Massis Weekly Online
VOLUME 27, NO. 7 (1307)
SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 2007
—————
– S. D. Hunchakian Party To Contest the May 12 Parliamentary Elections
Separately
– Free Vote ?Key to EU-Armenia Ties?
– SDHP "Sarkis Dkhrouni" Union Presents Results of Corruption Survey
– More Congressmen Sign on HR 106
– ACA Announces Endorsements For Glendale Elections
– Glendale HOMENMEN Chapter Ladies Auxiliary Open House
– Hrant Dink and Armenians in Turkey
– Letter to the Editor of Asbarez
————-
– S. D. Hunchakian Party To Contest the May 12 Parliamentary Elections
Separately
YEREVAN — In an internet web conference organized by the Social
Democrat Hunchakian party?s central board and joined by S.D.H.P
regional board members from six continents, S.D.H.P Armenia
chairwoman, Lyudmila Sargsian, notified the participants that the
Social Democrat Hunchakian Party has registered with RA Central
Electoral Commission and will partake in a proportional system of
the upcoming May parliamentary elections.
Sargsian also addressed the lack of opposition forces to agree upon a
united front against the ruling regime. The S.D.H.P. has been
preparing and organizing throughout Armenia for the past three years
and has chosen to conform itself to the proportional system and not to
take part in the single mandate electoral system. This decision was
made by the party to insure that it does not clash with other
oppositional like-minded individuals and dilute the oppositional votes.
During the elections, Sargsian stated that the 120 year strong S.D.H.P
will adhere to the platform that was agreed upon in the 18th General
Assembly of S.D.H.P World Congress. With the existing situation of
corruption in Armenia, economic electoral oligarchical system,
distrust in judicial bodies, and based on the S. D. H. Party?s
socialist and democratic ideology, the party has concluded that the
establishment of true democracy in Armenia is the most important
endeavor. To achieve economic and social justice in Armenia there must
be democracy, the foundation of which is the peaceful change of
authority through free and just elections.
S.D.H.P considers the principle of the free self-determination of
nations the basis for the resolution of the Artsakh question. The S.
D. Hunchakian Party considers the unification of Mountainous Karabakh
with Armenia or its acquisition of independent status as appropriate.
During negotiations, any land belonging to Armenia cannot be subject
to deals or exchange, either in the form of area, nor as ?passageway?
or ?route.? Any agreement on the resolution of the Artsakh issue must
bear the signature of the legitimate authorities in Artsakh and merit
the consent of Artsakh?s populace.
S.D.H.P considers the duty of the next parliament to focus on
preserving and enhancing national, educational and cultural programs
within the State and the maintaining of an unrelenting stance in the
pursuance of the Armenian Cause.
Official Armenian-Turkish discussion must be conditional on the
recognition of the Genocide.
The future parliament must better extend its national-spiritual
mission, and operate to ensure that Armenian religious centers are
within a non-partisan and non-political existence.
The social, economic, civic and educational demands of the Javakhk
Armenians are just and legitimate. These demands must become a
national concern and be insured and addressed by the Armenian
government.
With the confines of a free and fair electoral process, Sargsian
insured that the 120 year old Social Democrat Hunchakian party will
make great inroads within the next parliament. Twenty nine parties are
competing for 90 proportial-based seats and 173 politicians are
running for the remaining 41 seats that are awarded to individual
candidates.
– Free Vote ?Key to EU-Armenia Ties?
YEREVAN — Armenia will miss an important opportunity to deepen its
relationship with the European Union if it fails to ensure the freedom
and fairness of its parliamentary elections, a visiting senior EU
diplomat warned on Friday.
?It will mean that an opportunity has been lost to build, in the short
and medium terms, a firm relationship based on mutual values and
mutual trust,? Peter Semneby, the EU?s special representative to the
South Caucasus, said of a possible repeat of serious irregularities in
the elections slated for May 12.
Preparations for the crucial polls dominated the agenda of Semneby
latest trip to Yerevan, which involved talks with Prime Minister
Andranik Markarian and other Armenian officials.
Markarian?s office quoted the Brussels-based diplomat as saying that
their proper conduct will be ?critical? for Armenia?s democratization
and European integration. Markarian was reported to assure him that
his government has ?the desire and the will? to hold a first-ever
Armenian election recognized as democratic by the West.
?I haven?t gotten any guarantees, but I have a very strong sense that
the authorities are aware of the importance of the elections,? Semneby
told RFE/RL after the talks. He stressed the fact that it will be the
first major ballot since Armenia?s and neighboring Azerbaijan?s and
Georgia?s inclusion in the EU?s European Neighborhood Policy (ENP)
framework.
– SDHP "Sarkis Dkhrouni" Union Presents Results of Corruption Survey
YEREVAN –In response to the denial of corruption at Universities in
Armenia, the Social Democrat Hunchakian party ?Sarkis Dkhrouni? youth
association conducted a press conference on Tuesday, March 6
presenting evidence disproving the claims made by University leaders.
The youth organization brought forth the rsults of anonymous survey
they conducted which was distributed to students several months ago.
Five percent, about 2000 students, responded to the survey which asked
whether they thought their institution engaged in corrupt practices.
Of every 20 students, 19 admit that corruption is prevalent in their
University. Five percent of those students were from Film and Drama
Universities, 18 percent from Cultural Universities, 42 percent from
Yerevan State University, 75 percent from Linguistics Universities, 79
percent from Teaching Universities, Public Universities made up 81
percent, Medical Universities were 86 percent and Agricultural
Universities made up 96 percent.
The Sarkis Dkhrouni youth association presented these findings to
Levon Lazarian, Minister of Education who has since accepted the
claims. Nareg Sarkissian, Chairman of the youth association stated
that the Minister has called for a formation of an independent board
to investigate the matter closely. Yet the students are once again
facing the denial of the truth.
The first press conference regarding this issue was held on Dec. 10,
2006. Although the Minister of Education has cooperated with the
Sarkis Dkhrouni youth association, board members the Yerevan State
Institution of higher education have yet to accept that corruption is
lurking on university campuses in Armenia.
– More Congressmen Sign on HR 106
The Armenian Council of America Ohio and Texas branchs have expressed
gratitude to heir respective members of Congress for sponsoring House
Resolution 106. The Resolution calls upon the President to ensure that
the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate
understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human
rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the U.S. record
relating to the Armenian Genocide.
On March 1 Congressman Al Green of Texas co-sponsored H.R. 106
becoming the eighth congressman from Texas to do so. On the very same
day Congressman Steven LaTourette from Ohio co-sponsored H.R. 106,
becoming the fourth congressman from Ohio sponsor the House Resolution.
In a statement issued by the Armenian Council of America, the Texas
chapter thanked Congressman Green for co-sponsoring the current
legislation. ?We have been good friends of the congressman and thank
him for his deeds towards H.R. 106.? stated Sarkis Ohanian, chairman
of Texas chapter of the ACA.
Dr. Avedis Kazanjian, Chairman of the ACA mid east states, also
conveyed his enthusiasm in gaining the support of Congressman
LaTourette towards the legislation.
Both recognized that gaining the support of congressional members with
little or no Armenian American constituency has proven to be
increasingly challenging.
?Currently there are only eight out of 32 members of Congress from
Texas who have signed on to H.R. 106,?stated Ohanian. ?With the
increasing pressure of the Turkish government and the fact that the
current administration is headed by a Texan, it has become a
tremendously difficult uphill battle in confronting our (Texas)
legislators to do the right thing,? he added. Dr. Kazanjian also
confirmed that currently there are only four out of 18 members of
Congress from Ohio who have signed on to the legislation. ?Yes it is
an uphill battle, yet we as Armenians have gone through fiercer
struggles and have prevailed.?
?As stated before, the Armenian Genocide resolution will not pass
without the full support of congressional members that do not have a
substantial constituency of Armenian Americans,?
declared Peter Darakjian, Executive Director of the ACA. ?The Armenian
Cause is continuously facing obstacles from all directions. The
current administration is against our Cause, the State Department is
stuck in the cold war mentality adhering to the needs of Turkey, the
Turkish government and its well funded lobbying firms along with the
Turkish media are decimating false information to combat the truth and
our legislation.?
Darakjian expects set backs facing Armenian related legislation in
Congress, such us the delay within the Foreign Relations Committee due
to committee ranking member Richard Lugar?s request that consideration
of S. Res. 65 be held over until the next committee business meeting
will be overcome.
?With the perseverance of Armenian Americans exposing historical truth
we can overcome all obstacles placed against us.? conveyed Darakjian.
– ACA Announces Endorsements For Glendale Elections
GLENDALE — For the upcoming Glendale City Municipal elections on
April 3, the Armenian Council of America-PAC on March 6 announced its
endorsement of current Glendale Unified School Board member Greg
Krikorian and Glendale community activist and former Public
Information Officer for the Glendale Police Department, Chahe
Keuroghelian, for the two City Council seats.
The ACA also announced its endorsement of Elizabeth Manasserian for
one of the two open seats in the Glendale Unified School District
Governing Board.
As for the Glendale Community College Board of Trustees elections, the
ACA is endorsing Tony Tartaglia, a current member of the GCC Board of
Trustees.
?After carefully reviewing the backgrounds of these candidates and
analyzing their views on certain issues relevant to the
Armenian-American community, we can wholeheartedly say that they are
the most qualified candidates,? stated ACA Executive Director Peter
Darakjian. ?We encourage everyone in the community to vote for our
endorsed candidates because we believe they will best represent our
interests as a whole.?
Additionally, ACA board chairman Vasken Khodanian stated, ?Having
worked with these candidates at different capacities in the past and
knowing them on a personal level gives us the confidence we need to
make a sound judgement on their performance in the future.?
Besides endorsing the above officials, ACA is also actively engaged in
educating the Armenian-American community about the importance of
voting including conducting voter registration and urging every
citizen to fulfill their civic duty.
The Armenian Council of America-PAC is a non-partisan federally
registered political action committee dedicated to educating the
Armenian-American community in local political affairs,
as well as actively pursuing Armenian-American participation in their
respective local governments, to support political candidates who
share the values of the Armenian American community.
– Glendale HOMENMEN Chapter Ladies Auxiliary Open House
GLENDALE — The Armenian Athletic Association ?Homenmen? women?s
auxiliary Glendale chapter organized an open house for Homenmen
athletes and their parents on Sunday March 4 at the Glendale central
library auditorium. The event was was attended by young athletes and
parents who wanted to learn more about the organization and its
direction.
Seta Khodanian, master of ceremonies, briefly discussed the 86 year
old history of Homenmen in general and more specifically talked about
Homenmen?s activities in the greater southern California area and in
particular the city of Glendale. She also addressed some of the short
and long range plans of the organization.
Homenmen Glendale chairman Vartan Kojababian addressed the hardship
that parents, community leaders and the youth have gone through in the
past to make Homenmen not only a successful athletic organization, but
also a learning step for youth to partake in professionalism. He
stated that Homenmen creates a platform for discussion in activity
giving youth the necessary skills to become well-informed, active
members and leaders of their community.
Armenian Athletic Association ?Homenmen? women?s auxiliary Glendale
chapter chairwomen Rozin DerTavitian addressed the audience on the
meaning of being a Homenmen member, and following its credo ?Sound
Body, and a Sound Mind.? She added that those who have participated in
Homenmen throughout their youth and into their adulthood have achieved
a higher level of success and happiness in both their personal and
professional lives. Everyone was encouraged to proactively recruit
their friends and family into the organization.
– Hrant Dink and Armenians in Turkey
By Hratch Tchilingirian
The assassination of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on 19
January 2007 and its aftermath highlighted both change and resistance
to change in Turkish society. To understand how far Turkey has
travelled in the past generation, Hratch Tchilingirian examines the
role of Hrant Dink himself in the context of the Armenian community of
which he was voice, critic, and emblem.
On 18 October 1994 a press conference called by the then Patriarch of
the Armenian Church, Karekin Kazanjian, was held at the Armenian
patriarchate in Kumkapi, Istanbul. It was organised to correct what
the church saw as misinformation amounting to a slander campaign
against the Armenian church in particular and the Armenian community
in Turkey in general. The ?highlight? of this campaign was an attempt
by the patriarchate to voice protest against false, even lethal,
accusations in Turkish media and political circles that Armenian
clergymen were supporting Kurdish Workers? Party (PKK) terrorists in
their secessionist struggle against the Turkish state.
A photograph allegedly depicting an Armenian priest in the company of
PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan, widely distributed on posters, was a key
instrument of these accusations. Indeed, shouted slogans such as Apo,
Ermeni pici (?Apo [Öcalan?s nickname], Armenian bastard?) were at the
time commonly heard during nationalist demonstrations and street
protests.
The patriarchate?s communiqué on the matter categorically denied the
existence of any ties between the Armenian community in Turkey and any
terrorist organisation, and explained that the priest in the relevant
photo was not a cleric of the Armenian church. The document went on to
condemn such anti-Armenian insinuations in both print and broadcast
media, expressing the serious concern that such false rumours,
assumptions and misrepresentations were endangering the Armenian
community in Turkey and making the lives of individual Armenians
difficult.
The press conference ? attended by some seventy Turkish and foreign
journalists – was a tense affair. Several journalists harassed the
patriarch with presumptuous questions laced with innuendo about
contentious issues, including the PKK and the Armenian Secret Army for
the Liberation of Armenia
(Asala) – a small, Lebanon-based terrorist group that had killed
thirty-four Turks (mainly diplomats) between 1975 and 1983, mainly in
western Europe. (Asala had no presence, links or any type of backing
among Armenians in Turkey, and minimal support even among diaspora
Armenians).
As the interrogators became increasingly belligerent, a tall figure
forced himself into the heart of the journalistic melèe. ?As a member
of the patriarchate?s press office, I would like to answer that
question?, Hrant Dink announced. He continued: ?Respectable
representatives of the press, we are trying to shake off from our
shoulders a discomfort which causes pressure. It is for this reason
that we are trying to voice our protest against a false claim. Apart
from that, all your questions have been answered many times before.
The Armenians of Turkey are not terrorists and they have never
provided aid to terrorism, from whichever direction that may come.
From now on too, this is the way it is going to be. Armenians will
never support terrorism.
As citizens of this country, we would like to live in peace and
tranquility. This is the message of this press conference. … The
Armenians, all Armenians in the world, especially Armenians in Turkey,
at this moment have only one preoccupation: peace, peace, and peace?
(see Marmara [Istanbul], 19 October 1994).
This was the moment Hrant Dink fully entered public life. The
occasion, the pressure, the times themselves were such that he chose –
publicly, confidently and courageously – to address the ?discomforts?
and ?burdens? put upon his community by the state and a highly
politicised media. It was the moment Hrant Dink openly began to deal
with the dilemma of being simultaneously a citizen
of one country, Turkey, while being part of another nation, Armenia.
A time of silence
It was never going to be easy, for the challenge was at once
institutional, legal, and political. The Armenian community, like that
of other minorities in Turkey, experienced shame, humiliation,
harassment and intimidation across the long decades from the 1950s to
the 1990s without being able to speak up in its defence ? and in a
very different atmosphere to later controversies over Article 301 and
even minimal debate about the genocide of 1915. The Armenian community
in Turkey in this period was characterised by its reclusive existence
and collective silence.
The defining institutions of the Armenian community in Turkey were and
are the church and the school. Both faced (and face) perennial
problems that kept Hrant Dink and his colleagues awake at night. The
interference and heavy handedness of the Turkish government in the
Armenian community?s process of electing a patriarch (in 1990, and
again in 1998) were among the arduous legal problems enmeshing this
key Armenian body. On the second occasion Hrant wrote: ?We are sad …
The (Armenian) community is deeply hurt by the uncertainty created by
the escalation of the senseless crisis about the election of an acting
patriarch. These are trying days … We are observing with shame? (see
?Uzgunuz?, Agos, 21 August 1998).
The situation with the Armenian schools was (and is) no better. Hrant
wrote many columns about the state of Armenian schools in Turkey, and
took special interest in their administration. While criticising his
own community for its shortcomings, he also berated the Turkish
government for imposing numerous administrative restrictions on
minority (and not only Armenian) schools.
Hrant passionately recorded the constant indignities experienced by
Armenian educators. In August 1998 he wrote: ?If I am not mistaken,
it was three years ago … One of the vice-directors of the ministry
of national education?s Istanbul office – who was later convicted of
corruption and bribe-taking – said the following to the
?vice-principals? he appointed (whom the minority schools call
?Turkish vice-principals?): ?You are our eyes and ears … You are to
inform us of even the minutest mistakes that these people make.? He
said this in the presence of the minority school principals, with
total disregard for their dignity and common courtesy.
?… And what was I fantasising all these years … With my
45-year-old brain, I was thinking: ?would, one day, a minister of
national education start the ceremony for the new school year in a
minority school?? Sweet thoughts … My naïveté … Sorry …? (see
?Kinkel ve Valilik?, Agos, 21 August 1998 ? translated excerpts posted
on ).
A voice of dignity
Hrant Dink and his colleagues were symbols as well as agents of change
in relation to the Armenian community in Turkey. They were determined
to express the indignation and resentment they experienced as citizens
of the Republic of Turkey. If society and the political system did not
allow them to voice their fears, concerns, and hopes for their
community and for Turkey, the silence surrounding them – they
believed – must be made audible.
It was to a large extent this combination – of the hunger to speak and
the desire to address the ?existential? problems surrounding the
Armenian church and educational establishments – that sparked the
creation of the bilingual weekly newspaper Agos in April 1996.
The five colleagues who founded Agos were: Diran Bakar, a lawyer; Luiz
Bakar, also a lawyer and (since 1994) the spokesperson of the
patriarchate; Harutiun Sesetian, a businessman; Anna Turay, a
public-relations professional; and Hrant Dink, who at the time owned a
bookshop.
The founding members – as is the case with any equivalent innovative
project – were to have their differences in subsequent years. But at
its heart, Agos (and Hrant in particular) remained consistent in the
effort to open channels of communication and dialogue between the
reclusive – and at times isolated – Armenian community and Turkish
society.
Hrant defined one of the newspaper?s purposes as ?(trying) to identify
and explain our problems to the government and to Turkish society?,
while acknowledging that ?because of this, we sometimes have problems?
(Armenia International Magazine, 11/3, March 2000). His core belief
was that prejudices could be overcome by education and dialogue.
The target of this education and dialogue was not just
misunderstanding and prejudice in Turkish society, but the Armenian
community itself. Hrant?s critical discourse about the Armenian
community, and especially the Armenian patriarchate, was unpopular,
costing him supporters and even friends.
In June 2001, for example, on the occasion of the 1,700th anniversary
of Armenian Christianity, he wrote: ?The Armenian church has suffered
divisions throughout history and it is evident that it has not learned
from its own history.
The ?one nation – one church? rule, which has been repeated almost
everywhere during these last years, is nothing but a slogan void of
content? (see ?Spiritual Chess?, Agos, 1 June 2004 – translated from
Turkish by Anahit Dagci). At the same time, many found his passion,
genuine concern and sincerity disarming. Most people in the Armenian
community saw Agos as a courageous publication where issues related to
Armenian identity and community were discussed with refreshing
openness, reason and a genuine desire to build bridges across large
divides – whether within Turkey, with Armenia or with the diaspora.
In the course of this work, Hrant came to a profound realisation: that
the resolution of the problems of the Armenian community in Turkey was
intimately related to the progress of tolerance, democracy and freedom
in Turkey.
Armenians, here and there
Dogu Ergil observed after Hrant?s death that he had ?aimed to promote
the idea that there are other ethnic-cultural groups in Turkey than
Turks and Muslims, and (that) they can very well blend into the nation
cleansed of stereotypes and biases?. Hrant wanted, said Ergil, to
?defend Armenians against majority fanaticism in Turkey and to defend
Turks/ Turkey against the fanaticism and hypocrisy of foreigners and
diaspora Armenians? (see ??, EU Turkey Civic Commission, 25 January
2007).
In recent years, the ?Armenian issue? – as the problem of the genocide
is referred to in Turkey – had indeed become a central theme in
Hrant?s public discourse. The centrality of the ?Armenian issue?, in
fact, has come to cast a shadow over the other problems of the
Armenian community in Turkey: ownership of property, community
foundations, education of clergy, school administration,
and church elections among them. (Why, for example, should the affairs
of minorities in Turkey still be ?administered? by Turkey?s council of
ministers, interior ministry, the security and intelligence agencies,
and the foreign ministry?).
If the central, heated question of genocide came to dominate
discussion of Armenians and Turkey, it is one that Hrant Dink and a
considerable segment of the Armenian Diaspora could not agree on. On
the eve of the 24 April commemorations in 2002, for example, he
addressed members of the Armenian
diaspora in France in an interview with L?Express newspaper.
?Do not seek Armenian identity among the 1915 graves?, he advised. ?I
am ready to discuss all issues with you … I am proud to be a Turkish
Armenian. I want to represent, with my newspaper, the rebirth of this
society. Armenia will never be safe unless Turkey achieves
democratization. I believe Turkey may be a chance for that young state
which is on the brink of drowning. Tomorrow, thanks to Turkey, Armenia
will get the chance to become neighbors with the European Union.
Turkey is Armenia?s only chance? (Turkish Daily News, 23 April 2002).
More than the semantics of the issue, Hrant?s approach to the issue of
1915 and Turkey-Armenia relations focused on the substance of
reconciliation.
?I know what happened to my grandparents?, he told AFP. ?It does not
matter what you called it: genocide, massacres or deportation? (Agence
France Presse, 8 October 2000). Hrant strongly believed – to the
dismay of many in the diaspora – that the more essential thing was to
influence Turkish public opinion. ?The winning of the empathy and
compassion of the Turkish population is far more important than the
adoption of Armenian resolutions in hundreds of parliaments
elsewhere?. Hrant spent considerable time and energy in seeking to
persuade the diaspora that there is a new dynamic and a new openness
in Turkey, involving an unprecedented interest in and discussion of
Armenian issues. He said that ?this process has been developing very
slowly, just like the democratisation of Turkey?, in a way that
encouraged him to believe that ?the taboo (of 1915) too will be broken?.
Yet anyone who is familiar with ?breaking taboos? in Turkey knows the
extreme dangers involved in such a process.
Hrant himself was well aware of the possible consequences: ?We never
deny our own history. But Armenians (in Turkey) are unable to discuss
it for fear it will harm the community?s existence?
(see Ayla Jean Yackley, ?Turks confront dark chapter of Armenian
massacres?, Reuters, 26 April 2005).
In his response to this predicament, Hrant displayed one of his
largest virtues: courage. As he wrote in open Democracy in 2005:
?Where fear is dominant, it produces symptoms of resistance to change
at all levels of society. The more some people yearn and work for
openness and enlightenment, the more others who are afraid of such
changes struggle to keep society closed. In Turkey, the legal cases
against Hrant Dink, Orhan Pamuk, Ragip Zarakolu or Murat Belge are
examples of how the breaking of every taboo causes panic in the end.
This is especially true of the Armenian issue: the greatest of all
taboos in Turkey, one that was present at the creation of the state
and which represents the principal ?other? of Turkish national
identity? (??, 13 December 2005).
Hrant Dink ?was Turkey in its complexity?, wrote Dogu Ergil. ?He was a
Turk against Armenian extremism and an Armenian against Turkish
extremism.?
The day of Hrant Dink?s funeral was the evidence of how far Turkey had
travelled since that press conference at Istanbul?s Patriarchate in
1994. More than twelve years on, the Ermeni pic epithet hurled by
nationalists was overtaken by the cries of Hepimiz Ermeniz (?We are
all Armenians!?) in the throats of tens of thousands of Turks. Hrant
himself, in his life as much as his death, had played an enormous role
in bringing about that change. He opened the door to a future that
Armenians and Turks must find together.
OpenDemocracy.net
Hratch Tchilingirian is associate
director of the Eurasia Research
Programme at the Judge Business
School, Cambridge University
– Letter to the Editor of Asbarez
After centuries of being subjugated by foreigners, for the past 15
years we have finally become the masters of our own domain, capable of
shaping our own common destiny. Needless to say, the many centuries of
subjugation should serve as a powerful lesson for us to work closer
with each other, in order shape a worthwhile future for ourselves and
generations to come.
Thus, it is utterly incomprehensible as to why an Armenian would label
his fellow kin, who do not share his views, as ?a?holes?, ?idiots?,
?traitors?, who are ?rife with absurdity?, exhibit ?shameless style?,
?emit moribund rales? and who ?ought to be in rehab?. Unfortunately,
that is what Mr. Garen Yegparian has stated in his article published
in the February 24, 2007 issue of your publication. It truly saddens
us to find out that on the very same day of Hrant Dink?s
assassination, a man who championed dialogue even between enemies, Mr.
Yegparian has gone to the vigil not to pay his respects to the fallen
martyr, but to count how many people were in attendance.
The history of human civilization has shown that real progress is
achievable only through the clash of differing opinions and not by the
imposition of one?s views over others.
While we strongly condemn Mr. Yegparian?s vitriolic diatribes and
disagree with his views, we would not call for him to be put into
rehab, but rather be showcased as a role model. To achieve progress,
some role models ought to be followed, while others should be avoided
at all cost. Mr. Yegparian falls in the latter category.
Respectfully,
Gaidz Youth Organization
—
Massis Weekly Online
MassisWeekly.com
1060 N. Allen Ave, Suite 203
Pasadena, CA 91104
Tel. 626.797.7680
Fax. 626.797.6863