Tweet
"IF I USED THE WORD 'BRUTE' INCORRECTLY, I CAN APOLOGIZE," HOVHANNES SAHAKYAN SAYS
February 25 2013
For a Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) MP, not only batons, weapons,
and water cannons constitute brute force Hovhannes Sahakyan, the
secretary of the RPA parliamentary group said to Radio Liberty the
other day that the government "doesn't use any brute force for now,
although it has the right to do that." www.aravot.am inquired of him
today whether the government did a favor to people by not using brute
force, or he just wanted to restrain the opposition with those words.
He replied: "I, as a lawyer, can give a long lecture about the
possibilities and impossibilities of using brute force, about right
and wrong. I can explain what using brute force or using force means.
Force is never soft or nice. Force is crude. To me, brute meant crude.
If I chose the word 'brute' incorrectly, I can apologize to the public
for that." We asked to clarify whether they should use weapons against
the people, he explained: "No, brute doesn't only mean weapons. For
example, not to allow them to hold a rally." In response to our
question what methods should be used not to allow, batons, he said:
"If, for you, the only way of not allowing is batons, let it be batons
too. However, for me, it is not batons, weapons, water cannons, or
barbed wire. Police officers can just forbid them to participate,
by creating a human wall, for example. However, let me make a short
excursion related to brute force, since there were some journalists
who tried to criticize. For your information, I can give a lecture,
if necessary. The state and the government have the monopoly on the
use of coercive force. The state and the government are separated in
theory, but in practice, they are equated. An NGO, which is a part
of civil society, cannot use force. And the state uses force when
universal norms are violated, the law or rights. In this case, if it
is violated, the government is entitled to use force. We are rather
tolerant. By saying we, I mean the government." In response to our
question what would happen, when they stop being tolerant, he said:
"For example, when there is provocation in it, I mean the processes
that happened on the Freedom Square podium between the Heritage Party
and some activists. If there had been irreversible consequences,
physical injuries because of some problem there, who would have been
responsible for that? You would have said that police officers were
not there and didn't prevent." As for the interference of police
officers in Spitak and Aparan and the appeal to compatriots that
the rally was illegal, Hovhannes Sahakyan noted that the police did
their job. "They were not filming the faces of those gathered, but the
whole process, so that they had facts in case of provocations. Those
are different." Hripsime JEBEJYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/02/25/152545/
© 1998 - 2013 Aravot - News from Armenia
From: Baghdasarian
February 25 2013
For a Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) MP, not only batons, weapons,
and water cannons constitute brute force Hovhannes Sahakyan, the
secretary of the RPA parliamentary group said to Radio Liberty the
other day that the government "doesn't use any brute force for now,
although it has the right to do that." www.aravot.am inquired of him
today whether the government did a favor to people by not using brute
force, or he just wanted to restrain the opposition with those words.
He replied: "I, as a lawyer, can give a long lecture about the
possibilities and impossibilities of using brute force, about right
and wrong. I can explain what using brute force or using force means.
Force is never soft or nice. Force is crude. To me, brute meant crude.
If I chose the word 'brute' incorrectly, I can apologize to the public
for that." We asked to clarify whether they should use weapons against
the people, he explained: "No, brute doesn't only mean weapons. For
example, not to allow them to hold a rally." In response to our
question what methods should be used not to allow, batons, he said:
"If, for you, the only way of not allowing is batons, let it be batons
too. However, for me, it is not batons, weapons, water cannons, or
barbed wire. Police officers can just forbid them to participate,
by creating a human wall, for example. However, let me make a short
excursion related to brute force, since there were some journalists
who tried to criticize. For your information, I can give a lecture,
if necessary. The state and the government have the monopoly on the
use of coercive force. The state and the government are separated in
theory, but in practice, they are equated. An NGO, which is a part
of civil society, cannot use force. And the state uses force when
universal norms are violated, the law or rights. In this case, if it
is violated, the government is entitled to use force. We are rather
tolerant. By saying we, I mean the government." In response to our
question what would happen, when they stop being tolerant, he said:
"For example, when there is provocation in it, I mean the processes
that happened on the Freedom Square podium between the Heritage Party
and some activists. If there had been irreversible consequences,
physical injuries because of some problem there, who would have been
responsible for that? You would have said that police officers were
not there and didn't prevent." As for the interference of police
officers in Spitak and Aparan and the appeal to compatriots that
the rally was illegal, Hovhannes Sahakyan noted that the police did
their job. "They were not filming the faces of those gathered, but the
whole process, so that they had facts in case of provocations. Those
are different." Hripsime JEBEJYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/02/25/152545/
© 1998 - 2013 Aravot - News from Armenia
From: Baghdasarian