Absolutely Disgusting

[Tongue]

Absolutely DISGUSTING! and that's an understatement..
Calling the Armenians Murderers, Cowards, a country smaller than the State of Connecticut, etc. from the top of their lungs on the streets of I believe NY. WE don't even insult the Turkish people and their country that way in our annual protests for the Armenian genocide recognition. Who are these people????????

sickening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcmGjOp0zYA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z8E7i9XkPw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxXD7EvgGJk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Iqqjkc6pkw

[muratkanat6907]

I know the answer of both quests but, I don't know why it was not recognized as "gencocide" officially, by the that organization?

Do you know who invented the word "Genocide"?
Do you know what event that person based the word on?

[Joseph]

UNITED NATIONS REPORT ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: UN 38th
Session, 1985.



Held under the aegis of the United Nations Sub-Commission
on Prevention of Discrimination and Protect of Minorities in
Geneva, Switzerland, August 5-30, 1985, the UN Sub-
Commission under Benjamin Whitaker, was comprised of a
panel of independent experts, who debated and reviewed all
the evidence, pro and con regarding the Armenian massacres
of 1915 and finally, by a majority vote of 15-2, with one
abstention, adopted the report on genocide, which the
following year was accepted by the higher body, the UN
Commission on Human Rights. It is Paragraph 24 of that
report that addresses the Armenian massacres as genocide
which was approved by the panel despite attempts by the
government of Turkey to thwart efforts at recognition that
often bordered on scandal in European newspapers.
This compilation reprises that important decision. Also
included is statement made by Paul Laurin of the International
Federation of Human Rights, as well as Paragraph 24, the
Sub-Commission’s report on the Armenian genocide,.
Included are other UN documents: Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; and the
Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations
to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

[Joseph]

Excerpts from
The UN Report on Genocide 1985
Paragraph 24 and the Armenian Genocide
1
THIRTY-EIGHTH SESSION
August 5-30 1985 Geneva, Switzerland
Statement by Mr. Laurin of the International
Federation of Human Rights
2
Genocide is the worst crime under international law, and any attempt to hide it or deny its existence
must be looked upon as a serious infringement of human rights, derogating from the rights of
peoples to their history, their memory, their dignity and their right to moral restitution.
My organization, which has protested in both the Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-
Commission at the deletion from the previous report of a paragraph
3
concerning the Genocide of
which Armenians have been victims in the Ottoman Empire, welcomes the fact that Mr. Whitaker
has covered the topic in his latest report.
‡
Evidence of that massacre has been provided in numerous diplomatic documents of the various
countries, including Germany, which had been Turkey's ally during the First World War.
The premeditated nature of the acts aimed at the systematic and organized extermination of all
Armenians living in their own historical territory and in the rest of the Ottoman Empire has been
amply documented.
In 1923 and 1926, my organization urged the League of Nations to ensure that Armenians who had
survived the massacre were given sufficient territory to guarantee their national life.
The acts committed against the Armenians meet the definition of genocide given in the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
1
This document was prepared by Heritage Publishing to commemorate the 50
th
anniversary of the signing of the
Genocide Convention. While containing the text of official UN documents, it is not a publication of the UN. It reprises
key UN documents and Paragraph 24 of the UN report prepared by Benjamin Whitaker in 1985. It also includes
statements made by Paul Laurin of the International Federation of Human Rights during the proceedings. Paragraph 24
and its footnote of the Revised and Updated Report on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide prepared by Benjamin Whitaker noted the massacres of Armenians in 1915-1916 as genocide. The report was
adopted by a 15-4 majority of the panel of experts in the Sub-Commission, thereby recognizing the massacres of
Armenians in 1915-16 as genocide. [38 U.N. ESCOR Commission On Human Rights, Sub-Commission. on Prevention
of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, (Agenda Item 4), 8-9, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6 (1985)].
2
Mr. Laurin’s speech was one of many excellent statements read into the record and is available from:
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES DROITS DES
L'HOMME (FIDH). 27 Rue Jean-dolent, F-75014, Paris, France
.
3
The previous report, Paragraph 30, was prepared by Rwandan U.N. Rapporteur Nicodeme Ruhashyankiko in 1978.
U
nited
N
ations
S
ub
C
ommission on
P
revention of
D
iscrimination
and
P
rotection of
M
inorities
Page 2
United Nations Human Rights Commission
SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
2
The Armenians are still suffering from the tragedy that befell them at the beginning of the
century, since they are still deprived the right to their history. The silence of the international
community adds to their sufferings.
To recognize the right of a people to its history is also to recognize its right to existence, and
that concept should form part of the overall concept of human rights and the rights of peoples.
The Genocide of the Armenians forms part of the universal conscience and the collective
memory. Recognition of the existence of genocide is an essential prerequisite for its prevention.
The United Nations came into being largely as a result of the genocide committed during the
Second World War against the Jewish and gypsy populations in Europe.
One of the foremost tasks of the United Nations is to prevent the crime of genocide, with
particular reference to the crimes committed prior to its establishment. Prevention is difficult
unless past crimes of genocide are acknowledged by the international community.
The international community has a duty to oppose all efforts to manipulate history. Knowledge
of the historical facts constituting the crime of genocide, which have dishonored and are still
dishonoring the societies of the world, should be passed on to future generations so that the
case of those who denied the existence of that crime will not be strengthened by forgetfulness.
PARAGRAPH 24
(and its Footnote)
of the REPORT
‡
on the
"PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
."
From the Report prepared by Mr. Benjamin Whitaker
Toynbee stated that the distinguishing characteristics of the twentieth century in evolving the
development of genocide “are that it is committed in cold blood by the deliberate fiat of holders
of despotic political power, and that the perpetrators of genocide employ all the resources of
present-day technology and organization to make their planned massacres systematic and
complete”
The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth
century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of
Hereros in 1904, the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916
1
, the Ukrainian pogrom
of Jews in 1919, the Tutsi massacre of Hutus in Burundi in 1965 and 1972, the Paraguayan
massacre of Ache Indians prior to 1974, the Khmer Rouge massacre of Kampuchea between
1975 and 1978, and the contemporary Iranian killings of Baha'is.
Apartheid is considered separately in paragraphs 43-46. A number of other cases may be
suggested. It could seem pedantic to argue that some terrible mass killings are legalistically not
genocide, but on the other hand it could be counter-productive to devalue genocide through
over diluting its definition.
1
At least 1 million, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated by independent
authorities and eye-witnesses to have been killed or death marched. This is corroborated by reports in United States,
German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally
Germany. The German Ambassador, Wangenheim, for example, on 7 July 1915 wrote “the government is indeed
pursuing its goal of exterminating the Armenian race in the Ottoman Empire” (Wilhelmstrasse archives). Though
Page 3
United Nations Human Rights Commission
SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
3
the successor Turkish Government helped to institute trials of a few of those responsible for the massacres at which
they were found guilty, the present official Turkish contention is that genocide did not take place although there
were many casualties and dispersals in the fighting, and that all the evidence to the contrary is forged. See, inter
alia, Viscount Bryce and A. Toynbee, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16 (London,
HMSO, 1916); G. Chaliand and Y. Ternon, Génocide des Arméniens (Brussels, Complexe, 1980); H. Morgenthau,
Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story (New York, Doubleday, 1918); J. Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien (Potsdam,
1921; shortly to be published in French by Fayard, Paris); R.G. Hovannisian, Armenian on the Road to
Independence (Berkeley, University of California, 1967); Permanent People’s Tribunal, A Crime of Silence
(London, Zed Press, 1985); K. Gurun, Le Dossier Arménien (Ankara, Turkish Historical Society, 1983); B.Simsir
and others, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (Istanbul, Bogazici University Press, 1984); T. Ataov, A Brief Glance
at the “Armenian Question” (Ankara, University Press, 1984); V. Goekjian, The Turks before the Court of History
(New Jersey, Rosekeer Press, 1984); Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, Armenia, the Continuing
Tragedy (Geneva, World Council of Churches, 1984); Foreign Policy Institute, The Armenian Issue (Ankara, FPI.,
1982).
______________________
‡
See Benjamin Whitaker, Revised and updated report on the question of the prevention and punishment of the
crime of genocide, 38 U.N. ESCOR Comm. On Human Rights, Subcomm. on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities, (Agenda Item 4), 8-9, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6 (1985).
________________________

[Joseph]

From 2005

Turkish Leaders Going Berserk With Anti-Genocide Obsession

By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

Turkish leaders are literally going out of their minds; desperately searching for any and all possible ways to counter the commemorations of the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Of course, it would have been much simpler and more honest for them to simply face up to their own history and to tell the truth. Unfortunately, that seems to be asking too much!

Last week, the Turks found a new ploy: holding a parliamentary hearing on the Armenian Genocide. This was a very unusual hearing. They invited three Turkish Armenians to testify. These Armenians knew full well that whatever they say, can and will be used against them. Two of the three managed to say as much as they could under the circumstances, and they were chastised severely for "speaking like Diaspora Armenians!" The third Armenian was a total sell-out. He probably did not want to take a chance with his life! Not surprisingly, no one interrupted his speech.

The Turkish leaders' obsession with the denial of the Armenian Genocide totally blinded them to the fact that by holding such a sham hearing, they were, first of all, undermining their own interests. For years, Turkish officials have reacted with disdain toward the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by other countries, by saying that historians should deal with this issue rather than politicians. Now that their own parliament has held a hearing on this issue, the Turks have unwittingly accepted the Armenian Genocide resolutions adopted by the legislatures of more than a dozen countries, as well as the European Parliament, the United Nations, and other international organizations.

To make matters worse, during the past couple of weeks, various Turkish officials have made aggressive statements that further publicized the commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Here are some examples:

-- Turkish Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Gul said in Ankara on March 22: "I launch a call to countries who became a tool of the Armenian allegations: Either you account for what you have done, or prove the allegations [on the Armenian Genocide]." In the same speech, Gul foolishly asked: "If it [genocide] had happened, so why the Armenian churches still exist? Why there are Armenian citizens in Turkey?" For a diplomat, Gul is amazingly ignorant of the fact that the UN defines genocide as the killing of a people "in whole or in part." Genocide does not mean that all the members of a race have to be killed in order to commit genocide. Otherwise, according to Gul's definition of genocide, the Holocaust also does not qualify as genocide, since there are still Jews living in this world, and even in Germany! In addition, we don't need to remind Gul about the destruction of hundreds of Armenian, Greek and Assyrian churches in Turkey, which is cultural genocide!

-- Threatening more aggressive actions against the Armenian "claims," Gul said the Turkish Parliament would hold a special session this week to announce a new action plan. Interestingly, he now backs away from the Turkish government's announced intention of taking the Armenian issue to the United Nations. One of his advisors must have finally reminded him that the U.N. already dealt with this issue back in 1985 and categorized the Armenian Genocide as a genocide! Fearing more embarrassment at the U.N., Gul said: "The U.N. may make mistakes in voting. Individuals raising their hands to vote may vote wrongly based on political gains and interests. History has many examples of voting that proved to be fallacious." Too bad. Gul wisely sidestepped another humiliating experience for Turkey!

-- No to be outdone by Gul in displaying his nationalistic credentials, the Turkish President, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, sternly warned the Europeans last week that Turkey would not bow to European Union pressure to recognize the Armenian Genocide, as a condition of joining the EU. Armenians, in conjunction with the majority of Europeans who oppose Turkey's EU membership, have to make it crystal clear to the Turks that they would do everything in their power to prevent Turkey from joining the EU, unless it recognizes the Armenian Genocide and make appropriate amends for it.

Significantly, all of these developments on the Armenian Genocide have taken place weeks before a single Armenian commemorative activity has been held. Once the worldwide commemorative events start, the Turkish leaders would probably go totally berserk!

[Joseph]

Financial Times

All in a good cause
By Angus Watson

FT
February 24 2007 02:00

On January 19 2007, the Armenian-Turkish writer Hrant Dink was shot
dead for something he didn't say. A 17-year-old named Ogün Samast
confessed to the murder: "I read on the internet that he said: 'I am
from Turkey, but Turkish blood is dirty', and I decided to kill him. I
have no regrets." Dink had said nothing of the sort. However, he had
been charged repeatedly under Article 301 of Turkey's penal code,
which makes it a crime to insult "Turkishness", and so was on a hate
list for ultra-nationalistic Turks.

"There is increasing international awareness that Article 301 led
directly to Dink's death," says Caroline McCormick, executive director
of International PEN, a charity that champions freedom of speech, or,
as PEN member Tom Stoppard points out: "not free speech - one cannot
shout 'Fire!' in a crowded cinema - but free comment on the way that
society operates."


In Turkey, International PEN is using its weight as literature
representative for Unesco and adviser to the European Union on
Turkey's membership: "We are trying to have 301 abolished," explains
McCormick. "I think we have a realistic chance."

Turkish writer Elif Shafak was arrested last year under 301 for the
views of a fictional character in her novel The Bastard of Istanbul:
"International PEN was very active before and during my trial," she
says. Despite her acquittal, however, she has "become more anxious
when writing. Laws such as Article 301 breed self-censure and that is
their biggest danger. Self-censure is worse than any legal fine."

Defending writers' freedom is just one role of International
PEN. McCormick says: "PEN has three goals. First, to promote
literature. This goal is often overlooked, when it's the frame of
reference for everything we do. The second is freedom of expression,
the third to develop a world community of writers and readers."

The charity was founded in London in 1921 for Poets, Playwrights,
Essayists and Novelists (PPEN became PEN), and early members included
Joseph Conrad and HG Wells. Membership is now open to all professional
writers, and PEN has 15,000 members in 144 centres in 101
countries. It is funded by membership, bodies such as Unesco, national
governments, and corporate and private sponsorship.

International PEN is a "bottom-up" construction, in that local PENs
are created by writers who form a group then apply to the central
body. Stoppard explains the inspiration to form a PEN: "I always felt
that being a writer was somewhere between a stroke of luck and a
privilege. Joining PEN helps offset that feeling of privilege."

A PEN is currently forming in Iraq. McCormick is at pains to point out
that this was instigated by Iraqi writers. Shafak says: "It is very
important that International PEN's work is a collaboration. When a
western organisation's move is interpreted as an 'outside
intervention' it serves only to create a backlash."

Stoppard says: "When

I joined PEN there was a rallying cry that we couldn't do anything for
anybody else's freedom if we didn't look after our own . . . Yet
there's been continuous encroachment on personal liberty here [in
Britain]. Regulations that lay down markers for how we behave are
proliferating. This erosion of freedom is actually more insidious than
locking up a high-profile writer. For someone who's just had their
seventh grandchild,

I think life is pretty depressing but I like to think that it would be
worse without PEN. "

Last year English PEN launched its Freedom of Expression Is No Offence
campaign. Perhaps we should express ourselves by rallying behind it.

_www.internationalpen.org.uk_ (http://www.internationalpen.org.uk) ,
tel: +44 (0)20-7405 0338