1584) The Swiss Trial of Dogu Perincek

The following discussion is followed by:
1) An Examination of "Arrogance," and
2) Dogu Perincek's summation in court . .


Turkish politician Dogu Perincek hoped to challenge Swiss recognition of the Armenian "genocide" by traveling to Lausanne in March, 2007. He was on trial for calling the 1915 events an "international lie" in 2005. Several scholars tagged along for the trip, including Professors Justin McCarthy and Norman Stone.


The 65-year-old Perincek and co. march into Lausanne


The information tells us the Swiss authorities were not truth-oriented and downright biased. A Zaman article claims "160 members of the Talat Pasha Committee [a group aiming at challenging Armenian allegations] who traveled to Lausanne in show of support to Perincek were not allowed to enter the court hall, as well as the Turkish journalists who wanted to watch the trial." These people were told they needed written accreditation from Swiss authorities; meanwhile, Swiss and other journalists, along with Swiss-Armenians, were allowed free entry.

An article of unknown origin appearing in turkpolitika.com interviewed Prof. McCarthy, who reminded us that even if someone is wrong, one ought to be allowed to air one's beliefs. The professor was not allowed entry initially, and told by the court personnel to wait in a tiny room. He was accused of taking money from the Turkish government.

Evidently, he was finally allowed inside, and his character was further questioned. McCarthy was asked whether he was a member of the "Talat Pasha Committee," to which McCarthy replied no. These were peculiar questions, according to McCarthy. Whether he is from a group or not should not make a difference; they ought to be looking at whether he is a good historian, and whether he is telling the truth.

If one defends Turks, one must automatically be suspected of taking money from the Turkish government, McCarthy explained.

Finally, the trial began to concentrate on the historical goings-on. Perincek's lawyers fired away with the facts, and the defense boiled down to Arnold Toynbee and his Blue Book. McCarthy went on to explain that of course Toynbee proved himself to be a reputable historian, but during WWI, as a Wellington House propagandist, he was beholden to his government. McCarthy ended the interview by being hopeful the trial verdict would be a fair one.

(In relation to this case, an Armenian site countered McCarthy's problem with the Blue Book by pointing to an AZG page reporting on how the British ambassador to Turkey, on behalf of his government, rejected an appeal to reconsider the propaganda work, explaining that "the moral and intellectual probity of the authors, Lord Bryce and the prominent historian Arnold J. Toynbee – may not be questioned." That should settle it, then.)

GUILTY!

A March 10 article appearing in Swissinfo, "Swiss and Turkish press mull Perincek verdict," we are told that "Perincek was found guilty ... of racial discrimination for denying the 1915 Armenian massacre was genocide. He was handed a suspended fine of SFr9,000 ($7,336)."

(A March 9 Swissinfo article referred to below adds: "Under the Swiss penal code any act of denying, belittling or justifying genocide is a violation of the country's anti-racism legislation." This is a ridiculous way of defining the concept of "racism." As Perincek's Swiss lawyer, Prof. Laurent Moreillon (Deanery of Law and Criminal Justice, University of Lausanne), has argued ["Fin des plaidoiries du procès de Dogu Perincek," Armenews.com, March 9], Perincek "does not deny the massive deportations of Armenians, but refuses to admit the concept of genocide." The challenge is to show that the "massacres were orchestrated." In other words, Perincek is "not a revisionist, he is not motivated by hatred."

When there is no hatred, there is no racism. Racism takes place when one looks upon a human group as less-than-human, such as when Armenian genocide advocates refuse to acknowledge the massive ethnic cleansing suffered by Turks/Muslims, at the hands of Armenians and others. These Turks/Muslims are just not valuable enough human beings; this would be racism.)

Further:

"Dogu Perincek had to be punished," wrote the Zurich-based Tages-Anzeiger on Saturday, adding that Perincek had deliberately provoked the trial. The newspaper also criticized Perincek's "overbearing and arrogant behaviour."

In other words, if a person is found objectionable, he must be found guilty. What should any of that have to do with the truth? (A look at "arrogant behavior" will follow.)

Another Zurich newspaper, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), felt the judge had "delivered a consistent judgement, despite being criticised for using historians' views rather than medical or technical knowledge, wrote the editorialist."

In this case, history lies at the core of the issue. But one must make sure to be following honest history; hold that thought.

The mass-circulation Blick said it was "time for the government to recognise the mass killings as genocide after the Lausanne court's 'courageous' verdict." This newspaper further criticized Swiss Justice Minister Christoph Blocher for not being in agreement with the country's racism law (the minister feels Switzerland's anti-racism legislation is incompatible with freedom of expression), and that he would be "better off recognising the genocide than changing legislation." If not, Blocher ought to be shown his walking papers for "this totally unnecessary messing around."

Perincek was reported as saying in Turkey's Hurriyet that "his trial had started a debate in Switzerland over how to judge historical events."

Meanwhile, Harut Sassounian got to the toenail of the matter by concentrating on the messenger, rather than the message. In an essay entitled "Switzerland Detains Turkish Politician for Denying the Armenian Genocide," Sassounian concentrated on Perincek's having spent eleven months in prison in the days when he was a leftist activist. A terrorist, in the mold of Taner Akcam, but with one critical difference, as Sassounian reports: Perincek was "acquitted on charges of assisting the PKK and possessing secret state documents." During his leftist heyday, Perincek had criticized Ataturk and the Turkish Army as fascists (should not such thoughts make Perincek a hero in extremist Armenian and other Turk-hating circles?), and Sassounian further tries to paint Perincek as a flip-flopper, in an assault on his character.

Perincek's crime is for being a "revisionist." He had the integrity to correct certain views later in life, unlike left-wing colleagues from the old days, Taner Akcam and Halil Berktay.

Sassounian also refers to Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand, who apparently thinks little of Perincek, in order to further downgrade Perincek's character. In a Perincek-praising article written by Birand ("Perincek did what everyone was scared to do," Turkish Daily News, March 9), we are told: "When I look at the [Turkish] media, I see no one is interested in the subject." Isn't that an interesting comment on the ever-snoozing Turkey.

The Armenews.com article referred to above claims the prosecutor (Eric Cottier) stated that Perincek bore a "heavy" culpability, and denounced Perincek's "certain arrogance" where he wants "to give lessons." The Armenian "genocide" is "an established fact, notorious, admitted," Cottier explained, supporting his notion with the fact that many international authorities, the Lower House of the Parliament and Switzerland herself has recognized it. Indeed these opinions served as his "evidence." (He must be one crackerjack attorney.) The article says Cottier classified Perincek's "racist motivation" as "without a doubt."

Another Swissinfo article ("Turkish politician fined over genocide denial," March 9) related that Perincek was hit with a further "financial penalty" of some twenty five hundred dollars, in addition to around eight hundred dollars (1,000 francs) to the Swiss-Armenian Association as a "symbolic gesture."

Here is the most revealing part of this whole flap:

Judge Pierre-Henri Winzap accused Perinçek of being "a racist" and "an arrogant provocateur" who was familiar with Swiss law on historical revisionism.

According to Winzap, the politician's action "appears to have racist and nationalist motives". The Armenian genocide is "an established historical fact according to the Swiss public," he added.

A March 9 Yahoo article ("Swiss court finds Turkish militant guilty of genocide denial," written by Peter Capella; why did the reporter choose to call Perincek a "militant"?) further elaborates that the judge opined "the fact that it was not listed as a genocide by an international court did not rule out its reality."

(Regarding the lumping of the sins of "racism" and "nationalism" together, if the judge loves Switzerland and would look to protect his country from unwarranted accusations, would that make him a "nationalist"?)

In other words, when we read earlier that this judge had considered historical issues, we can see now that he was 100% in line with Armenian propaganda. Regardless of the real history that was allowed to slip through in his prejudiced courtroom (reportedly, Perincek and company took ninety kilos of Russian and Armenian documentation with them), the judge had his mind made up. He would rather rely on "Swiss public opinion" to get at historical truth.

Naturally, such a fool has no business being a judge. But here lies the dilemma, for those who are in favor of Turkey taking her case before an international legal body in Europe: how can there be certainty that the judge won't be a closed-minded bigot such as the Swiss Judge Winzap?

In a March 9 piece by the Agence France Presse ("Swiss 'genocide' conviction unacceptable: Turkey"), a Turkish statement is quoted as having stated, "We hope this injustice will be corrected in the future stages of the legal process by the impartial and independent judges we believe exist in Switzerland." A March 9 Anatolia News Agency article ("Turkish Foreign Ministry Regrets Swiss Court Ruling On Party Leader") informs us that Perincek's lawyer submitted the appeal, and Perincek is quoted as having said: "This decision is the concrete evidence of the grudge that [the] Swiss judge holds against Turkey and [the] Turkish nation."

"If I cannot get any result from the appeals court, I will apply to the European Court of Human Rights."

Good luck!

The Question of "Arrogance"

Is Dogu Perincek as unreasonable a man as the accusation of "arrogance" suggests?

Ever see one of those movies where someone is set up or otherwise wrongly sent to a mental institution? We all can identify with this unnerving predicament. You start out by saying, "Look, there was a mistake. I really don't belong here." No matter how calm and civilized a person you might be, when you receive the expected "stone wall" reaction — from a staff that has numbed itself to the abnormal, humanoid "things" around them, and doctors who feel they know better than you do — there will come a point when you start screaming, "LOOK, CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH?" At this point, the wronged inmate looks as though he really belongs there!

Contra-Armenian genocide people of integrity know the real historical truth, but when one deals with high-and-mighty and bigoted idiots like Judge Winzap, whose prejudices have run away with them (and they can't bear to hear any details not in keeping with their deeply held beliefs), then after a point one can begin to lose one's composure. This is probably not what happened with Dogu Perincek; as a politician, he probably kept his cool. But regardless of how well one can maintain one's composure, sometimes an impatient attitude can slip through.

For example, Prof. Justin McCarthy is one of the coolest, most level-headed people around. But in his 2006 PBS debate, when he faced a shark in the person of Peter Balakian, even this mild-mannered gentleman couldn't always keep a poker face. This is when yet another mindless genocide adherent, in the person of New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley, wrote: "Mr. McCarthy mostly sounds condescending and defensive, while Mr. Balakian is smooth and keeps his cool." She had already made up her mind as to where the truth lay, and was deaf to any counter-argument; the spokesman she felt was the dishonest one appeared condescending, or "arrogant."

To get a better understanding of "The Question of Arrogance" on the part of those who know the truth and are up against the ones running the asylum, it's appropriate to visit this same city from an earlier period, when the Lausanne Conference took place. A subcommittee was looking to establish an Armenian homeland in Turkey at the turn of 1922-1923, but the Turkish delegation "arrogantly" refused to play along. Here is what the representative wrote in his memoirs; please pay attention to the dogmatic Judge Winzap-like characters who "would not listen":

Towards the end of the sessions of January 6,1923, Montagna [the Italian chairman of the First Commission of the Lausanne Conference] turned to the question of the Armenian homeland. He began to read what he had written on this subject. I saw that it was quite long. I had never been wrong about Montagna. It was as if I knew what he was going to say. I saw that he was adding things that had not come to my mind. For example they had previously heard the Bulgarians. We did not go to that session. Their statements were not included in the minutes. He said, `Unfortunately the Turks did not attend the session. I will communicate their demands by proxy to the Turkish delegation.' That was the last straw. I objected, he would not listen. I said `We cannot listen, was it supposed to be like this?' He didn't care. . . . He just continued. As if the man was deaf from birth. . . . He finished, [British representative Sir Harold] Rumbolt began to speak. I objected again. I requested to speak. They did not listen. . . . They continued. . . . They read for a long time, their faces were red, they were worried. Apparently they were afraid that an impropriety would occur. I requested to speak. He finished, the French delegate began to speak. This time I repeated my request more harshly. I got up. Like Montagna I said, `I will say a few words.' I began to speak before the French.

I said: `The Allied Powers made the Armenians a political tool for them, and forced them to open fire. They made them rebel against their government. As a result they were punished. They were destroyed as a punishment with epidemics, famine, and emigration. The entire responsibility for this does not fall on us, but on the Allied Powers. If a reward must be given to the Armenians, you give it. . . .

`That the Armenians were unfortunate. That they must be given a home land, independence. We are certain of this. However, there isn't only one unfortunate nation in the world. Egypt so many times, and only yesterday, has been bathed in its blood for its independence. India, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco want their independence, their home land. For how many centuries, how much blood have the Irish shed for their homeland, for their independence?. . Give these people their home land, their independence. . . What you have read is out of order. Under these conditions we cannot stay here. I am leaving the session.'

I got up. My statements were harsh. They were all red as beets. Rumbolt especially was now red, then purple.

In my opinion, England had never heard such harsh and accusing statements in diplomacy. At a time when they were at the apogee of their might and power, it was very hard for these proud British to hear these statements from a Turkish delegate.

They did not include in the minutes these last parts of my statements. They falsified the minutes as they pleased. What forgery. . . . However, my statements were reported exactly by the newspapers of the time. A few days later the Irish revolutionaries wrote me a letter and said: `We thank you for having included the Irish among the oppressed nations who want their independence.

Kamuran Gurun, from whose The Armenian File (1985, pp. 292-293) the above was taken (The provided source: Doktor Riza Nur, Hayat ve Hatiralarim ["Life and My Memories"], Istanbul, 1967, Vol. III, pp. 1062-3), capped it off: "The Subcommittee brought the report to the 9 January 1923 meeting of the First Commission. Lord Curzon mentioned the subject of the national homeland, and Ismet Pasha stated that there was nothing he would add. After this date the Armenian question was not discussed during the Lausanne talks and no article was included in the agreement."

The Defendant's Statement in the Courtroom

What follows is Dogu Perincek's (closing?) statement, which evidently was transformed into an article format with sub-headlines in the original Turkish, and translated by Dr. Can Akkoc (very slightly altered by Holdwater for smoother readability).

Since the writing of the above, I have seen other newspaper accounts of this trial, referring to Mr. Perincek as a "militant," as well as Perincek's summation of the judge as one who hates Turks and Turkey (which, when reported in the absence of anything else said by Perincek, comes across as the sentiments of an extremist).

We can see, however, that the charge leveled at the incompetent judge is entirely accurate and we can see (with the unfair labelings of Perincek's character) the immense prejudice in the Western media. There are some wonderful revelations in what is below, such as a real extremist having taken part (Tessa Hofmann), and... the presentation of the Andonian forgeries as genocide evidence! In this day and age... even Talat Pasha's 1921 kangaroo court trial in Berlin did not go that far. Unbelievable! (I hope one day a transcript of the entire trial will be made available; this amazing farce of legal history deserves preservation.)

Dogu Perincek gave an eloquent argument, steeped in truth and logic, backed up by concrete evidence. None of it mattered, in this "civilized" courtroom in Switzerland.

The Swiss are not known for many things. Among them are cuckoo clocks, banks, chocolate, and neutrality. We can definitely now cross the last one off the list.


Defense by Dogu Perinçek, Executive Director of the Labour Party [of Turkey] at the International Court in Lousanne, Switzerland on March 8th, 2007.

Your honor,

WRONG CHAMBER (court room)

Proceedings in this courtroom during these past two days resemble an academic meeting rather than a court trial. Commentary in the Swiss press has been supportive of this [our] assertion. Therefore, [as a venue] this chamber must be a wrong choice for the case on hand.

(At his point the judge interrupts Perinçek and requests him to remain within the bounds of the charge and not direct critical comments at the court)

Perinçek continues:
Indeed, I am responding to the charge. My comments [disclosures] are based upon academic freedom. University [academic] issues cannot be handled in courts. Judges cannot pass judgements on history. Otherwise, they completely wipe out historic discourse [debate] and such action(s) is shameful for European civilization.

If what is taking place in this court room is supposed to resemble a trial, it could be viewed as an example of medieval trials. Interrogation(s) since this morning have all been aimed at penetrating into the convolutions [wrinkles] of my brain [intellect] and, just as in the case of witch trials, my scientific views/beliefs are being interrogated and put on trial.

These proceedings will not provide harm for me. However, they will harm Switzerland and Europe. You will be harming only yourselves by attempting to prevent scientific discourse through court proceedings, police action, and prison guards.

STATE OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION

Firstly, when scientific reasoning and scientific views are put on trial, all revolutionary leaders of the past century such as Talat Pasha, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Lenin, and Mao come under fire. Such anti-revolutionary and outdated anti-communist weapons will not take you anywhere. European civilization is destroying its own foundations, and what has transpited in this chamber is a testimony to that occurrence.

Whereas peoples of Jewish descent, fleeing Nazi Germany in the 1930s, were being turned away from some European countries, Young Turks, who are under accusation here of genocide, received these refugees with open arms. Ataturk was one such representative of that revolutionary tradition. German scientists, such as Hirsch, Röpke, Schwarz, Koschaker, and Ernst Reuter found salvation and scientific freedom in Turkey when they escaped from a habitat in Europe submissive to fascist and racist oppression.

(At this point Dogu Perinçek refers to the contribution made by Switzerland to the genocide propagated by the Nazis on the Jews by turning them away from their national borders. The judges and the prosecutor listen with their heads bowed down.)

European civilization is collapsing at such a grand scale that true and honest elites such as Jean Thibaux, are renouncing their citizenships from their respective European countries. One of our supporting witnesses in this trial, Professor Jean Thibaux’s changing his citizenship from France to Turkey was taken with sarcasm in this court. May I suggest that such sarcasm be dropped and an effort made to get down to the underlying cause for such action on the part of a true enlightened European intellectual.

Ironically, we find ourselves today defending the moral values of Europe, land of freedom, before a corroding and collapsing European civilization.

THERE IS NO GENOCIDE, BUT WAR

Armenian allegations of genocide are unequivocally untrue. The said issue can be viewed at two different levels. The first is a war among different states. Two hundred thousand Armenian infantrymen, enlisted in the Czarist Russian armed forces, fought against Turkey. Five thousand Armenian combatants enlisted in the French army and wearing French military uniforms, have also been moved to the front lines to fight against the Turks. It is known that a major segment of Armenian forces fighting in both the Russian and French armies have been killed by Turkish forces during combats. Casualties suffered by Armenian forces during wars initiated by Armenia attacking Turkey in 1920 and 1921 should also be added to these numbers. The second would involve Armenian militias [terrorist groups], made up of volunteers and fully armed by Russia, attacking the Turkish army from behind the combat lines as well as slaughtering civilian populations in rural areas, thus leading to mutual massacres in large number of casualties. It should be marked that, while the Armenian forces were serving their imperial colonial powers, Turkey was exercising the defense of her own homeland.

RUSSIAN ARCHIVES

We selected one hundred documents from the Russian archives to demonstrate the facts in these hearings. However, these documents were not drawn exclusively from the Soviet and Bolshevik archives. Instead, a major segment came out of the Czarist Russian era, together with Armenian documents moved to Moscov during the days of the Soviet Union.

Despite our insistence in properly identifying the origins of these documents, the prosecution has kept referring to them as Bolshevik and Russian archive material. We deplore this unprofessional attitude violating legal practice and norms. No truth can be reached by continually using “anti-communist” rhetoric.

My witnesses include Katchaznouni, the first prime minister of Armenia. Please take notice; he is a Dashnak and not a Bolshevik. Others include Armenian statesmen Karinyan, Myasnikyan, and Mikoyan, the well-known foreign minister of the former Soviet Union. Armenian historians such as Boryan and Lalayan have kept to the facts and the truth in their work. These are all decent Armenians. Field reports written by Armenian military leaders also contain striking elements of truth. In one instance a report prepared by a Dashnak officer describes the atrocities committed in the Beyaz?t Vaaram region as follows:

“I exterminated the Turkish population in Basar-Geçar indiscriminately. Sometimes one does not want to waste bullets. The most effective method against these dogs is to dump the survivors after a conflict into deep wells and smash them from above with huge rocks to make sure they are no longer alive. This is precisely what I did. I gathered all the men, women, and children and smashed them by heavy rocks after dumping them into wells.” (Referenced by Lalayan, Gosarhiv Armenii F.65, D.116, y.96, Counter Revolutionary Role of the Dashnagtzoutiun, Kaynak Press)

We also hold copies of decisions from Russian military courts. For example, a decision No. 1014 by a military court affiliated with the Caucasian Army Headquarters refers to a verdict for the execution of Armenian soldiers in the Russian Army for raping and killing 26 Moslem women.

BIAS DISPLAYED BY THE JUDGE

Russian commanders’ reports, such as the one by Klebov contain striking facts. Massacres, torture and other forms of assault committed by Armenian infantry units are detailed in these reports. Colonel Klebov refers to one such incident in Erzurum where massacres propagated by Armenian infantry could be stopped only under heavy artillery fire from Russian artillery units.

Your Honor, our witnesses and I were continually asked in this trial as to how many Armenians were killed. However, nobody was asked for the number of killings that incurred on the Turkish population. I would like to believe this was not deliberate. On the other hand, I can not help wondering if such attitude may not be a reflection of hardened prejudices against the Turks. The life of a Turk is worthless, just as the lives of some 600 thousand Iraqis massacred by occupying forces from the United States.

BREAKING HARDENED PREJUDICES

It is true that I did make the statement “Armenian genocide is an international lie”. It was interpreted by some circles as a ‘provocation’ on my part. I have learned from past history that hardened prejudices are never broken by a soft language. Therefore, I chose to use a volatile language, and we were successful in that sense.

Our operations in Switzerland were also labeled as ‘provocations’, whereas nobody was hurt during these marches. To the contrary, marching groups were praised for their dignity and mature demeanor by the local press. Headlines in Swiss papers, referring to these proceedings, read “History was rewritten [recreated] during these eleven hours” (Le Matin, March 7, 2007). Such commentary is testimony to our progress in breaking prejudices. The intent behind the phrase “international lie” in my statement was to raise the awareness of the Swiss public, contradicting claims of deliberate law breaking on my part.

TURKISH RACISM HAS NO BASIS

It was suggested that I was either a racist or a radical nationalist. Racism from my perspective is equivalent to being dishonorable. This is the moral perspective.

Turkish nationalism is a not a racist movement at all. Turks do not constitute an ethnic group either. From a scholarly perspective it can be determined that Turkish racism does not have a footing nor a foundation. Peoples living in the vast region between the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans are recognized as having blood ties with the Turks at varying degrees of closeness. We even have distant relatives in the Americas. Turks are [probably] the most widely scattered tribe [nation] on the whole planet, succesfully merging and forming ties with other nations and nationalities. Turkish imperial heritage and culture has successfully held together peoples living in vast geographical areas around the globe. It would be not possible to sustain such a diverse population under one roof by sheer racism. Turks constitute a great nation and not an ethnic group.

Accepting Armenians who convert to Islam into their communities is also an indication of how distant the Turks are from racism. It is known that around 400-600 thousand Armenians have converted into Islam during the First World War. Turks have embraced these converts, married them, and raised children together with them. Among the 70 million Turkish citizens living in Turkey, it is estimated that a subgroup of around 6-7 million might have mixed blood ties with the Armenians. Would the Turks have embraced and integrated these people if they had been racists? Would Hitler have done such an act?

VACUUM FILLED WITH INSULTS AND PSCHOLOGICAL WARFARE

Charges in this trial are stemming from prejudices and preconceived opinions. We already responded to such prejudices by reciting historical facts. Those uninformed of history try to fill their own voids through insults and psychological warfare. This is commonplace. The lie of the Armenian genocide was generated by government officials, such as Morgenthau and Toynbee, as well as intelligence elements. This very same mission is now being propagated by elements alike. Witness Tessa Hofman, who testified two days ago, is the head of the Caucasian division of the German Federal Intelligence Service. On the cover of a book published by this witness stands an 1871 painting, depicting a pile of human skulls, rendered by the Russian painter Vassili Vereshchagin, and it is presented as a photograph taken from (what is termed) the Armenian genocide of 1915. This campaign of lies is being propagated by such pitiful evidence. When questioned two days ago, the said author admitted to the error and remarked that it was corrected. Faulty ideas can invariably be corrected, whereas faulty morals can not.

References are constantly being made to Taner Akçam who is a product and protege of the German Intelligence officer Tessa Hofman. While in Turkey, he had studied in the Middle East Technical University. However, he was not trained in history. He has been transformed into a “history scholar” at the Hamburg Social Investigations(?) Center to produce and deliver the material ordered for the campaign.

During the first day of proceedings, the focus was entirely on Talat Pasha’s [alleged] telegraph messages, referred to as the Andonian documents, although we had communicated to the prosecution that these documents were fabrications, as demonstrated many years ago. A United Nations document we were able to present uncovered, once again, the said fraudulent practice.

Such disclosures have also blown the cover of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission. Armenian genocide campaigns have always been conducted by such fabricated documents.

LAWS ARE NOT APPLICABLE

The debate started in this courtroom should now be carried over to the universities and other scholarly institutions.

I plead innocent to the charge, per the existing laws, since the genocide charge is not applicable in the Armenian case. The verdict intended for me has perished with the Armenian claims. This law may be applicable for the genocide on Jews. However, that decision belongs to the courts. It is not applicable to the Armenian case.

Professor Dr. Norman Stone, advisor to the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, has written in his article titled, “There is no Armenian genocide” that appeared in Die Weltwoche, “I am in complete agreement with Dogu Perinçek”. Yet, you are not able to prosecute Professor Stone.

Major general Ya?ar Müjdeci states in his presentation “The Armenian genocide is a lie”. His talk is recorded on film, and yet there is no lawsuit on him.

The former MP from Bern, Albert Hourriet, also states that the Armenian genoside is a lie, and yet you have been unable to bring legal action.

As a matter of fact, after my initial interrogation on September 21, 2006, it was disclosed by the prosecutor’s office that my case would be dropped. The announcement was broadcast on all television channels, including the State Television Channel 1.

The Swiss Senate has completely removed from its agenda its decision to accept the Armenian genocide after our 2005 operations in Lausanne. Furthermore, in October of 2006 the Justice Minister of Switzerland, the Honorable Blocher, had announced the annulment of the law punishing statements in denial of the genocide, as well as forming a commission to that end. The chair of the said commission, Honorable Leupold, has been quoted as saying; “Justices are not qualified to deliver verdicts on history”.

Here we are, with the State of Switzerland getting to a point of revising a law of the land through our actions, previously labeled as provocations. Then, it can be said that our actions have helped the Swiss State, and therefore, they were not provocations after all. `SUCUK` (sausage) CAN NOT BE PRODUCED FROM THE MEAT OF A DEAD DONKEY

There is a saying in Turkish: One can not make sucuk from the meat of a dead donkey. The law intended for applying to my case is already dead from the perspective of Armenian genocide. The corps [of the said law] should now be removed. The said law still being in the books does not necessarily imply that it is applicable. Laws also die and they are buried. This is the only proper action now.

FOR THE FUTURE OF TURKEY, THE MIDDLE EAST, AND THE WORLD

The intent behind my statement was interrogated and examined. Let me present to the court my intent in declaring that the Armenian genocide is an international lie. Firstly, it is my dedication to the truth. Secondly, it relates to the future of Turkey, the Middle East, and the World. This lie is not going to be used with reference to the Armenian issue. Instead, it will be exploited as part of the US plan for the Greater Middle East Project. It appears this lie may play a useful role in expanding the puppet state of Iraq into Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Switzerland and Europe have no stake in this expansion, and neither do our Armenian brothers and sisters.

I respectfully plead for a just decision from the court.

----------------------------------------------------
© Holdwater
The source site of this article gets revised often, as better information comes along. For the most up-to-date version, and the related photos, the reader may consider reviewing the direct link as follows:

www.tallarmeniantale.com/perincek-swiss.htm
-----------------------------------------------------