Tweet
WHEN PARLIAMENTS TAKE OVER THE PLACE OF COURTS
Nermin Aydemir
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Oct 23 2007
Turkey
A possible intervention against the PKK terrorists hits the headlines
recently. Not only Turkish people but the world public opinion appears
to pay significant attention to what Turkish officials are going to
decide in a few days time. Yet the Armenian attempts to pass a bill
approving their genocide claims in the US senate remains to catch
the attention of many. The senators seem to be suffering between the
US strategic relations with Turks and the Armenian pressure ahead of
the elections.
The US is not the first country that the Armenian lobby tries to pass
such bill. Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, France,
Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Lithonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia,
Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Vatican City and Venezuela
are all countries of which parliaments did somehow recognize the
so-called genocide.
Not in all countries does such recognition have equal meaning. In
Switzerland, one can find himself/herself behind bars just because of
denying the genocide claims, which indeed has taken place. The leader
of the Turkish Socialist Party, Dogu Perincek, was arrested in July
in 2005, after stating that such genocide did not occur. A similar
punishment is theoretically also possible in many other countries,
including Voltaire's France, although such a happening did not take
place in practice.
Countries like Italy, the Netherlands and Poland remain by stating
the "necessity" of the recognition of the so-called genocide by the
Turkish assembly. The parliamentary decision does not have a binding
character in all the countries. For instance, the decision of the
Dutch parliament is recommendatory and not obligatory.
In fact, the process creates significant confusion. What does
the lobby achieve through all these decisions through those bills
passed by different parliaments across the world? If the Armenians
are trying to establish their rightfulness through decisions passed
by different parliaments across the world, they are absolutely on a
wrong path. Not only the Armenians who are making every effort to
pass such resolutions, but also countries accepting these violate
the very fundamental rule of law.
The British historian, David Irving had long been on the news agenda
last year. Mr. Irving was sentenced by an Austrian court in February
last year for denying the Holocaust in 1989. That denying the Holocaust
is banned remains to be something outdated, according to many. One
may claim being against such repression. However, such a sentence is
to some extend understandable for having a legal basis.
All those charges are based on the decisions taken by the Nuremberg
trials, which were held between 1945 and 1949, at the Nuremberg Palace
of Justice. Parties, the Jewish population and the German government
are in the same line that the genocide has taken place.
Genocide is the most terrible crime in the history of human being and
does not have any excuse by any means. Nevertheless, this should not
lead to comparing apples and peers.
The Armenian claims remain to be claims, just claims. If we are trying
to found genocide on the life histories of grandparents, photos,
myths, severe war conditions and inter group clashes; we are obviously
following a wrong path.
In fact, the Armenian lobby seems to refute their own hypothesis by
trying to find partners instead of bringing the issue to international
courts. What the several parliamentarians are doing is something
beyond the pale. How can we defend the order of law in other cases
if politicians do claim to judge the right and wrong in the Armenian
issue, how can we still talk about the rule of law if the Armenian
lobby's pressure overwhelms it.
The issue goes far beyond accepting a single genocide claim. One
should consider the greatest responsibility of adhering to the most
fundamental principle of rule of law before political gains and stakes
in this game.
Nermin Aydemir
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Oct 23 2007
Turkey
A possible intervention against the PKK terrorists hits the headlines
recently. Not only Turkish people but the world public opinion appears
to pay significant attention to what Turkish officials are going to
decide in a few days time. Yet the Armenian attempts to pass a bill
approving their genocide claims in the US senate remains to catch
the attention of many. The senators seem to be suffering between the
US strategic relations with Turks and the Armenian pressure ahead of
the elections.
The US is not the first country that the Armenian lobby tries to pass
such bill. Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, France,
Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Lithonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia,
Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Vatican City and Venezuela
are all countries of which parliaments did somehow recognize the
so-called genocide.
Not in all countries does such recognition have equal meaning. In
Switzerland, one can find himself/herself behind bars just because of
denying the genocide claims, which indeed has taken place. The leader
of the Turkish Socialist Party, Dogu Perincek, was arrested in July
in 2005, after stating that such genocide did not occur. A similar
punishment is theoretically also possible in many other countries,
including Voltaire's France, although such a happening did not take
place in practice.
Countries like Italy, the Netherlands and Poland remain by stating
the "necessity" of the recognition of the so-called genocide by the
Turkish assembly. The parliamentary decision does not have a binding
character in all the countries. For instance, the decision of the
Dutch parliament is recommendatory and not obligatory.
In fact, the process creates significant confusion. What does
the lobby achieve through all these decisions through those bills
passed by different parliaments across the world? If the Armenians
are trying to establish their rightfulness through decisions passed
by different parliaments across the world, they are absolutely on a
wrong path. Not only the Armenians who are making every effort to
pass such resolutions, but also countries accepting these violate
the very fundamental rule of law.
The British historian, David Irving had long been on the news agenda
last year. Mr. Irving was sentenced by an Austrian court in February
last year for denying the Holocaust in 1989. That denying the Holocaust
is banned remains to be something outdated, according to many. One
may claim being against such repression. However, such a sentence is
to some extend understandable for having a legal basis.
All those charges are based on the decisions taken by the Nuremberg
trials, which were held between 1945 and 1949, at the Nuremberg Palace
of Justice. Parties, the Jewish population and the German government
are in the same line that the genocide has taken place.
Genocide is the most terrible crime in the history of human being and
does not have any excuse by any means. Nevertheless, this should not
lead to comparing apples and peers.
The Armenian claims remain to be claims, just claims. If we are trying
to found genocide on the life histories of grandparents, photos,
myths, severe war conditions and inter group clashes; we are obviously
following a wrong path.
In fact, the Armenian lobby seems to refute their own hypothesis by
trying to find partners instead of bringing the issue to international
courts. What the several parliamentarians are doing is something
beyond the pale. How can we defend the order of law in other cases
if politicians do claim to judge the right and wrong in the Armenian
issue, how can we still talk about the rule of law if the Armenian
lobby's pressure overwhelms it.
The issue goes far beyond accepting a single genocide claim. One
should consider the greatest responsibility of adhering to the most
fundamental principle of rule of law before political gains and stakes
in this game.