Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 29 2015

Armenian genocide denial case comes before ECtHR

ORHAN KEMAL CENGÄ°Z
January 29, 2015, Thursday

Last week I was talking to a law professor from the US. To give him a
glimpse into the level of nationalism found in Turkey, I said, `Just
look at how all these Turkish people with different worldviews around
this table unite when I say something.’ Then I proceeded to say,
`Turkey still denies the Armenian genocide.’ Just as I had predicted,
the professor witnessed quite a heated debate over my words.

Most people in Turkey united behind DoÄ?u Perinçek in his case before
the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on Tuesday. It’s a long
story, but for those of you who do not know the Perinçek v.
Switzerland case, it can be summarized as follows: During a conference
in Switzerland, Perinçek said that the `Armenian genocide is an
international lie.’ He was given a prison sentence and fine under
Swiss laws punishing the denial of genocide. According to these laws,
to my understanding, denying any genocide constitutes hate speech or
racism.

Perinçek brought this case to the ECtHR, and the ECtHR found that he
breached Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights
regulating freedom of expression. This past Thursday an appeal hearing
on the case was held in Strasbourg.

I am personally a little ambivalent about punishing the denial of any
genocide unless the words concerned clearly constitute hate speech
targeting a certain vulnerable group. When it comes to freedom of
expression, the stakes are too high, and therefore limitations to it
should really be exceptional.

However, when I look at the comments and reactions to the case in
Turkey, I see that people see this case as the ECtHR’s refusal to
define the events of 1915 as genocide. People in Turkey should focus
on another case: the Taner Akçam v. Turkey case, in which the ECtHR
criticized and condemned Turkey for limiting the debate on Armenian
genocide with prosecution and the threat of prosecution under the
infamous Article 301 that prohibits `denigrating Turkishness.’

If people genuinely defend Perinçek’s freedom of expression concerning
the Armenian genocide, they should then defend people in Turkey who
claim that what happened in 1915 was genocide.

When it comes to freedom of expression, as I said above, there is a
clear and undisputable exception to it that should be banned and
punished: hate speech and threats. Just remember how `The Cut,’ a film
shot by Fatih Akın whose central theme is the events of 1915, was
received in Turkey. Even before it was shown in cinemas, Akın and
Agos, the Armenian-Turkish weekly that interviewed him about the film,
were openly threatened by several ultranationalist organizations. In
some of these threats posted on Twitter they even dared to say, `We
are watching you with our white berets.’ This was a reference to the
fact that Hrant Dink’s murderer was wearing a white beret when he shot
Dink from behind. I have not heard about anyone being arrested for
these threats. When Akın’s film hit theaters, only viewers above the
age of 18 were allowed to watch it.

You see, if we really wish to discuss `freedom of expression’ and the
Armenian genocide debate, there is still a long way to go in Turkey.
And focusing on the Perinçek case, in which the ECtHR rejected using a
prison sentence to punish genocide denial, would not bring anyone in
Turkey closer to furthering freedom of expression or enriching
democracy in this country.