Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Professor Khatchatur I. Pilikian
FromStatement to UK Parliament 19 January 2010

The Armenian term Medz Yeghern=Big Crime . . . .

===================

CRIME, atrocity, outrage, evil act-- this is the core meaning of "yeghern",
things that should NEVER happen. Not earthquakes and floods and forest fires. The term is NOT morally neutral. Survivors of the Genocide like A. Aharonian knew very well what they meant when they called it "Medz Yeghern". They didn't mean, as Turkish propagandists like to say, that some bad things just sort of happened. That's the genius of the term they handed down: a moral indictment is built into it, unlike the pre-"genocide" terms used by many other groups. And some people want to emasculate it and cover it up and disown it. A very big pity.

I'm surprised a composer/poet could say such an unsophisticated thing. Didn't he realise that a far deeper meaning could have been got by explaining that "Medz Yeghern" arose from an event that was so horrible that there was no terminology capable of neatly labeling it, and it could only be named by its survivors in an abstract way.

I've got the full text somewhere, so maybe his whole statement is not quite that crude all the way through. And of course, although it claimed to be a "Statement to UK Parliament", it was actually another of those "by Armenians for Armenians" things, so it might be intentionally unsophisticated.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

That's a ridiculous proposition. It's the equivalent of trying to convince people the word "gay" actually means "happy". Too bad but the word has been taken over by modern connotations whether you like or not. The same with the word "genocide". It doesn't matter if Lemkin coined the word for academic reasons. The fact is "genocide" is now a legal term by virtue of the international legal definition found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

It seems that Jos agrees 100% with the official Turkish viewpoint, the one that says that the so-called "Armenian genocide" cannot possible be called a genocide because "genocide" is a legal term, and no court has ever convicted or even accused any person or any state of committing "genocide" against Armenians, and until an appropriate court does decide the term is valid, the word "genocide" cannot be used. And no court could make such a judgement since there are no living defendants, and because, if genocide is only a legal term, both "genocide" and the "Crime of Genocide" did not exist before 1948.

[Eddo211]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

I am not sure how you conclude that i lack consciousness but i will tell you or anyone else that there are many more productive things you can be doing then trying to give a meaning to a phrase that obviously was not meant to express such a meaning. There is no dought about the illegal nature of the genocide but the phrase in question in no way deals with that aspect. The phrase is a discription of a unprecidentet so our people made up a name to describe it and they called it what they felt at the time. Sure there are plenty of legal implications to genocide but that is hardly what the people who coined the said phrase were thinking of, they just wanted to describe the undescribable and this is what they came up with. This phrase does indeed describe a terrible criminal act but that meaning is not inherent in the phrase itself.

Agreed.
To me "Medz Yeghern" comes across to me as an Armenian..........this one toped it all.

Londontsi: The cat is right....don't fall for the Turkish tricks.

[Jos]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

It seems that Jos agrees 100% with the official Turkish viewpoint, the one that says that the so-called "Armenian genocide" cannot possible be called a genocide because "genocide" is a legal term, and no court has ever convicted or even accused any person or any state of committing "genocide" against Armenians, and until an appropriate court does decide the term is valid, the word "genocide" cannot be used. And no court could make such a judgement since there are no living defendants, and because, if genocide is only a legal term, both "genocide" and the "Crime of Genocide" did not exist before 1948.

Rather than browbeating and second guessing, why don't you just explain your assertion that "Genocide" is NOT a legal word" when it clearly is according to International conventions and treaties. As a minimum you should acknowledge that the word may be interpreted broadly, including both legal and non-legal sources.

[levon]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

It seems that Jos agrees 100% with the official Turkish viewpoint, the one that says that the so-called "Armenian genocide" cannot possible be called a genocide because "genocide" is a legal term, and no court has ever convicted or even accused any person or any state of committing "genocide" against Armenians, and until an appropriate court does decide the term is valid, the word "genocide" cannot be used. And no court could make such a judgement since there are no living defendants, and because, if genocide is only a legal term, both "genocide" and the "Crime of Genocide" did not exist before 1948.

That's not a correct assertion. Genocide is a term to describe a specific type of crimes committed. There is no need for living defendants, as a judgment can be carried out without them if archived documents surrounding the case are enough to make a judgment. As such, one can say that the defendants (even if deceased) were guilty of genocide if such a judgment can be made based on the available documentation.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

That's not a correct assertion. Genocide is a term to describe a specific type of crimes committed. There is no need for living defendants, as a judgment can be carried out without them if archived documents surrounding the case are enough to make a judgment. As such, one can say that the defendants (even if deceased) were guilty of genocide if such a judgment can be made based on the available documentation.

Genocide does NOT describe a type of crime. The label "crime" is a statement of opinion by a select group. Something that is a "crime" this year may not have been a "crime" the year before, and (if those that make laws have second thoughts) may not be a "crime" next year. Yet that "something" that was firstly not criminal, then criminal, and then decriminalised, will remain exactly the same act. Only the label has changed.

And, again, you are agreeing with the official Turkish viewpoint: "Genocide is a term to describe a specific type of crimes committed". What court has said that Turkey has committed this specific type of crime?

[londontsi]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

And, again, you are agreeing with the official Turkish viewpoint:

Then why is Turkey spending millions as well as threats to forestall Genocide recognition by Governments?

Your argument is so bizarre.

[levon]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Genocide does NOT describe a type of crime. The label "crime" is a statement of opinion by a select group. Something that is a "crime" this year may not have been a "crime" the year before, and (if those that make laws have second thoughts) may not be a "crime" next year. Yet that "something" that was firstly not criminal, then criminal, and then decriminalised, will remain exactly the same act. Only the label has changed.

And, again, you are agreeing with the official Turkish viewpoint: "Genocide is a term to describe a specific type of crimes committed". What court has said that Turkey has committed this specific type of crime?

No, I'm not agreeing with the official Turkish viewpoint. Genocide is a word to describe specific types of crimes, namely, "crimes against humanity", which by their innate nature cannot be declassified to not be crimes. Yes, genocide is a legal word, however, the use of crimes in Crimes against humanity is used from a both moral and legal point of view. Genocide can be classified from both a scholarly/historical perspective and from a legal perspective. The nature of the word makes it perfectly acceptable to do both.

If murder weren't a crime 20,000 years ago, one may still look at an act, and classify it as murder, regardless of whether an official judgment has been carried out or not.

[Eddo211]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

This might help to understand, I have trouble myself.

It is known fact that "Genocide" used to be celebrated by the perpetrators in ancient past and monuments raised for its achievements, there was no hiding it or seeing it as evil...........but now it has raised a sense of moral horror and denial by the perpetrator government.

Is it a crime?

Genocide “The word is new, the crime is ancient.” This should read: “The word is new, the phenomenon ancient,”

Turkish argument:

"The Armenian leadership openly sided with the Ottoman Empire's enemies. Ottomans used their legitimate right of self-defense. The ex post facto inculpation of the Ottoman Empire by such a resolution violates Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, because the word and the concept of 'genocide' did not exist back in 1915.

"Second, the passage of the resolution would constitute a condemnation for a crime without trial and prosecution. It will contravene the principle of due process enshrined in the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution."

Turks also say "take us to court you Armenian". In fact they are lately planning on suing the 20 countries that have recognize AG.


“crime against humanity”

is defined in terms of a number of particular acts, including murder, extermination, and deportation or forcible transfer of population, but more widely, torture, apartheid, and “other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.” Any of these acts “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population” constitutes a crime against humanity. The key category here is “civilian population,” not particular groups as indicated in the Genocide Convention; and the question of intent is different from that required under the Convention: here no specific intent is required.
Though one can differentiate “genocide” and “crimes against humanity” in important respects, the two concepts overlap in many ways. And it is much easier to prosecute actions as crimes against humanity than as genocide; the former also have a wider reach, not being restricted to crimes against particular groups named in the Convention. So where do we go from here? I leave you with the view of William Schabas, one of the foremost authorities on the international law of genocide, who states that with the increased emphasis on crimes against humanity, the international community could dispense with the Genocide Convention.

“ethnic cleansing”

is often part of the genocidal process, and the term is also a euphemism used by the perpetrator to disguise what is actually taking place. But in theory, ethnic cleansing means using violence, rape, terror, and forced deportation to drive out or remove a particular group from a common territory. The emphasis is on creating a homogenous society through fear and expulsion, not as in genocide of annihilating the group.

[levon]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Thanks for the clarification Eddo jan, it does make things a little easier to understand.

Turks also say "take us to court you Armenian". In fact they are lately planning on suing the 20 countries that have recognize AG.

Of course, "take us to court" is just a ploy by Turkey to just continue their denial by dragging the court process and later claiming that other countries cannot recognize the genocide as it is still being considered in the courts.