Well, I was actually planning to limit this blog to my own experiences, but since I lead a rather uneventful life, it was getting very hard to come up with an interesting post 2 or 3 times a week. So I decided to broaden my scope dramatically, and just write about anything I feel like writing about.
For today, I thought I’d write something about the bill that France approved last week which makes it a crime to deny Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks in 1915. Apart from the question whether this is really any business of the French government at all, and whatever the hidden motives of the French may be, this bill represents a serious violation of freedom of speech and thought. Furthermore, this law will not be able to alter the opinions of other people. The only thing this law will achieve is to oppress those opinions, and to generate more anger and hatred among the Turks toward the French.
This is not to say I sympathize entirely with the Turks. I can certainly understand their outrage, but it seems somewhat hypocritical in light of Article 301 of the Turkish penal code. Writer and Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk, for instance, was faced with charges under the article for stating in the Tages Anzeiger that “Thirty thousands Kurds and a million Armenians were murdered. Hardly anyone dares mention it, so I do. And that’s why I’m hated (source: Amnesty International).” Also, Turkish comments that the French should look at their own history of violence may be a good point, but is totally irrelevant to the discussion. A country which denies its own history of violence, is not a valid excuse for another country to do so as well.
I have to admit I’m not too familiar with the relevant history to form a definitive opinion. However, the Turkish attitude toward the Armenian killings reminds me of the Japanese denial of the atrocities committed in Nanking during the second World War. Iris Chang, in her excellent book “The Rape of Nanking” states that “Japan not only carries the legal burden but the moral obligation to acknowledge the evil it perpetrated in Nanking, (…) and to educate future generations of Japanese citizens about the true facts of the massacre, (…) which is crucial for Japan if it expects to deserve respect from the international community – and to achieve closure on a dark chapter that stained its history.” If there is even an inkling of truth in the allegation that the Armenian killings amounted to genocide, then the same applies for Turkey as well.
4 comments:
I think it's a very very delicate issue. Both sides claim they have enough evidence to support their cases. I have read both sides and with each reading I changed my mind. Finally gave up and said that if even scholars, who have read more historical documents than me, cannot agree with each other, how will I reach a conclusion?
You make some excellent points. But as you can read in my post, I'm criticizing their actions (i.e. the bill and article 301), and NOT their opinions. Like you said, even scholars cannot agree. So who gives governments the right to impose their opinions upon their citizens?
P.S. If you don't have a Blogger account, can you put your name at the end of the post? Just want to know who I'm talking to.
I was commenting on your last paragraph.
Of course, you indeed make a good remark about the freedom of speech. Politicians are using such issues to gain vote in internal politics, meddling with and thus affecting our little lives.
Turkish prohibitors have understood that they cannot directly prohibit a thought so they are using the vague and discretionary "insult" term to cover up their intents. For them nearly everything of non-Turkish origin is an insult to Turkishness. I sometimes wonder if these people are real or caricatures. One of them also tried to prosecute a fictional character in a book because of his/her views, fortunately the judge was prudent enough to realize the absurdity of the case. Although these people's ways of thinking may seem funny but the consequences of their actions are mostly distressing and unfortunate.
Lately the cases concerning the free speech increased in number, I think the aim of these prosecutors is to keep Turkey out of EU, to achieve that they are trying to damage the Turkish reputation abroad.
Ok, I'll admit that it seems like I'm leaning too much toward a certain opinion in my last paragraph. But that wasn't really my intent. I know too little about the subject to form a good opinion. I just wanted to say that if the Turkish really committed genocide, they should admit it. They certainly won't be the first (and definitely not the last country) to deny their crimes the past.
Post a Comment