Genocide Recognition in the Netherlands

[nairi]

Brilliant! Thank you Elly! You're the best!

 

Nairi

[nairi]

Latest news:

 

1. Minister for Internal Affairs Klaas de Vries's answers to MP Leen van Dijke's questions about the censorship of the banners in Assen this year are now online at:

 

http://www.bzk.nl/asp/get.asp?xdl=../views/tekst/xdl/Page&VarIdt=0000 0003&SitIdt=00000022&ItmIdt=00012289://http://www.bzk.nl/asp/get.asp?xdl=....ItmIdt=00012289://http://www.bzk.nl/asp/get.asp?xdl=....ItmIdt=00012289://http://www.bzk.nl/asp/get.asp?xdl=....ItmIdt=00012289://http://www.bzk.nl/asp/get.asp?xdl=....ItmIdt=00012289://http://www.bzk.nl/asp/get.asp?xdl=....ItmIdt=00012289://http://www.bzk.nl/asp/get.asp?xdl=....ItmIdt=00012289

 

or

 

http://www.overheid.nl (PDF-file)

Click "officiele publicaties", tick Eerste en tweede Kamervragen, type Assen

 

or

 

http://www.tweede-kamer.nl/documentatie/pa...lando/index.jsp (PDF-file)

26-6-2002, nr. 1304.

 

Here's the English version:

 

Answers to parliamentary questions about the demonstration in Assen in commemoration of the Armenian genocide

 

Answered on June 20 2002 by Minister De Vries (Internal Affairs and Kingdom relations).

 

Dutch Parliament 2

 

Conference year 2001-2002

 

Appendix of the Proceedings

 

Questions by Members of Parliament, with replies by the government.

 

___________

1304

 

Questions by member Van Dijke (ChristenUnie) to the Minister for Internal Affairs and Kingdom relations about the demonstration in Assen in commemoration of the Armenian genocide. (Sent May 2 2002)

 

1. Question

Are you acquainted with the incidents of the demonstration that took place on Wednesday April 24 2002 in Assen on the occasion of the Armenian genocide (1915), for which permission was granted by the Municipality and by the police?

 

1. Answer

Yes.

 

2. Question

Have you been informed that, by order of the police, certain words (such as "Turkey" or "Turkish government") were to be cut out of the banners carried during this demonstration?

 

2. Answer

Yes.

 

3. Question

On what grounds could the removal of these words be ordered?

 

3. Answer

The decision to remove certain expressions from the banners in this case, was established by the police and the leaders of the demonstration. It is important to emphasize that public manifestations, such as demonstrations, are settled according to a system of prior notice (with the possibility of a prohibition if the required conditions are not met) instead of a permit system that implies consent to the manifestation. In the Law on Public Demonstrations (LPD) a clear rule is given for the manner in which the right to demonstrate can be regulated at a municipal level. On ground of article 4 LPD, the municipal council as such is authorized to establish rules concerning the prior notice obligation and also within the authority of the Mayor in the framework of LPD, it concerns regulations regarding the orderly course of a manifestation. In case, for instance, a serious disruption of traffic is expected, the Mayor may - after making the necessary considerations of interest - take measures to limit this effect. However the choice of the organization for the time and place of the march is decisive in the first instance and that also has to be the starting point of the local authority. A prior control and active administrative interference in the content of the viewpoints to be carried however, does not fall into the description of LPD and is illegal. The prior judging of texts on banners on their content is a breach of the prohibition on censorship like it is derived from articles 7 and 9 of the Constitution. Only afterwards, when it appears that protesters are carrying discriminating or offensive texts, can the police confiscate banners and such in questions and possibly even arrest individual protesters suspected of certain penal offences.

 

4. Question

Was there, in your opinion, ground for the above-mentioned action of the police during the demonstration?

 

4. Answer

The action of the police was based on the previously negotiated agreements on among others the texts that would be carried on the banners. With that the police wanted to prevent - and that in itself is very justifiable - irregularities from arising. However to my opinion - and hereby I refer you to my answer on question 3 - the approach that the police chose was not legal. Even though the judgement on the legitimacy of the single case is the judge's concern, it is very much the question whether the made agreements could hold in a lawsuit.

 

5. Question

In which cases is the police entitled to alter texts on banners that are carried at a demonstration?

 

5. Answer

For the answer to this question I refer you to my answer to question 3.

 

6. Question

Do you share the opinion that at the aforementioned demonstration there were no problems with public security, which would make intervention by the police necessary? Is there reason to assume that freedom of speech and the regulations of the Law on Public Demonstrations were unjustly breached?

 

6. Answer

The answer to question 3 already clearly explains that problems of public order can never lead to prior interference with regard to the expressions that one intends to use during a demonstration. The answer to the second part of this question should therefore also be affirmative.

 

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

 

2. Leen van Dijke is back from his trip to Armenia where he planted a tree at the genocide monument, offered an original "The torture of the Armenians by the Turks" ("De marteling der Armeniers door de Turken") to the museum, met with Minister of Social Welfare Razmik Martirossian who was on a working visit in Holland on May 27-30 2002, and he spoke to representatives of the Evangelical Church in Armenia. Here's what the Dutch media wrote (if any of you find more news, pls pass it on):

 

A tree for the genocide

 

Van Dijke strengthens tie between Netherlands and Armenia

 

Reformatorisch Dagblad (Dutch newspaper)

Saturday June 22 2002

 

by Peter van Olst

 

YEREVAN - For the fourth time in a few years ChristenUnie MP Van Dijke visited Armenia. The bond between the Eastern European country and the politician is so close by now that he "is not only here on behalf of myself, but on behalf of all the Dutch people who find this important" was allowed to plant a tree at the monument of the genocide of 1915 amid great interest.

 

Van Dijke was received like a head of state in the Armenian capital Yerevan, or so his spokesman said. The head of state however, prefers to direct the attention to the content side of his visit, but these are the facts: Van Dijke is three trees away from the Russian President Putin, the Armenian media eagerly covered his ideas about Dutch-Armenian cooperation and he was and is a welcomed guest with the leaders of the Armenian people.

 

This appreciation has everything to do with Van Dijke's efforts to move the Dutch government to recognize the genocide that the Young Turks committed in 1915 on approximately 1.5 million Armenians. The facts about the deportations, ill-treatment and murders are not denied, but the cabinet in The Hague has hitherto not had the frankness - after so many years - to put present candidate-EU-member Turkey in her place.

 

Just before he left for his fourth trip to Armenia, Van Dijke was again astonished at their unwillingness. He would offer a Dutch book about the genocide to an Armenian museum. He managed to get hold of an original from 1918, written under the editorship of an old-minister of Finance. Neither this ex-minister nor other writers who had prominent functions in the national politics of that time, hesitated to recognize the facts of 1915.

 

This week, in Yerevan, near the genocide monument, Van Dijke laid the book in a showcase, with it representing Dutch language in the museum as well. "The torture of the Armenians by the Turks", is the prosaic title. "I added that I am a little embarrassed about the present Dutch government's attitude," Van Dijke said. The tree he planted obliges him to continue struggling for official recognition and condemnation of the dramatic events.

 

[Passages omitted: Van Dijke meets with Minister for Social Welfare Razmik Martirosian and the Evangelical Church in Armenia to discuss the future of Armenia and Armenian asylum seekers in the Netherlands.]

 

___

 

The Dutch version is only available on paper, but it should still be available in libraries.

 

----------------------------------

----------------------------------

 

Later,

Nairi

 

[ July 01, 2002, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: nairi ]

[15levels]

Strange, I have a feeling that the answers given to the questions are "jur zezel" like we say in Armenian. These are not real answers are they? The context says "just quit asking uncomfortable questions", isnt it?

[elovna]

I don't think so Rouben. Of course the whole issue is something they would rather ignore as they have been trying to sofar. But the answers to these questions, in my opinion, are just truthful answers to what was asked, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing wrong with that.

 

There is one thing that came to my mind however when I read it. The City of Assen made a mistake in handling the matter the way they did. They went beyond authorisation that is given to them by the Law on Public Manifestations because they had no right to interfear with the content of what was to be published on the banners. That is in violation of the right to freedom of speech. Minister de Vries can hardly denie it, so he doesn't. But I can't believe that the City of Assen handled completely on his/her own in this matter, without any influence or pressure of some kind by the government at some stage. Because there is just too much at stake, too much threat hanging over the issue. Yet, if you read the answers, it seems as if it is the City of Assens mistake, no one elses. I would have liked to know very much to the answer to: "What was the role of the government in this matter?"

[nairi]

Latest news:

 

Mayor Van As of Assen's reply to Minister De Vries's answers to parliamentary questions. If any of you find more newspaper articles, pls pass it on (Dutch text below):

 

"We didn't prohibit the Armenians from anything"

 

Dagblad van het Noorden (Dutch regional newspaper)

July 2 2002

 

by Bernd Otter

 

Assen - "Minister De Vries gives an explanation of the law that I don't get. It's a very theoretical explanation coming from an ivory tower. The Minister forgets that the law has to be applied on the street as well." Mayor Dineke van As of Assen City Hall was clearly offended with the Minister's observation that Assen committed censorship by rejecting certain texts on banners prior to a protest march by Armenians. Those texts accused the Turks of genocide on the Armenians around 1915.

 

The municipal council and the organizers of the march had mutually agreed that there would be no reference to any ethnic group in order to prevent irregularities from arising. "And you keep to your agreements. Public order cannot be threatened. As a mayor you are allowed to forbid a march on ground of that, but apparently you are not allowed to make agreements on issues that are very sensitive."

 

Van As therefore does not feel personally addressed by the Minister, who in answers to parliamentary questions established that the police in Assen was wrong when they rejected the banners before the demonstration. In a reaction the Mayor of Assen says that absolutely nothing was prohibited. The Armenian April 24 Committee as the organizer of the march didn't want such references either. According to the Mayor it was never an intention to muzzle anyone.

 

As far as the Mayor is concerned the Minister's lashing will be answered with a letter in which the way things work in practice will be explained to Internal Affairs. "We're talking about a struggle between the mind and the spirit of the law; you can lock the stable door after the horse has bolted, but you cannot put a lock on the door beforehand." That the Armenians then cut out the contested texts from the banners and with it gave it an extra blow, Van As thinks was "actually quite well thought of".

 

------

"We hebben de Armeniers niks verboden"

 

Dagblad van het Noorden

2 juli 2002

 

door Bernd Otter

 

Assen. " Minister de Vries geeft een uitleg aan de wet die ik niet snap. Het

is een erg theoretische uitleg vanuit een ivoren toren. De Minister vergeet

dat een wet moet worden uitgevoerd op straat". Burgemeester Dineke van As

van de gemeente Assen is duidelijk in haar wiek geschoten over de

constatering van de minister dat Assen censuur heeft gepleegd door

voorafgaand aan een demonstratie door Armeniers bepaalde spandoekteksten te

weren. Die teksten betichtten de Turken van volkerenmoord op de Armeniers

rond 1915.

 

Tussen de gemeente en de organisatoren van de demonstratie was evenwel

afgesproken dat er tijdens de demonstratie geen verwijzingen zouden zijn

naar andere bevolkingsgroepen om te voorkomen dat het tot ongeregeldheden

zou komen. " En aan afspraken hou jeje. De openbare orde mag niet in het

geding zin. Als burgemeester mag je op grond daarvan wel een demonstratie

verbieden, maar je mag kennelijk geen afspraken maken over zaken die heel

gevoelig liggen".

 

Van As voelt zich dus niet aangesproken door de minister, die in antwoorden

op kamervragen vaststelde dat de Asser politie in de fout is gegaan door de

spandoeken voorafgaand aan de demonstratie te verbieden. De Asser

burgemeester zegt in een reactie dat er helemaal niiks is verboden. Ook het

Armeense 24 april comite als organsiator van de demonstratie wilde

dergelijke verwijzingen niet. Het is volgens de burgemeester nooit opzet

geweest om wie dan ook de mond te snoeren.

 

De veeg uit de pan van de minister wordt wat de burgemeester betreft

beantwoord met een brief waarin binnenlandse zaken eens uitgelegd krijgt hoe

dingen in de praktijk werken. "Het gaat hier om een strijdigheid tussen de

geest en de letter van de wet; je mag wel de put dempen als het kalf

verdronken is, maar je mag vooraf niet een plankje over die put leggen."

Dat de Armeniers vervolgens de gewraakte teksten uit de spandoeken knipte en

er daardoor een extra lading aan gaven vindt van As " eigenlijk best wel

knap bedacht".

[EZ]

Let's continue here, Nairi, I'm starting to feel like I am sabotaging the presidential elections.

 

I will get back to the subject here later.

 

Have a nice day,

[nairi]

One last thing for today about this subject

 

Unfortunately this is simply not true. Dutch newspapers are accomplices in supporting Turkish denial. "Objective" reporting concerning the Armenian genocide means: "Armenians say this, but Turks say that". There is absolutely NOTHING objective in that. Journalists are fully aware of this. I doubt the government has much to do with this. This is clearly the work of hooligan Turks who bribe/threaten newspapers to write the way they wish. The fact that newspapers allow themselves to fall for this, automatically restricts the freedom of speech that journalists should have in a free country. This bribing/threatening is not uniquely Turkish, btw. Israelis do it as well, and so do Palestinians. The list is endless. If that is freedom of speech in Western society, thanks but no thanks. Let them take the bribes and threats, and pretend they're doing the right thing; but they can't convince me to believe a single word of what they write (or more importantly, DON'T write) in their newspapers.

 

As long as Holland allows itself to act as a coward in front of international pressures, thus breaching its own freedom of speech, it is acting like a totalitarian state, in my book. Or perhaps better said: by allowing itself to be controlled by external totalitarian states, it is making itself totalitarian. If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs follows the rules of Turkey or Israel, it is acting like those countries. No better, no worse. In my opinion.

[takavor]

Hi, Nairi,

 

I must say you have a harsh, cold-blooded opinion about our world. Although we all would like you to be wrong, unfortunately, I have to say you are absolutely right, about evrything.

 

From my past and present travels around the world, I can tell everyone, that westeners are really easy to rule. Whether in US, France, Germany, they all buy that "human right" bullshit the media is giving them all day round. Easy to rule, then.

 

It is simply "not politically correct" to even speak of the Armenian Genocide in any of those countries, yet. Are we victims of racism? Plain yes.

 

Jews have invented a specific word to racism when it is applied to them, i.e.: antisemitism.

 

But how about us? How should we call the flagrant racism the Armenian diasporas around the world is a victim?

 

I believe this should have a name. For every state in the western world is deleting Armenian history from the records, like we never existed.

 

How should this be called? Are we the Jews of the third millenium?

[EZ]

Nairi, if you don't mind I will get back to this subject after christmas.

 

Until then: Prettige feestdagen!

[nairi]

Dear Elly, I've decided to be quiet after this last post before I'm accused of some serious foolishness and charlatanism. As you have seen, my opinions on these subjects are pretty much worthless. I neither have the knowledge nor the experience to discuss them properly. I hope you don't mind.

 

Thanks for your wishes. Ik wens jou ook hele prettige feestdagen. I also hope you had a nice birthday. Sorry I missed it two days ago.

 

Dear Takavor,

 

Let's just keep the international word "racism" for ourselves. We are no different from any other peoples who apply it or suffer from it.

 

Welcome to Hye Forum btw.

 

Cheers,

Nairi

[EZ]

I understand, Nairi.

 

Actually, I don't feel like having the knowledge or absolute truth either, and diving up material just takes up too much time for me right now.

 

One thing I'm sure of is that the Dutch-Turkish situation is one of our national problems. The Armenian question is part of it, but not all of it. I am still trying to get through to 'my' members of parliament about this issue. I believe that whatever nasty pressures we are under, we should not give into them, ever. This is something of great worry to me. Turkey's aggressive 'arms' are capable of strangling our democracy, so proved the Assen monument story. To give in to the mass hysteria of 380.000 Turks who have a mental problem is not my idea of democracy and the fact that it can make one of our mayors go as far as believing that censorship is justified and our government to remain passive, shows how serious this problem is, not only for our Armenians, but for all of us. This is giving me nightmares and visions about provocing the 'ennemy' so that he will have to come forward and show his nasty face, so we can finally start dealing with it, instead of hoping it will go away by itself, because that is a dream that won't come true.

 

By the way, I know you are trying your best in a difficult situation, so am I. And I don't want to waste precious time for the purpose of having the last word either. We can always get back to it later, when we are more knowledgable, Ok?