11 October 2006 – Wednesday – 10:32 – Chaiyapum
I woke up with the sunlight filling every corner of the room with ultimate life. I felt the lightness of being in a vacation and this lightness told me that stay in the bed for longer. However, we had a schedule and according to the schedule we had to see a doctor at 8 am in the morning. Then there was nothing to do. All the lightness of morning disappeared and a heavy burden slowly settled on my shoulders. Someone was pulling me out of the bed and I had no right to complain about anything, which might lead to a future baby. We both took shower and got dressed quickly. As soon as we were ready to go out, we left the room for breakfast.
While having breakfast, I had a chance to have a look at the newspaper. My eyes swiftly found the news about Turkey and the prospective law regarding so called “Armenian Genocide”. France tries to pass a new law, which bans denying the genocide. I thought about this before and I could not find any difference between article 301 in Turkey’s Penal Code and France’s prospective ban. What does France try to do? Do they want to promote freedom of speech in Turkey by banning freedom of speech in their own country? Holland already has a law like this and a few ethnically Turkish politicians in Holland suffered from the consequences of this law recently. But isn’t this law contradictory to Europe’s fundamental principles? Why should someone be arrested just because he/she denied the genocide? There are historians who believe there were no genocide but mutual killings as a result of Armenian uprising for independence and joining Russian army to fight against Ottomans. I am not a historian and I do not have authority to say whether there was or was not a genocide during the First World War. But I am certainly against the idea of a law, which punishes everyone who denies the genocide or punishes everyone who says there was genocide. Genocide is an important issue to be discussed by historians, not by politicians. If there are claims about it, those who want to express their opinions can come together and exchange ideas until they reach a common point. However, both sides (Turkey and Armenia) seem reluctant to solve the problem in the sense of scientific thinking and historical accuracy. I guess keeping the enemy somewhere near and always alive can help the nations to have a nationalist youth. This makes politicians’ job easier in terms of gaining votes during the elections. Article 301 is an ambiguous statement and it can be used to penalize the people who barely use their right of freedom of speech. Turkey is trying to solve this problem in recent days by changing the Article 301. However, if a European country passes a new law similar to article 301, then I can understand Turkish people’s reaction. Those who are supposed to teach –I never thought that Europe can be a good example for human rights- human rights and democracy behave like a child. Then why should Turkey do what they say but not what they do?
Some Turkish officials tried to say that France should look at their own history. I think not only France but all Europe must look at their own history and apologize from the nations which are still suffering from aftermath effects of colonialism. Was England different in India? How did France kill thousands in Algeria? Didn’t Italian fascist army kill thousands in Libya? Did Europeans admit their selfish politics during their glorious years of imperialism? None! Those who keep saying that European civilization raised upon reason and science are forgetting to add a few things. If the geographical explorations did not bring wealth from South Asia and Africa, they would never be able to achieve enlightenment. At the end, enlightenment itself is a myth (as Adorno says) and it is raised upon blood and tears of the people in third world. However, European politicians never accept this fact as if it never happened. If France wants to give a lesson to Turkey about human rights, they first have to stop sucking the blood of African nations. Secondly. as I wrote above, denying/admitting a particular event in the history should not be a crime because it can only be considered as freedom of speech. If it is wrong, then historians have to answer, not the prosecutors. It is the same thing when Holocaust is taken into account. There are still imprisoned writers in Europe just because they denied the size of Holocaust. One French writer has been arrested just because he said there should not be that many Jews killed in Holocaust. He gave historical evidence in his article but at the end it was not enough. He was arrested for denying the genocide.
* * *
After the breakfast, we went to see the doctor. It took much shorter time than I have expected. Actually, we did not get what we wanted to hear and left the hospital with despair. We needed to see the doctor next day again. Then J went to see her friend T and I went to buy books from Dasa. I sold the books I have bought and read in Vietnam and bought four books in exchange. It was a good deal because I only paid 130 Baht for four books. (Two David Lodge novels, one novel about Burma and one biography of Kafka) Then I went to meet with another friend S. We met at a Starbucks Café and talked about usual things like books, art, and design and her/my future. After a long conversation, I went back to my hotel room to take a hot shower. Nothing happened after I returned to hotel because I did not want to move any more. I just laid on the bed and started to read one of my new books. The day ended with J’s return.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder