first applicant’s death. In application no. 7072/09, Hasrof Dink is also an applicant.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal),
Dragoljub Popović (Serbia),
András Sajó (Hungary),
Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia),
Işıl Karakaş (Turkey),
Guido Raimondi (Italy), judges,

and also Stan Naismith, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Complaint concerning the alleged failure of the Turkish State to protect the life of Fırat Dink (Article 2)

The Court took the view that the Turkish security forces could reasonably be considered to have been aware of the intense hostility towards Fırat Dink in nationalist circles. The investigations carried out by the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office and the Interior Ministry investigators had highlighted the fact that the police in both Trabzon and Istanbul, and the Trabzon gendarmerie, had been informed of the likelihood of an assassination attempt and even of the identity of the suspected instigators. In view of the circumstances, the threat of an assassination could be said to have been real and imminent.

The Court next considered whether the authorities had done everything that could reasonably have been expected of them to prevent Fırat Dink’s assassination. None of the three authorities informed of the planned assassination and its imminent realisation had taken action to prevent it. Admittedly, as stressed by the Turkish Government, Fırat Dink had not requested police protection. However, he could not possibly have known about the plan to assassinate him. It had been for the Turkish authorities, who were informed of the plan, to take action to safeguard Fırat Dink’s life.

There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 (in its “substantive aspect”).

Complaint concerning the alleged ineffectiveness of the criminal investigations (Article 2)

The Court examined the criminal proceedings instituted following the careful and detailed investigation into the way in which the Trabzon and Istanbul security forces had managed the information received on the planned assassination.

It noted first of all that the provincial governor’s office had refused to authorise criminal proceedings against the Trabzon gendarmerie officers, with the exception of two NCOs. No judicial ruling had been given on the reasons why the officers competent to take the appropriate steps following transmission of the information by the NCOs had failed to take action. In addition, the NCOs had been forced to give false statements to the investigators. This was a case of a manifest breach of the duty to take steps to gather evidence concerning the events in question and of concerted action to hamper the capacity of the investigation to establish who was responsible.

As to the failures imputed to the Trabzon police, the Court observed that the Trabzon prosecuting authorities’ decision to take no further action had been based on arguments which were contradicted by other evidence in the case file. In particular, the public prosecutor had taken the view that the police officers had not judged the information received on the planned assassination to be credible, whereas in fact they had informed the Istanbul police that an assassination attempt was imminent. Furthermore, the decision not to proceed with the charges against the chief of police had not been based on any investigation. Taken overall, the prosecuting authorities’ investigation had amounted to little more than a defence of the police officers concerned, without providing any answers to the question of their failure to take action vis-à-vis the suspected assassins.

With regard to the failures imputed to the Istanbul police, the Court noted that no criminal proceedings had been started against them either, despite the findings of the Interior Ministry investigators to the effect that the police authorities had not taken the measures which the situation required. No explanation had been provided as to why the Istanbul police had not responded to the threat.

The Court acknowledged that criminal proceedings were still in progress against the suspected perpetrators of the attack. However, it could not but note that all the proceedings in which the authorities were implicated had been discontinued (with the exception of the proceedings against two NCOs in Trabzon, although this did nothing to alter the Court’s conclusion).

Lastly, the Court observed that the investigations concerning the Trabzon gendarmerie and the Istanbul police had been conducted by officials belonging to the executive, and that the dead man’s relatives had not been involved in the proceedings, a fact which served to undermine the investigations. The suspicion that one of the police chiefs had supported the accused’s actions did not appear to have been the subject of detailed investigation either.

There had therefore been a breach of Article 2 (in its “procedural aspect”), as no effective investigation had been carried out into the failures which occurred in protecting the life of Fırat Dink.

Complaint concerning Fırat Dink’s freedom of expression (Article 10)

The Turkish Government contended that there had been no breach of Fırat Dink’s right to freedom of expression since at the time of his death he had not been finally convicted. The Court stressed, however, that at the time Fırat Dink died, the highest criminal court had upheld the finding that he was guilty of denigrating Turkish identity. Moreover, this finding had made him a target for extreme nationalists, and the Turkish authorities, who had been informed of the plot to kill him, had not taken steps to protect him. There had therefore been interference with the exercise of Fırat Dink’s right to freedom of expression. According to the Court’s case-law, such interference was acceptable if it was prescribed by law, pursued a “legitimate aim” and could be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court doubted whether it had satisfied the first two criteria, but concentrated its reasoning on the third criterion.

The Court shared the view of Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation that an analysis of the full series of articles in which Fırat Dink used the impugned expression showed clearly that what he described as “poison” had not been “Turkish blood”, as held by the Court of Cassation, but the “perception of Turkish people” by Armenians and the obsessive nature of the Armenian diaspora’s campaign to have Turkey recognise the events of 1915 as genocide. After analysing the manner in which the Court of Cassation had interpreted and given practical expression to the notion of Turkish identity, the Court concluded that, in reality, it had indirectly punished Fırat Dink for criticising the State institutions’ denial of the view that the events of 1915 amounted to genocide. The Court reiterated that Article 10 of the Convention prohibited restrictions on freedom of expression in the sphere of political debate and issues of public interest, and that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider for the Government than for a private individual. It further observed that the author had been writing in his capacity as a journalist on an issue of public concern. Lastly, it reiterated that it was an integral part of freedom of expression to seek historical truth. The Court therefore concluded that Fırat Dink’s conviction for denigrating Turkish identity had not answered any “pressing social need”.

The Court also stressed that States were required to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate by all the persons concerned, enabling them to express their opinions and ideas without fear. In a case like the present one, the State must not just refrain from any interference with the individual’s freedom of expression, but was also under a “positive obligation” to protect his or her right to freedom of expression against attack, including by private individuals. In view of its findings concerning the authorities’ failure to protect Fırat Dink against the attack by members of an extreme nationalist group and concerning the guilty verdict handed down in the absence of a “pressing social need”, the Court concluded that Turkey’s “positive obligations” with regard to Fırat Dink’s freedom of expression had not been complied with.

There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.

Complaint concerning the alleged lack of an effective remedy
(Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2)

In cases concerning the right to life, Article 13 required not only the payment of compensation where appropriate, but also an in-depth and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and encompassing effective access for the family to the investigation (this went beyond the obligation to conduct an effective investigation imposed by Article 2). The lack of an effective criminal investigation in this case therefore led the Court to find that there had also been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2, as the applicants had thereby been denied access to other remedies available in theory, such as a claim for damages.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The Court held, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, that Turkey was to pay 100,000 euros (EUR) jointly to Fırat Dink’s wife and children and EUR 5,000 to his brother. It was also to pay EUR 28,595 to the applicants jointly for costs and expenses.

---

© 2010 Armenian Weekly

---

.

Read More