elovna

My next e-mail to the SP... Dutch Beste SP-medewerker, Mijn dank voor uw snelle reactie. Zoals u waarschijnlijk weet is het Armeense volk door de op zijn zachtst gezegd 'ongelukkige' gebeurtenissen uit het verleden over de wereld verspreid. De genocide die rond 1915 door het Ottomaanse Rijk op het Armeense volk is gepleegd heeft een enorme stempel gedrukt op de overlevenden en de nakomelingen van de slachtoffers waarvan het overgrote merendeel nu in de Armeense diaspora woont. Kunt u zich voorstellen hoe het is om in het land waar je je toevlucht zocht niet het 'recht' te hebben om op passende wijze je voorouders te herdenken?... hoe het is om te moeten vechten om een monument te mogen plaatsen en te mogen voorzien van een inscriptie volgens de waarheid?.... hoe het is om 'vriendelijk' verzocht te worden om deze waarheid achterwege te laten omdat dit niet bevordelijk zou zijn voor de 'goede' verstandhouding van Nederland met Turkije? Een Armeen wordt zo ongeveer met een trauma geboren en ontkenning van de verschrikkelijk holocaust maakt het onmogelijk het leed te verwerken. Dat deze mensen nu, bijna 'n eeuw later in een land als Nederland de waarheid niet openlijk mogen uitspreken vind ik, over humanitair gesproken, onmenselijk en ik schaam me er als Nederlander voor dat zoiets vandaag de dag hier gebeurt. U weet natuurlijk dat ik het heb over het Armeense monument in Assen dat ondertussen na veel strubbelingen dan toch is opgericht ter jaarlijkse herdenking op 24 april van de Armeense slachtoffers van de genocide van 1910-1915 in het Ottomaanse Rijk. De overheid heeft het wel slim bekeken moet ik zeggen voor wat betreft artikel 7 van de Grondwet. Hetzelfde geldt voor Openbare Wet Manifestaties in verband met de demonstratie die in Assen georganiseerd was voor 24 april jongstleden. De gemeente Assen, waarschijnlijk onder druk van de regering, heeft de Armenen destijds nadrukkelijk 'verzocht' om in de inscriptie van het monument het woord "genocide" te vermijden en nu onlangs weer om tijdens de demonstratie (op 24 april 2002) op de spandoeken verwijzingen naar "Turken" of "Turkije" achterwege te laten. De Armenen waren zo netjes om hiermee akkoord te gaan. En nadat tijdens de demonstratie toch een aantal 'niet afgesproken' woorden op de spandoeken verschenen en deze op verzoek van de politie verwijderd moesten worden, kon de gemeente zich mooi beroepen op 'niet nagekomen afspraken'. En terecht natuurlijk. Maar als dit onze 'vrijheid van meningsuiting' voor moet stellen, dan vind ik dat we wel in kunnen pakken met onze zogenaamde 'vrijheid en democratie'. De Armeense kwestie is een delicate zaak, ja. Maar zoals de Turkse historicus Taner Akcam zegt: "Turkije kan nooit een democratie worden als het niet in het reine komt met de geschiedenis. Wij moeten het geweld onder ogen zien. De Turken van vandaag zijn niet schuldig, maar wij dragen een verantwoordelijkheid.", wil ik daar in dit verband aan toevoegen: "Waar blijven wij met onze mooie woorden als wij ons zo laten intimideren?" Wordt het niet tijd dat Nederland een officieel standpunt in gaat nemen ten aanzien van de gebeurtenissen in het Ottomaanse rijk rond 1910-1915 zodat de Armenen in Nederland recht krijgen op hun verdriet en de verwerking daarvan? Dit verdrietige 'onderwerp' houdt de ongeveer 5000 Armenen die in Nederland wonen dagelijks bezig. Dat er zich in ons land zo ongeveer 387.000 Turken kwaad over maken mag toch geen reden zijn om 'de kwestie' maar in de doofpot te blijven stoppen. Wij bieden in Nederland bescherming aan Koerden die in deze tijd zo ongeveer hetzelfde meemaken als de Armenen in hetzelfde gebied 90 jaar geleden. Zwijgen en wachten heeft geen zin. Hitler zei, voordat hij met de uitroeing van het Joodse volk begon: "After all, who remembers the Armenians." Tja.... Het zal u duidelijk zijn dat ik vind dat deze kwestie dringend aandacht verdient en 'besproken' moet worden, in het parlement, de media, etcetera. En aan de SP het verzoek om hiermee te beginnen. With friendly greetings, .

Reply SP After sending the URL of this forum topic to the groups in the Dutch parliament of SP (Sociallistic Party) and GroenLinks (GreenLeft) yesterday, I got reply from the SP today... Dutch: Geachte Dank voor uw tip over de discussiewebsite. De SP is geïnteresseerd in de omstandigheden en geschiedenis van het Midden-Oosten en het Kaukasisch gebied. We zijn ons bewust van de brandende actualiteit van de geschiedenis. De Armeense kwestie uit 1915 is er daar een van. We denken dat de Armeense kwestie een van de structurele problemen is van de Republiek Turkije. Maar dat neemt niet weg dat ook recentere ellende, zoals de oorlog om Nagorno Karabach nieuwe problemen heeft voortgebracht tussen Armeniers, Turken en Azeris. Een open maar voorzichtige koers ten opzichtige van de geschiedenis en de actualiteit van de mensenrechten, is volgens de SP dan ook gewenst. De SP staat open voor aanvullende informatie. Met vriendelijke groet, Guido van Leemput Sp fractiemedewerker English: Respected , Thanks for pointing out the discussion website to us. The SP is interested in the circumstances of the Middle-East and the Caucasion area. We are aware of the burning actuality of the history. De Armenian Question from 1915 is one of them. We think that the Armenian question is one of the structural problems of the Turkish Republic. But that doesn't take away that also more recent misery, such as the war over Nagorno Karabach, created new problems between Armenians, Turks and Azeris. An open but careful course regarding the history and the actuality of the human rights, according to the SP is therefor desired. The SP is open for additional information. With friendly greetings, Guido van Leemput Sp Group co-worker. E-mail address !! G.vLeemput@tk.parlement.nl

quote:Originally posted by Aghtchik:Apart from that I think it may be a good thing to set up a standard text to send to members of the Dutch parliament. Imagine that they would get thousands of letters from all over the world...

I have e-mailed this page to the parliament fractions of SP (Sociallistic Party) and GroenLinks (GreenLeft): groenlinks@tk.parlement.nl spfractie@tk.parlement.nl

quote:Originally posted by Rouben Malayan:Well, I believe in this case, yes. As long as there are people who sabotage the efforts of others the impression we make on the others is less than impressive. For example, can we find one reason why there was NO consensus butween Armenian organizations in Holland on what should be done on April 24th? Yes demonstration, no demonstration, they bounced the ball back and forth, and it ended up with some people arriving later and to the wrong place. I also have inside information on some people who never wanted to have any sort of demonstration because they had their own plans for April 24. I won't name them. This is what disturbs me. I have the same kind of information Rouben. But does it matter? Armenians may differ in ideas and opions and there may be envy between them. It won't show them as one united people. But at least they all will want the genocide to be recognized, won't they? Does it matter how many different signals will reach the Dutch government? I would say: who cares where the signals are coming from as long as they are there and of 'good' nature. quote:And to answer your question, Elly jan, I believe that if Armenians would manage to find few powerful friends among the Dutch politicians the Genocide will be recognized in no time. All we need is few influential friends who would not let this issue slide into oblivion, instead actively push for the parliament to discuss Armenian genocide again and again until a legal action is taken. No? I wish, yes, but I don't know if it can be as simple and quick as that. I am thinking of what the consequences of recognition would be in a broader perspective. That could be a tiny little problem that goes beyond Dutch territory. Does anyone care to give us some expertise on that? Apart from that I think it may be a good thing to set up a standard text to send to members of the Dutch parliament. Imagine that they would get thousands of letters from all over the world... We can all write the text together, here on the Forum. How about that? [ June 07, 2002, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Aghtchik ]

quote:Originally posted by hasmiek:hi rouben jan, I guess it is a matter of opinion then as I don't see this incident as a crisis between the netherlands and turkey, especially since turkey already put the man back in jail and turkey admitted that it was a mistake... I totally agree. quote:The politicians that might fight for the armenians are all in the opposition now, and it is way more difficult for them to be heard.... It can also be an advantage to be in the opposition. From there you can make a lot of noise and you can definitely make yourself be heard. So I dont share your worries in this respect, Hasmiek.

quote:Originally posted by Rouben Malayan:Elly jan, I apologize for calling Assen municipality "lame", my criticism in fact is not one sided, the medal has two sides, and I strongly believe that April 24 committee should have never agreed to those pre-conditions. It's Ok Rouben. Criticism is very OK and I don't want to limit your freedom of speach . I just didn't like the way you did it. About the the disunity amongst Armenians... Is unity really needed to get the genocide recognized?

The content of the above e-mail from mr. Werkman to me: If I want to get a complete picture of what went on mr. Romashuk, the initiator of the monument in Assen, is the perfect man to tell me all about it. It is impossible for mr. Werman's department to grant my request to send me all relevant documents. "By the way, the City did not give a statement about the word 'genocide'. We feel it is up to the government (rijksoverheid) to do that. That is also the reason why the petition that the mayor received on april 24 was sent on to the cabinet and the government in The Hague." "The Demonstration was aimed by the april 24 committy against the City of Assen and was about the 'evading attitude' regarding the term 'genocide'." That is why he asked the april 24 committy to not mention Turky or Turks in their banners. If the committy would not have agreed to that it would have caused a different situation. He cannot judge what he would have done in that case. He mentioned that a contactperson of the april 24 committy has let him know that the Armenian community in the Netherlands is considering to put up a monument in The Hague. And: 1. He will send a copy of my e-mail to mr. Romashuk expecting that mr. Romashuk won't have any objections to inform me about the matter. 2. If I want to look into relevant documents in the Assen City Archive I can make an oppointment with his secretary. ---------- That's about it. Then today mr. Romashuk called me on the phone and we agreed to arrange a meeting some time soon. That is it for now.

I got an e-mail from mr. Werkman, head legal departement City of Assen. If anyone cares to translate it, be my guest. If not, I will do it tomorrow. ------------> Geachte mevrouw , Ik heb uw mailverzoek in goede orde ontvangen. U vraagt om relevante stukken om een zo compleet en correct mogelijk beeld te krijgen. Dhr. Romashuk, de initiatiefnemer voor de gedenksteen, is bij uitstek de man om u hierover te informeren. Hij is bij uitstek dé man die maximaal op de hoogte is van de Armeense kwestie. Het is voor mij en mijn afdeling onmogelijk om aan uw verzoek te voldoen. De gemeente Assen heeft overigens geen uitspraak gedaan over de Armeense genocide. Wij hebben gemeend dat een dergelijke uitspraak zou moeten worden gedaan door de Rijksoverheid. Dat is ook de reden, dat door de burgemeester van Assen een petitie in ontvangst is genomen op 24 april jl. tijdens de demonstratie en deze petitie is doorgezonden naar het Kabinet en de Regering in Den Haag. De demonstratie was door het 24-april comité gericht tegen de gemeente Assen en betrof met name het ontwijkend gedrag met betrekking tot de term "genocide". Het was om die reden dat ik het 24-april comité dan ook heb gevraagd om Turkije en de Turken dan ook niet te noemen in hun spandoeken. Daarmee heeft men ingestemd. Wanneer die instemming niet gegeven zou zijn, was er een andere situatie ontstaan. Ik kan niet beoordelen, wat ik gegeven die situatie had gedaan. Overigens kan ik u meedelen, dat mijn contactpersoon van het 24-april comité mij heeft aangegeven, dat de Armeense gemeenschap in Nederland overweegt om in Den Haag een monument op te richten, zoals vergelijkbare monumenten in andere landen in de wereld staan. Een geschikte locatie had men al gevonden. Concluderend: 1. ik zal een kopie van uw mail aan de heer Romashuk zenden met het verzoek om u te informeren over de Armeense kwestie. Ik ga er op voorhand vanuit, dat hij hiertegen geen bezwaar heeft. 2. wanneer u daarnaast behoefte hebt om in het gemeentelijk archief van Assen relevante stukken in te zien, kunt u een afspraak maken met mijn secretaresse, mw. Wilma Hulzebos, 0592 366 531. Met vriendelijke groet, H.D. Werkman Hoofd Best. Jur. Zaken

This is funnier than the humor section.

quote:Originally posted by gamavor:In most civil cases (such as this matter), the burden of prove lies with the petitioner . In other words, those who believe that their rights were violated should take the action, and prove unambiguously their claim. What could the financial consequences be in such a case?

In our Law Public Demonstrations (Wet Openbare Demonstraties) which gives authority to local governments to set rules and regulations regarding the right to demonstrate, to be exact in paragraph 5.3, it says that a rule, limitation or prohibition cannot be related to the content of what is to be practiced or to the thoughts or feelings that are to be made public. So my question to the City of Assen whether they would not have allowed a demonstration to take place if the Armenians would not have agreed to not use 'certain words' was totally unnecessary. They cannot prohibit a demonstration un such grounds. I think that I will have to write them again and ask them how the agreement on the 'inflammatory' stuff exactly was created.

Also regarding the inscription on the monument in Assen I wonder how the change of content of the inscription was realized. Was it the result of friendly negotiations or did the City use pressure?

Our Law Public Manifestations says that Local governments have to establish rules and regulations to protect the public safety and to prevent disorders. But about the content of the to publish thoughts or feelings no questions may be demanded. So I am wondering how exactly the mentioned agreements with the City of Assen were made. If it was a polite and friendly request, the april 24 committy could have said "no, you are asking us to leave essential stuff out, we cannot do that". From what I read the City cannot demand anything in this respect. [ June 03, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Aghtchik ]

Goodmorning to you all. Thank you Boghos. It's good to see that people actually read this stuff. Mosjan. I think that they have sent something to you by regular mail. (IF they have your address). Because I didn't get anything by E-mail either. Gamavor. This Law stuff is all new to me. But if I want to find out who went wrong where I will have to look into it. Yesterday I read a paper called "De strafbaarheid van een grondrecht: strafrechtelijke implicaties van de Wet Openbare Manifestaties"... "The punishability of a constitution: criminal law implications of the Law Public Manifestations" by Ward Fernandusse. He raises the question, in consequence of recent cases in Amsterdam and The Hague, which demands can be made to demonstrators without getting into conflict with the (international) protection of the right to demonstrate. Of course I will translate parts of it and post it here. [ June 03, 2002, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Aghtchik ]

Just sharing thoughts here ... About pressure. If I am not mistaken the City of Assen was mailbombed so badly by Turkish protesters that they had to change their e-mail address. I can imagine that mr. R. who initiated the monument got intimidated somehow by 'noise' coming from Turksh side. Because there IS a real danger involved.

quote:Originally posted by gamavor: In most civil cases (such as this matter), the burden of prove lies with the petitioner . In other words, those who believe that their rights were violated should take the action, and prove unambiguously their claim. In this case, if a poster or other printed material, that is publicly displayed says that Turks committed Genocide against their Armenian population, they are the ones in front of the court, that have to prove that there was not a Genocide, but something else. That sounds not too difficult. But is it that easy? What if we set something up here in the Netherlands to get the matter into a court room?

Constitution of the Netherlands – Article 9 (Assembly) Dutch - 1. Het recht tot vergadering en betoging wordt erkend, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet. - 2. De wet kan regels stellen ter bescherming van de gezondheid, in het belang van het verkeer en ter bestrijding of voorkoming van wanordelijkheden. English (1) The right of assembly and demonstration shall be recognized, without prejudice to the responsibility of everyone under the law. (2) Rules to protect health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders may be laid down by Act of Parliament. [ June 02, 2002, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Aghtchik ]

OK. Next will be some stuff about the Dutch "Right to demonstrate" and the "Law on public manifestations". I am reading up on that now and I hope to be able to post some translations within a few days. I am getting the impression though that demonstrations are not going to do the trick. From what I read demonstrations by Law must be anounced so that the City will have the opportunity to take measures regarding public safety and so on. And in this case that may very will be very necessary. In a country like Holland where 300.000 Turks will not like what the 5000 Armenians are trying to do, a lot of trouble can be expected. So naturally the local government will have tried to avoid that. Apparently certain agreements were made and the City expected the Armenians to keep their word. Whether the agreements such as 'no refering to Turks or the Turkish goverment' were based on reasonable requests is not the issue here now I think. The Dutch indeed go by the book (it is not for nothing that we have so little corruption in our country). The discussion about what is to be considered 'inflammatory' should have been held before, at the meetings during which the agreements were made. In fact some of these agreements should not have been made in the first place. [ June 02, 2002, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Aghtchik ]

Constitution of the Netherlands – Article 7 (Expression) Dutch - 1. Niemand heeft voorafgaand verlof nodig om door de drukpers gedachten of gevoelens te openbaren, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet. - 2. De wet stelt regels omtrent radio en televisie. Er is geen voorafgaand toezicht op de inhoud van een radio- of televisieuitzending. - 3. Voor het openbaren van gedachten of gevoelens door andere dan in de voorgaande leden genoemde middelen heeft niemand voorafgaand verlof nodig wegens de inhoud daarvan, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet. De wet kan het geven van vertoningen toegankelijk voor personen jonger dan zestien jaar regelen ter bescherming van de goede zeden. - 4. De voorgaande leden zijn niet van toepassing op het maken van handelsreclame. English (1) No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. (2) Rules concerning radio and television shall be laid down by Act of Parliament. There shall be no prior supervision of the content of a radio or television broadcast. (3) No one shall be required to submit thoughts or opinions for prior approval in order to disseminate them by means other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. The holding of performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age may be regulated by Act of Parliament in order to protect good morals. (4) The preceding paragraphs do not apply to commercial advertising. [ June 02, 2002, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Aghtchik ]

This I copied from http://www.armeniangenocideposters.org/for...asp?TOPIC_ID=62 It's the letter from the City of Assen to the april 24 committy about "the course of the demonstration on April 24 2002", which led to the reply of the committy as was posted here by Rouben. --------> FROM Assen City Hall Noordersingel 33 9401 JW ASSEN tel. 0592 - 366911 TO April 24 Committee, Mr N.S. Sipaan (Sepoyan) Weesperstraat 91 2574 VS DEN HAAG Assen, Date: 2 May 2002. Sent on: 0 2 MAY 2002 Subject: course of the demonstration on April 24 2002. Dear Mister Sipaan, We would like to bring to your attention a number of aspects related to the course of the demonstration on April 24 2002. At several moments during the demonstration agreements were not met. We find that disappointing and these observations will certainly play a role in the judging of a possible similar request in the future by your organization. In general we can conclude that the demonstration did not cause any disruption of public order and security. The security service was clearly visible with the help of red arm bands. We assume that the parking facilities on the Veemarktterrein were satisfactory. We do have to state that not all participants were aware that the Veemarktterrein was the meeting and departure place. Approximately 20 participants parked elsewhere and had to be redirected to the Veemarktterrein by staff members of the City Hall. On the Veemarktterrein the police noted that certain texts on the banners were inflammatory and offensive. The police addressed this to you and informed that the inflammatory and offensive texts should be removed from the banners. On April 19 2002 we made clear agreements on this. You then said that banners would be carried along, but that they would not include inflammatory or offensive texts. We had agreed with you that references to Turkey, or the Turkish government, would be seen by us as such and would therefore not be allowed. Unfortunately, based on our agreement, the police was compelled to intervene. A number of participants has qualified the removal of inflammatory and offensive texts as 'censorship'. Assen municipality rates freedom of speech very highly. There was no sign of censorship here, but the not complying with agreements. Unfortunately this had to be set straight. On April 19 2002 you indicated that no folders would be distributed. This was however the case. During the demonstration folders entitled "Don't let Hitler have his way" were handed out. The distribution of folders is not a problem, only we would have liked to have heard about it. We could've then made the same agreements as with the banners. After the presentation of the petition to the Mayor you said that the demonstration had ended and that everyone was free to leave. That too was not in the agreement. The agreement was that together, escorted by the police, you would return to the Veemarktterrein. However you did not choose for the same route, namely identical to the one that brought you here. Instead you walked via the Noordersingel. We had made clear agreements on that. In relation to the market on the Noordersingel and the accessibility of aid and relief services, such as the fire brigade and ambulances, you wouldn't use it. This was also the reason why we agreed with you to present the petition at the entrance of the City Hall's wedding hall. Some of the participants in the demonstration chose to call this location "misleading for the Armenian participants". Here also we would like to explicitly clarify that we had made an agreement on the location to present the petition. Apparently this mutual choice, possibly through inadequate communication or organization, was not understood by everyone. We hereby assume that we sufficiently informed you. If you continue to have comments in relation to the demonstration or this letter, we would gladly see it in writing. Yours sincerely, Mayor and aldermen of Assen, on behalf of them, head of department Administrative Legal Affairs, Signature H.D. Werkman

Second and last part translated from the Decission of the City of Assen to the objection that was filed by the Turkish Islamic Cultural Society Assen against the Cities Decission to grant permission to put up the Armenian Genocide monument at the General cemetary “De boskamp” in Assen .... ------------> . To be judged is indeed whether the limits set by mr. R. can be seen as reasonable. In our opinion the not wanting to go beyond what has been agreed on in the disputed decission from the point of view from the applicant is a reasonable and realizable standingpoint. In other words the limited text on the monument, originating from how it is seen by the applicant, has a wider tendency than only the direct personal ancestors of mr. R. in Assen. While making the disputed decission we already came back from the request of january 25 1999 to the final decission to grant permit on july 4 2000 to the person of mr. R. to commemorate Armenian ancestors from the periode 1910-1920. With the disputed decission we had already carefully weighed that views on the history are different. The interest of the applicant to be able to commemorate ancestors within Armenian circle for us weighs heavier than feelings of disquiting about that in Turkish circle. The circumstance that you again have brought in your opinion does not mean that we now come to a different judgment. We refer to our argumentation in the disputed decission, which exactly shows our position. We find that with respect to the moment at which we took the disputed decission there are no changes that justify the change of a standingpoint. Towards the permitholder it would be unreasonable to revoke the permit on this basis. . With this the question is still open whether conditions of use should be connected to the granted permit. First of all we determine that mr. S's comment of november 7 2000 leaves room for making arrangments about the order problem. For the time being we feel this is sufficient. Apart from that agreements are already made. We refer to the report of a conversation on april 3 2000. Also the articles 37 and 41 of the Control regulation on "De Boskamp" withholds obligations. We will also make further arrangments about procedures and put them in writing. We judge our authority regarding the Regulation somewhat different than the committy. Namely article 26 looks upon estethic aspects, article 41 upon order that unveiling of a monument may not be of any disturbance, for example because at the same time a funeral would be going on. Nevertheless it is a good thought to, starting from the possibilities of the Regulation and authorities of the Major in respect of the public order of the City Law and the Law on public manifestations, come to a "kaderstelling" (fixed frame?). This we see seperately from the granted permit. . From the various contacts at administrative level for us it was sufficiently plausible that also the family of mr. R. belongs to the victims of the periode 1910-1920. After the hearing this issue was repeatedly officially required after. Comfirmation was obtained of the picture that these victims are mainly situated in the line of the father of the mother of the applicant. Further investigation such as is advised by the committy of Objection and Appeal paper we dont find necessary. . CONCLUSIONS Based on the above we draw the following conclusions. 1. we see no new facts, arguments or cirucumstances that make it necessary to at reconsideration based on article 7:11 of the "Algemene wet bestuursrecht" revoke the disputed decission. We maintain our decission of juli 4 2000. 2. For as far as the committy finds that the permit holder withdraws himself from opinions and statements that our "college" thinks to be desirable, it is our opinion that our decission on permit application is clear and that statements in word and writing are the responsability of the permit holder. On this the City has little influence. The statements known to us do not form reason to revoke and change the granted permit. 3. The Regulation offers few point of contacts (starting points?) to tie regulations regarding public order to the permit. The existing possibilities will be used. Also the major if necessary will put in use other instruments available to regulate the public order. (Procedural) Arrangements will be made with the permit holder. 4. We find your objections ungrounded. . Signed by the major and the secretary of the City of Assen. <----------------

Translated from the Decission of the City of Assen to the objection that was filed by the Turkish Islamic Cultural Society Assen against the Cities Decission to grant permission to put up the Armenian Genocide monument at the General cemetary “De boskamp” in Assen .... (Mr. R. is the Armenian from Assen, the initiator for the monument; mr. S. is his mr. R’s legal counsil.) . So the following text is addressed to the Turkish Islamic Cultural Society Assen . . RECONSIDERATION . Based on your objection, the advice of the committy (advice committy for Objection and Appeal papers) and the comments of mr. S. we reconsidered the disputed decission. When reconsidering we have to find out if there is reason to revoke the disputed decission. As far as needed a new decission should be taken instead. At reconsideration we did not find cause to revoke the granted decission. On certain issues we come to a different judgement then the committy (advice committy for Objection and Appeal papers). We motivate our decission as follows. LAWFULNESS . In your objection you first of all suggest that we would not be authorized to, based on article 3, first part, of the Regulation for regulation of use and control/maintainance of the general cemetary "De Boskamp" in the City of Assen, hereafter to be named "the Regulation", grant permission for the placing of a monument. This, because the meant stone is not being placed on or near a grave. We are, as the advice committy for Objection and Appeal papers, of opinion that we are authorized to grant permission to put up such a monument. For motivation we refer to the advice of the advice committy for Objection and Appeal papers on this issue. In the disputed decission we already went into this. This objection is not cause to adjust the decission on this part. . A second objection from your side purports, because there are no historical relations what so ever between the Turkish history and the City of Assen, that it would be absurd to grant permission for the monument, based on the fact that the initiator lives in Assen. Your opinion we can not underscribe. There is no, in the policy papers fixed policy which shows that for the erection of such a monument at a general cemetary as "De Boskamp" there should be a historical relation with the City. Also in the past there were no comparable requests on which was decided. Clear reasons for denial therefor are lacking. Also with this part we join the advice of the advice committy for Objection and Appeal papers. For further motivation we refer to the advice of the advice committy for Objection and Appeal papers on this issue. Moreover we are planning to soon establish a policy for the placing of monuments in public areas. Also we want to actualize the Regulation. These intentions however are not reason to renew the disputed decission. Namely there are policy intentions that still have to enter the process of decission forming. The reconsideration where we are at now makes it necessary to decide based on the existing Laws and regulations and to the background that there is not yet a fixed policy on this issue. Further we have to consider the diverse interests, of which expectations that were created for the permit holder. . JUDGMENT POLICY FREEDOM . Furthermore you point out that you find it unacceptable that a place where ancestors are commemorated, is being disfigured by a political statement. Besides that you suggest that despite of the adjusted text on the stone, it clearly refers to the supposed holocaust. These arguments and objections we already weighed while taking the disputed decission. . Also the view that you put forward on May 6 2000 in the frame of the public preparing procedure went into this issue. The advice committy for Objection and Appeal papers judged that the preparing regarding the realisation of the disputed decission was carefully done. Also on this issue we agree with the advice committy for Objection and Appeal papers. . De committy advises under the title 'weighing of interests' further to when reconsidering revoke the granted decission and to grant a new permission under certain conditions. . In this advice we cannot follow the committy.Your objections in contents for the greater part are equal to your view that we had weighed when taking the disputed decission. The committy in fact points out that the disputed decission is correct, but there are reasons to now, while reconsidering, decide otherwise. A careful analyses of the situation when making the disputed decission therefore is necessary. Now we have received far more new Objection papers, compared with the periode within which views could be filed. But this did not show us new facts or circumstances that could be reason to revoke our decission of July 4 2000. . The committy advances that we initially wanted to ‘frame in’ the application of mr. R. That is correct. It led to a different format stone and a different text. The decission on the application relates to concessions that mr. R. was willing to make. The disputed decission is the establishing of what could be reached in mutual consultation. This was confirmed by the permit holder during the hearing of the committy on september 19 2000. The endspeech of mr. R. is displayed in the report as follows: "Finally mr. R. points out that he already has made many concessions: the text was adjusted, the stone made smaller and the erection prosponed. The only thing he wants is to commemorate his ancestors in peace. He already contacted the Turkish society more than once to reach consensus together. All of this was not sufficient, he is not willing to make more concesions." In our opinion the committy too much passed this point of view. . Furthermore at reconsideration we have to bring in some facts and circumstances, that occurred after the committy brought out her advice. In our opinion some of these facts put the advice in a different light. Therefore for us there is no basis to completely follow the advice of the committy. In this we base ourselves on the following. . The space that was hoped for, for the overcoming of oppositions in your direction does not exist with mr. R. De view of mr. S (counsil mr. R.) of november 7 2000 also confirms this. With this also is suggested that the text from the memo of july 1 2000 concerning the first ‘mark’ would be incorrect, while formulation at the second ‘mark’ is pictured as unfortunate. In contrary to mr. S.'s reaction we remain of the opinion, that we mark the application of mr. R. as his personal initiative. He is the applicant, he personally signed the application. The conditions, on which the head of the department ‘wijkbeheer’ advices positively, all are related to the person of mr. R. Therefore he is responsible for the careful implementation of the granted permit. He personally is to be addressed to, when conditions are not lived by. The drawn conclusion by the committy that the text of the memo suggests approval of mr. R. is therefor in the meanwhile contradicted. The conclusion that the committy moreover draws about the to the person of mr. R. related monument herewith lacks a factual basis. Further advising of the committy to important extent is based on assumption, that so turned out afterwards does not give a basis to draw those following conclusions. In this reconsideration we therefore have to put this advice of the committy aside. . Something else is whether ‘in the frame’ of the ability to overcome oppositions it would have been wonderful if we would have been able to reach more. The optimal reachable however is not always reachable. Here we bump into the lines that mr. R. draws. We cannot decide those lines one sided. If we would go and do that we could come in conflict with the freedom of speach as established in article 7 of the Constitution. . <----------- This was the first part of the translation. The rest will follow asap. By the way, this is more a Dutch type of English. I hope it will be understandable nevertheless. [ June 01, 2002, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Aghtchik ]

This is the translation of my second e-mail to the City of Assen (Excuse me for my bad English ) -----------------> To gemeente Assen t.a.v. H.D. Werkman Noordersingel 33 9401 JW ASSEN . , 31 mei 2002 . Respected sir/madam Werkman, . I would like to thank you for your quick reply to my e-mail of May 25. . The reading of your decission on the Objection paper of the Turkish Islamic Cultural Society of november 22 2000 brings on new questions. So now I would like to read the actual Paper of Objection of the Turkish organisation and as well as any other document that can contribute to a complete and correct picture. Therefore I want to ask you, if possible, to send me the text of the Objection paper as well as of any other relevant documents like the Advice of the Advice Committy for Objection and Appeal or any other relevant correspondence. "If possible", because I don't know to what extent Laws or Regulations for protection of privacy could make it impossible for you to grant my request. In that case of course I will understand. . From what I've been able to read sofar it seems to me that the City of Assen sofar delt with the issue in a good manner. Of course I am happy about that. However, that does not take away that in my opinion the original inscription of the Armenian monument in Assen should have been maintained because it is the truth, eventhough certain groups experience it as ‘insulting’. We are in the Netherlands and it should not be possible here that things such as human rights, human dignity, democracy, truth, justice and freedom of speach are being be violated, taken away, threatened, twisted, ignored or obstructed. The Armenian Genocide really happened. For this sufficient evidence exists. It is only a matter of time and walking the right roads, but recognition will happen in the end. However, the fact that in the meantime the Armenian community in the Netherlands has to deal with such difficulties when wanting to commemorate their murdered ancestors in all peace and dignity is a terrible thing. That it can be so that the Armenians in the Netherlands cannot freely speak the truth, but have to ‘watch their words’…. . As for the use of ‘inflammatory’ words on banners I wonder who decides what is 'inflammatory'? Is this decided by Law? Do you as City decide this, independantly of what is going on? Or is it just a matter of how ‘certain groups’ are expected to react (in other words: if possible trouble has to be avoided)? In this last case ‘certain groups’ will be given room to ‘pressure’, which does not seem a good thing to me. Can you clear this up for me please? . I understand that you are working according the book. Agreements were made with the april 24 committy. You may expect them to keep their part of the bargain, rightfully so. But what if the committy would not have agreed to your request to not use certain words? Would the City of Assen have allowed a demonstration? If no, maybe the committy was left no choice and one could ask oneself if the City’s request in fact is ‘right’. Also on this I would like to receive your comment. In case your decission in this matter is depending on City Regulations I am also interested in getting to know their content. . Finally I want to add that I don’t (yet) have any connection with organisations or individuals that have played a role in the here mentioned Armenian-Turkish matter. Simply put I am just an interested Dutch who would like to get to the bottom of this because the Armenian Cause lies close to her heart. . With friendly greetings, . <------------ I did not yet have time to translate the City’s decission on the Objection paper of the Turkish Islamic Cultural Society. It consists of several page of the type of Dutch language that is hard for me to translate. So it will take a while. [ June 01, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Aghtchik ]

quote:Originally posted by Rouben Malayan:What a lame people they are. Rouben. I don't feel nice about this remark of yours. I don't think it is the right attitude and I don't see any reason for it. At least not yet. You are right. I am not satisfied yet with what they've told me. However, I do understand now that they simply worked by the book as you yourself said in one of your postings. In my second mail I hope to find out more. Let's just be patient and wait what comes out.