Tag: Petition

  • Support the Victims of Police Brutality in Armenia

    Support the Victims of Police Brutality in Armenia

    According to İndigogo Men beaten, women & children attacked, cars destroyed, cameras & phones seized ….in Armenia. Why?

     

    Appeal for Financial Support to Compensate Armenian Victims of State-Sponsored Terror Committed on January 31, 2015

    Dear Friends,

    The regime in Armenia and its subordinates in Stepanakert committed a large-scale state-sponsored terrorist act on January 31, 2015.  The police, including Special Forces units armed with sniper rifles and automatic weapons, brutally attacked the motorcade of “The Centennial Without this Regime”.  The participants of the motorcade, which included entire families, were completely peaceful.  Their point was only to distribute information and yet, the police who were supposed to protect them attacked them.

    The police blockaded the peaceful motorcade on the Syunik to Artsakh highway. Despite the fact that the participants obeyed the demand of the police that the motorcade should turn around, the police attacked them as they were trying to turn around and leave.  Several, among them Artsakh war heroes and an independent journalist, were brutally beaten and required hospitalization.  Others, including women and children, were assaulted; all the while the vehicles themselves were being attacked and severely damaged.

    As a result of this violent attack, organized by the regime, 20 vehicles were damaged, 3 professional cameras were seized from the journalists, numerous smart phones, which were being used to record the mayhem, were violently taken from the participants.  The total amount of the damages is around $40,000.00.

    Most of the individuals who have suffered monetary damages have modest economic means, which makes it very difficult for them to replace or repair their material losses.  We must help them compensate their damages.  We must do it not just because they need and deserve it, but because whatever our beliefs we must keep Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Movement safe in Armenia.  The way to do that is to lend a helping hand to the innocent people who suffered only because they exercised what should be their right in their own country.

    In whatever way you can, take this small but incredibly valuable moment to help, and share this story with your friends and family!

    For those who can not make a donation with a Credit Card or PayPal through Indiegogo, you may contribute directly to Founding Parliament by other means provided at http://himnadir.am/donate

    Below is the full video, clearly showing the despicable nature of the attack.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbF33yx8jpo:

  • Open letter on Perinçek v. Switzerland case

    Open letter on Perinçek v. Switzerland case

    Open letter (slightly revised) rebutting Armenian claims submitted by Ferruh Demirmen to Swiss Interior Department on ECHR’s decision on Perinçek v. Switzerland.

    February 24, 2014

    An Open Letter to:
    Madame la Conseillère fédérale
    Simonetta Sommaruga
    Cheffe du Département fédéral de justice et police (DFJP)
    Palais fédéral ouest
    CH-3003 Berne, SWITZERLAND

    Dear Madame Sommaruga,

    This open letter is being submitted by a concerned citizen as a rebuttal of an open letter sent to you by a group called “concerned genocide scholars” regarding the December 17, 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Perinçek v. Switzerland.

    In their February 16, 2014 letter, the “scholars” take issue with ECHR’s position that genocide is a precisely defined legal concept that is not easy to prove, and that the historical record on the 1915 events is a matter of debate. The “scholars” argue that the 1915 events constitute “genocide,” and request that you re-examine the Court’s judgment. This letter will endeavor to establish that the arguments advanced by the “scholars” are incomplete and specious.

    The “scholars” assert that Ottoman “mass killings” of Armenians conform to the definition of Article 2 of the 1948 U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). But such assertion is based only on a partial reading of the Convention. That Convention, in fact, is the Achilles’ heel of the “Armenian genocide” thesis. For Article 2, while describing genocide as, in part, killing or causing serious harm to the members of a group, makes two additional provisos: (1) there must be intent, (2) the targeted victims should belong to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The “scholars” conveniently ignore these two provisos.

    Ottoman government archives contain incontestable evidence that the relocation of Armenians in 1915 was not related in any way to nationality, religion, etc., but to military exigency in time of war, which was being fought on multiple fronts. Rebellious armed Armenian groups were aiding and abetting the enemy and sabotaging the Ottoman army from behind, and the government had to intervene. In other words, Armenians were subjected to relocation not because of their religion or ethnicity, but because they posed grave security threat in time of war. Armenians in the western part of Anatolia were spared from relocation orders because they did not pose a security threat. The central government orders to local authorities made it clear that the security of Armenian convoys during relocation should be ensured, and that all necessary precautions should be taken to meet their needs during and after relocation.

    There was no intent to harm the Armenians; but war conditions including lawlessness, chaos, disease, and famine, gave rise to tragic events on both sides.

    The fact that Armenians in the western part of Anatolia were spared from relocation orders belies accusations that the 1915 events were religion or ethnicity-related.

    Russian archives also reveal that religion and ethnicity were not causal factors behind the relocation orders, that relocation was conceived as a measure of self-defense by the Ottoman government, and that the tragic events were inter-communal in nature.

    Considering the above facts, and viewed in its fuller context, Article 2 of the 1948 Convention negates the genocide argument advanced by the “scholars.” The “scholars” cannot pick and choose a portion of Article 2 and ignore the rest.

    Equally important, the 1948 Convention contains a stipulation, in Article 6, that those charged with the crime of genocide should be tried by a competent tribunal in the state where the act was committed, or by an international penal tribunal whose jurisdiction is recognized by the contracting parties. In other words, to establish the crime of genocide, a court verdict is a sine qua non. The judgments by the Nuremberg Tribunal post-World War II, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) more recently on the Rwanda and Srebrenica events are examples to such verdicts.

    There exists no court verdict, however, on alleged “Armenian genocide.” The Malta Tribunal, convened by the victorious British after World War I to prosecute 144 high-ranking Ottoman officials on charges of killing Armenians, yielded not a single conviction. Among those detained for trial were cabinet ministers, the Grand Vizier and Army Commanders. The Armenian Patriarchate at Istanbul was the principal source of information against the accused, but the evidence was too flimsy for formal prosecution. Even the search of the U.S. State Department files in Washington failed to produce incriminating evidence. After two years of investigation, all Malta detainees were released and returned to Turkish soil.

    It is interesting that in referring to the opinions of France, the United Kingdom and Russia in their 1915 joint declaration, the “scholars” do not mention the Malta Tribunal. The Malta Tribunal drew its jurisdictional authority from these three powers, and its findings were binding on the three powers.

    So, Article 6 of the 1948 Convention also negates the genocide assertions of the “scholars.” What Article 6 establishes, in principle, is that neither parliaments nor a group of academics can pass judgment on an alleged genocide crime. A verdict by a duly authorized court of law is a must. The “scholars” ignore this very fundamental precept contained in the 1948 Convention.

    In conclusion, the 1948 Convention, which is the fundamental international covenant bearing on genocide determination, completely vitiates the genocide thesis when viewed in its entirety. The “scholars do not have the luxury to use only a portion of the covenant to establish their case.

    The “scholars” note that in 1997 the “International Association of Genocide Scholars” passed a resolution recognizing the Ottoman massacres of Armenians as genocide. That may be so, but a large number of scholars hold the opposite view. In 1985, for example, 69 U.S. historians and researchers passed a unanimous resolution, addressed to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and published in New York Times and The Washington Post, refuting Armenian allegations. These were academicians specializing in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies. Many of these academicians were subsequently harassed or intimidated by the pro-genocide camp.

    The conclusion is inescapable, as ECHR observed, that there is no consensus among historians and scholars on the 1915 events. And that is not taking into account the views of Turkish researchers and historians.

    In their letter the “scholars” indirectly draw an analogy between Holocaust and the 1915 events. Such analogy is not only grotesque, but more bluntly, obscene. Jews of Nazi Germany did not rise in armed rebellion against the state, did not embark on a rampage of violence against the local population, did not join the ranks of an invading army, did not sabotage the German army behind the front lines, and in general did not engage in perfidious acts. Their only “crime” was not being of the “Aryan race.” Race was the motive behind the killings.

    The Nazis did not court-martial those implicated with wrongdoing against the Jews, as did the Ottomans prosecute those accused of mistreating Armenians during relocation. Nor did the Nazis deliberately spare Jews as “good citizens” in some parts of the Reich, or award meritorious awards to Jews, as did the Ottomans to Armenians. The Ottomans, having long embraced Armenians in high-ranking positions in the government, including generals and cabinet ministers, did not spread racist, scurrilous lies about the Armenian minority. And the Armenians certainly did not perish in gas chambers.

    To broaden their horizon on the 1915 events, the “scholars” should perhaps read, if they have not already, the admissions of Boghos Nubar Pasha at the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919, and the manifesto issued by Johannes Kachaznuni at the Dashnak convention in Bucharest in March 1923. It would be like hearing the truth from the horse’s mouth. More than half of a million Muslims lost their lives at the hands of Armenian guerillas who fought a losing battle relying on false promises of imperial Western powers and the Tsarist Russia. Even the Russian officers on the scene were troubled by the severity of violence inflicted by the Armenian guerillas on Muslims.

    And the terror inflicted was not confined to Muslims. As stated by Albert J. Amateau, a rabbi born in Turkey and later emigrated to America, in a testimony sworn before a notary public in California in 1989, Armenian atrocities also extended to Jews, and even to Armenian families who refused to cooperate with the armed guerillas.

    In their letter the “scholars” attempt to link the tragic murder of Hrant Dink to genocide controversy, and claim that Turkey has “one of the worst” records on human rights “over the past decades.” This is a slanderous attack aimed at Turkey, and it is deplorable. Dink was murdered by a deranged fanatic, and the facts behind the assassination are still unknown. More than 100,000 Turkish people took to the streets in Istanbul to protest Dink’s murder. Mention of human rights by the “scholars” is particularly ironic, considering that their list of signatories is headed by none other than Taner Akçam, an ex-convict and a prison escapee who advocated violence and was imprisoned for terrorist activities in Turkey. Akçam is now a protégée and beneficiary of the Armenian lobby.

    And speaking of human rights, it is curious that the “scholars” failed to mention the ASALA/JCAG terror that took more than 40 innocent lives, most of them Turkish diplomats, during 1973-1991. Not only did the committees funded by Armenian organizations pay for the legal defense of the majority of terrorists, but several prominent Armenians and pro-Armenian “scholars” testified in the trials of the terrorists. One terrorist, after his release from the French prison, was welcome as a hero in Armenia. So much about concern for “human rights”!

    Incidentally, how many Armenians took to the streets to protest the killing of Turkish diplomats and their families by the ASALA/JCAG terror?

    It is a known fact that Turkey and Armenia cannot agree on legal characterization of the 1915 events. That being the case, one wonders why the “scholars” have not urged Armenia to file a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Established in 1945, ICJ is the primary judicial arm of the U.N. to settle legal disputes submitted by states. A court case undertaken by ICJ would require all historical archives to be open, due process to apply, and the evidentiary material scrutinized for probity. The only reasonable explanation for the stance of the Armenian side is that it finds a judicial process too risky for its taste.

    The Armenian side, instead, has over the years relied on propaganda in public arena, where bias and prejudice play a large role, and financial resources can be deployed aplenty.

    It is refreshing that the “scholars” make a concession in their letter: They agree with the notion of freedom of expression articulated by ECHR. It is impossible not to be sarcastic about their newly-found concern for this basic human right. Over the years these “scholars” attended conferences where presence of academics opposing their genocide thesis was not welcome. Did the “scholars” express any freedom of expression concern when, in 1995, a French court fined historian Prof. Bernard Lewis because he did not subscribe to the genocide thesis, or when, in 2007, Dr. Doğu Perinçek was convicted by a Swiss court for the same reason? And what was the reaction of the “scholars” when the French Senate passed a bill in 2011 (later overturned) that criminalizes denial of “Armenian genocide”?

    One additional comment in this context is noteworthy. The “scholars” use the word “denialist” to refer to those who reject their genocide assertions. “Denialist” is a pejorative term, and its use is a breach of academic decorum. It is also a sign of arrogance. How would the “scholars” like if their colleagues in the opposing camp call them “distortionists” or “fabricators”?

    To wrap up, characterization of the 1915 events as “genocide” is incompatible with the definition of this term as prescribed in the 1948 U.N. Convention. “Genocide” is a legal construct, and should not be used to further political aims. The suffering on the Armenian side in the 1915 events cannot be denied; but the suffering on the Turkish side also deserves recognition. After a century, it is time for the two sides to reconcile their differences without further recrimination, and move on. We don’t need new generations poisoned with “genocide” controversy.

    It is hoped that the Swiss government will accept the judgment of ECHR as final.

    Respectfully yours,

    (hard copy signed)

    Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.
    (address)

    Appendix
    SIGNATORIES TO MAY 19, 1985 STATEMENT ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS PUBLISHED IN NEW YORK TIMES AND WASHINGTON POST:

    RIFAAT ABOU-EL-HAJ
    Professor of History, California State University at Long Beach
    SARAH MOMENT ATIS
    Professor of Turkish Language & Literature, University of Wisconsin at Madison
    KARL BARBIR
    Associate Professor of History, Siena College, New York
    ILHAN BASGOZ
    Director of the Turkish Studies, Department of Uralic & Altaic Studies, Indiana University
    DANIEL G. BATES
    Professor of Anthropology, Hunter College, City University of New York
    ULKU BATES
    Professor of Art History, Hunter College, City University of New York
    GUSTAV BAYERLE
    Professor of Uralic & Altaic Studies, Indiana University
    ANDREAS G. E. BODROGLIGETTI
    Professor of Turkic & Iranian languages, University of California at Los Angeles
    KATHLEEN BURRILL
    Associate Professor of Turkish Studies, Columbia University
    RODERIC DAVISON
    Professor of History, George Washington University
    WALTER DENNY
    Associate Professor of Art History & Near Eastern Studies, University of Massachusetts
    DR. ALAN DUBEN
    Anthropologist & Researcher, New York City
    ELLEN ERVIN
    Assistant Professor of Turkish Researches, New York University
    CAESAR FARAH
    Professor of Islamic & Middle Eastern History, University of Minnesota
    CARTER FINDLEY
    Associate Professor of History, Ohio State University
    MICHAEL FINEFROCK
    Professor of History, College of Charleston, South Carolina
    ALAN FISHER
    Professor of History, Michigan State University
    CORNELL FLEISCHER
    Assistant Professor of History, Washington University (Missouri)
    TIMOTHY CHILDS
    Professorial Lecturer at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University
    SHAFIGA DAULET
    Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Connecticut
    JUSTIN MCCARTHY
    Associate Professor of History, University of Louisville, Kentucky
    JON MANDAVILLE
    Professor of the History of the Middle East, Portland State University, Oregon
    RHOADS MURPHEY
    Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern Languages & Cultures & History, Columbia University
    PIERRE OBERLING
    Professor of History, Hunter College, City University of New York
    ROBERT OLSON
    Associate Professor of History, University of Kentucky
    DONALD QUATAERT
    Associate Professor of History, University of Houston
    WILLIAM GRISWOLD
    Professor of History, Colorado State University
    WILLIAM HICKMAN
    Associate Professor of Turkish, University of California at Berkeley
    JOHN HYMES
    Professor of History, Glenville State College, West Virginia
    RALPH JAECKEL
    Visiting Assistant Professor of Turkish, University of California at Los Angeles
    JAMES KELLY
    Associate Professor of Turkish, University of Utah
    PETER GOLDEN
    Professor of History, Rutgers University, New Jersey
    TOM GOODRICH
    Professor of History, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
    ANDREW COULD
    Ph.D. in Ottoman History, Flagstaff, Arizona
    MICHAEL MEEKER
    Professor of Anthropology, University of California at San Diego
    THOMAS NAFF
    Professor of History & Director, Middle East Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania
    WILLIAM OCHSENWALD
    Associate Professor of History, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
    WILLIAM PEACHY
    Assistant Professor of the Judaic & Near Eastern Languages & Literatures, Ohio State University
    HOWARD REED
    Professor of History, University of Connecticut
    TIBOR HALASI-KUN
    Professor Emeritus of Turkish Studies, Columbia University
    J. C. HUREWITZ
    Professor of Government, Emeritus, Former Director, Middle East Institute (1971-1984) , Columbia University
    HALIL INALCIK
    Member of the of Arts & Sciences, Professor of Ottoman History, University of Chicago
    RONALD JENNINGS
    Associate Professor of History & Asian Studies, University of Illinois
    KERIM KEY
    Adjunct Professor, Southeastern University, Washington, D.C.
    DANKWART RUSTOW
    Distinguished University Professor of Political Science, Graduate Center, City University of New York
    STANFORD SHAW
    Professor of History, University of California at Los Angeles
    METIN KUNT
    Professor of Ottoman History, New York University
    AVIGDOR LEVY
    Professor of History, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts
    DR. HEATH W. LOWRY
    Institute of Turkish Studies Inc. Washington, D.C.
    JOHN MASSON SMITH, JR.
    Professor of History, University of California at Berkeley
    ROBERT STAAB
    Assistant Director of the Middle East Center, University of Utah
    JAMES STEWART-ROBINSON
    Professor of Turkish Studies, University of Michigan
    FRANK TACHAU
    Professor of Political Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
    DAVID THOMAS
    Associate Professor of History, Rhode Island College
    WARREN S. WALKER
    Home Professor of English & Director of the Archive of Turkish Oral Narrative, Texas Tech University
    WALTER WEIKER
    Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University, New Jersey
    MADELINE ZILFI
    Associate Professor of History, University of Maryland
    ELAINE SMITH
    Ph.D. in Turkish History, Retired Foreign Service Officer, Washington, DC
    EZEL KURAL SHAW
    Associate Professor of History, California State University, Northridge
    FREDERICK LATIMER
    Associate Professor of History (Retired), University of Utah
    BERNARD LEWIS
    Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern History, Princeton University
    GRACE M. SMITH
    Visiting Lecturer in Turkish, University of California at Berkeley
    DR. SVAT SOUCEK
    Turcologist, Oriental Division, New York Public Library
    JUNE STARR
    Associate Professor of Anthropology, SUNY Stony Brook
    DR. PHILIP STODDARD
    Executive Director, Middle East Institute, Washington, D.C.
    METIN TAMKOC
    Professor of International Law and Regulations, Texas Tech University
    MARGARET L. VENZKE
    Assistant Professor of History, Dickinson College, Pennsylvania
    DONALD WEBSTER
    Professor of Turkish History, Retired, Beloit College, Wisconsin
    JOHN WOODS
    Associate Professor of Middle Eastern History, University of Chicago

  • What Goes Around Must Come Around Chapter16

    What Goes Around Must Come Around Chapter16

    WHAT GOES AROUND MUST COME AROUND

    IT CAN NOT HAPPEN TO ME. GUESS WHAT? It will !!!

    Chapter 16

    On February 10, 1941 then Senator Harry S Truman made a speech telling the [1]Senate what he had found on his investigations of government waste in the war effort.  The Senate passed his resolution and authorized $15,000 and made him Chairman.

    That was the beginning of the “Truman Commission.” It saved the taxpayers over $15 BILLION dollars and saved thousands of soldiers lives. FDR even encouraged Truman to look into certain areas. Every report made by the committee was unanimous. During the course of the war the committee’s budget was increased from the initial $15,000 to $300,000. That is amazing considering how today this congress is so divided.

    Because of his positive efforts as a fine senator FDR chose him to become his vice President when he ran for a fourth term.

    Truman felt that people dealing with government funds , whether they are local, state or national have very little respect for those funds.

    It is my belief that when you have a boom period, people become very sloppy because IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY.   Then when times are tough which is usually the case after a boom period- good times can not last forever-they get too dependant upon those loose funds and create clever schemes to cover up their begotten gains.

    A perfect example of this is what went on with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the two giant government mortgage agencies that are now controlled by the Federal Housing Finance Agency at the cost of over $150billion. They (bureaucrats) are trying to figure out what to do with them.  These entities should be closed down immediately. The mortgages, if found, should be returned to the originating bank and serviced there interest free. I believe this is one of the reasons Collateralized mortgages (CMO”s) and derivatives were created as another way to fleece the public. The firms that created these monster fraud vehicles should be the ones to pay and forced to leave the business. This is a process of power and corruption. What goes around comes around. Too big to Fail should mean too big to save. The public worked hard to save and invest for a home, it is the politicians and the bureaucrats that squandered their savings and ruined their dreams. They are trying to muddy the thought process by bringing up the fact that there are some folks who have been paying. If they can pay the principal then forgive the interest payments. Give them a second chance – not the politicians.

    Some of these instruments have been traded into oblivion and should be trashed with the creator of these funny money obligations taking the loss. That is if they can be found. This will ultimately be a good savory bone for the beleaguered savings industry.

    When a mortgage was submitted to the Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac those funds left the local community and fleeced the pockets of bureaucrats inWashingtonD.C…Simply put – more fingers tasting the pie.

    IT BEHOOVES EVERY NEWLY ELECTED POLITICIAN IN EVERY DECOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT WORLDWIDE TO INVESTIGATE FOR WASTE AND CORRUPTION IN THEIR COUNTIRES.  Some agencies should be dropped and other downsized and maybe some increased. The main purpose is to recover ill-gotten gains even if they were transferred to other entities. This will help bring down government deficits and reduce government debt. If Harry Truman’s committee saved billions of dollars in the early 1940’s; think of all the moneys that can be saved today. One of the wealthiest cities in the world today is WASHINGTON.DC.

    Governments should not get into the people’s business, but they must set fair and honest rules so the participants are guaranteed an equal chance. Participants that break the rules should be severely punished.

     


    [1] Plain Speaking An Oral biography of Harry S Truman, Chapter 13

    Merle Miller

  • Global Turkish reaction to a racist remark on live TV by a Belgian politician

    Global Turkish reaction to a racist remark on live TV by a Belgian politician

    Global Turkish reaction to a racist remark on live TV  by a Belgian politician:

    “Flanders’   Slanders”:  How Would Voltaire React To them?

    A leading lawmaker in Flanders deliberately insulted Turks and Turkey during a live TV program with unsolicited racist remarks.   President of the Flemish parliament in Belgium, Jan Peter Peumans  (59,)  caused a global scandal with his arrogant and bigoted comments during a quiz show, ”De Pappenheimers,”  by VRT (Flemish Public Radio and Television Broadcasting Federated) on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.   (watch video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQFqcaqiJi0 )

    peumans

    The question the organizers of the quiz show haplessly considered amusing and proper for a competition watched by general public, including children, was related to a comment by the famous French philosopher, Voltaire:  “Who did Voltaire think was the most disgusting nation?”  The potential answers offered were  a) Flemish,   b) Jews, and   c) Turks.   Peumans replied: “ Turks.”

    After a spontaneous laughter,  he was reminded that the correct answer was “b) Jews”.   Peumans said he knew the right answer but was scared to say it because of potential Jewish reaction.  He said he had criticized the Jewish liberal policies once and had problems with strong Jewish protests.  Laughter in the studio grew.  When asked tongue-in-cheek  “…And speaking ill about Turks is not a problem?”  Peumans replied non chalantly with a negative.  More laughter in the studio. All of this unfortunate episode took only a few minutes.  But its reverberations sure promise to take a lot more than that.

    Film director Jan Eelen, another contestant, told Peumans later that the Turkish Embassy had been informed of the incident by Güler Turan — a Flemish parliament member of Turkish heritage.  Turkish Ambassador Murat Ersavcı  did , indeed, call Peumans to convey Turkey’s disappointment by the racist question and comment.  The remarks also drew strong reactions from Turks  in and out of Belgium.

    After the initial shock and disappointment over this unfortunate racism scandal on air were over, a more reasoned approach triggered the following thoughts:

    First, it is, indeed, a sad day in Belgium if a major entertainment industry executive there thinks racist questions are fun for the entire family.  A sensitization course in Belgium on issues of diversity and tolerance seems appropriate and urgent.   Otherwise, I am afraid, we might be faced with “live roasting” of a Turk, literally, for more family fun on Belgian TV.

    Second, it must be especially ironic for such a bigoted question to surface in a country which suffered terribly under the persecution by the German Nazis (perhaps Peumans is too young to remember or too ignorant to know.)  Such a racist question should never have been asked or responded to  in the first place.  How would the audience, who cheered on so enthusiastically for the racist question and the equally racist response, respond if the next question in the live quiz show was about the feelings the German Nazis harbored:  A) cowards     B)cheap skates    C) both?   Would they consider that also to be “family fun?”

    Third, if a Belgian politician publicly declares that he deliberately provides false answers for political expediency, and still cheered on by many in Belgium, what does that tell one about the attitudes and behaviors in Belgium, administrative capital of the European Union?  Are prejudice, public humiliation, intimidation, discrimination, and racism accepted norms of thought and/or conduct in Europe?

    Fourth, Voltaire was a campaigner against tyranny and bigotry, which is probably why he could not keep out of trouble.  Voltaire, the Renaissance man of the Enlightenment, was no pussycat , either.  He always struck back with bitter, mocking, poignant sarcasm whenever he was attacked.  Voltaire often scrutinized the political and philosophical controversies of the 18th century and fought tirelessly for the oppressed.

    Mr. Peumans—and others who support or defend him–urgently need to learn the tragic plight of Jean Calas, a Protestant merchant in Toulouse, France,  which illustrates the principles of and passion in Voltaire.

    Calas had a son who wanted to study law but he was denied access because he was not a Catholic. The son got very depressed and killed himself.  Suicide was  a grave sin then. His family decided to conceal the suicide as they did not want to see the son’s body dragged in the streets and fed to dogs as was the common practice to punish postmortem  those committing suicide.  A rumor started that Jean Calas murdered his son because the son had wanted to convert to Catholicism. The old man was convicted of murder on the basis of the flimsiest hearsay evidence by lynch mobs.  Rejecting confession even after terrible torture, Calas was tied to a wooden cross, had his arms and legs were broken.  Then Calas was strangled  by the executioner and burned at the stake. The state confiscated Calas’ property, leaving his widow homeless, penniless, and childless,  as the latter were forced into Catholic institutions.

    Voltaire heard about this and set out to clear Calas. He wrote many letters to powerful people throughout Europe, hired a lawyer, and raised money for the family, eventually securing a unanimous vote in the parliament of Paris declaring Calas innocent.  Reversal of his conviction meant that his estate was restored to his family and the children were returned to their mother.   Now, that was Voltaire!

    There are three reason why this story is important:

    1)  What ultra-right leaning Belgian politician and his supporters in Belgium (and other neo-Nazis in Europe) are doing to Turks today is not much different than what the Catholic Church in France did to Protestant merchant Jean Calas of Toulouse in 1762.

    2)  If Voltaire was alive today, he would probably fight the racist Belgian politician and his supporters for the same reasons why Voltaire fought for Jean Calas of Toulouse in 1760s.

    3) Last but not least, Voltaire did comment on Turks and here is what he said:

    The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught the Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”

    It is never too late to learn a few new facts and some proper manners, Mr. Peumans.

    And that goes for the rest of neo-Nazis in Belgium, Holland, France, Austria,  and Germany where this scourge of humanity reared its ugly head again scoring a few victories in recent elections on  a blatantly racist anti-Turkish platform, complete with a promise to keep Turkey out of EU.

    Will neo-Nazis be allowed win while the rest of decent people look on silently?

    Again?

    [[petition-4]]

  • Belgium: An e-mail campaign against The Anti_Turk Parliamenter

    Belgium: An e-mail campaign against The Anti_Turk Parliamenter

    How Voltaire Would React To “Flanders’   Slanders”

    A leading lawmaker in Flanders deliberately insults Turks and Turkey during a live TV program with unsolicited racist remarks.

    President of the Flemish parliament in Belgium, Jan Peter Peumans  (59,)  causes a scandal with his arrogant and bigoted comments during a quiz show, ”De Pappenheimers,”  by VRT (Flemish Public Radio and Television Broadcasting Federated) on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.   (watch video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQFqcaqiJi0 )

    jan peter peumans2The question the organizers of the quiz show haplessly considered amusing and proper for a competition watched by general public, including children, was a related to  a comment by the famous French philosopher:  “Who did Voltaire think was the most disgusting nation?”  The potential answers offered were Flemish, Jews and Turks.  Peumans replied: “ Turks.”

    After a loud laughter, he was reminded that the correct answer was “the Jews”.  Peumans said he knew the right answer but was scared to say it because of possibly very strong Jewish reaction.  Laughter in the audience grew.  When asked “Wouldn’t the Turks do react equally strongly?”  Peumans replied with a negative.

    Film director Jan Eelen, another contestant, told Peumans later that the Turkish Embassy had been informed of the incident by Güler Turan — a Flemish parliament member of Turkish heritage.  Turkish Ambassador Murat Ersavcı  called Peumans to convey Turkey’s disappointment by the racist question and comment.  The remarks also drew strong reactions from Turks  in and out of Belgium.

    All of this unfortunate episode took only a few minutes.  But its reverberations promise to take more than that… much more!

    First, it is, indeed, a sad day in Belgium if a major entertainment industry executive there thinks racist questions are fun for the entire family.  A sensitization course in Belgium on issues of diversity and tolerance seems appropriate and even urgent.

    Second, it must be especially ironic for such a bigoted question to surface in a country which suffered terribly under the racist persecution the Nazis (perhaps Peumans is too young to remember or too ignorant to know.)  Such a question should never have been asked in the first place.  How would the audience who cheered on the racist questions and response if the next question in the live quiz show was about the feelings of the German Nazis about Belgians and if the potential answers offered were  A) cowards     B)cheap skates    C) both?   Would they consider that to be “family fun?”

    Third, if a Belgian politician publicly declares that he deliberately provides false answers for political correctness or expediency, and cheered on by millions in and around Belgium, and arguably around Europe, what does that tell one about the state of affairs and mind in Europe?  Are prejudice, humiliation, intimidation, discrimination, and racism accepted norms of thought and/or conduct in Belgium and/or Europe?

    Fourth, Voltaire was a crusader against tyranny and bigotry, which is probably why he could not keep out of trouble.  Almost every person of importance was Voltaire’s enemy at some period of his life.  Voltaire, the Renaissance man of the Enlightenment, was no pussycat , either, as he struck back with bitter, mocking, poignant sarcasm whenever he was attacked.

    Voltaire often scrutinized the political and philosophical controversies of the 18th century and campaigned tirelessly on behalf of the oppressed.

    You, Mr. Peumans, badly need to learn the tragic plight of Jean Calas, a Protestant in Toulouse, which illustrates the passion in Voltaire.  Calas had a son who wanted to study law but he was denied access because he was not a Catholic. The son got very depressed and killed himself, a fatal sin then. His family decided to conceal the suicide as they did not want to see his body dragged in the streets and fed to dogs as was the common practice for those who took their own lives.  A rumor started that Jean Calas had murdered his son because he wanted to convert to Catholicism. The old man was convicted of murder on the basis of the flimsiest hearsay evidence by lynch mobs. Rejecting confession even after terrible torture, Calas was tied to a wooden cross, had his arms and legs broken.  Then he was strangled  by the executioner and burned at the stake. The state confiscated his property, leaving his widow homeless, penniless, and childless,  as the latter were forced into Catholic institutions.

    Voltaire heard about this and set out to clear Calas. He wrote many letters to powerful people throughout Europe, hired a lawyer, and raised money for the family. eventually securing a unanimous vote in the parliament of Paris declaring Calas innocent.  Calas himself was dead but the reversal of his conviction meant that his estate was returned to his family and the children returned to their mother.   That was Voltaire!

    I told you this story for two reasons:

    1)  You and your supporters are doing to Turks today what the Catholic Church did to Protestant merchant Jean Calas of Toulouse in 1762.

    2)  If Voltaire was alive today, he would fight you and your kind for the same reasons he fought for Jean Calas of Toulouse

    Last but not least, here is what Voltaire really said about the Turks:

    The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught the Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”

    It is never too late to learn new facts and proper manners.

    Sincerely,

    (Name, full street address, and phone)

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

    attention to our members


    DIKKAT – DIKKAT

    jan.peumans@vlaamsparlement.be

    jan.peumans@riemst.be

    mail adreslerine simdilik ingilizce veya almanca veya yukardaki mesaji kopyaliyarak protesto mesajlarinizi parlemenetere gonderebilirsiniz.

    2010/12/1 Birol Kilic <forum@turkischegemeinde.at>

    Federe yapılı Belçika’da Flamanca yayın
    yapan devlet radyo ve televizyonu VRT’nin birinci kanalında “De Pappenheimers” adlı bilgi yarışmasına katılan, bağımsızlık yanlısı Yeni Flaman İttifakı (N-VA)
    partisinin Başkan Yardımcısı ve Flaman Parlamentosu Başkanı Jan Peter Peumans (59), doğru cevabı bildiği halde “Yahudilere bir şey söyleyecek cesareti olmadığı
    için” Türklere hakareti tercih etti.

    Yarışmada ünlü Fransız düşünür Voltaire’in, “Dünya yüzündeki en iğrenç halk” olarak hangi milleti tanımladığı sorusunda bildiğini itiraf ettiği doğru
    şık “Yahudiler” yerine “Türkler” şıkkını tercih eden Peumans’la sunucu Tom Lenaerts ve diğer yarışmacı olan Yönetmen Jan Eelen arasında şu diyalog yaşandı:

    Lenaerts: “Türkler cevabını verdiniz ama doğrusu Yahudiler idi. Bunu gerçekten biliyor muydunuz?”

    Peumans: “Gerçekten biliyordum ama Yahudiler hakkında yeni birşey söyleyecek cesaretim yok. Çok hassas insanlar. Bir zamanlar onların sözde
    liberalizmi hakkında bir şeyler söyledim ama çok çektim. Bu nedenle..” Eelen: “Fakat Türkler hakkında söylemek meğer sorun değilmiş”

    -BÜYÜKELÇİLİKTEN TEPKİ-

    Skandal yarışmaya tepki gösteren Türkiye’nin Brüksel Bürükelçisi Murat Ersavcı, rahatsızlığını ilettiği Peumans’tan Türk toplumuna yönelik açıklama sözü
    aldı.

    Büyükelçilikten yapılan yazılı açıklamada, “Bir bilgi yarışması programına yakışmayan bu tür bir sorunun sorulmuş olması ve verilen yanıttan
    duyduğumuz memnuniyetsizlik Büyükelçi Ersavcı tarafından Peumans;a telefonla iletilmiştir. Peumans, ön bilgisi dışında gelişen bu durumun amacını aşan
    sonuçlara yol açmasından üzüntü duyduğunu; sitayişle bahsettiği ve hiçbir şekilde rencide etmek istemediğini vurguladığı Türk toplumuna bir açıklamada
    bulunacağını; anılan televizyon kanalı nezdinde de gerekli girişimi yapacağını ifade etmiştir” denildi.

    -SKANDALLARLA GÜNDEMDE-

    Belçika’da cumhuriyetçi olduğu gerekçesiyle Kral’ın resepsiyonlarını boykot etmesiyle tanınan ve saldırgan uslubu nedeniyle Fransızca konuşan Valon
    toplumunun tepkisini çeken Peumans, eşiyle gezintiye çıktığı Valon sınırındaki Vise kasabasında, “Yeni Flaman İttifakı üyesi bir politikacının Valon bölgesinde
    ne işi olduğunu sorgulayan” bir gençten dayak yerken polis ekiplerince kurtarılmıştı.

  • Please remove the Turkish flag in your media kit

    Please remove the Turkish flag in your media kit

    sacrified survivors1Martin J. Mawyer – President of CAN
    PO Box 606, Forest, VA 24551
    Toll Free Phone: 888-499-4226
    martin@christianaction.org

    Dear President of Christian Action Network Martin Mawyer,

    As a Turkish American I was simply insulted and outraged when your organization has displayed a Turkish Flag on the SACRIFICED SURVIVORS: The Untold Story of the Ground Zero Mosque.” documentary movie.

    The Republic of Turkey is a unique country that embrace all religions and cultures in the most chaotic region of the middle east. Turkey has been a key strategic ally of the West and the United states since the Korean War and Cold War for decades and serves as a model for other Muslim countries.

    Displaying the Turkish republic’s flag on your web site plus on announcements and on the cover of your documentary movie is a insult of a great nation and a quintessential example of fraud perpetrated by uneducated groups to associate the Turkish Republic and her people with terrorists.

    As a organization, you have a special responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the information you circulate, especially on an issue as important as to the Republic of Turkey.

    We remember those who lost their lives at the WTC , Pentagon and on Flight 93. On that day of September eleven. Thousands of innocent women and men were taken from their families, and their loss leaves a profound sadness in our hearts. On that day we all meet the worst of humanity with the best of humanity. Each of us did our part, and each of us made it a point of personal pride and determination to recreate what had been destroyed and indeed the human spirit is, invincible, because what we stand for can never be destroyed.

    We the American Turkish community and Turks in Turkey know too well the pains that terrorist have brought into our peaceful lives. So we stand committed to raising awareness of the hate that terrorist have and we stand committed to eradicating and ending terrorism once and for all.

    The American Turkish community expects fair treatment on issue’s that matters to our community.

    Our hope is that as we discussed the matter with Mr. Jason Campbell that your group would remove the Turkish flag and that Christian Action Network be objective and share the correct information with the public.

    I truly hope that Christian Action Network takes into consideration to remove the Turkish Flag ASAP from the web site and all documentary related materials.

    Sincerely Yours,

    Dr. Muzaffer Karasulu

    Retired Nuclear Physicist and Nuclear Engineer, served 35 years for the US Nuclear Industry.

    Thank you

    [[petition-3]]

    Related News :