Genocide Denial and Freedom of Speech
In Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is engaged in a trial examining a case of “genocide-denial” between Turkish MP Dogu Perincek and the Armenian government. In 2007, the Turkish politician, who is head of the nationalist Workers’ Party, traveled to a conference in Switzerland where he said that the massacre of Armenians in 1915 was not a genocide. Swiss authorities found him guilty of racial discrimination, on account of the denial of the Armenian Genocide being considered a crime. The local authorities found him guilty of racial discrimination on account of it being illegal under Swiss law to deny the Armenian Genocide. In 2008, Perincek appealed the decision in the ECHR on the grounds that he was
protected by freedom of speech. In 2013, the Court ruled in his favor. The matter is still being reviewed, however, and has turned attention back to Turkey’s uncomfortable history with the Armenian Genocide and its own “free-speech” environment.
During World War I, the Ottoman Empire attempted to deport its entire Armenian population from their homeland in modern-day eastern Turkey to Syria, accusing them of being loyal to Russia. This mass expulsion resulted in an estimated 1.5 million deaths. Since independence, Armenia has lobbied the world to officially label the killings a “genocide”, something Ankara has constantly refuted. Currently, 22 countries worldwide recognize the Armenian Genocide, including Russia, Greece, and France, with the notable exception of the United States. Both Yerevan and Ankara are so strained by this controversy that they do not have formal diplomatic relations. The continuing dispute over this controversial term has resurfaced, now in the European Court of Human Rights.
Dogu Perincek argued that his expressions doubting the term “genocide” were protected by freedom of speech and were not racially motivated in any way. The ECHR declared that he was innocent on the grounds that there is no international consensus on the “Armenian Genocide” and thus Mr. Perincek could raise questions about its legal merits. However, representing the Armenian legal team during the appeal, lawyers Amal Clooney and Geoffrey Robertson have accused Mr. Perincek of abusing European free-speech laws to distort the historical record and get away with expressions that would not be permissible in Turkey. In their view, giving the Turkish MP credence on the Armenian Genocide could have adverse effects on the collective memory of the 1915 killings by promoting impunity for the perpetrator (Turkey) and inferiority for the victim (Armenia). Thus, denying the genocide against Armenia is a way to whitewash the historical record in a self-serving manner that removes the uniqueness of the victims’ suffering.
After the ECHR hearing, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that Turkey was ready to assume guilt for the Armenian Genocide – if found so. The President insisted on opening the historical archives and allowing “impartial” historians to evaluate and judge the case accordingly. For Turkey, the right to question the veracity of the Armenian genocide has become an issue of dignity, and for Armenia, so has the definitive recognition of its historical suffering.
In Turkey, it is illegal to call the events of 1915 a “genocide” because it insults the Turkish state, culture and identity – all of which are protected from free speech by the civil code. Ankara and its supporters, ever since the controversy began, have argued that the deportation of Armenians from eastern Turkey was a consequence of the Ottoman Empire’s collapse. During that period, many Muslims in Europe (notably in the Balkans) suffered persecution and massive suffering, and thus the Armenians should not be allowed to make their suffering unique. Freedom of speech has taken a downturn in Turkey as Erdogan’s AK Party continues to dominate politics. Turkey ranks 154 out of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders. In one occasion in 2014, Twitter and Youtube were banned in the country, until the Constitutional Court ruled against it. It would appear that the case over Armenia would follow the same fate, unless Ankara now sees a real benefit in opening up an honest discussion over the 1915 events.
Erdogan’s gambit shows a new willingness to approach the subject and finally move forward in normalizing Armenian-Turkish relations. In light of the reigniting tensions between Azerbaijan – a Turkic country that supports Ankara’s view of 1915 – and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian-Turkish rapprochement would indicate that Turkey is seeking to defuse tensions. With regards to the EU, Turkey’s integration process has slowed in recent years, but, nonetheless, coming to terms with its Ottoman past would boost Turkey’s image in Europe and across the world. Recently, in a sign of warming relations the Turkish government invited Armenia to join the commemoration of the Battle of Gallipoli of 1915. The process of reconciliation will certainly be tied to each other’s view on the Armenian genocide – and it is unlikely to see Yerevan back away from a cornerstone of its national history. The events of the Great War linger still today, and this dispute serves to remind us of the intricacies of crafting a mutually-agreed historical narrative, and of the necessity to do so.