Cyprus-Forum.com

[B25]

Hear, Hear to that hermes. Bravo re!

Don't listen to Banana's BS, he is just a turkish mouth peice looking to put us down at every opportunity.

[BirKibrisli]

... but Bir, to agree with you on one thing, this vote isn't gonna get anywhere. it's a private member's bill and it'll get thrown out at some time in the next few months, but Turkey's response to this minor bit of criticism is very revealing...

This over-sensitivity to anything remotely anti-Turkish and there is something of value for a future re-unified CY in all this and that's to remind us all, that there's no place for this rubbish, nationalist Section 301 stuff in CY.

Absolutely right,Bill...Not only this silly 301 stuff should have no place in Cyprus in a future solution,it should have no place now even in Turkey...Mature people,living in mature democracies should not need the protection of fascist,outdated laws that limit freedom of speech etc...

Bir me dear, if we take Article 10 of the UDHR to define our rights to Free Expression... section 1 acknowledges the right to Free Speech and section 2 goes on to recognise that there are limits on it. Here it is in full...

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

One of the many effects of these very limited limits is to stop nasty hate propaganda and trouble-making by such as neo-nazi Holocaust Deniers, fascist nationalists and fundamentalist religious groups. A reminder please that here in our major Cosmopolitan European cities we have very large communities of ethnic minorities that are the targets for these nasty groups, it is only right that they have protection from these attacks under the law.

Section 301 of course places limits on Free Speech and it does it for no good reason that most of us would recognise. It places very severe limits in order to promote or defend "turkishness" , and as a catch-all to defend the turkish state from criticism.

Now to move on a bit and to open another can of worms, there is another aspect of this French affair that moves us away from Free Speech. That is the issue of whether it is within the remit of states and governments to decide definitively on matters of history.

Bill,like you cannot be "a little" pregnant,you cannot have "a little" freedom of speech...
You either have it or you don't...Depending on your intend this freedom has its consequences,and people can be prosecuted for exercising their right...If they have broken any laws which are deemed necessary for the protection of national security etc,they can be found guilty or innocent in a court of law...Prosecuting people for stating their beliefs regarding any particular event in history,which does not threaten national security or the other stated reasons,is neither sensible nor morally justified...It is plain censorship...This should have no place in a mature democracy like France...

If national parliaments,read politicians in power in any given country,are able to decide on matters of history,especially on subjects not related to their own country,you can imagine the chaos that would follow...How would you like the Turkish parliament to decide on the Greece/Macedonian isue for example??? Or the Russian parliament to decide issues relating to Chechenia,Or the Chinese Polit Bureau to decide on Tibet>>>You can see my point ,I hope...

[Maximus]

Bill,like you cannot be "a little" pregnant,you cannot have "a little" freedom of speech...
You either have it or you don't...Depending on your intend this freedom has its consequences,and people can be prosecuted for exercising their right...If they have broken any laws which are deemed necessary for the protection of national security etc,they can be found guilty or innocent in a court of law...Prosecuting people for stating their beliefs regarding any particular event in history,which does not threaten national security or the other stated reasons,is neither sensible nor morally justified...It is plain censorship...This should have no place in a mature democracy like France...

If national parliaments,read politicians in power in any given country,are able to decide on matters of history,especially on subjects not related to their own country,you can imagine the chaos that would follow...How would you like the Turkish parliament to decide on the Greece/Macedonian isue for example??? Or the Russian parliament to decide issues relating to Chechenia,Or the Chinese Polit Bureau to decide on Tibet>>>You can see my point ,I hope...

so you support the abolishment of article 301 of the Turkish penal code and that Turkey should fully recognising the Armenian genocide?

please clarify.

[bill cobbett]

... but Bir, to agree with you on one thing, this vote isn't gonna get anywhere. it's a private member's bill and it'll get thrown out at some time in the next few months, but Turkey's response to this minor bit of criticism is very revealing...

This over-sensitivity to anything remotely anti-Turkish and there is something of value for a future re-unified CY in all this and that's to remind us all, that there's no place for this rubbish, nationalist Section 301 stuff in CY.

Absolutely right,Bill...Not only this silly 301 stuff should have no place in Cyprus in a future solution,it should have no place now even in Turkey...Mature people,living in mature democracies should not need the protection of fascist,outdated laws that limit freedom of speech etc...

Bir me dear, if we take Article 10 of the UDHR to define our rights to Free Expression... section 1 acknowledges the right to Free Speech and section 2 goes on to recognise that there are limits on it. Here it is in full...

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

One of the many effects of these very limited limits is to stop nasty hate propaganda and trouble-making by such as neo-nazi Holocaust Deniers, fascist nationalists and fundamentalist religious groups. A reminder please that here in our major Cosmopolitan European cities we have very large communities of ethnic minorities that are the targets for these nasty groups, it is only right that they have protection from these attacks under the law.

Section 301 of course places limits on Free Speech and it does it for no good reason that most of us would recognise. It places very severe limits in order to promote or defend "turkishness" , and as a catch-all to defend the turkish state from criticism.

Now to move on a bit and to open another can of worms, there is another aspect of this French affair that moves us away from Free Speech. That is the issue of whether it is within the remit of states and governments to decide definitively on matters of history.

Bill,like you cannot be "a little" pregnant,you cannot have "a little" freedom of speech...
You either have it or you don't...Depending on your intend this freedom has its consequences,and people can be prosecuted for exercising their right...If they have broken any laws which are deemed necessary for the protection of national security etc,they can be found guilty or innocent in a court of law...Prosecuting people for stating their beliefs regarding any particular event in history,which does not threaten national security or the other stated reasons,is neither sensible nor morally justified...It is plain censorship...This should have no place in a mature democracy like France...

If national parliaments,read politicians in power in any given country,are able to decide on matters of history,especially on subjects not related to their own country,you can imagine the chaos that would follow...How would you like the Turkish parliament to decide on the Greece/Macedonian isue for example??? Or the Russian parliament to decide issues relating to Chechenia,Or the Chinese Polit Bureau to decide on Tibet>>>You can see my point ,I hope...

Bir, as you're having trouble understanding that Free Expression comes with some very narrow limits let me give you another analogy that may be strike a chord with you and a second one ...

You may be a Fanatic Turkish Naturist who enjoys letting it all hang out around the home, perhaps in the company of like-minded Turks, which is fine, no problem with that, what Turkish Naturists choose to do in the privacy of their homes is up to them.... but you try going out in public with these fictional Turkish friends onto the streets of Perth, Adelaide, Sydney etc , exposing your doubtlessly huge Turkish Members and pollocks to public view, causing great distress and envy amongst passers-by, do you not think that you will be tapped on the shoulder by the police and dragged away to appear before the magistrates in the morning???

Now i other hand may be in the habit of going around in public, wearing dentures, frilly knickers and dresses... pretty unusual behaviour but well within Free Expression nowadays.

(Seasonal best wishes to you and yours mate .... and to any Turkish Naturist friends you may have)

[Lordo]

Hrant Dink: Turkey and France can race to see who can jail me first



The head editor of the Turkey-based Armenian "Agos" newspaper, Hrant Dink, has said this week that he will be heading for France to protest the bill that would call for punishment for those publicly denying the so-called Armenian genocide. Dink's announcement has awakened particular interest in that it comes in the wake of a year during which Dink himself was tried in Turkey for "insulting Turkishness" by defending the veracity of the Armenian genocide.

Commenting on the "genocide denial bill," which is scheduled to come before the French Parliament October 12, Dink said "When this bill appeared first, we were fast to declare as a group that it would lead to bad results......As you know, I have been tried in Turkey for saying the Armenian genocide exists, and I have talked about how wrong this is. But at the same time, I cannot accept that in France you could possibly now be tried for denying the Armenian genocide. If this bill becomes law, I will be among the first to head for France and break the law. Then we can watch both the Turkish Republic and the French government race against eachother to condemn me. We can watch to see which will throw me into jail first.....I really think that France, if it makes this bill law, will be hurting not only the EU, but Armenians across the world. It will also damage the normalizing of relations between Armenia and Turkey. What the peoples of these two countries need is dialogue, and all these laws do is harm such dialogue."

Above is a man who knows a thing or two about Genocides of all kind. Any ideas why he was not happy about this law?

[kimon07]

Hrant Dink: Turkey and France can race to see who can jail me first

Above is a man who knows a thing or two about Genocides of all kind. Any ideas why he was not happy about this law?

The logic behind Dink's stance is clear and square. If a country, a state, a regime of any kind penalises the denial of a historical event today, another one will be entitled to penalise the claim that this event did occur.
Let Turkey penalize the claim that the Genocide of the Armenians DID take place. Europe does not need to follow the practices of Turkey or any other tyrannical regime. Freedom of speech and thought should never be violated in Europe and the rest of the Free World. If you imitate the practices of such regimes then you lose the entitlement to condemn them and to demand from them that they stop them. On the other hand, it is the obligation of the Free World to RECOGNIZE officially the Armenian Genocide as was done with the Jewish Holocaust.

[bill cobbett]

Those who thought relations between Turkey and our new Israeli friends might improve are gonna be in for a long weight.

The Education Committee of the Israeli Knesset are today starting debates on whether to recognise the Genocide of Armenians...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ ... vh_nZgR9VA

[Kikapu]

What were the real reasons behind this bill, which was pushed by Sarkozy and France to make it a crime for those who would want to deny the "Armenian Genocide"?

France already secured recognising the Armenian Genocide 10 years earlier, so why wasn't that enough? Surely it wasn't just about this bill, but perhaps it had much more to do with getting Turkey upset enough for them to become politically clumsy and destructive as they did against Israel, for Turkey to have just as much political finesse at International level as a Bull would have in a china shop. So far Turkey had done exactly what Sarkozy wanted them to do. There really isn't anymore any purpose for this bill to go any further for it to become law to be passed by the senate, because Turkey has and is providing enough self destruction on their own, giving France all the ammunition it needs to take tough position on Ankara's recent arrogance and swagger towards the EU and France, in particular regarding Turkey's EU (not going anywhere) accession talks. When Sarkozy refused to take phone calls from Gül 3 days in a row before the bill passed in the lower house, Sarkozy's refusal to answer the phone was no less than a political "Fuck You" to Gül. It was a message to Gül and Erdogan and Davutoglu that they are not the regional superpower that they believe themselves to be and that they do not have any power within the EU to dictate anything on their own terms.

So now Turkey is doing a lot of "trash talk" about France, which may please the RoC, because I believe France will start becoming very involved and take a very aggressive approach with Turkey and her occupation of Cyprus. France may well become the major voice in the EU backing Cyprus in speaking against the Turkish Occupation on a EU territory and shut Turkey out from any and all involvement with the EU, and to go as far as removing Turkey's Custom's Union agreements with the EU, as well as become one of the contractors in the RoC's EEZ to drill for Oil & Gas, offering military protection for Cyprus within the EEZ against Turkey if needed. Sarkozy feeling tall after his stance against Gaddafi in Libya to victory, to have been the front man to initiate his removal by force where Turkey was objecting furiously at first before joining the efforts from way behind, but Erdogan was very quick to claim victory for Turkey in the end, which no doubt pissed off Sarkozy big time, was the reason as to why Sarkozy and Cameron got to Libya unannounced to rap up the oil contracts just a day before Erdogan was due to arrive while doing his "Arab Spring victory tour", which no doubt pissed off Erdogan big time.

I'm sure Sarkozy feels that Turkey is not a reliable NATO partner and would try and find a way to get Turkey out of NATO. This would have very little success, in which case, Sarkozy would try to convince many of the NATO members to leave NATO and for them to form another defence pact, a "EU Force", a force that would have the EU Values and Principles. If majority of the present NATO members leave NATO and join the new "EU Force", it will be a way to get Turkey out of Cyprus, with force if need be. The USA and the UK will then need to decide who's side they want to be on, Turkey's or the "EU Force". With Turkey's constant letdown of NATO members, it will be a matter of time before the UK and the USA walk away from NATO also and join the newly formed "EU Force". Sarkozy already proved that he can push aside leaders like Cameron when it comes to best interest of the EU and France, therefore, he would not be too hesitant to push aside the likes of Gül, Erdogan and Davutoglu for what's best for France and the EU. Time is on "Miserable Europe's" side to dictate what their future will look like, regardless what Turkey may think or want!

[Get Real!]

France to Recognise Turkish Genocide of Armenians?

Israel is also warming up to the idea. It doesn't look like a pleasant year for Turkey this 2012...

[bill cobbett]

As far back as 1987 the European Parliament described the matter as Genocide, without, quire rightly. holding modern-day Turkey "responsible"...

...Believes that the tragic events in 1915-1917 involving the Armenians living in the territory of the Ottoman Empire constitute genocide within the meaning of the convention on the prevention and the punishment of the crime of genocide adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948; Recognizes, however, that the present Turkey cannot be held responsible for the tragedy experienced by the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire and stresses that neither political nor legal or material claims against present-day Turkey can be derived from the recognition of this historical event as an act of genocide;...