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.)
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.)
"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
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
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
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
(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."
|The Question of "Arrogance"
Is Dogu Perincek as unreasonable a man as the accusation of "arrogance"
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
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
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."
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;
note the way she put her tail between her legs during this trial and admitted her
shameful usage of a 19th century Russian painting of skulls, as "Armenian
genocide" evidence, was a "mistake." If she is going to make such an
atrocious "error" as that, what a fitting statement on the level of her
"scholarship"), 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
Dogu Perincek gave an eloquent argument, steeped in truth and logic, backed up by
concrete evidence. None of it mattered, in this "civilized" courtroom
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.
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)
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 transpired 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
(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
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.
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
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 Beyazit 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.
One million francs for Armenian relief
was collected in 1896 Switzerland, where one-sided "massacre" stories in the
press also allowed the Swiss to lend their signatures for support — more than for
any other petition in their country's history.
Hans-Lukas Kieser, “Die
Schweiz des Fin de Sie`cle und ‘Armenien’: Patriotische Identifikation, Weltbu ¨rgertum
und Protestantismus in der Schweizerischen Philarmen-ischen Bewegung,” in Die
Armenische Frage, ed. Kieser (Zurich, 1999), 133–57. The above is a round-up
based on the facts of the source, and not a direct quote.
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
Such disclosures have also blown the cover of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation
Commission. Armenian genocide campaigns have always been conducted by such fabricated
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 Yasar 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
`SUCUK` (sausage) CAN NOT BE PRODUCED FROM THE MEAT OF A DEAD DONKEY
There is a saying in Turkish: One can not make sucuk ("sudjuk") 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.