The 7th annual “Gathering in Istanbul for Freedom of Expression” is taking place on the weekend of Oct. 9, with the attendance of leading academics, such as linguist and critic Noam Chomsky, who is the guest of honor, and International Law Professor Richard Falk. The event is organized by the “Initiative for Freedom of Expression” in collaboration with Istanbul’s Bilgi University’s Human Rights Law Research Center.
Chomsky has reportedly urged attendees to keep up the struggle for justice, which history shows “have been won, almost never granted from above.”
Part of Saturday morning’s session, “We All Are Hrants,” was dedicated to remembering Hrant Dink, the Turkish-Armenian journalist and editor of Agos, who, in 2007, was gunned down in front of his office by an ultra-nationalist.
Journalists hailing from from Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Russia will also speak at the conference, discussing the challenges facing freedom of speech in their home countries.
Chomsky is scheduled to deliver another talk on Sunday afternoon, titled “Democracy and Rights in the Emerging World Order.”
On Saturday, conference participants plan to attend the first hearing of a court trial of two journalists, Ertugrul Mavioglu and Ahmet Sik, who face criminal charges for writing a two-volume book on the Ergenekon case, which allegedly violates a gag order.
The first conference took place in March 1997 as a solidarity campaign with the civil disobedience action of 1,080 intellectuals who signed their names as co-publishers of a book that republished 10 banned articles, one of which was by Yasar Kemal, who was charged under anti-terrorism laws. The 2007 gathering was held in memory of Hrant Dink.
Chomsky is a smart man. But please just be aware that he has praised the Ottoman Empire for supposedly being tolerant and multi-ethnic.
Hi, Dave
I saw that video you mite be talking about and I think you misunderstood Chomksy. He said (I am quoting from memory) ‘nobody wants the corruption and violence of the Ottoman Empire’ but a new and democratic confederated system across the region would be good. He was making the point that states offend seek homogenisation of culture/race/religion which is repressive and undemocratic even if everyone has a vote because minority rites a not respected. Take a look a the video again and if your still not sure write him a letter; I am told he always replies and a am sure he will tell you is strongly against the Ottoman Empire!
No, he’s ‘praised’ the Ottoman Empire for being multi-ethnic and being (for that time) the most tolerant empire towards ethnic minorities. Which is a fact, regardless of what ultra nationalists from the Balkans, Greece and Armenia would have us believe.
This isn’t disputed by any historian what so ever, not sure what he fuss is about?
Kaweh:
“In the Ottoman Empire,….Christians and Jews were not considered equals to Muslims: testimony against Muslims by Christians and Jews was inadmissible in courts of law. They were forbidden to carry weapons or ride atop horses, their houses could not overlook those of Muslims, and their religious practices would have to defer to those of Muslims, in addition to various other legal limitations. Violation of these statutes could result in punishments ranging from the levying of fines to execution”
[source:Akcam, Taner. A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006 p. 24 ISBN 0-8050-7932-7]
Q1: Do you find that statement to be false ?
Q2: If you do not find it to be false (i.e. true), do you consider that ‘the most tolerant’ ?
You are producing a critique from a purely modernist point of view; everyone who is familiar with Noam Chomsky knows that he neither supports those actions nor believe them to be ‘tolerant’ given the advances that have been achieved since then. But it is a fact that ”relative” to the surrounding countries and empires (including European ones before the mid 17th century) those practices were considered pretty tolerant and quite a progression from the practices executed elsewhere and in earlier times. Now, that does not make them acceptable behaviour given our moral progression since then, but it is desirable considering certain arguments that a 21st century equivalent of such a ”confederation” take place.