Hearing ’s : Issues, Demands and Policy Recommendations

Günay Göksu Özdoğan Ohannes Kılıçdağı Hearing Turkey’s Armenians: Issues, Demands and Policy Recommendations

Türkiye Ekonomik ve Bankalar Cad. Minerva Han Sosyal Etüdler Vakf› No: 2 Kat: 3 Turkish Economic and Karaköy 34420, Social Studies Foundation Tel: +90 212 292 89 03 PBX Fax: +90 212 292 90 46 Demokratikleşme Program› [email protected] Democratization Program www.tesev.org.tr

Authors: Publication Identity Design: Rauf Kösemen Günay Göksu Özdoğan Cover Design: Banu Yılmaz Ocak Ohannes Kılıçdağı Page Layout: Gülderen Rençber Erbaş Coordination: Sibel Doğan Edited by: Production Coordination: Nergis Korkmaz Mehmet Ekinci, Pınar Çanga Printed by: İmak Ofset Basım Yayın San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. Translated by: Atatürk Cad. Göl Sok. No : 1 Yenibosna Suzan Bölme Bahçelievler/İSTANBUL-TÜRKİYE

Tel: 0212 656 49 97 Cover Design: Copies: 250 Banu Soytürk

TESEV PUBLICATIONS

ISBN 978-605-5332-01-3

Copyright © May 2012

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced electronically or mechanically (photocopy, storage of records or information, etc.) without the permission of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV).

All views and opinions appearing in this publication belong to the author and may be partially or completely against the institutional views of TESEV.

TESEV would like to extend its thanks to Open Society Foundation, Chrest Foundation and TESEV High Advisory Board for their contributions with regard to the publication of this report. Contents

PREFACE, 5

INTRODUCTION, 7

SECTION ONE, 11 HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL BACKGROUND, 13

SECTION TWO, 21 THE ARMENIAN IDENTITY AND DISCRIMINATION, 23 Religious Discrimination, 23 The Perception about “Armenian” or Armenian as an “Insult”, 25 Discrimination in Public Employment, 26 Hiding Identity to Avoid Discrimination, 27 Discrimination and the Self-Perception of the Armenians, 28 Relations with State Institutions and Legal Remedy, 29 Evaluation and Recommendations, 30

SECTION THREE, 35 EDUCATION, 37 The Discrepancy between Legal Status and Actual Situation, 37 Vice Principals and Culture Course Teachers, 38 Enrolments, 40 Education and Language, 40 Introduction of 8-Year Compulsory Primary Education and Changes in the Education System, 42 Financial Problems, 42 Teachers’ Education and Investments, 43 Discriminatory Practices in Schools: Textbooks and Other Issues, 43 Bilingual Education, 44 Children from , 44 Situation in , 45 Evaluation and Recommendations, 46

SECTION FOUR, 49 THE ARMENIAN PATRIARCHATE OF ISTANBUL AND THE PATRIARCHAL ELECTIONS, 51 Civic Representational Power and Capacity of the Patriarchate: Spiritual Leader of the Congregational Community or Head of the Society?, 52 The Patriarchal Election Crisis, 54 Is A Legal Entity Status Necessary?, 58 Evaluation and Recommendations, 59

SECTION FIVE, 61 VIOLATIONS OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS, 63 Freedom of Religion, Faith and Worship, 65 Destruction of Churches and Cemeteries, 65 Maintenance, Repair and Opening of Churches, 67 Clergy Education, 68 Evaluation and Recommendations, 69 4 ABOUT THEAUTHORS,126 BIBLIOGRAPHY, 122 LIST OFPERSONSWHOPARTICIPATEDINTOTHECLOSED WORKSHOPS,120 CONCLUSION: GENERALEVALUATIONANDRECOMMENDATIONS,109 SECTION NINE,107 ARMENIA ANDDIASPORA,101 SECTION EIGHT,99 COMING TOTERMSWITHHISTORY,91 SECTION SEVEN,89 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP,ADMINISTRATIONANDORGANIZATION,73 FOUNDATIONS ANDASSOCIATIONS:LEGALSTATUSPROBLEMSRELATEDTO SECTION SIX,71 Recommendations, 116 Dialogue andNegotiationforSolution,114 Introspective CriticismsandDiscussions,114 From aCommunitytoCitizenship,113 Initiatives, 112 Political andIdeologicalAttitude,111 Positive Discrimination,111 Between LausanneandContemporaryHumanMinorityRightsCodes,109 Evaluation andRecommendations,105 Genocide bills,105 Diaspora, 104 Armenians fromArmeniainTurkey,103 Border andProtocols,103 Armenia, 101 Evaluation andRecommendations,97 Joint HistoryCommission,96 Genocide CommemorationCeremoniesandApologyCampaigns,95 1915 andtheIdentityofTurkey’sArmenians,94 ‘Coming totermswith’1915,93 1915 andthePropertyOwnershipIssue,93 1915 andTurkishNation-State,92 Textbooks, 92 Understanding ofaSacrosanctHistory,91 Evaluation andRecommendations,85 Associations, 82 Foundation Elections,81 Administration ofFoundationsandElectionTheirDirectors,79 The LegalStatusofCommunityFoundationsandtheirPropertyOwnershipProblems,75 end of the report. The report is expected to trigger a trigger to is expected report The report. the of end the at recommendations policy into transformed been have then participants the by raised issues These perceptions. and experiences their tell to opportunity Turkey of the them Armenians give and ‘hear’ and ‘listen’ to -undertaken limits pre-set no - with effort open and asincere of is aproduct report This property. confiscated the the community foundations, demands and concerning of directors and Patriarch the of elections expression; artistic and cultural intellectual, of freedom practices; religious and faith of freedom the assuring work; and education of right to Turkey access as such in society and makers policy by ignored mostly are that issues the on focuses Recommendations” Policy and Turkey’s Demands “Hearing Issues, Armenians: addressees. political and social related the to thiscommunity of expectations and demands the convey is to in Turkey. thisaim reach to step next The process democratization the about society Armenian the of segments different the of opinions the includes also it but with, living have been population Armenian that problems the introduce to only is not this report of aim The Antakya. and Ankara in İstanbul, migrants Armenian and students academics, publishers, professionals, hospitals, and churches, schools Patriarchate, the of directors and administrators representatives, society civil artists, journalists, together brought which organized were workshops in Turkey. four society project, Armenian the During the within groups different engaged that workshops of aseries of It outcome is an studies. Rights Minority (DP) Program Democratization TESEV’s the of part as for publication prepared was report This Genç, Özge Preface TESEV Democratization Program Democratization TESEV tolerance towards diversity. diversity. towards tolerance or sympathy than citizenship rather equal of principle the embrace to leaders opinion intellectual and public and makers for policy step positive and atrue be will it this process, Throughout level. societal and individual at past the with acoming terms of to inception sincere the and equality; institutional and legal of assurance and reinforcement facts; historical reveal to view a with authorities administrative and state by archives the of unfolding indisclosure Turkey the necessitate processes demilitarization and democratization current recommendations of the report, section and evaluation general the from seen is also it As sections. related under in detail explained are violations these all In thisreport, limited. been has freedom religious of exercise their and restricted been has sphere public to access their extorted, been has expression of freedom Their speech. hate as well as discrimination indirect and direct to exposed have been they Furthermore, religion. cultureand language, their sustaining and in maintaining difficulties experiencing in Turkey Moreover, citizens Armenian phase. still are anew into move to in order past in the left be should everything that claiming ideas the support to hard It is discussing in detail. it than rather denial of state in a are motivations different with discussion the of of Armenians, slaughter and differentsides massacre systematic the of discussions public the During in general. groups minority all and particular, in citizens Armenian towards attitudes and policies the of in terms large at society and media academics, decision-makers, amongst rethinking of process

5 6 date, in terms of resonating the memory of the the of memory the resonating of indate, terms to effect on-going an with amilestone, constitutes in 1996, editor-in-chief, its as Dink Hrant with newspaper, the of launch The groups. minority ethnic/religious of in terms thismodel of criticism the group, and ethnic dominant the cultureof the around anation becoming foresees that model state nation- Turkeyon the on discussions global the of impact the lies thisphenomenon of background In the 1990s. mid onlyafter emerge to have started relations social and arena political media, in the attitude and thismentality of forms reproduced the against opposition dissenter and criticism public that known is it in particular, Armenians and inMuslims general non- in Turkey against state the by demonstrated attitude and mentality discriminatory the Given agenda. the on brought have been ever institutions cultural and social religious, their of survival the threatening religious ethnic and identities, nor the practices Turkey, of citizens Armenian different their to due the targeting discourses “othering” and pressures other hand, neither attitudes, the discriminatory the On “de-historicized”. even or context, historical away their from torn ignored, have been Armenians Turkey’s of roots economic/social/cultural the and in thisland presence and residency Armenian of centuries thisprocess, of part As allegations. genocide in the Turkey rejects that historiography official the of theses the reiterated have in general views These relations. diaspora Turkey-Armeniathe Armenian and of framework in the mostly thiscontext, and, within 1915” “events of the on debates in the extent, large in Turkey a to Armenians have appeared, recently until the to in or reference to regard with forward put Views Introduction published in 2005. in published in Turkey Armenians of “othering” the was of analysis and questioning amulti-dimensional covering book among the books published in 2000’s. published books the among also were 1915 after in and suffered tragedies the 3 2 1 Ottomans and the “1915 events”. “1915 the and Ottomans the of period last the regarding discourse and writing history- official the questioning findings research in Turkey, Armenian an being of experience and the understand to trying and describing papers Turkey, from researches and together brought writers scientists, social historians, many by attended and Sorunlar Demokrasi ve Sorumluluk Bilimsel Ermenileri: Osmanlı Döneminde ( Democracy” of Issues and Responsibility Empire: Scientific the of Decline conference Armenians During on the “Ottoman the attacks, and hindrances many to exposure Despite culture. and literature history, Armenian the on publishes it research and works literary the with thisprocess accompanies Publishing] also Yayıncılık[Aras Turkey Aras domain. public the within of for democratization action civil joint proposing voice anew and identities, cultural their to respect Turkey, citizenship and equal enjoy to request their of Armenians the of suffering and history existence,

Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Bonn. Anlatıları Bellek Kişisel Ermenistan’da ve Türkiye’de Konuşmak: Birbirimizle 2010, Araqelyan Torunlar 2009, Anneannem 2004, Çetin İstanbul. Öteki Mahçupyan İçimizdeki 2005, İstanbul. Yayınları Üniversitesi Sorunları Demokrasi ve Sorumluluk Bilimsel Ermenileri: Osmanlı Döneminde Çöküş İmparatorluğun 2011, Aral , Metis, İstanbul; Neyzi ve Kharatyan- ve Neyzi İstanbul; , Metis, 2 ı), held on 23-25 September 2005, 2005, ı), September 23-25 on held Family stories shedding light on on shedding light Family stories İmparatorluğun Çöküş Çöküş İmparatorluğun , Metis, İstanbul; Altınay ve Çetin Çetin ve Altınay İstanbul; , Metis, 1 , İletişim Yayınları, Yayınları, , İletişim Etyen Mahçupyan’s Mahçupyan’s Etyen , Institut für für , Institut 3 The study on on study The , Bilgi , Bilgi

7 8 Armenian society in Turkey. society Armenian of segments the bringing individualsvarious from together platform adiscussion create this end,to aimed the study their –from perspectives. To perceptions and experiences on their spheres political, –based legal, societal in Turkey in citizens by Armenian encountered problems the narrate to was study for our fountainhead The framework of Republican policies. Republican of framework the within have they encountered problems the have and they seen, changes the modernization, Ottoman in the role their gone through, have they phases political and social the institutions, their and Armenians Armenians/Turkey’s Ottoman perceptions of identity and encompassing the history study extensive an as in 2009, published and TESEV by supported project aresearch on based continued, Cemaat-Birey-Yurttaş), Ermeniler: (Türkiye’de “: Community-Individual-Citizen” unique study. is a report the In thisaspect, discussions. during the voiced demands the with in line recommendations policy various identify to aview with in Turkey, society Armenian the of segments various from individuals together bringing platform discussion a To create to aimed study thisend, the perspectives. their –from perceptions and experiences their on –based spheres societal political, in legal, in Turkey citizens Armenian by encountered problems the narrate to was for ourstudy fountainhead The participants. the among discussions the Januar 15 and 2010 December 11 2010, November 27 2010, October 23 on held workshops during four gathered views and information of light in the prepared been has period, Republican Turkey’s by encountered in the problems Armenians various the explore to aims which here, study This 4 Yurttaş Türkiye’de Cemaat-Birey- Ermeniler: 2009, al. et Özdoğan , Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul. İstanbul. Yayınları, Üniversitesi , Bilgi 4 y 2011, as well as as well as y 2011, society participated into the workshops. The The workshops. the into participated society Armenian the representing views, political different of businesses, and church the of members and activists, society civil students, and academics teachers, lawyers, members, and administrators association administrators, foundation artists, Journalists, media. in the aplace find which and level society the at reflected are which participants, workshop the by out pointed approaches discriminatory the highlights Moreover, study encountered. the barriers the and Turkey in of theidentity, Armenian the reproduction of Armenians the of organizations society civil and institutions social and cultural religious, the of role the addresses study the In thiscontext, focuses. study our which on themes main the among are identity ethno-cultural of protection the threatening policies and religion, of freedom to related rights restricting are that Practices problems. the in exploring axes main the of one as addressed be to needs also identity Armenian the dimensionof ethno-cultural hand, the ( community of position the what and parties the by perceived are relations “state-community” the how important is also it At thispoint, is inevitable. rights minority and human and citizenship rights individual Turkey, between relationship the on touching of Armenians the of problems the In understanding in conjunction. data objective and subjective evaluate to we endeavoured In ourstudy, individuals. of accounts and perceptions the of top on input important provide also obstacles bureaucratic and decisions governmental and judicial arrangements, legal institutions the associated and Armenian of structure the Therefore, foundations. the church,institutions and such as schools communal their to specific problems the with together addressed are citizens individual as Armenians by faced problems the that is inevitable it Hence, function. institutions Armenian existing currently the how and relationship state-citizen the both of analysis in Turkey in-depth state an the requires vis-à-vis Armenians of positions the Understanding cemaat ) means for Armenian individuals. On the other other the On individuals. Armenian for means ) were one of the main axes of our discussion, which discussion, our of which axes main the of one were workshops, fore during the the to came which rights, minority on Treaty the Lausanne of of provisions The covered. also were institutions Armenian of functioning internal and administration in the encountered problems In thiscontext, discussed. were period to period from varying arrangements legal and assessed, and in Turkey problematized were in particular Armenians the and in general minorities non-Muslim the target that and issues voiced the of background in the lie that patterns mentality and policies discriminating practices, unlawful The solutions. proposed with along participants the of interpretations and views the and workshops, during the agenda the on brought issues the convey to aimed all of first study This 4. 3. 2. 1. sessions: four separate in themes following of basis the on addressed were workshops in the discussion to opened issues The workshops. Armenian’sTurkey of the by held in the foundvoice views the all saythat to possible maybe it end not in the scale, participant the with society Armenian the within representation ensure abroad to aimed was it Although people. 25-30 of group participant a welcomed four workshops the of Each Vakıflıköyü). (e.g. in Anatolia living in still or Istanbul of outside working afew and in Istanbul living majority the with groups, (Istanbulite-Anatolian) family and age, gender, various of are denomination participants the new Constitution Constitution new the “democratic initiatives” from expectations diaspora; and Armenia with relations history; the with terms Coming to discrimination identity; worship; and religion of Freedom problems organizational and administration internal foundations; community Patriarchate; The media affairs; cultural Education; and and açılımlar) (demokratik The Principal of Getronagan High School, Silva School, High Getronagan of Principal The study. the of phase preliminary during the his support for Koptaş Rober to grateful We also are suggestions. and criticisms their with contributions valuable made who and report the of drafts preliminary the read who Koptaş, Rober and Kentel Ferhat Mahçupyan, Yumul, Arus to Etyen thanks our We extend us. to belongs responsibility all comments, our amidst sharpness their havethat lost topics or mentioned not issues or omissions any are there where thisstudy. and if Still, through we could as best as contributions their convey We to have tried thanks. sincere Weourmost discussions. them owe the of continuation the ensured devotion, and patience who, with and documents, and information written submitted who criticisms, and comments their us with on light shed who feelings, and thoughts their expressed freely and workshops the attended who participants esteemed our to belongs study this of production in the contribution greatest The diaspora. Armenian and Armenia with relations the on touches also study the Armenia, of Republic the of establishment the thisand with connection In addressed. also are oblivion into history Armenian the throw to efforts the and 1915 of genocide the by created trauma the face Turkey’s to of reluctance “elements and “foreigners” of threat”, the unfairness as Armenians of perception of problem the and identity Armenian the against level society and state the at entrenched have that become prejudices negative the on concentrates study, also which In our policies. “initiative” in the observed problems several the and recently seen changes positive various the both of framework the within discussed were Constitution new the making of process the from Expectations included. also was process Turkey’s of course in the agenda coming the on EU laws harmonization the of impacts the of evaluation hand, an other the On institutions. religious and cultural social, educational, on exerted pressures the and Treaty in the Lausanne, of foreseen rights citizenship equal individual of violations explored

9 10 various phases of it. Özge Genç, who coordinated the the coordinated who Özge it. Genç, of phases various us during the with views and ideas her shared and for study our project the designed who Kurban, Dilek We thank sincerely Program. Democratization TESEV the of Director Kurban, Dilek from came voices own Turkey of Armenians the of their from problems the convey aiming to astudy undertake to proposal The workshops. the beyond contributions additional for their thanks Weourspecial them owe feedback. their offered and study our of version final the review to time made also workshop, in the participated who Aslangil, Sebu Attorney and Davuthan Setrak Attorney Kuyumcuyan, editorial work of the report. the of work editorial the and sources some to access our facilitating for organization, workshop the for handling them thank we also Program; Democratization TESEV the of assistants project the were Ekinci, who Mehmet and Bakkalbaşıoğlu Esra enough. her thank cannot We text. final the to report preliminary the from writings, our all on devotion and diligence with worked matter, and subject the on sheprovided documents and information the study,the with it enriching of stages us in all with discussed and pondered also but possible, workshops the made and participants the reached only not Program, Democratization TESEV the of framework the within study Section One

early 16 early In Empires. Seljuk the and Persian the Byzantium, Roman, the the as such formations, political greater under life political asemi-autonomous maintained in general they structures, independent political some created they time to time from Although peoples. Anatolian the of one as lived Armenians 6 5 prayer of houses and structures residential of locations the regarding restrictions specific some and clothing on restrictions with along courts, at status witness ( tax additional for an return in non-Muslims to autonomy internal an granted law, for non-Muslims, Islamic the from derived dhimmi the applying State, Ottoman The 20 the of beginning the until Thereafter, Anatolia. today’s Eastern of area geographic mentions Armenia the Armenians and in the Darius conquered, has he countries the of names the listing when thismonument, On . north-western found in B.C. century 6th the from Persia, of King “Armenian” “Armenia” and I, Darius of is amonument using words source the written first the Armenians, of origins the on theories various are there Although Background Historical and Political remained in Ottoman hands. in Ottoman remained region the of section alarge variable, were borders the Although abattleground. became lands Armenian The population. Armenian alarge to home Anatolia, Eastern of control for the Empire fought Shiite Safavid these restrictions to be implemented more harshly. more implemented be to restrictions these cause would battle alost of aftermath the in atmosphere political atense example, For period. by varied implemented be would restrictions these harsh How 67.p. 66, Merchants and Commissars to Priests and Kings From Armenians: The 2006, Panossian 6 , and took them under its protection as long as as long as protection its under them took , and th century, the Sunni and the the Empire and Sunni century, the Ottoman , Hurst and Company, London, London, Company, and , Hurst jizyah 5 ) and limited limited ) and th status, status, century, the system as we understand it is a product of the 18 the of is aproduct it we understand as system millet the that and time, of course in the progressively millet the that posit some practices, and institutions its all with Istanbul) of conquest 7 into practice in the 15 in the practice into put and created was millet the system that claim some While disputed. still are origin and framework scope, millet the is called structure this literature, In the rule. its recognized they Armenians – until the early 19 early the –until Armenians Ottoman the to applied also situation same The conjuncture. the on depending varied this power of effectiveness and scope the though communities, their over agoverning power had leaders religious community. the in the Hence, order public ensuring and community own their from soldiers recruiting or taxes collecting as such responsibilities and powers various granted protocol, state in the millet of head the as group each of rabbi) chief (patriarch, leader religious order the amira the and patriarchs the of power the question to started education modern received had who intellectuals the and influence its merchant group that hadincreased the 1830s, By the society. Armenian Ottoman the over their dominance maintained Patriarchate, Armenian the as well as state the to ties financial close with goldsmiths Armenian and bureaucrats Armenian amira the patriarchs, besides time, that Until Armenians. Ottoman on impact an had also trends philosophical and political modern century. Holmes&Meier Publishers, New York and London. London. York and New Publishers, Holmes&Meier Empire Ottoman the in Jews and (ed.), Christians Lewis B. and Braude B. System”, Millet of Myths “Foundation 1982, millet the of adiscussion For 7 In short, the state recognized the highest- the recognized state the In short, . They demanded the internal administration administration internal the demanded . They th century (following the the (following century , gave these leaders a place aplace leaders , gave these system, although its its although system, system, please see: Braude Braude see: please system, class, high-level high-level class, th century, when the the century, when system emerged system th

,

13 14 10 intermediary between the Ottoman state and the the and state Ottoman the between intermediary the and community the of leader the committees, all of head the as his position Assembly, maintained yet National Armenian the to subordinated was Patriarch The Councils. Spiritual and Civil the by nominated candidates the among from patriarch the elect to duty the given was Assembly National Armenian the In addition, Council. Civil the under established also were commissions community. the Some of affairs the run to collaborate would councils two These Councils. Civil and Spiritual the elect to years two every convene councils. civil fully no were there Code, Armenian unlike the Inaddition, occasions. specific at Council Joint the and regularly, convened twelve of Council Spiritual The control. the maintained still clergy the Patriarchate], Greek the of [Statute Nizamatı Patriklik Rum name the under in 1862 coming effect into Ottoman the of Regulations of Code in the example, For Jews. the and Greeks Ottoman the by prepared texts the to compared democratic and secular more was text This 9 8 adopted. was Armenians Ottoman the of structure administrative internal the regulating and state the Armenians Nizamname and Regulations]by [Code of the by “Constitution” called detail, considerable of community, atext the and in 1863, state the between negotiations of aseries Consequently, after intellectuals. Armenian for liberal opportunity an was which affairs, internal their regulating astatute prepare to community each asked state ( Reform of Edict Royal the After Armenians. Ottoman the from participation broader with democratic, more be to community the of with the votes of Ottoman Armenians, Ottoman of votes the with established be to was Assembly National Armenian seven membership seats. seats. membership seven the of out two only given were Armenians, Ottoman the provincial Armenians, who constituted more than of 90% the as here, unfairness an is there that noted be It should Durumu 1839-1914 Hukuki Vatandaşlarının Osmanlı Gayrimüslim 1996, Bozkurt İstanbul. 1839-1863 Doğuşu, Anayasasının Ermeni Devleti’nde Osmanlı 2004, Artinian see: please it, created that process the and constitution this on astudy For 9 Yet according to the Armenian Code, an an Code, Yet Armenian the to according , Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, p. 171. p. 171. Ankara, Tarih Kurumu, , Türk Islahat Fermanı Islahat , Aras Yayıncılık, Yayıncılık, , Aras ) of 1856, the the 1856, ) of 10 which would would which 8

of influence of the Armenian Apostolic Armenian the of influence of sphere in the plane, official the on shrinkage, relative a thismeant course, Of autonomy, state. the by millets separate as in 1850 Armenians Protestant the then and 1830 in Armenians Catholic the first of recognition the was Another important development in the 19 in the development important Another reasons. [the for similar Porte] Sublime Âli Bâb-ı in held meeting ademonstration after Istanbul across arising pogrom in the in 1895 killed were Armenians of hundreds In addition, subjects. hisby Christian Padişah the against capital the in protest ever first the was This Armenians. Anatolian the of situation the against protest to Kumkapı in Party Hunchakian the by led demonstrations the in intervention police the of aresult as place taking incidents in the deaths some were there In 1890, 1891. of as void facto de became regulations of code the and Anatolia, in Eastern for reform demand Armenians’ the of because state the with relations in the tensions to due down closed was Assembly National Armenian the In 1891, 1891. until smoothly relatively implemented was in 1869 again adopted Regulations of Code The 1869. and 1866 between thiscode of implementation the suspended state the extent, some to problems internal these to Due levels. expected reach to failed elections in the interest public the In addition, disagreements. some brought also Constitution in the foreseen structure administrative complex relatively The problems. without go didnot Regulations of Constitution/Code The regulations. of code the by limited were his powers Nevertheless, society. Armenian 11 made it the “national church”. “national the it made which churches, Orthodox East independent the of one becoming Church, Byzantine the with ties severed ground that on and monophysitism with sided Church Armenian the Christ, of nature the to regard with monophysitism vs. duophysitism of debate the in that, noted be also It should Thaddeus. and Bartholomew namely Jesus, of apostles two by founded was Church Armenian the that believed is it as “Apostolic” the called is church This , i.e. separate groups with specific specific with groups separate , i.e. [Ottoman Sovereign] [Ottoman 11 Patriarchate Patriarchate th century century Hunchakian Party established in Geneva in 1887 and and in 1887 in Geneva established Party Hunchakian the were organizations these of well-known most The struggle. armed exclude didnot which organizations, establishing started and initiative the take to decided Armenians 1880’s, the some of half second in the conditions, these Under criminals. as treated were they or ignored, either were demands and of protection against rape. Throughout the 19 the Throughout rape. against protection of and property and life of security of deprived completely almost were They worse. much was East, the in especially in Anatolia, Armenians the of situation the in Istanbul, place taking were these While millet Armenian the of representative the as regarded still was Patriarchate Armenian Apostolic the and Armenians, Apostolic of case in the intertwined were ethnicity and religion that said be easily words, can it In church. other national the as in Patriarchate Apostolic Armenian the and religion, national the as regarded be to continued Apostolicism 12 19 (Gregorian Church). such, sinceearly As fault line at the society level. society the at line fault painful and asignificant became division Catholic Apostolic- the that, Beyond state. the to complaints filed repeatedly had and Armenians, Ottoman among missionaries Protestant and Catholic of activities the with uncomfortable been had patriarchate the the situation throughout the 19 the throughout situation the of for rectification times many Âli Bâb-ı the petitioned Armenians Anatolian unpunished. The remained often Armenians the against committed crimes These occurrences. ordinary become had women Armenian of kidnapping even and property of extortion land, of Usurpation despots. the to tribute and state the to gave taxes they despots; local the and officials state the both by crushed continuously were century, they

Romeo &Juliet. &Juliet. Romeo of version acontemporary like much family, Catholic a from other the and Apostolic an from one people, young Armenian two between love impossible the about writes Pasha), (Vartan Vartanyan Hovsep author, the letters, Armenian in written although novel Turkish first the as recognized is which Hikâyesi, Akabi the in such, As 12 Despite all these, these, all Despite th century. Yet century. their th century, th

. involvement of the Ottoman State in the World in the State Ottoman the of involvement The hopes. all to end an put in 1912 country the of hold took that chaos and war of climate the conditions, i.e. i.e. Turks unacceptable, the nation which ruling the were in one than other model political foundany CUP the the CUP.the with cooperation the maintain to effort the continued Tashnags the hope, thisnew With country. democratic and liberal amore desired who peoples other didto it as just Armenians, to gave hope elections, the following assembly anational of formation the and action, thisconcerted from extent some to resulting in 1908, constitution the of re-proclamation the such, As regime. Abdulhamid the against Progress and Union of Committee the with cooperate to hesitate Tashnags, the didnot foremost and parties, Armenian the Hence, regime. Abdulhamid the about happy not were who CUP] Progress, and Union of [Committee Komitesi Terakki ve İttihat by led subjects Ottoman other the also but Armenians, the only not It was Federation), founded in in 1890. in Tbilisi founded Federation), Revolutionary (ARF-Armenian Tashnagthe Party 13 , , Muş, Bitlis, and the Sason regions. Trabzon, Sason the and Erzurum, Muş, Bitlis, in place taking killings mass in the killed, were Armenians 100,000 around administration, Hamidian the of guidance and encouragement the with 1896, In 1894- got things worse. platforms, international and local at both repeatedly promised reforms administrative the on deliver to failed state the As 14 15

Yayınları, İstanbul. Yayınları, 1887-1912 Sosyalizm ve Milliyetçilik Hareketinde Devrimci Ermeni 1992, Ter Minassian Angeles; Los Movement Revolutionary and these parties, please see: Nalbandian 1963, Armenian Anatolia in situation the on narrative detailed amore For Brunswich and London. and Brunswich 1908-1914 Rule Ottoman under Ideology and Organization Armenian 2009, Kaligian see: relations, Tashnag-CUP the describing asource For Yayınları, İstanbul, p. 210-218. p. 210-218. İstanbul, Yayınları, 1839-1938 Devlet ve Kimlik Etnik Misyonerlik, Vilayetlerinde Doğu Barış: Iskalanmış 2005, Kieser see: events, the of description and figures death different For millet-i hâkime 15 However, within a few years it became clear clear However, became it years afew within . With the influence of external external of influence the . With , Transaction Publishers, New , University of California Press, Press, California of , University 13

, İletişim , İletişim , İletişim , İletişim 14

15 16 the Armenian population. Armenian the of abig majority in the massacre but also Armenians, didenemy not forces, in only of result the the relocation with in were league that Armenians the pretext under in 1915 Armenians Law”)Settlement against adopted Tehcir The and Law “Dispatchment name (official b. a. or religious racial ethnical, group meansgenocide: anational, in part, or destroy, to in intent whole with committed acts following the of any that is adopted it Genocide, of Crime the Punishment of and Prevention the on Convention Nations United 1948 the 2of Article In this. accepted Turkish the not do genocide, state as events these describe Armenians While termed. be Today, should events these how on is a dispute there execution. extrajudicial to subjected them of many with cities, other from then and Istanbul from first evacuated, were artists and writers MPs, including intelligentsia Armenian the 1915, April 24 on as, blow aheavy received society Armenian The population. Armenian the of abig majority of massacre in the also but Armenians, the of relocation in the result only not did forces, enemy with in were league Armenians that pretext the under in 1915 Armenians against adopted Law”) Settlement and “Dispatchment name (official Law Tehcir The Armenians. for Ottoman end the of beginning the was in 1914 Germany with in alliance 16 e. d. c.

this report to describe the events of 1915. However, However, 1915. of events the describe to report this in used is genocide word the definition this of aresult As Killing members of the group; the of members Killing another group. another to group the of children transferring Forcibly group; the within births prevent to intended Imposing measures in part; or in whole destruction physical its about bring to calculated life group’s of the on conditions inflicting Deliberately group; the of members to harm mental or bodily serious Causing 16

throughout the country, they were also entitled to to entitled also were country, they the throughout discrimination any without rights political and civil legal, of exercise equal guaranteed citizenship status their words, while In other rights. positive some and citizenship equal both with endowed were Armenians the groups, two these with along Hence, Muslims. non- other and Assyrians the excluding in practice rights, these of holders the as Jews the and Armenians ( Turkeyof Greeks onlythe recognized Republic the of state the yet in general; non-Muslims all to rights minority some founding treaty, granted Republic’s the as is accepted which Lausanne, Treaty The of in 1923. Turkishthe nation-state of proclamation in the resulted WWI the of aftermath in the emerging independence of war Kemalist The sphere. public in the visible more be to started grandchildren their Nowadays, force. by or concerns security to due will their by either Islam to converted who Armenians numerous were there that noted also be should it In addition, censusdata. 1927 to according population 0.5% the of onlyaround were they in 1914, population overall the of 7% made Armenians While years. of for thousands lived had they which on lands Anatolian the culture from and presence their of in terms erased, totally almost were Armenians end in the maycalled, be events the what matter No

data. 1927of the to population census according population in 1914, 0.5% they only were around made of 7% the overall While Armenians Volume%2078/volume-78-I-1021-English.pdf. http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/ see: please Genocide, of Crime the of Punishment and Prevention the on Convention UN the of text the For deportation. aforced was it time same the at but above definition the to according agenocide was Armenians to happened what because acontradiction necessarily not is event same the for deportation and genocide deportation) and ‘tehcir’ terms the context the on depending ‘kırım’ ‘kırım’ (massacre) are also used. To used. use also are (massacre) Rum (forced (forced ), the ), the conflicts emerging during the process of founding of the founding of the of process during the emerging conflicts ethnic the of aresult 1990’s, as of beginning the By approach. anew with thisissue address to preferred but rights” “minority term the on emphasis special a put didnot 1948 of Rights Human of Declaration Universal the why reason the was That (UN). Nations United the of umbrella the coming foreunder to rights, minority than rather rights, human emphasizing in resulted world in the and in Europe post-WWII the of conditions political changing The question”. “minority the solving waysof legitimate the of one as assimilation regard to atendency Moreover, was there them. to importance secondary of was a nation-state in minorities the of situation the threatened, was peace international words, unless In other rights. minority in the interested were they in which framework the was this and stability, and peace international institute to was WWI the Treaties the to after signed parties were who nations great the of priority first the elaborately, To Nations. of more it put League the of guarantee the under was and WWI, the of aftermath inEurope the in ensure aimingstability to order state new the of gain Treaty in the a were included rights minority The time. the of conditions the of framework the within Lausanne Treaty the of evaluate to appropriate It be would state. for the obligations some Treaty, the by recognized introduced which rights the contradict could Republic the by adopted act official or law, no that decree forth set also Treaty Lausanne of the In addition, citizenship rights. equal with along differences cultural and lingual religious, protect that rights specific some encompass Treaty Lausanne of in the included rights minority the Hence, protection. under taken were Ottomans the from inherited institutions charitable and educational cultural, religious, the of flourishing and survival the context, In this Ottomans. the of period last during the threatened severely were who non-Muslims the of cultures and assets the of protection the regarding rights corrective for some guarantees legal stipulated had Treaty the to Lausanne of party countries foreign The differences. ethno-cultural their maintain to them enable to rights positive of framework the within rights economic and cultural lingual, religious, some 19 mention below. we will which of some agreements, international on based thismatter on standards some introduce to made were attempts and abandoned, was states of problem a domestic as rights to regard minority tendency the minorities, national new the of security the to threat the to due and Europe of nation-states new 18 17 ”.“send to them and remaining Armenians the gather to proposed been also had it in Ankara, established assembly first the of sittings In the exile. to sent Armenians of properties the regarding 1920 in January government Istanbul the by made arrangements the abolished had it that away in 1922 right declared Government Ankara The in particular. Armenians and inMuslims general non- to came it when CUP of that than different any Turkey of Republic amentality adopt didnot the of founding the cadres that evident become has it all these international Notwithstanding developments, recognizing and realizing these rights collectively. rights these realizing and recognizing to accede not do that states the of hand the strengthens level collective the at or level individual the at exercised be should rights minority the whether about uncertainty The minorities. of cultures and existence the protect collectively to duty the given are states agenda. political in the issue outstanding amore as Lausanne Treaty the under of non-Muslims to recognized rights minority the of violation the treating to led and Kurdish the movement, by made demands political and cultural the of framework the within forfocus debates anew have created rights minority and rights human regarding standards international the (EU), Union Turkey, European the to for membership applicant an

531, 552. 531, Savaşı’na Kurtuluş Terakki’den İttihat Sorunu: Ermeni ve Hakları İnsan 1999, Akçam Europe, p. 11. p. 11. Europe, of Implementation Rights Minority the for “Introduction”, 2004, Pentassuglia Mechanisms Press, New York. New Press, System Nation-States European the and Minorities National 1998, Preece see: rights, minority of concept the of development and emergence the For 17 Today, the understanding, anew with 19 The succeeding The minority , İmge Yayınları, Ankara, p. Ankara, Yayınları, , İmge , Strasbourg, Council of of Council , Strasbourg, , Oxford University University , Oxford 18 In In

17 18 Adana, where Armenians once lived in large numbers. in lived numbers. large once Adana, where Armenians Diyarbakır, Sivas, Yozgat, Harput, , Bitlis and such as of collapse centres the economic social and meant situation period. This also throughout the Republican erode to continued population culture Armenian and The society, contrary to what was foreseen in the law, in the they foreseen was what to contrary society, the at and state the at both Therefore, status. positive a ascribed been have that legally rights minority social and cultural religious, the regarding obstacles have they encountered In parallel, citizens. equal as accepted have been not non-Muslims the that out points clearly This threat”. of “elements as regarded being their due and terms, in sociological differences ethnic and religious their of because both nation the of part anatural as perceived not were they that in Turkey. for non-Muslims indicated rights also This citizenship equal of is aviolation there that proved employed policies” “minority discriminatory The in Istanbul. live 90% than more thispopulation, of that is estimated it And population. 0.1% overall the of than less is which 70,000, to 60,000 Turkey between is in Today, population Armenian the that is estimated it numbers. in large lived once Armenians where Adana, and Bitlis Harput, Yozgat, Sivas, Diyarbakır, Malatya, as such centres of collapse economic and social the meant also situation This period. Republican the culture and population continued to erodethroughout Armenian the in particular and non-Muslims the which of aresult thispolicy, under as pursued were practices similar more many and foundations non-Muslim of properties the of confiscation the and 1955, 6-7 of September events the TaxWealth 1942, of the Twenty the of Classes, Incident 1941 the practices, Declaration Property 1936 the Events, Thracian assimilation and domination.assimilation oppression, suppression, intimidation, on based were term, simplest in the it put to Republic, the of policies 20

İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul. İstanbul. Yayınları, Üniversitesi Bilgi İstanbul Politikaları Azınlık Döneminde Parti Tek 2004, Okutan see: policies, minority Republic’s the of codes main the For 20 As such, the 1934 1934 such, the As , the presence of a representative of the Ministry of of Ministry the of arepresentative of presence the In addition, citizens. non-Muslim the from members representative any include not does it as norms coming from them”, not conform does to democratic demand such any evaluate and Treaty Lausanne, of the from primarily and conventions international from arising citizens non-Muslim our of rights the “protect is to purpose whose and Foundations, of General Directorate the and Affairs Foreign of Ministry the Education, National of Ministry the of representatives the include members whose Committee, considered a positive development. However, the may be structure civic in amore Administration Provincial of General Directorate the to subordination its and no. 3530) and (dated 5.1.2004 Ministry Prime the of order the with Committee] Review Issues [Minority Kurulu Değerlendirme Sorunları Azınlık the as thiscommission of rearrangement The enough. is significantly which Staff, General Teşkilatı İstihbarat Milli representing members of composed was state, the with relations in their non-Muslims in 1962 by a secret decree asecret by in 1962 established was it since announced officially not was thiscommission, that which fact The security. national to threats as perceived are communities these that showing practice is another non-Muslims, to regard onlywith operated which and citizenship status equal the violated which Sub-Commission], [Minorities Komisyonu Tali Azınlıklar the of existence The minoritie non-Muslim the protect to oriented rights positive of understanding the violating practices to subjected also were they Lausanne, Treaty the by of foreseen citizenship principle equal in the inherent rights the of violations to exposed were they citizenship. While “second-class” to corresponds aminority being that have experienced 21 22

Tartışmaları Yurttaşlık Sürecinde AB Politikaları: Azınlık ve Çoğunluk mı?”, Türkiye’de Vatandaş mı “Azınlık 2005, Yumul 7.11.1962 and no 28-4869. 28-4869. no and 7.11.1962 dated Ministry Prime the of order the with Established [National Intelligence Organization] and the the and Organization] Intelligence [National içinde TESEV, İstanbul. İstanbul. , TESEV, 22 and confronted and the s. 21 as “foreigners”. as regarded interpretation, unlawful an with are, citizens non-Muslim the that commission, indication is an previous in the case the was it as Affairs, Foreign 23 of activities arts cultureand the and minorities, the on inflicted discrimination and violence the to İHD], attention draw to Association, Rights [Human organizations, the such as non-governmental of initiatives the heard, voices own their make to Armenians the of efforts the Kurdish the movement, by spurred liberalization Turkey of of spirit the that see in 1990’s, we can dynamics internal the at we look when Furthermore, it). signed yet not (Turkey has in 1998 effect into came which and in Europe 1995 of Council the by signed was which Minorities, National of Protection for the Convention Framework the and standards; EU the with in conformity rights minority of protection Copenhagen condition encompassing Criteria the as (ECtHR); the Rights Human of Court European the of decisions the it, under required and, as (ECHR) Rights Human on Convention European the with along Rights, Cultural and Social Economic, on Covenant International the and Rights Political and Civil on Covenant UN conventions”, the namely “twin UN’s the likewise and Rights Human on Convention UN the as such instruments international various also but Treaty the Lausanne of of framework the within phenomenon which required consideration not only in Turkey a rights became minority the Hence, laws. EU harmonization the of name the under made were arrangements legislative some in parallel, and Turkey, by adopted for EU membership, aspired who also were society, democratic amore create to aim which and rights minority the encompass also which Criteria, Copenhagen The in Europe. conventions several of basis the on redesigned be to started rights minority 1990s, In the years. fifteen last in the developments positive relatively have there been that said be can it picture, thisdepressing to Compared default_B0.aspx?content=130. http://www.illeridaresi.gov.tr/ see: Committee, Review For Subcommission the Isues Minority and Minority 23 İnsan Hakları Derneği Derneği Hakları İnsan doubts in anyone’s abouttheir involvement. minds in no away that involving left also officials some state of aconspiracy aresult 2007 as in January assassinated Dink,Hrant the editor-in-chief of the Agos newspaper, was rights in particular. rights minority the and in general democracy the broadened Türküler Kardeş as such groups commemorate the genocide, the history, to face and to campaigns apology and events organized organizationsnon-governmental and intellectuals some period, same In the Turkey levels. new to rose in speech hate the parliaments, countries’ some of agendas political the on included were bills genocide Similarly, when hopes. the weakened bureaucracy executive and judicial the by stonewalling deliberate almost to due case Dink Hrant in the progress of lack the and circles obvious of speeches hateful and racist the development, apositive as viewed be to starting thiswas Ottoman-Turkish as Just history. the considering event unprecedented an was anon-Muslim of funeral in the participation Massive people. of thousands of hundreds by attended was Dink’s funeral in confirmation, if hand, as other the On involvement. anyone’s their minds about in doubts no left in away that officials state some involving also aconspiracy of aresult as 2007 January in assassinated newspaper, was Agos the of chief editor-in- the Dink, Hrant First, years. few last the in another one have followed developments disparate in Turkey,change witnessed that said be can it the of aresult as perhaps In fact, exist. to continue politically discriminating, and the hate speech still socially/ are that attitudes citizenship rights, threaten that prejudices deep-rooted and rights, minority the of in breach are that and institutions of functioning the restrict that practices in particular, Armenians to regard With sufficient. not but developments in Turkey purposes positive are for democratization years recent in the adopted laws harmonization The , served a function that that afunction , served

19 20 murder, responsible and parties. perpetrators or its cause, the for ground this that prepared in the process part taking exposure, institutions and with clarity, full of the persons have the prevented of theprocess trial theand course Dink, by the prosecutors both the investigation undertaken of since Hrant the murder have passed years five Although thought in Turkey.thought of freedom and rights human and democratization against stand that ideologies discriminating and racist the curse to acall is also it responsibilities; their of authorities judicial and government the remind and case the of course the protest Adalet için için Hrant call the In thiscontext, unlawful. being to in addition justice of pursuit the circumvented which of all trial, on put not were officials administrative and intelligence security, responsible The with. tampered away hidden and was evidence the and dark, in the left were abettors/accomplices the of identities The parties. responsible and perpetrators cause, its or for thismurder, ground the prepared that process the in part taking institutions and persons the of clarity, full with exposure, the have prevented process trial the of course the and prosecutors the by undertaken investigation the both Dink, Hrant of murder the since have passed years five hand, although other the On prevail. will dynamics which know yet not we do in which turning point critical is goinga through country the saythat to possible is it Turkey.within developments, these all at Looking dynamics various are there is that asign difference this And actors. different by done were intentions opposite completely with actions these that noted be should it course Of debate. apublic start [Justice for Hrant] is not only a call to to acall only foris Hrant] not [Justice consciousness behind this usage. thisusage. behind consciousness is asociological there saythat to difficult is similarly However, Armenians. it the by abandoned completely (cemaat) community term the that “society” ( “community foundations” of case (such in the as necessary technically when except society, Armenian the describe ( “community” using term the community ( a from expected not group, something heterogeneous very and dynamic avery constitute they intellectually, and politically In addition, identities. religious their through foremost themselves expressing of atrend demonstrate not do today’s Armenians (cemaat Turkey of a“community as society Armenian today’s describe to accurate very be It not would other. each of view negative in Turkeydenominations have asystematically different of Armenians the saythat to possible longer is no it and small is quite Armenians Protestant languages ( Nor ( language Armenian in the 2dailies with 3newspapers in Elmadağı); 2orphanages, Hospital in Yedikule, AgopArmenian Surp Hospital the and Armenian (the Pırgiç Surp in Istanbul hospitals 2 churches; 40 than more in Istanbul; active all associations, alumni their and schools 16 foundations; community Istanbul; of Patriarchate Armenian the follows: as are sections, subsequent in the address we will Turkey, which of problems and details the in Today, society Armenian the of institutions main the ). For, as you will see in detail in this report, in thisreport, ). in For, detail see youwill as toplum Agos cemaat) ) and 1 weekly in Turkish 1weekly ) and &Armenian ). Today, and Catholic of number the ). On the other hand, we cannot say hand, we cannot other the ). On . In parallel, we have also avoided avoided we have also . In parallel, ). Instead, we used the term term the we used ). Instead, cemaat has been been has ) in this report to to ) in thisreport ” and and Section Two

situation as follows: as situation this diagnoses academic is an who participant A rights. equal legitimate with citizens as Armenians accept to impossible it find society the of part alarge and state the words, both In other overcome. completely been yet not has duality ruled] are Muslims]/ Sunni millet-i life,the hâkime social words, today,In other and in Turkey’s political general form. in that sustained been has it “foreigners”, and as regards it those “outsiders”, towards i.e. the towards attitude ahostile demonstrating hence and state the within position sovereign losing the of in fear state-centred, authority-oriented, is generally that identity an of form the taken Turkish has identity The society. the and state the by both years long for Turkish the of identity part inseparable virtually and adefinitive rendered been has Armenophobia a“Turk”. as themselves define who those by Armenian an to attributed meaning the to example, for refers, here mentality The mentality. prevailing the and practices in the lies problem real The equality. emphasize occasionally laws the shortcomings, significant other maysome be there although contrary, the On laws. by defined inequalities official not are These thissituation. of” result Turkey, anatural “as occurs discrimination that and in groups ethnic and religious between Ottomans, the from inequality, inherited of problem is ageneral there that participants the by emphasized frequently It was Discrimination and Identity Armenian The the Armenians are the minority. They can empathize empathize can They minority. the are Armenians the where equal, not are they where from only relationship a build can They in it. included isalso Left the and equal, not are they that level the at only Armenians with engage could Turkish of society portion A large [other millets that that [other millets mahkume millet-i [ruling millet, Turks – [ruling millet, communities in Anatolia, to prevent the public public the prevent to in Anatolia, communities Armenian small the on especially pressures, are there days. In holy Turkey, Christian on displayed freely were Christianity of activities and symbols the where envied, be to acountry as Syria showed participants the of one that It is interesting in general. society the by legitimate as seen not and upon frowned is churches than other in places worship Christian of requirements the performing example, For Islam. Sunni than other religions of visibility public the on pressure social aserious is also there In addition, position. asecondary ascribed are Muslims non- that is understood it emphasis, this specific From expressions. such by conveyed discrimination the by off put were they stated participants the of Some politicians. and state the of officials ranking highest the by repeated phrase is acommon 99%” of population aMuslim with “Turkey is acountry R eligious equal conditions is still not liked. not isstill conditions equal under but aggressively it doing and in politics involved Armenian An things. same the discussing still we are in fact 1908; since lands these to yet entry its made not has Equality further. go to any able been we have not and [in 1908], there still We are in politics. involvement and power, of independence show equality, slightest the at parameters 1908 to wego back but them, with remaining minority is not even thought of. thought even isnot minority remaining The 99%. that around everything shape makers is, policy- That 99%. that to according shape takes everything Because Why? emphasis? this of meaning isthe What it? about what but Muslims, are they Alright, Muslims. population its of 99% with country Turkey say people isa prominent most Even the D iscrimination

23 24 gather to worship, they are described as as described worship, are to they gather Christians of agroup Whenever demonized. virtually are missionaries called are who People Anatolia. in especially connotation, negative extremely an has amissionary Being phenomenon. “missionary” is the pressure religious of component important An Christian. other the and Muslim siblings the of one with families see to possible have It is emerged. families half-Muslim and Christian half- even said, participant one what to According aMuslim. become to have chosen in time pressures, the of tired people, many difficulties, these all Despite origin”: Armenian our us forget let didnot “They saying, by thissituation described generations of couple last for the identity Muslim official an with living been has that afamily from Aparticipant life. in daily continue may attitudes Pricking “converts”. as labelled being from save themselves cannot they Islam, to convert they if even example, the by Moreover, shown as follows: as thissituation describes Sason in born Aparticipant prompting. constant through rather but force brute through done always not is This Armenian/Christian. are they that understood is it if religion change their to pressure social to subjected be can such, they As collectively. worship they when even have in secret, worship to Anatolia in living Armenians of number small the participants, the to According religion. their of visibility every time: “You are a convert, you are not one of us”. of one not are you aconvert, “You are time: every head your on down comes Ahammer happened? altered, come and meet the religion of God [Islam]”. [Islam]”. God of religion the meet and come altered, been has book your religion, correct the in isnot believe you religion “the that directly told always am I Armenian, Iam that isknown Igo, it when Wherever religion. have changed who Armenians the “converts”, Even by Muslim. every by once least at You tested are you are , they name you as “ as you name ,they are you who asks someone [convert]. When adönme become You easier. nothing makes it religion, your change you you”. for when And easier be will …it religion your “change your religion, change your religion, change … religion change to bombardment A relentless dönme ….”. So, what and the missionaries. the and government II Abdulhamid between relation tense Turkey, a of Republic was there that is known it as of era the to limited not etc.). is aphenomenon This (education, media, of Religious Presidency Affairs instruments through its inperception the society this spread to managed also has mechanism state The “separatist”. or “destructive” as state the mind of in the associated been has missionarism is that factor important an that stated be should it complex, and way is multi-dimensional anegative in such perceived is missionarism why to answer the Although pressure. social to is exposed religion another preaching or mentioning is free, Islam propagating where a country 26 25 24 course. the in present be to obliged held were but points, grade of in terms exempted were they sometimes exempted; completely were they sometimes and thiscourse, from exempted not were they Sometimes course: religion the take should students these whether to comes it when for decades adopted have been practices different that It is understood schools. of types in other classes Ethics and Culture Religious take yet schools, Armenian attend not do who Armenians, those by faced issues the mention to needs One the society. the and state the from violence, even pressure, to exposed indirectly or directly are they and “missionaries”

154, p. 62-69. p. 62-69. 154, Neden Sevmiyordu?”,Misyonerleri Toplumsal Tarih “Abdülhamid 2006, Kılıçdağı see: missionaries, the and regime II Abdulhamid the between tension the For to. lead can Anatolia in activities” “missionary Christian against attitude the where of indication an also is Trabzon in 2006 February in Santoro Father Priest Catholic of murder the Similarly, oppression. this of examples painful most the of one is ongoing, still are cases court whose and state the of institutions various to related be to alleged are who individuals by 2007 April in Malatya in activities, missionary in engaged house apublishing Yayınevi, Zirve to araid in 3people of killing and torture The average compared to other students. other to compared average point grade alower have will course Culture Religious the from exempted astudent that problem potential the also is there marks, high get/take usually students where acourse is ethics and culture religious the since Moreover, 26 24 Some Armenians participating in the in the participating Armenians Some Besides, it is discrimination per se that in that se per is discrimination it Besides, 25 , issue that opens the door to religion-based discrimination. discrimination. religion-based to door the opens that approach an is also distorted” “a and fake lie, in fact is religion another that idea the with students Muslim Indoctrinating schools. public attended they years the in practices similar experienced also had workshop the 6 the least at to back goes in Anatolia existence Armenian 60% is better understood. is better 60% 27 Armenian an this, of whenever derivative or reflection a as And choice. other any them leave not does discuss we approach the yet, thislist; of top the on identity Armenian his/her etc.), may place and not homosexual, (such woman, physician, as identities other many has Yet, naturally, Armenian, an identities. other his/her all Armenian, an foremostArmenian only and ignoring as an is regarding discrimination of derivative One society. the of section alarge and state the both by elements “outsider” in Turkey a“foreigner”, and Armenians as seen are the that said be view, of point can it From ageneral T 28 A or “where Armenians come from”. come Armenians “where about have idea no Union”, 30% Soviet another and the of Turkey to disintegration the came today after in Turkey living Armenians think “the respondents the of 30% Armenian, not Turkish are who people on administered In asurvey traitor”. “untrustworthy, as described are Armenians perception, P he

Radikal Kendini Sever”[ Only Love Themselves], Tek Bir Halkı “Türk 2011, Işık group. liked” least “the are Armenians respondents, the for words, other In groups. other against opinions negative having of ratio the among highest the is This Armenians. on opinions negative having stated have respondents the of 73.9% 2011, May in announced be to results (SETA), with Research Social and Economic Political, for Foundation the by survey the In direction. same the in information reveal surveys Many of showing how Armenians are viewed. viewed. are Armenians how showing of terms in summative and typical quite are citations These Turks. some with meeting group afocus of participants by made statements the include book same the in 442-446 Pages p. 443. 2009, al. et. Özdoğan Aktaran, in Cited th century BC or even earlier, the ignorance of this of earlier, even or ignorance BC the century “I an as rmenian erception “A about , 2May. 27 As a continuation of this of acontinuation As 28 nsult Considering that the rmenian ” ” Armenians. of Turkey or spokespersonand even of all of the Armenians domain, he/she representative the collective as is perceived visible becomes inWhenever the Armenian public an “nothing bad is reflected on the Armenians”. Armenians”. the on “nothing is reflected bad say, they what and do that they so what of care extra take Turkey; of individuals Armenians Armenian hence, the by accepted been extent, some to has, approach this In fact, Armenians. all of behalf on speaking if as is perceived TV on programme discussion a on appearing Armenian an example, For Armenians. Turkey of Armenians the all of of even or spokesperson and representative collective the as perceived domain,he/she is public in the visible becomes of the Turkish state regarding its non-Muslim citizens, citizens, non-Muslim Turkish its the regarding of state policies official The Turkey state. by another towards pursued politics in or the politics in international card” trump “easily dispensable like an are Armenians The thisperception. of aware is also person other the that fact the in thiscountry, and threat constant under and ‘hostages’ as themselves feel non-Muslims) other the also (and inArmenians fact the is that for thisperception you”.to reason the And me from come shall harm no ease, at “be as phrases similar thisand perceive Armenians some is that Turkish of have interesting lots is more friends”. What I friends, Armenian of me? If youhave with do to lots is it, “so...what voice to not have it choose does often may they though in Armenians, invokes this sentence reaction The case. “exceptional” “extraordinary”, an friend(s)” “having Armenian as is seen is because That athing? such express to need the feel person other the would Why derogatory. as hearing upon Armenians by is perceived thus and expression, “abnormal” a“strange”, is in it reality thissentence, behind intention ill is no there friends”. Although Armenian of have lots “I phrase is the circle anew enter they when or someone to introduced first are they when individuals Armenian by heard often cliché Another

25 26 Armenians. aboutthe this perception reinforces over decades, itsspanning non-MuslimTurkish regarding citizens, state of the policies official The another state. Turkey towards in internationalcard” politics or by in the politics pursued “easily an like are trump dispensable Armenians The possible to see appreciative expressions. The The expressions. appreciative see to possible is common, also it more are Armenians towards insulting approaches although level, societal At the it. “normalized” and “internalized” frequently, having thislanguage use also media mainstream daily the of segments some And forums. online and websites various on expressions similar also are There thisincident. regarding actions any initiate didnot Turkish Federation Football Moreover, the 2010. 5December on in İstanbul played Bursaspor and Beşiktaş between match football the at stands Bursaspor the from shouted Beşiktaş” “Armenian support slogan is dogs the racism popular of example One Arıtman. sued insult and an as it perceive didindeed Gül Abdullah Armenian. being of Gül Abdullah (CHP), President ‘accused’ Party People’s Republican the of İzmirdeputy the Arıtman, ago, Canan years afew Likewise, remembered. is still which incident an Öcalan, Abdullah Leader “ expression the (DYP), used Truethe Party Path of Akşener Meral time, the of Interior of Minister the Tansu Inof 1997, Government duringpeople. the Çiller, the by or politicians, and bureaucrats by either time to time insult from an “Armenian” as word used be to for the occurrence unknown an is not it In addition, alive. thisperception keep citizens applyi incidents of incidents 6-7 September the as such events Historical Armenians. the about thisperception reinforces spanning decades, over 29 Ermeni dölü

Question. Cyprus the in card atrump as used were they example, For ng the principle of reciprocity for non-Muslim for non-Muslim reciprocity of principle ng the ” [Armenian spawn]” [Armenian PKK insult to the 29 and approaches such as as such approaches and follows: as in his city situation the described Christianity, to converted recently has who and Anatolia in generations few past for the Muslims as living been has family whose positively. participant, One mentioned be can individuals Armenian level, abstract an on negatively is perceived Armenian being while Sometimes, qualities. positive as mentioned are Armenians of craftsmanship and industriousness the graduation, the dean of the faculty summons the summonsthe faculty the of dean the graduation, the Yet, faculty. the of before time some student scoring top the as graduate to right the earns performance, academic outstanding university, an having shown a of Sciences Political of Faculty the at studying Turkey of Republic the of citizen Armenian An internalized: been has rule thisunwritten extent the of indication is an participant a by shared anecdote An in practice. implementation this resists bureaucracy the bans, official no are there Although bureaucracy. the of tier top and middle in the anon-Muslim see to possible is not it servants, civil becoming from non-Muslims other or Armenians the preventing provisions no are there although Turkey” of Republic the and of acitizen “being to stipulation the changed in 1965 adopted Servants Civil on Law the Although employee. apublic as for recruitment for eligibility condition a as Turkish stipulated ethnically being was 1925, dated Servants Civil on Law the 4of In Article E D mployment iscrimination in P before the Armenians. Armenians. the before it get to want they somewhere, shared be to pasture isa there if example, For conflict. interests their Until point? what until But interactions. own in their relationship adecent maintain to try but system, the by brought filth the from Armenian being see They people”. respectable very are “they say would they “ “Armenian”, say said you would …When they people from words praising hear wealso But state. the from top, the from comes insult of mode the region, In our Haşa ” [God forbid], but when you said tailor Ş..., tailor said you when but forbid], ” [God ublic 31 30 importance. actual its than higher Turkey of considerably Armenians was the of eyes in the servant acivil being of importance symbolic the that was opinion common the workshops, In the citizenship inequality. of indication an hence and discrimination, of asign as Armenians by perceived are obstacles recruitment servant civil The positions. servant civil to non-Muslims of appointment the to regard with bureaucracy military the of approaches and mentality the demonstrate clearly Koşaner by words these evident, not are appointments such of numbers significant visibly that fact the Despite development. adangerous it them”, called and appeasing of purpose for the minorities from servants civil of “appointment the about complained Koşaner May 2011. Koşaner, Işık Staff, 19 on General of Chief the by made speech is the thisapproach to examples recent most the of One effective. is still officials state top-level and middle as employed be cannot Armenians that idea the that is clear it initiative, his on own entirely or authorities higher from suggestion or adirective of because in thismanner acted dean said whether know to possible is not it Although Armenian. is he an as impossible thiswas that and lots, drawing go through having to without position governor district deputy the for eligible become automatically students scoring top three the as first, the not and student scoring top fourth the as honours him onlythe give to able be will and “embarrassed” are they says and student

yazilmaya-calisiliyor--son-dakika-haberi_163092.html http://www.dha.com.tr/org-kosaner-alternatif-tarih- 2011, May 20 Koşaner], Gen. from Observation [Striking (2011), Ajansı Haber Doğan officially appointed. appointed. officially been yet not have they although Halepli, including examinees, successful the for servant civil as recruitment to obstacles no remains there 2011, March early in court local the of judgement the reversed State of Council unsuccessful candidates. As the 11 the As candidates. unsuccessful the of one by appeal an to due happen not did recruitment The Ministry. Prime the of Affairs EU for General Secretary the to specialists of recruitment for test the passing those among was Halepli Süren Leo named Armenian an 2010, In attention. draws development recent One 30 31

“Org. Koşaner’den Şok Tespit” Tespit” Şok Koşaner’den “Org. th Chamber of the the of Chamber . account: following the gives participant one years, recent in the lessened has thistendency Although identity. Armenian their with domain public in the seen be to want not do Armenians words, many In other society. the of rest in the image existing Armenian negative the of aresult as stigmatization potential and avoid to mistreatment in order possible as “invisible” as themselves Turkey of render to Armenians The try H chair. the become to unable end, Inwas he the organization. same the of members the by attempts persuasion” and “suggestion through organization, aprofessional of chair the as his to election hindrances and challenges specific some with faced was he how explained participants the of one example, For organizations. in commercial even and organizations, governmental in non- also but institutions only in governmental not encountered be can discrimination of types These university, during military service etc.). service university, during military (at domain public in the “createor difficulty” trauma” “not will create that and cultures, Armenian Turkish in both have that and aplace names are they sure that make to care take children, they naming their when that said participant One names. second their like are “Turkish” -their names men are whom of all –almost trade and business of domain in the working Armenians for most Especially identity. Armenian their exposing thus society the of rest the disturb and unfamiliar sound to thought are names Armenian because so do they domain; public in the names real their of instead a“Turkish” use is to name identity Armenian their hide to have developed Armenians strategies common and tangible most the of One D iscrimination iding I professions. professions. specific some than other in employment engage or politics, go to into children their wanted family No away. hidden been have always children The society. in Turkish figures public articulate as children their raise to wanted ever has family Armenian No to A dentity void

27 28 expressed several times by the participants: participants: the by times several expressed was opinion This else.” everyone as peace-loving as twice and courageous as twice honest, as twice hard-working, Turkey of as Armenian “must twice be an these, all of sake the For difficulties. all despite life in social successful be moreover Armenians, on prejudices negative the thay may escalate behaviours Turkey of avoid in general, society Armenian the on or individual an as himself to either attention draw Turkey of Armenian thing. An not should arduous” and difficult in Turkey Armenian a“very an being as describe them of Many selves. their about Armenians the of feelings and perceptions the shaping of in the role important an play society the and state the both from stemming discrimination and pressure The P D hiding: of sake for the does friends Armenian his of one what explains participants the of One name. Armenian the of instead school for the name another giving domain, or public in the Armenian speaking from abstaining street, the on identity Armenian of exposure cause will that expressions avoiding include examples Other this. to limited not are goal “invisibility” the of manifestations tangible The erception A the of iscrimination S the and driver’s license. driver’s my them hand just and ID card the out take never I or back; the on section religion the see cannot they that away in such it Igive or part, photo-bearing the only show Ieither ID card, my for ask they When Uncuyan”. “Aramyan say to unable Iwas since School, Education Primary Merkez Kadıköy say up aname, make Iwould Iattended, school which asked When at six o’clock, we have to get up at five. Instead of of Instead o’clock, six five. at up wehaveat get to up gets If everyone working. to comes it when same isthe This in everything. same isthe This child. one raises mother Armenian an which with effort the with children two aTurkish words, raises In other family do. you in everything sentimentalism and love effort, in Turkey your doubling Armenian means an Being rmenians elf - participant describes his feelings as follo as his feelings describes participant here.” Another schools 2000 we here, had already We were stage. alater at thisland to came that nation amigrant not are following: “We the expressed Aparticipant avoice. and having rights hence and “native” being thisland, from being to refers element” “constitutive Here, a“minority”. being to opposed “equal as and citizen” element” a “constitutive as counted being were proposed concepts alternative The “minority”. of concept the through identified be to prefer not do they said participants the of Some Armenian!” and leftist both being “for him twice beat doubt no would but leftist, for being his friends “beat” likely would police the as gave idea, on upthe on later he how explains years during university movement leftist in the part take to wanted who youth Armenian An aparticipant: by given example in an seen is also psychology much” as this“twice of A reflection wanted to express that the Armenians “have to prove “have prove to Armenians the that express to wanted participant alive”. The still we are that and killed we were that we have both prove to contradictions; in Turkey Armenian “being askein being of means said participant one example, For contradictions”. in Turkey of Armenian “full being an being as described who participants some also were There negative connotations. avoid to these label thisminority reject to tend Armenians the Hence, “enemy a“traitor”. and inside” a“foreigner”, an being as such connotations negative respective of abaggage it with brings it and case aneutral as in Turkey seen been never minority has a being of status the yet element; autochthonous an being and aminority being between contrast is no there that maythought it be glance, At first more, five times more peaceful than the Turks. the than peaceful more times five more, twice wehave be to peaceful, Turks. be to If weare as courageous as twice wehavebe to courageous, be to weare if In job. short, abetter do and ourselves we havewe havecriticize to done, in what pride taking minority here; I am the real founding citizen... citizen... founding real the Iam here; minority a not Iam place, this for everything Ido here, Iserve here, Istudied here, service military my I did ws: ws: on this matter as follows: as thismatter on his observations shared participant One in Anatolia. remaining families Armenian of number decreased the by especially is felt deeply Armenian”. situation This remain to in order apart have stand to saying “I by his concern expressed participant one example, away”. melting and For society the of rest the with “mixing of possibility the about concerned also are citizenship, equal they yet and full demand Armenians ToTurkey’s dilemma. elaborate, assimilation Turkey of Armenians the integration- is the for dilemma main the dilemmas, these to In addition pho the on cried and mom his/her called exam,s/he the After course. the pass to robot” like a much and spirit no “with answer appropriate the writing taught, he/she was as rebellions” “Armenian on aquestion answers in Anatolia auniversity at studying youth Armenian An example: astriking makes aparticipant by anecdote following The them. on pressure psychological this places course, Of teachings. these of truth the accept they if as act happened”, they is “not really what schools at taught history the think that they although example, For are. they if as have act they to true, actually not are officials and institutions state by them to taught “truths” the know they although is that Armenians for the thisdilemma of reflection Another ignored. are existence current their and massacre past the both today”; because exist still they that and lands, these on past in the massacres scale large- to subjected have they been things:that two here, we had 2000 schools here.”here, we had2000schools We stage. atthis land alater already were “We not are amigrant nation to that came clothing or lifestyle … Similarly, you look at an an at …Similarly, look you lifestyle or clothing istheir nor man, Elazığ ordinary an than different isno speech Their Armenians. Christian are they that is know they all days, but holy their celebrate they have church, no they language, Armenian the know not do they in Elazığ; family You Armenian an visit ne. violations they encounter from time to time. to time from encounter they violations rights the ignore them thismakes and involvement, court or police without affairs their settle to want they possible, as much as example, For for them. results good yield not will attempts such that them shown have experiences citizens”. social Their “first-class like feel not do they because and above, explained as “hiding”, of psychology the both of because grievances for their institutions state to applying or remedies legal seeking Turkey about of Armenians hesitant The are I R and fight for their rights, i.e. for institutional rights. rights. for institutional i.e. rights, for their fight and together come “a when Armenians” few devastating is more it yet remedy; legal seeking and fighting by end in the is his get right what can individual Armenian An rights. for individual fighting than is harder rights for institutional collectively fighting words, In other level. agroup on is done it if problems bigger even to lead can remedy rights/legal Seeking society. layers of all the permeated has identity Armenian the of imagery negative the which to degree the indicates anecdote This director”. the be not should for us; you problem cause might it Armenian, are him, “You told friends director, these administrative an designate to came time the When friends. “Turkish” of acouple with acompany established participants the of One interesting: is particularly workshops during the told anecdote One procedures. in official problems may experience Armenian an is that society larger in the perception common The nstitutions elations say “My grandfather was Armenian”. was grandfather “My say will they generations two Armenian”, after am “I say may now they though are, they where established are schools or churches no if or schools, and church a with somewhere to migrate not do they is, if that Istanbul, to migrate not do they if intervention, no is there if is that out point to Iwant What Armenian. weare isArmenian, He him. distinguish to nothing with Adıyaman ispure lifestyle and clothing speech, Kurdish, his speaks he Adıyaman; from Armenian with and S tate L egal

R emedy

29 30 NGOs and different social segments. segments. social different and NGOs with exchangeideas of include should process the and participation, social possible broadest ensure the to made be should effort special Constitution, the preparing When possible. as much as understand, to “simple”, be should easy and Constitution concise new the elements, these all including to In addition state. the of guarantee the under cultures all of existence the placing and law of principles universal to conforming provisions group,general but religious or ethnic for each arrangements and provisions special mean not do These groups. cultural different of existence and survival the guarantee will that provisions include should Constitution new words, the In other society. ajust establishing of name in the effective be not would represent to aims it reality social the to correspond not does which text Alegal Constitution. new in the voice its find should fabric Turkey’s social multi-cultural bureaucrats. and politicians against mechanism accountability the guarantee under takes that and society”, for the “state of principle the adopted has that Constitution; existing the to insecurity, contrast state as such grounds on freedoms limit not does that possible, as much as them broadens that freedoms, and rights fundamental on is based that atext be should Constitution new This groups. ethnic all to distance equal an at stands that language and definition citizenship have inclusive should amore Constitution proposed new the that expressed also participants The mentality. adiscriminatory reflect definition citizenship in the particularly and Constitution in the lands in these living people the to regard wording with and language perspective, the participants, the Turkey. of Republic the by of expressed Constitution As in Turkey groups other and current is the Armenians against existing discrimination the of source A major E this. to example best the are in thisreport addressed foundations Armenian the of problems various The the executive and the judiciary. For example, some some example, For judiciary. the and executive the legislature, the by implemented be can that actions other are there Constitution, new the to In addition valuation R and ecommendations support. legal provide necessary, and,where victims the hear basis, case-by-case on discrimination against fight will that institution autonomous but up asemi-official set to beneficial be also would it discrimination, eliminate to aim which arrangements legal the to addition law. In domestic its into obligations these integrate would which framework legal necessary the lacks Turkey’s system discrimination. eliminate judiciary Turkey Discrimination, to Racial of is obligated Forms All of Elimination the on Convention the and Rights Human of Declaration Turkey Universal the as such by signed instruments international various be drafted and put into effect. into put and drafted be also should discrimination of forms all of prohibition on law aspecial TPC, to amendments the to In addition Turkish the to ( added Code Penal and defined be should crime hate wrong, is, in principle, group any against speech hate that fact the on Based speech. hate of phenomenon the of existence the on awareness raise to made be could efforts or offences; of types these punishment of and identification in the demonstrated be can stance clear-cut and principled amore identities; other of denigration of in cases shown is also etc. Turkish identity” “Turkishness”, as such the of “denigration matters for shown sensitivity the that so made be could effort 32 anything do to power have not enough would deputy asingle said Others platform. parliamentary the on problems the voice to parliament in the representative have to a effective and beneficial be could it that and done, be thisshould said participants the of Some discrimination. prevent to Turkey asafeguard as of Assembly National Grand in the non-Muslims to seats quota-based of introduction the was agenda the on came that issue another workshops, the During www.ihop.org.tr/dosya/diger/ayrimcilikyasa.pdf http:// 2010, March 16 Platform, Joint Rights Human the cooperation by Group Rights and International Minority Prevention and Elimination of Discrimination], in on Law [Draft Taslağı” Kaldırılması Ortadan ve Önlenmesi “Ayrımcılığın 2010, (İHOP) Platform Joint Rights Human 32 As a requirement of of arequirement As TPC). . administrative powers and also the NGOs should should NGOs the also and powers administrative with together. those exist Politicians, can they and legitimate are differences that message the society the give to important is also it In addition, discrimination. of for prevention insufficient but necessary are arrangements institutional and legislative Therefore, unchanged. remains mentality this as long as discrimination eliminate totally to impossible be would it is instituted, Constitution liberal and democratic amore if and rectified, are state the of practices the if even participants, some by reiterated As own. its on role important an has fabric social the by performed mentality discriminating the decades, of policies state by shaped Though practices. state the and legislation not come from does different identities only the discrimination Armenians other and against of source the that show anecdotes these All follows: as thismatter on experience his local explains Hatay from Aparticipant particular. in Armenians and in general non-Muslims of prejudices image and negative the in shattering help can which thissociety, of elements legitimate” and “constitutive also are non-Muslims the that message the given be could society the of rest the least, at Hence, sense. in asymbolic is important Parliament in the deputies hand, having non-Muslim afew other the On identity”. Armenian the standardizing a“risk pose of would it as problematic be could status, in MP even Armenians, all representing non-Muslim having Armenian/ one only above, mentioned as prohibitions”. Moreover,a “make “staving or up” off but nothing be would parliament in the representative a such of presence the hence and parliament in the my survival there. survival my for recognition that Ineed Ithink And recognition. is there from?”, so come and they did “where ask not do they Armenians”, our are “these say they representation, Armenian see they when protocol, in the Armenian an see people When here?” doing Armenians these are “What saying anyone see don’t ( community our from someone isalways There cemaat) at protocols. What does it achieve? You achieve? it does What protocols. at can set examples. It may also be beneficial to make make to beneficial be It may also examples. set can media in the speech hate of identification or literacy media as such Studies media. the of role negative this eliminate to out carried be should works focused normalizing the discriminatory language. discriminatory the normalizing and in establishing abig role played has media the before, mentioned As discrimination. against organized campaigns social future the of component akey as considered be should media The people. of eyes in the “normalized” become will existence Armenian the increases, matters these on knowledge in Turkey. Armenians of of level the history the As cultureand Armenian the on knowledge adequate of lack is the society the of segment alarge by foreigners as identified are Armenians that reasons the of one because here, “introduction” underline to important It is especially message. apublic as spread be to in Turkey cultures these of needs existence the of legitimacy The public. in the cultures Islamic and Turkish the of dominance the against remedy Turkey of a cultures be would all visible equally render which activities and events Organizing freely. and equally live can cultures different where environment asocial creating towards work 33

D34md4IQrbn2.html video-izle/Cubbeli---Dansoz-izleyin-daha-iyi--- http://video.milliyet.com.tr/ 2011, site] web [online Milliyet see; please Hoca, Ahmet Cüppeli by speech said For prevented. be should places these in speech hate and discriminating of use and addressed, be also vaaz the schools, in provided education the to addition in Hence, expressions. these with line in shape take to likely also are media visual and printed the in or prayers daily their during individuals mentalities and of approaches those who encounter such The “trouble”. but nothing is religions between dialogue so-called the that and heaven, same the go to also will Jews and Christians that say to “infidelity” is it said 2011, April in [sermon] vaaz his in Hoca, Ahmet Cüppeli as known individual, An agenda. public the on came also this to example recent most The etc. Armenians” with business do not “Do Christians”, befriend not “Do been seen to like expressions use anti-Christian/Armenian have people These mentioned. be also should language in of the the establishment discriminatory clergymen Muslim some of role the media, the to addition In [sermons] given in mosques should should mosques in given [sermons] . 33 Media-

31 32 34 approach. and language thisnegative against media of members the amongst In awareness thisway, more be can there journalists. and for reporters expressions discriminatory and speech hate on workshops organize and trainings administer can organizations governmental non- Television the and and Council) Supreme Radio Cultureand of Ministry Education, National of (Ministry institutions state relevant the both example, For using from speech. thishate organs media stop will that trainings conduct and arrangements legal protection of all languages, cultures and lifestyles of a of lifestyles and cultures languages, all of protection and existence the In fact, efforts. such of examples be can cooperation in international engaging and property acquiring from foundations prevent that obstacles the eliminating fully and schools, Armenian with in cooperation teachers language Armenian raise to projects etc.), preparing periodicals (theatres, institutions cultural and schools Armenian to support material Giving executive. the and legislature the both of domain in the effort conscious a make to and rules, and institutions its all with practice citizenship into equal is put concerns these eliminate to in order do should bureaucracy the and in Turkey. identity culture and government the What Armenian the of destruction total for the work also modernization, individualization and globalization as such dynamics sociological practices, state the Turkey. of Armenians for the problem to In addition serious a also is assimilation discrimination, Besides cultures. different of histories the of visibility the increase and introduce to used be “others”, the of can organs media lifestyles and religions cultures, the of visibility and recognition of lack the to regard with above we have said

website of the Foundation ( Foundation the of website speech” “hate the Also, Speech]. Hate and Crimes [Hate Söylemi Nefret ve Suçları Nefret 2010, Foundation Dink Hrant International see: please type, this of astudy For ( Unit Studies Education and Sociology University Bilgi İstanbul with studies İHD’s them. publishes and press, in the national hostility and discrimination containing stories news and articles for media the scans periodically www.secbir.org ) may also provide guidance. guidance. provide also ) may 34 In addition, recalling what what recalling In addition, www.nefretsoylemi.org ) follows: as thisnecessity emphasizes participant One decades. in Turkey with living Turkish-Armenians have been for that problems in the involved be and pay attention circles of Turkey thatcrucial the democratic should It own. is its on sufficient be not would democracy for struggle the into participation Armenians’ discrimination. of problems similar face which groups social other the to listen also should and society the of rest the to itself explain should it community; a‘closed’ be not should in Turkey.freedoms society Armenian The and rights of domain the for broadening fighting Initiative], Girişimi De” Dur! Milliyetçiliğe ve İHD],Foundation, “Irkçılığa organizations ( non-governmental or parties political with in dialogue engaging or in, contacting, part taking includes This going country. in the on democracy of struggle general the into incorporated be to important remedy, legal is also it seeking Besides to. exposed are they discrimination the against fight Through additionalArmenians channels, can past. the in state the by caused destruction for the reparations partial be would practices discrimination positive such perspective, Armenian the such, from As necessary. if “positive discrimination” through support, “urgent” give to state for the abnormal as seen be not should culture in Turkey, and identity Armenian like the it extinction”, of imminent threat “danger and clear of in cultures of case hand, in the other the On state. the of duties primary the among be should country with no power to encourage us… us… encourage to power no with left weare …Sometimes happen to this Iwant deed In perception. this erase to movement any see not Ido people. bad not are Armenians the that fact the them explain public, the inform should they topics; these discuss also should be, might they whoever of theans country, or the prominent intellectuals academici the but ourselves, among talking We are [“Say Stop to Racism and Nationalism” Nationalism” and [“Say Racism Stop to Genç Siviller Genç (Human Rights Rights (Human Derneği Hakları İnsan [Young Civilians] etc.) and - definition, tolerance is shown towards people or or people towards is shown tolerance definition, yet,by cultures; and religions different of existence is the is tolerated what Christian, or Armenian being of Moreover, case in the agift. as blessed be should others” towards tolerant “being party tolerant for the and condescension of attitude the with together goes tolerance of act The groups. social different among inequalities pre-existing the reinforce and hierarchies imply particular themselves concepts these intentions, good with mayapplied be they Although dhimmi. as non-Muslims regarded that approach the of acontinuation “custodianship” under as group a as considered be humiliating to and hurtful equally Moreover, is it lands. these on for centuries peace” “side have cultures in lived side by and religions different that thesis the with and history Ottoman the to in reference “tolerance” of concept is the hear we frequently which but applied be never should thing one that discrimination, against fighting When N ot T R but olerance ights justice, freedom and human rights. human and freedom justice, citizenship, equal such as built concepts on universal prevent aiming to A discourse discrimination should be lands. have “side lived on these by side for centuries in peace” cultures and with religions and the thesis that different history the Ottoman to in of “tolerance” reference concept should is never the but beapplied which hear we frequently discrimination, against When one fighting thing that citizenship, justice, freedom and human rights. rights. human and citizenship, freedom justice, equal as such concepts universal built on be should discrimination prevent aiming to A discourse annoyance. is an existence their even that accepted is implicitly it tolerance, shown are Armenians When youuncomfortable. make that situations

33 34 Section Three

S private schools were opened for profit-making for profit-making opened were schools private While operate. schools Armenian and schools private how between differences However, serious are there Institutions. Educational Private on Regulation MNE related the and Institutions Education Private on 2007 of 5580 no Law the to and in general, education the regulates which no. 1739, Education National on Law Fundamental the to subject are they hand Treaty; other the on yet Lausanne the under operating institutions as accepted are schools These them. to specific have laws no (minority) schools Armenian T Education financial difficulties. difficulties. financial and textbooks, procuring and teachers language Armenian in finding difficulties irregularities, and gaps legal as such process, education the on impact have that adirect factors the discuss we will pages, following In the factors. economic and sociological political, many of result image is the This devastation. is atotal This students. of number in the decrease 60% and schools of number in the decrease a50% roughly been has there years, 40 last In the students. 3786 with year, schools 18 school were there ago, 1999-2000 in the i.e. years ten roughly students; 7366 with schools 32 were there year school 1972-1973 in the time: over changed things how see to made be can Acomparison girls. 1572 and boys 1393 with 2965, were year school 2010-2011 in the students of number total the schools, these In all schools. education primary strictly are eleven and education, secondary and primary both 3provide while education, school) (high Two secondary only provide them of in Istanbul. Currently, all Turkey’s the schools, have 16 Armenians tatus A and he D iscrepancy ctual S between ituation Legal

constructed either in the 19 in the either constructed were which of most schools, for Armenian problematic be can appropriate, and necessary called be indeed can which arrangements, regulatory These etc. music workshops and art and room, counsellor school physician’s room, have to laboratories, schools private for is mandatory it directive, same the to according meter. square Again its on based number the than students more enrol to schools for Armenian possible is not it thisdirective, to meter. subjected Being square per students of number the to introduced been has limit ahigher and in 1985, effect into put Schools for Private Standards on Directive in the is regulated register can schools private that students of number the example, For schools. Armenian of in inspections institutions, education private for-profit inspecting when used are which standards, same the uses state the when problems causes It schools. for private required building standards the meet to schools for these is difficult it Furthermore, etc.). levels skill and intelligence level, (socioeconomic aspects group, in all student heterogeneous considerably have (state) they a like apublic much school, students, the of any down turn to possible is not it Since accepted. also are partially only contribute can who or costs education the cover to unable are who families of children The enrol. to wants who student a down turn cannot schools these roles, cultural and in Turkey. social their of society Armenian Because the of continuity cultural the as –such fulfil to obligated are they functions the and them surrounding circumstances the considering agoal, such pursue to schools for Armenian possible is not it purposes, century. Subjecting these buildings to inspections inspections to buildings these Subjecting century. th century or in early 20 in early or century th

37 38 C and and freedoms. rights human of perspective amodern with written and schools these to specific law comprehensive a with ground legal apermanent on thisissue settle and expressions, above-mentioned the with accepted as haveparticularities, some schools these that recognize to state is for the done be to needs What concepts. freedom and rights human of in terms times modern the behind are they and system, education the in place taking changes general the from distanced too have for they become defunct; effectively today are regulations However, these of both Armenian High Schools and Secondary Schools. Secondary and Schools High Armenian Private on Regulation and Schools, Primary Minority Armenian and Greek Private on Regulation 1976: in schools Armenian the concerning regulations two adopted state the adversities, and inadequacies their all thereof, despite areflection As schools. private requirementsand that from differ other foreign and have characteristics schools non-Muslim other and Armenian that fact the of acceptance an means which regulations”, with determined be shall 23/8/1923 no.340dated Law under [Lausanne] treaty the of 41 and 40 Articles to related schools] [minority schools schools and a vice-principal to high schools’. The aim aim The schools’. high to avice-principal and schools primary minority to a‘vice-principal appoint to decided In Ministry 1937, MNE. the by Education the appointed principal have avice schools Armenian All V particular matters says, “the no. 5580 Law 5/c of Article In truth, state. the by such as accepted not are they though schools, like public much operate schools To these briefly, it in practice, put in practice. difficulties creates buildings school built private newly with conditions same the on based 35 36 ourse ice

through the principals. demands own its dictated had state the truth in days, those of conditions the considering yet schools; minority These regulations were prepared by the of principals writer. the to belong parentheses and Emphases P rincipals Teachers and C ulture 35 to

these these 36

Sociology, Turkish Geography, History, Literature, and Language Today, as such courses positions, these to in addition in 1962. no. 5887 circular with reintroduced but 1948-1949, of year school in the abandoned was practice This schools. these of transactions financial and administrative and programmes, the supervise closely is to appointments these of 37 school arrangement, aregulatory With for tension. acause becomes also situation This groups. separate two are (headmaster) principal the by led teachers contract-based the and vice-principal, the by led teachers culturecourse the in which arises situation “duality”. A of aproblem causes position principal vice- the of practice Currently, and concept the teachers] in the beginning of the academic year. academic the of beginning in the teachers] substitute [by inefficiently yet] instructed or appointed teachers no are [as there for students time free being culture courses see to is common it bureaucracy, the of calendar internal the to due season summer during the made be cannot appointments as addition, In schools. for Armenian difficult things makes suggest they teachers for the status servant civil however, step; of prerequisite apositive the doubt no is This courses. these teaching be would who teachers the regarding Ministry the advise to right the granted were schools Armenian Institutions, Education Private on Regulation in the 2010 December 15 on made amendment an With Ministry. the by appointed are who and status servant have who civil teachers by instructed Turkish be and [language] lessons” Culture “Turkish called courses, these that specified was it May 1955, 27 on adopted no. 6581 Law the With Ministry. the by appointed teachers by taught also similar to courses such as history, geography etc. geography history, as such courses to similar anyone”, just to left be “cannot which of instruction the hence and risks” “may pose that courses of category the under seen also is sociology that understood is it Hence teachers. sociology the appoints Ministry the psychology, and philosophy logic, as such cluster, this under included courses the give will who teachers the select can schools is included in the philosophy cluster and although the it Although position. a“special” has course sociology The 37 (Social Sciences in primary schools) are are schools) in primary Sciences (Social expressed by one participant. In other words, this In other participant. one by expressed as schools, at elements” untrustworthy as seen are who Armenians the among homeland the of owners the of representatives the behave “like sometimes can Vice-principals discrimination. of indication an as perceived and state the of view ethnic the of reflection is a which him/herself, vice-principal the by repeated is sometimes thisemphasis and vice-principal, “Turkish” the as authorities higher by identified are people These follows: is as vice-principals to in regard problems causes that situation Another state. the by paid still salaries their with teachers, course culture and principals vice- own their select to administrations school all to freedom full give to be would solution final The school. the by submitted suggestion the on based may it be although Ministry the by appointed teacher the with have suffice they to criteria, and conditions own its on based teachers these recruit and select not do Since schools courses. these to regard with issue aquality brings also freely teachers culture course the and principals vice the select to inability The teachers. culturecourse over power their lost principals school and scoring, performance the do to how about arose uncertainty an Thus, rescinded. ( Gazette Official in the 2011 April 24 on published articles 3 of However, regulation anew impact. with positive have thiscould a thisarrangement, to teachers culture and principals vice by resistance the Despite servants. civil are who teachers, culture course to scores performance give can servant, acivil not is who principal, school the how about reservations and uncertainties various were there Although, too. in schools, teachers culturecourse the -of record personnel on performance score to power -with amiri) 38 chief ranking highest the made were principals Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Sicil Amirleri Yönetmeliği Amirleri Sicil Bakanlığı Eğitim Milli it may be considered an important position. position. important an considered be may it of thatother teacher, professional transactions and hence and promotions appointments, all in account into taken sicil the by amiri written reports The , the MNE Regulation on Personnel Chiefs Chiefs Personnel on Regulation MNE , the for each teacher are are teacher each for ) was ) was 38 ( sicil sicil “campaign”. This role given to vice-principals puts the the puts vice-principals to “campaign”. given role This separate groups.separate by the principal led two are (headmaster) teachers based by the vice-principal, led the and contract- teachers course Asituation schools. inArmenian arises which the culture aproblem vice-principal of position “duality”The in causes principals and vice-principals were present: were vice-principals and principals Armenian both where in ameeting vice-principals the addressed Istanbul, of Director Education Provincial Akay, Naci then 1995, January 27 On state: the by vice-principals to attributed role the understanding in mayhelpful that be anecdote is an Here time. of duration short for a even “Armenian” trust teachers cannot state the that belief the to leads situation his This choosing. of someone or vice-principal the either to deputized is aleave, his position takes principal the when hand, other the On them. replace can school minority another of vice-principal the or school in the courses culture instructing teachers “Turk” the of only one reason, another or for aleave one take principals vice the Even when thiscountry. of Turk” owner is the who a“pure of charge the under them put to necessary is it that and thiscountry of citizens the not are Armenians that impression the way to gives practice 39 you”, trust We youalone. leave never will “We with continues “snitching”. or “policing” of He duty the given virtually are people these that show words These by Özdoğan et. al. 2009, p. 197). p. 197). 2009, al. et. Özdoğan by Birgün Change], Not Does Mentality This As Long [As Değişmedikçe” Zihniyet “Bu 2004, Dink happenings in these schools. in these happenings the usabout inform and them of track keep to duty It isyour schools. in these ears You and eyes our are us… by selected are you But community. minority the by usbut by not appointed and elected are schools these of know,principals you the As schools. Turkey of Republic of in these state the You represent 39 Akay acted as if he was sending them on a a on them sending was he if as acted Akay , 22 November (cited (cited November , 22

39 40 circular on overtime work issued by the Ministry. Ministry. the by issued work overtime on circular a with thisproblem solve to It is possible teachers. between emerge statuses different two consequence, a As hours. working and may course have weekly more hence and contract on work courses other of teachers the whereas hours, these of in excess education improve to oriented activities extracurricular in participate and school the at status) stay (and servant having civil schools in Armenian working Turkish the make to teachers possible is not language so, hours; it is 30 schools in public teachers classroom for Turkish foreseen hours work weekly the us saythat let hours, course weekly the To from example an give institution. in aprivate employed are they if as work teachers other the servants, civil of status like in the work state the by assigned are that teachers course culture the While level. school at emerge to teachers of types two causes above mentioned duality The approval. subordinate’s the without anything do to unable is and subordinate his/her to is accountable principal the in which in aposition school, the of administrators real the be to expected are who principals, stage. This mentality and practice still continue; the the continue; still practice and mentality This stage. enrolment the at problems serious some create could this past, in the Christianity to back converted and Islam to converted child’s had the of family member a if example, For school. Armenian an to enrol to order “prove” to “Armenianness” in had their Armenian not were Turkey of Republic fathers whose but the of citizens as registered Children commission. the by logs population student’s the of examination the on depends issued be would document this Whether MNE. the up by set commissions the to applying by for enrolment eligibility their verifying get adocument to had schools in Armenian enrolling be would who recently, Until students choice. the their of students the enrolling as such schools, private other to granted opportunities specific the of some them away giving shies from state the schools, private on law the to subject schools these making When Enrolments law. of rule the by governed states democratic modern, for practice isinappropriate ahighly origin” descent, “breed, inquiring into Besides, schools. Armenian attend to for anyone possible it make and restrictions existing the remove should state The school). primary Armenian an to went is Münir Özkul, who example (a well-known 1940s the until schools Armenian attending in and enrolling non-Armenians to obstacles no were there we see past, the at If we look continue. still problem, real the of essence the constitutes which mentality, the nevertheless rights; of scope the broadening as mayinterpreted that be – something for enrolment ground sufficient deemed is now mother Armenian an of existence the that and commissions the with proceed to arduous bureaucratically and is difficult it that account into take we if progress of signs as considered be might changes Turkish of These Armenian pure” nationality. and is a“real student applying the whether authorities higher ask to is able vice-principal the course, Of principals. vice- the from “enrolment an order” upon only students the of enrolments initial the make can principals The schools. in Armenian vice-principals the to given and commissions the from taken been has inquiry log population of job the Furthermore, mother. have Armenian an to is enough it now while mixed marriages, of case the in purposes for enrolment important was “descent” father’s the only past, In the code. civil former the of household” the of head is the husband “the provision the replacing 2001, of no.4721 Code Civil new the of 186 in Article together” household the manage shall spouses “the provision the of aresult as enrolment, for reason sufficient as accepted is also mother Armenian now,an only change is from that born being known. Parallel to the decline of the Armenian Armenian the of decline the to Parallel known. is generations future to it conveying and language the in teaching plays education formal role essential The E ducation and L anguage the Turkishthe language. in instructed mandatorily are that culture courses the than other courses the for all also but course language Armenian for the applicable only is not problem textbook The in coming fruition. to failed finally have and processes, bureaucratic prolonged to due for years on have dragged thissubject on initiatives such, previous As system. the into introduced be to book for the years long take probably would it end the at and state, the of approach suspicious the of because investigation have an would go to through content its prepared, successfully was abook such that Even we assume if overcome. to difficult quite are involved phases bureaucratic the one,and difficult is a books these preparing However, of process the methods. pedagogical contemporary with coherent and levels, education secondary and education primary both at language Armenian for teaching used be can that book Literature” “Armenian and Language for aup-to-date is aneed There teaching. language in Armenian problem aserious is also books of Lack Armenian. improve and teach to age school the reach to child for the wait to view, of this point is incorrect it other. each From with interacting and communicating using prefer Turkish and teachers”, when their to speaking when use only will they language “a as merely Armenian perceive language”. Children a“textbook become has and communication, social of ameans being stopped day. has [language] Armenian day declining by is also schools in Armenian teaching language Armenian life,the in social language 40 books published abroad in schools. These restrictions restrictions These in schools. abroad published books having of Armenian-language prohibition is the state the of approach suspicious the of reflection Another

account the criticisms. into taking while type this of projects continue should Ministry The step. apositive as considered be should this books, the in names Armenian include to failure the and required it process arduous and long the as such criticisms justified some Despite schools. public other with did it as charge, of free schools Armenian to year school 2010-2011 the of beginning the in them distributed and Armenian into translated education primary of years three first the of textbooks science and mathematics the had (MNE) Education National of Ministry The 40

for authorization. for or province at district level bureaucracy of the education the authorities higher to into Turkish submitted then and have betranslated at to the school,texts the Armenian activity organized Armenian-language For every and each an instrument of political pressure on school school on pressure political of instrument an as used be sometimes can prohibition This language. Armenian in the events any organize to reluctant them make and administrators, school and teachers for a deterrent be can difficulties, practical the with combined thissituation, by caused discrimination of feeling the and pressure moral The arrangement. this to subjected are year school the of opening the for ceremony the at read poems and made speeches opening Armenian Even the amonth. than more take sometimes can language Armenian in the activity an for organizing required permissions the all obtaining . Under conditions, these the and Armenians the regards state the how of indication thisis aclear and bureaucracy; education -in the activities cultural English – for example non-Turkish in other languages for activities required is not process authorization an hand, such other the On for authorization. level province or district at bureaucracy education the of authorities higher the to Turkish into submitted then and translated have be to texts Armenian the school, the at organized activity Armenian-language every and each For school. in the activity Armenian for any regulations of required process authorization/permission is the development its hence and in schools Armenian of usage the preventing factor similar Another teaching. for Armenian abroad from originating materials using to course door the open should therefore and aban, such not is currently there that emphasize should or act, administrative similar another or acircular either with thisprohibition remove should MNE The thisprohibition. of basis official the exactly remembers one no that internalized so have been

41 42 adaptation capacities and operational capabilities. operational and capacities adaptation their lost extent have alarge they to as schools, other than adversely more schools Armenian affect to have potential the system education in the made changes frequent The system. education in the made arrangements macro the vis-à-vis positions, sensitive their to due are, schools Armenian the vulnerable and weak how of indication is an situation This identity. of loss arapid to contributing afactor become has This schools. education primary Armenian to children their sending stop to university, began entering secure to enough be not would remaining 3years the thinkingthat parents, 8years, to raised was education primary However, compulsory when schools. private in education secondary through auniversity entering of chances their increase and school, in primary Armenian learn could children thisway their through parents, the to According education. for secondary college or school aprivate to years), then (five and education for primary schools Armenian to children their sending prefer to tended parents thispractice, Before indirectly. although schools, Armenian on impact 5years] anegative from had [increased education primary compulsory 8-year of introduction The I removed. officially be should permission obtain to this requirement and legislation, the to made be should amendments conditions”; necessary current to according changes “that bureaucracy the of mercy the to left be not should administrators Teachers school and practice. in is still thisarrangement administrators, school by statements the to According thisrule. of violation of grounds the on initiated were investigations whom against administrators school and teachers have there been such,past, in the quo. As status conditions depending conditions on of the the political ban the loosening or tightening by administrators, the P ntroduction rimary E E ducation ducation C and of S ystem 8-Y ear C in hanges ompulsory

receive their salaries from the Ministry. the from salaries their receive currently who teachers 800,000 the to added be will teachers new 368 only practice, into is put scheme words, this if In other Ministry. the by paid being already are salaries whose teachers culture course the than other teachers 368 only are there schools, In Armenian contracts. temporary under working those including teachers, 800,000 around employs Today, insignificant. called be to MNE as small so be would expenses public the on add this would burden additional The MNE. the or community the by appointed were they whether of regardless state the by paid be can schools in Armenian teachers of salaries the example, For amount. ameaningful of basis the on re-introduced be should thispractice situation, current per Article 41 of the Treaty 41 the Lausanne of of Article per as amounts, symbolic with if even schools Armenian helped previously state the in 1970s, emerged issue Cyprus the Until support. state for direct harder.urgentneed isbecoming an there At thispoint, thisis means, own its by deficits these close to in Turkey society tries Armenian the Although schools. for deficits budget in large results costs and expenses education the partially, or fully meet, to unable are who students have admit to schools Armenian that fact the above, mentioned As schools. their of burden financial the shoulder to difficult increasingly in Turkey it society finds Armenian Day-to-day, the F 41 inancial html com/2011/02/musluman-olmayan-azinliklar-raporu-2011. Minorities],Non-Muslim http://hyetert.blogspot. on [Report Raporu” Azınlıklar Olmayan “Müslüman 2011, Bebiroğlu and Özuzun Döşemeciyan, 1974: after entirelybecame and were symbolic, completely abandoned payments the 1960, after 1950s; in administrations school to paid were schools for budget state the from allocated shares The concerned.” institutions and establishments the of representatives qualified the to paid be shall question in sums The purposes. charitable or religious, educational, for budgets other or municipal State, the under funds public of out provided be may which sums the of application and enjoyment the in share equitable an assured be belonging to minorities, non-Muslim these minorities shall there is of a Turkish proportion considerable nationals where districts and towns “In follows: as reads article This . P roblems 41 . In view of the the of . In view achieved by having resort to various sources abroad. abroad. sources various to having by resort achieved be also can which materials, and resources human of in terms improved be should departments such of quantity and quality The cadre. academic adequate an lacks Trakya University at Languages Foreign of Faculty the under established Literature and Language Armenian of Department the Likewise, assistant. research one and head department the of only consists staff academic University, its yet Ankara at Geography and History Language, of Faculty the at Cultures and Languages Caucasian of Department the under Literature and Language Armenian of is aDepartment There quantity. and quality of in terms insufficient are Turkey of universities in the Literature and Language Armenian of today, yet departments the qualifications; and numbers in adequate teachers Armenian train to education for university is aneed There educator.an for inadequate be sometimes can schools in Armenian teachers the of skills language Armenian the schools, education from secondary Armenian graduated Today,problem. may have they been although is another teachers Training language Armenian factor. adeterrent be can which salaries, teacher insufficient the to regard with is needed state the of support the example, For appeal. an low too holds currently which profession, teacher the of attractiveness the increase to need is the issue Another projects. such execute to have means not do the institutions Armenian as project, astate as out carried be should teachers raising of business The teachers. classroom of shortage is aserious there In particular, times. modern the of requirements the to conforming investments educational making and teachers training to comes it when problems serious face schools Armenian Teachers I nvestments ’ E ducation and

used along with some other visual materials at at materials visual other some with along used are allegations” “refuting Armenian of the purpose the with produced was which and 1915 before tortures and committing and massacres Muslim settlements raiding gangs Armenian is about which documentary, “Armenian Gelin the to Question”, Sarı regard the with time, to time from textbooks, the from Apart aproject. as agenda the on put be should insulting language and discriminatory eliminating and thisperspective from Security National and Geography History, as such textbooks of Revision not. or Armenian it children, be for all harmful is “other” the against discourse ahate developing and speech hate to rise may give expressions such that noted be should it Besides, situation. difficult avery creates teachers and friends other their among expressions such encountering schools, Armenian attend not do who students for Armenian Especially them. about have knowledge no they though even groups minority other and Muslims non- against hostility and hatred feel education this receiving individuals that surprising is not S in general and the Armenian identity in particular. identity Armenian the and in general non-Muslims the targeting expressions discriminatory include words, textbooks In other adjectives. denigrating with contexts in negative mentioned groups generally are Armenians other minority and lands. these of apart have been that always communities social and cultures different of existence informed on the historical arenot sufficiently students Turkey’s culture of and Turkish minorities. history the on information any include not do education secondary and in primary instructed textbooks The D 42 I ssues chools iscriminatory P

Uluslararası Azınlık Hakları Grubu, İstanbul, p. 28. İstanbul, Grubu, Hakları Azınlık Uluslararası System], Turkey’s Education of Subjects as Minorities or Asimilating? [Forgetting Azınlıklar Sisteminde Eğitim Türkiye’nin mu? Asimilasyon mı Unutmak 2009, Kaya see: textbooks, in expressions such of examples some For

: T O and extbooks in ractices ther 42 It It

43 44 are being degraded. degraded. being are themselves hence and tongues mother their that feel to them cause and language Armenian in the students Armenian the of interest the dampen also can this racism, cultural containing and tensions creating from Apart nature. its on based others the to superior language one holds which languages between ahierarchy establishes mentality language”. This beautiful “Turkish most is the as such slogans with covered be can billboards school the activities, Week Language during the example, For time. any at anywhere occur can “Our and to Pledge” limited is not approach discriminatory The problematic. Turkish the to Pledge isin quite the a gift be existence” existence entire my “let expression the example, For him. Pledgedisturbed the how expressed participant One content. ideological its with discrimination Turkey,of reproduces it which waysof the and students school primary by morning every collectively ( “Our Pledge” we see in schools, classrooms the outside practices discriminatory the at we look When 2003. April 14 of circular MNE in the instructed was War I”, World “Armenian the During Insurgency as on essay an write to asked be can students education secondary and Similarly,awareness’. primary ‘political instil to aim an with probably –most schools Turkish, and result in their failure in entrance exams to to exams Turkish, in entrance failure in their result and in primarily lessons, in other behind lag to children their cause will Armenian learning that thought It is schools. Armenian to children their send who parents among especially is widespread perception academic achievements. academic higher earn methods correct the through education bilingual receiving students have that shown countries in different experiences educational The B 43 Andımız ilingual org/pdf/6.pdf>. Grubu Reformu Education], Eğitim and [Bilinguality Eğitim” ve Dillilik “Çift 2009, Kocabaş For a discussion on bilingual education, see: Ayan ve ) which is an obligatory oath to be repeated repeated be to oath obligatory is an ) which E ducation 43 However, adifferent ,

September. 30 hakim”, kaygı ve sevinç “Velilerde 2011, Agos 44 . For example, the the example, . For which makes it difficult for the children there to learn learn to there children for the difficult it makes which Vakıflı, of village in the for those especially Armenians, Anatolian of problem important is an schools of Lack cities. in Anatolian living hundreds few of communities S for years.” injected discrimination been that has “Positive discrimination is the antidote of the poison of said: participants our of like one Just perspective. right the is not migrants” “irregular as them considering that here way, that note to considered is suitable it exactly not are children these that signalled Turkish current the Even has though government group. aparticular to available made that as territories, acountry’s residingwithin nationals for foreign education to access same the of provision 45 Armenian village. an as exist to continues in Hatay village Vakıflı the decreased, considerably has identity Armenian an with in Anatolia living people of number the Although life. future their in crime even or behaviours, anti-social towards them may for it direct interest, public against is also it but in danger/risk, futures their puts that only adetriment is not skills, and knowledge certain of accumulation the from deprivation their and education inadequate to children these of subjection The ituation there are other Armenian villages both in Syria and in Iran. in and Syria in both villages Armenian other are there world the in village Armenian only the as mentioned is [Köyü] Vakıflı of village The platforms. other various on and media visual and printed the in made often is that amistake here correct We should not concern any teacher or school principal. school or teacher any concern not It does issue. isanother migrants irregular as status Their world. in the everywhere child school-age isa child aschool-age and children, school-age are they irrelevant; istotally migrant’ ‘irregular term The in 45 In addition, there Armenian are A natolia outside of Armenia. Yet, Armenia. of outside

45 46 problem: this of consequences the illustrating example is agood it as here, repeated be should village Vakıflı the from aparticipant by told anecdote An Armenian. UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Discrimination against Convention UNESCO the Turkey that as signed,conventions such not has also are there these, from Apart minorities. of identities the of basis the on for rights demands any prevent to willingness is the reservations these behind motivation possible The Treaty Lausanne. of Turkey of Republic the of the of those and Constitution the of spirit and letter the to according 30 and 29 17, Articles apply and interpret to right the reserving Child the of Rights the on Convention UN the Similarly, Treaty Turkey the Lausanne. of and ratified Turkey of Republic the of Constitution the of rules and provisions related the with in accordance 27 Article of provisions the apply and interpret to right the reserves it declaring by rights, minority to reference makes 27, which Article to However, reservations 1976. with in force into came which and in 1966 Assembly General UN the by adopted was which Rights, Political and Civil on Covenant the Turkey 2000 August 15 on signed such, As EU standards. the also and rights, human contemporary on based are which Conventions, UN the and Treaty the Lausanne of between is stuck state like the seems it At this point, equality. legal on based arrangements legal of lack the is problems education the behind reasons main the of one Armenians, for the problems other many with As E valuation the same situation in the future. future. in the situation same the in itself find also will Village Vakıflı the isthat fear My calendar. the from dates the them read would I (Easter). Zadik the celebrating weare when tell and read to me asked and home their to me invite would someone week, Every in Armenian. was calendar the but were; lent days or holy the when see to it checked and Patriarchate the (datebook) from calendar a received They Armenian. read could them of None there. families Armenian 20 were there years, university my During in Elazığ. university to I went and R ecommendations been injected for years”. In addition, the international international the for years”. In addition, injected been has that discrimination of poison the of antidote is the “positive discrimination participant, one of words the In past”. the of reparation or “asense, compensation in be, a thiswould in particular, schools Armenian in Turkey the and society in general Armenian the of underachievement aweakeningand such for role asignificant played for decades implemented policies However, state the that considering schools. in minority favour of inequalities some create would steps these saytaking and objections may raise people Some language. Armenian in the materials educational other and textbooks the all coordinate and prepare, unit can This MNE. the unit under adedicated establish to beneficial be also would it goals, these with In line deficits. budget in closing the and teachers, of training in the books, school of preparation in the assistance practical and direct provide should it example, For fruition. to rights these bring to in order support financial and operational provide also should state the so enough, be not will today state the by schools Armenian to freedoms and rights some Granting institutions. these of survival for the discrimination positive of basis the on shaped Moreover, be should law such framework. alegal within addressed be should but instability, and uncertainty to them leaving politics, macro day the to the or of conditions changing the to tied be not should schools these of problems the to Solution framework. that within evaluated be should and particularities” with schools but schools ateacher, “not as private works who participant a by put as are, schools these analysis, final In the law. of virtue by status special apermanent given be should schools, minority other the as well as schools, Armenian the norms, these of arequirement As remaining unsigned. conventions the signing all and reservations all community, lifting by international the by achieved norms the to conform should rights human to in regards standards contemporary the up with catch to desires that country Convention on of the National Protection AMinorities. Framework Europe of Council the or Education prepared inprepared consideration legislations of the reciprocal “shall be schools minority the concerning regulations any that is stated it Institutions, Education Private on no. 5580 Law the 5of such, in Article view. As thisgeneral from affected directly also are minorities the concern that policies education The condition. a as laid even or Turkish is observed, minority Muslim its towards Greece of practices the with Turkey’s parallelism citizens, towards non-Muslim is going taken be to step apositive Whenever citizens. Turkey own of Republic the by its towards practiced is state, another of citizens the towards state one of apractice as is foreseen which Reciprocity, position). vice-principal the of example the (as in above mentioned problems the of some of heart the at lies Treaty the Lausanne of of basis the on state the by is practiced that reciprocity of principle The anorm. as measures discrimination positive through cultures and languages minority of protection the accept also democracies advanced of standards increase in the number of students. students. of number in the increase an to contribute will in which time, rise will parents, by small found too is currently which universities, entering students of ratio the Furthermore, rise. will schools in Armenian education of quality general the accomplished, are above mentioned If measures the them? concern that decision administrative and political in any is sought Turks countries in those Muslim the with reciprocity that Lausanne, to parties states other the with along Greece, of country the Turkey of Armenians the and between is assumed a tie of kind What asked: have be will to question following Turkey, of Armenians of perspective the the from issue this at we look if Besides, moreover,and rights. human is citizenship rights important is most What approach. incorrect an expression, mildest is, in its “reciprocity” as such aprinciple of basis the on citizens own its treating astate rights, human on based are that today of democracies advanced In the matters”. these on countries relevant the of practices and

47 48 Section Four

more democratic internal government was decisive in decisive was government internal democratic more administration, amira the and Patriarchate the state, the against merchants and intellectuals the by waged struggle The 1863. of Regulations of Code the with endorsed was government community in the participation lay of legitimization the and Church the vis-à-vis domain secular 18 in late emerging modernization and secularization the before, stated As Church. the of initiatives the with possible made mostly were Armenians Ottoman of lives cultural the furthering and protecting as such functions Civil life. everyday the of areas many covering leadership and representation civic of duty the also but communities, their of leadership spiritual millets their of head the were patriarchs The traditions. and customs own their of scope the within them to autonomy of domain aspecific granted and communities religious non-Muslim of administration for the created millet the times, Ottoman the During in İstanbul. located are which of many 41 to churches, attached spiritually and is religiously İstanbul, of Patriarchate Armenian the as in 1461 II Mehmet by introduced was which institution, organization”. Today, “umbrella is an Patriarchate this the that expressed also participants Workshop in Turkey. Armenians Apostolic the of leadership 46 550 its celebrating İstanbul, of Patriarchate Armenian The Elections Patriarchal the and The Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul writing of the Armenians. the of writing history- in “awakening” the meaning , the or movement, “enlightenment” the is called century

Aras Yayıncılık, İstanbul. İstanbul. Yayıncılık, Aras Modernite ve Zekiyan 2001, Ermeniler th year, has the central position as the spiritual spiritual the as position year, central the has and assumed the duty of not only the the only not of duty the assumed and 46 The broadening of the the of broadening The , çev. Altuğ Yılmaz, Yılmaz, , çev. Altuğ system was was system class for a class th

structures of the Ottoman era as their operations operations their as era Ottoman the of structures with of 1863. the Code of Regulations endorsed government was inparticipation the community vis-à-vis the legitimization and the Church of lay domain broadening of the secular The the Armenians. zartonk, the “enlightenment” movement, is called or the century modernization and emerging in 18th late Secularization 47 status) entity (legal Turkey, entity have not legal does Patriarchate the of Republic founding the Since the of period. Ottoman administration of the institutions inherited from the the regarding provisions specific any codify did not it rights, minority of framework the within protected be would non-Muslims of institutions charitable and cultural religious, the that guarantee general a contained Treaty the Lausanne While of in practice. abandoned was it period, Republican in the repealed officially not was Regulations of Code the Although C Civil the by supervised commissions the to left were orphanages and hospitals ( community of administration the councils, elected in favour of extent alarge to limited was patriarch the of power representational civil the While this process. foundations ( community the under gathered were orphanages and churches,institutions hospitals such as schools, Historical elections. for patriarchal introduced statute cemaat people or properties and treated as if it were aperson. were it if as treated and properties or people many of acollection from arising assets for law domestic is the person/entity” definition used in “Legal/juristic ) institutions such as churches, schools, schools, churches, as such ) institutions meaning “awakening” meaning of in the history-writing vakıf ) and lost their autonomous autonomous their lost ) and 47 ; and there is no new bylaw or or bylaw new is no there ; and ouncil.

51 52 official authorities. authorities. official to conveying of the institutions problems the common while Patriarchate have to asupra-institutional status the society. causes in the Armenian confusion This creates organization institutional the of nature limited the and the institutions amongst relations ambiguous The institutions to official authorities. authorities. official to institutions the of problems common the conveying while status have to asupra-institutional Patriarchate the causes This organization. institutional the of nature limited the and institutions the amongst relations ambiguous the to due society Armenian in the confusion creates situation contradictory This leaderships. spiritual their through be to representation their wants and religions, different of members are “communities” that as groups these perceives in particular, Armenians and inMuslims general, non- of view state general the abolished, been inter-community autonomous organization model has the hand, although other the On 1863. of Regulations of Code the of scope the within date to surviving organ lasting only is the duties clerical with charged Council Spiritual The themselves. gap that fill to advisors special assigned patriarchs the defunct, made were Code the under established commissions Since the Jews. the of Rabbi Chief the and Patriarchates Greek and Armenian on pressure state the of aresult as law, the preparing when ensured was 1925 of months last in the Treaty the of Lausanne of 42 Article 2of and 1 in paragraphs law customary of area inMuslims the non- to granted bequest) inheritance, marriage, (such as rights specific the from waiver citizens, for all Code Civil the of application ensuring equal of grounds thischange, to the on In addition period. Republican during the adopted laws general the by regulated were Patriarchate the than other institutions of Armenian administration operations and The validity. its (Code Regulations), of lost Nizamname the by endorsed was which institutions, all of operation collective and organization autonomous of model words, the In other laws. Republican adopted newly the to subject became

H C S C de facto the power civil representational and responsibility held However, 2000’s, method. in early power, best the was patriarch,and relying and on his representational church the of umbrella protective the under gathering thought society Armenian in the people of majority stronger, become the reflexes communal seclusive when pressure and turmoil political of At times state. the to foundations community the of problems the conveying of responsibility the undertook they where patriarchs of initiatives see to rare It is not era. Republican during the protocols official of the society Armenian relations in the patriarch the of position representational the prefer and accept officials state the that exemplifying practices many are There Republic. the before community ( own its within head) religious as well as (political ethnarch the as his status 1863, of Regulations of Code in the limited largely was domain civilian in the patriarchate the of authority the Although C 48 civilian in the initiative his own on II Mesrob Patriarch the by -assumed authority the questioning was hand, it other the on and Patriarchate the to status entity alegal of non-recognition by caused difficulties the agenda the on raising Agos the unfolding with was which thisdebate hand one the On community have the obligation to implement the the implement to have obligation the community the of institutions Church, the all of members the of “community consisting the of interests common the involving in cases that interpretation the on focused mainly criticisms The state. the by acknowledged piritual L ongregational R ivic P apacity the of S the of ead

“lay” and “non-clerical”. “non-clerical”. and “lay” mean to used are “civilian” and “civil” terms the domains, temporal and spiritual of separation of context the Within by Armenian patriarchs started to be debated. debated. be to started patriarchs Armenian by newspaper at the heart of the discussion was was discussion the of heart the at newspaper epresentational P cemaat the of eader ) and vis-à-vis the state continued continued state the vis-à-vis ) and ociety C atriarchate ommunity 48 ? domain and and domain with the state and in and state the with ower and or

:

50 51 Turkishsociety. in the initiatives civic joint through agenda the on brought be should demands the and citizenship rights equal of basis the on addressed be should problems the that argued demand other, second the while each from separated completely be must domain spiritual the and domain civilian the that argument the on based administration and representation for acivil need the emphasised first The axes. two under gathered were for secularization demands The life. communal administered centrally amonotonic, against secularization favouring society Armenian the within demands strengthened showed state the and Patriarchate the both of attitude the against directed Criticisms decisions of the patriarchal seat”, patriarchal the of decisions 49 subsequent chapters. in addressed be organizingwill of forms alternative and foundations of administration the to regard with demands secularization the by initiated discussion the thereof; limits the and capacity representational patriarch’s the on debates the address only we will In thissection, citizenship rights. of violation against remedies legal seeking individually and initiatives in civic participation to given was importance that hand other the On institutions. Armenian of administration for the model a new for asearch about also but patriarch the of jurisdiction the limiting about only not was discussion the that hand one the on showed This Patriarchate. the around centred life acommunal preferred that approach” “communal the against voice gaining astronger community under his exclusive control” as apower. as hiscontrol” exclusive under community the of domains social and socio-cultural the all keep “to wanted patriarchate the that argument

See: See: Özdoğan et al. 2009, p. 172-178. p. 172-178. 2009, al. et Özdoğan Lraper in Release Press [Patriarchate’s Yorumu” ve Bildirisi Agos Civilianization], and [Us Sivilleşme” ve “Biz 2005, Dink Agos , 4 March. , 4March. and its Interpretation]. Interpretation]. its and 2004, “ 2004, 51 The demands for secularization is for secularization demands The Lraper ’de Yayımlanan Patriklik Divan Divan Patriklik ’de Yayımlanan 49 and hence on the the on hence and 50

denominations, or who are Muslims or atheists: atheists: or Muslims are who or denominations, different of members are who society Armenian the of members for some terms in religious valid be not would arepresentation such that and Armenians, Apostolic the only of leader Turkey religious the was in Armenians the of Patriarch the that was discussion in the clear became that point first The sphere. civilian milletbaşı the as act also should or leader “community” areligious onlybe should patriarch the whether to However, as have emerged views today, varying and that this is not against the principle of laicism. laicism. of principle the against thisis not that and Diyanet, is a (“If there represented institutions religious their have also should non-Muslims of denominations and in Turkey), religions authority different religious the ( Affairs Religious of is aPresidency there where this country in that was Moreover, view matters”. dominant the for spiritual authority Spiritual the highest and leader is “the patriarch the society, the of majority greater up the make who Armenians, for Apostolic that terms in clear expressed was hand, it other the On a broader historical perspective: perspective: historical a broader within comment following the made who participants some also were There in office. actively was II Mesrob Patriarch when time the throughout and 1950 after particularly period, Republican during the leaders civilian facto de as acting have been patriarchs the that is aconsensus there that observed was it workshops, during the place taking discussions In the interlocutor. its as patriarch the accepts state the today and milletbaşı of power and title the patriarch gave the system Ottoman the II; Mehmed by introduced was institution Patriarchate The solely on religion and denomination. denomination. and religion on solely based isnot Armenian Being Armenians. atheist even and Muslims, have become who Armenians are There sub-communities. its as Protestants and Catholics, Apostolics, with anation are Armenians – highest Islamic Islamic –highest Başkanlığı İşleri Diyanet then there will/must also be a Patriarchate”) aPatriarchate”) be also will/must there then representing the Armenian society in the in the society Armenian the representing (head of the millet the of (head );

53 54 friendship” relations built with “well-intentioned” “well-intentioned” builtwith relations friendship” “personal through society Armenian the of problems the solve to have tried patriarchs past, In the affairs”. in temporal meddle to affairs clerical with dealing those “for and domain temporal in the also leader “community” religious the being from originating “power” their use to for patriarchs right not was it believe people Many domain. temporal the and domain spiritual the between distinction the violated have past in the organizations cultural and schools of activities and foundations of administration in the interfering Patriarchs that was rationale Their society. of therepresenting Patriarchate outside the Armenian forposition” a“civilian need the expressed who some thisview, of also were there supporters the Among community. the of administration internal the in patriarch the of power the against past in the people lay the by earned gains the to counter run also would it that stated and aparticipant, laicism,” said against be would domain,it lay the also includes position milletbaşı the “If affairs”. religious with only deal should Council Spiritual the and clearly, “Patriarch the To prevailing. more more it put was religion” to related not in anything interfere not should he political; be not should Patriarch “the that view the affairs, temporal in his intervention and domain civilian in the status representative patriarch’s the on discussion In the today. longer no necessary was aprotection such that held participants hand, some other the On Varto-Muş. of earthquake the following Istanbul to Anatolia from families of immigration collective for the opportunities many provided in 1966 IKaloustian Shenork Patriarch the and in 1950s IKhachadourian Karekin the Patriarch capacity; institutional representational having no despite that mentioned also It was period. Republican in the patriarchs the of initiatives personal the on continued also has stewardship protective Asimilar state. separate no were there which during centuries long for the institution protective auniting and as church the have exalted Armenians the that and matters, temporal on patriarchate the by played role for the reason historical is a there that stated participants workshop The

and in the judiciary. judiciary. in the and bureaucracy in the level, state the at seen practices anti-democratic the to end an put thereby would This discrimination. or hindrances no with rights citizenship Turkey equal of across enjoyment enable to platforms in civic joint action take to importance fundamental of was it that emphasized they However, else. like everyone relation, state-citizen the of framework the within level, individual the at state the with relations their execute to preferred they that and aposition for such need no was there said participants Some representation”. civilian a“a for or position forleader” a“civilian pursuit the regarding participants the among consensus a was there saythat to incorrect It be would state. the from response no received had they yet representation”, “civilian for demand their and experienced problems the detailing areport state the to delivered intellectuals Armenian of agroup Ecevit, Bülent of ministry prime the During before. expressed been had need This denominations. their of regardless belonging, religious of sense have not do astrong who or church” “do who go groups to not to acceptable more be also would position is This needed”. leader a civilian thisera, “in participant one by however, expressed as succeeded; have and sometimes state, of heads 52 Regulations. of Code the with legitimacy official gained elections in patriarch and Church the of administration internal in the people lay of power determinant the and period, Ottoman during the maintained generally was tradition same The elections. patriarchal in the a role play individuals lay that and public the of participation the to open is Church traditionally Armenian the that is seen it perspective, From ahistorical T elections during the Republican period. However, period. as Republican during the elections in patriarchal continued basically was tradition P he

Bilim ve Toplum Anayasası”, İlk “Osmanlı’nın 1999-2000, Yumul , p. 338-351; Artinian 2004, p. 33-42. p. 33-42. 2004, Artinian , p. 338-351; atriarchal E 52 Barring special circumstances, this this circumstances, special Barring lection C risis 53 and designation of matter the to a solution for society Armenian the within circulating discussion The Armenians. Apostolic for the started process adifficult his duties, performing him from prevented which illness an from suffering was he that clear became it as and 2007 of end the by ill became 1998, in elected was who Mutafyan, II Mesrob Patriarch As life.” spiritual and social our affects negatively and community our of peace the disturbs which delayed, are themselves elections the and elections, the after and before experienced are confusions obscure, and is inadequate “Since thisdocument for elections: patriarchal arrangements of legal lack the about criticism a striking makes Bulletin Church in the Lraper 2001 March 13 on published article An candidates. these among from Council Spiritual the of members the and Patriarch the (6/7),people elects civilian of mostly consisting delegates, of assembly the Code, in the specified As delegates. spiritual the designates Council Spiritual the and delegates, the church lay of each elect constituency endorsed in the electorates the phase, first In the phases. two in done are elections patriarchal the Code, 1863 the of framework the within arranged directive, election this to According government. the of decision the to due thisdirective with in accordance done also were 1998 and 1990 of elections However, patriarchal the elections. future any over binding power legally no has it and directive apermanent thisis not decree, the to According decree. governmental said to annexed Directive Election Patriarchal the of bases the on done was in 1961 election the while government, (DP) Party Democrat the by issued decree aspecial to pursuant conducted was in 1951 election The Code. in the forth set rules the to according in general conducted were elections patriarchal period, Republican the During elections. patriarchal to regard with emerged loophole legal a sense, political disuse in the into fell 1863 of Code the

Özdoğan et. al., p.274-276. p.274-276. al., et. Özdoğan 53

54 of the Spiritual Council Spiritual the of decision the society, the shocked Interior of Ministry the from election for patriarchal permission of refusal the While Patriarch”. the of Deputy “General the as Ateşyan Aram Archbishop of election the announced and 1July on 2010, church the of members spiritual other some and Council Spiritual the of members the of participation the with meeting Assembly General aSpiritual held Council Spiritual The thisdecision, to objections no raising After patriarch”. the of a“deputy elect to Council Spiritual for the was procedure appropriate the that and aco-patriarch”, or patriarch anew electing of purpose for the committee initiating an of establishment the to “no basis legal was there that elections, co-patriarchal or patriarchal for given Turkey, not was permission that stated of Patriarchate Armenian the to June 2010 29 dated (no. 31941) letter its with Istanbul, of Governorate The crisis. serious a created reply, to response months state’s the and 6 than more state the took Initiating Committee, Election Patriarchal the of establishment the before 2009 3December on Council Spiritual the by Istanbul of Governorate the to submitted co-patriarch, for a elections hold to petition the Meanwhile, society. Armenian in the frustration and unrest an to led time, for along petition the to given was response no as ensued that silence The Istanbul. of Governorate the Committee petitioned the of Ministry Interior through Initiating Election Patriarchal the 2010, January 14 On process. democratization Turkey’s of context the within also public the by discussed be to started problem The patriarch. anew of for election permission give to refused government the when acrisis into turned customs traditional with in line patriarch anew of appointment to the will of the civilian people in patriarchal elections elections in patriarchal people civilian the of will the to gave that importance practice customary the ignoring

2010b. 2010b. Agos see: please rationale, and decision the including 2010 2August on Council Spiritual the of announcement the For 54 received a huge reaction for ahuge reaction received

55 56 situation be reviewed. The committee also initiated initiated also committee The reviewed. be situation the that demanded and society, Armenian the of expectations election the remove didnot patriarch the of having of adeputy practice the him that informed and July 2010 29 on Atalay Beşir Minister Interior 56 55 them. to returned patriarch own their elect to have right to the demand the with initiative, the by launched campaign signature in the in Turkeysociety participated Armenian the of segments various from people of July. of week Thousands Initiative] first in the Patriarch WantTo [We Own Our Elect İnisiyatifi İstiyoruz Seçmek Patriğimizi named platform acivic of creation the with shape solid took Council Spiritual the by objection no with thereof acceptance the and Interior of Ministry the of decision the to daysA few later, reaction the legitimate. as accepted be not could imposition or someone’s appointment with and patriarch the of will free the without representation or proxy any that and office, holding still while name aspiritual appointed patriarch the if possible be only could proxy giving that was on agreed protestors the that point One practice. customary in the place no has which patriarch, the of deputy the of position the manner facto in ade for introducing and Church Armenian the of the patriarchal elections. patriarchal the in bottleneck for overcoming the “common ground” a find collectively and together come to society the of members the enable to was meetings the of purpose The crisis. the end to InitiatingCommittee, Election Patriarchal the from representatives of participation the with meetings discussion and information public organized society Armenian hand, the other begin”. the On society Armenian the of unrest the end will that process election patriarchal natural “the that demanding 2010, 1December on aletter Erdoğan

blogspot.com signature http://patrigimizisecmekistiyoruz. campaign, Patriarch!] our elect to want [We İstiyoruz!” Seçmek “Patriğimizi see: delegates; lay the electing electorate initial the of fifth one to corresponds roughly which collected, been had 5392 of atotal 2011, January 18 of As Agos , 2011c. 55 The initiative also was sent Prime Minister Minister Prime sent was also initiative The . 56 The committee visited the the visited committee The sentiments of these initiatives among the Armenian Armenian the among initiatives these of sentiments the share not do who groups also are there that they published on their website. their on published they astatement with rights”, “usurpation of the accepting circle the Patriarchal for also and election patriarchal the authorizing for not government the both criticized in 2007 society Armenian the of young the segment of agroup by started Awakening) initiative (New Zartonk referring the problem to the judiciary. the to problem the referring thereby general, patriarch deputy of appointment the of cancellation for the and elections patriarchal permit not to decision Interior’s of Ministry the against Court Administrative İstanbul the at lawsuits situation. this to reacting justifiably was society the that and society the on choice their of acandidate impose to trying were spirituals some and circle patriarchal in the group acertain Furthermore, responsible. held be also should patriarchate the of officials the of guidance the that and majority, the on entirely rest not does patriarch” the of a“deputy of imposition the and Office Governor’s the from response negative for the responsibility the that was meeting the in made point interesting Another basis. customary or legal no has office governor’s the through conveyed “instruction” an with in line patriarch” the of “deputy defended that introducingÖzer also such a title as Harut Initiative, the of behalf on Speaking elections. up for patriarchal set onlybe could Committee the that and Code, in the included is not which office, for a“co-patriarch” election an hold to right be not would it thisCode, to arrangements additional or new any make to authority no had Since they a reference. as 1863 of Code in the down laid principles utilizing the were they that expressed Initiating Committee Election Patriarchal the from Davuthan Setrak Initiative”,Want ToAttorney Patriarch Own Our Elect “We the by March last held meeting public In the 57 58 59

See: See:

Agos www.norzartonk.org/?p=3434 http:// Rightly], Lived Be Cannot Life [Wrong Olmaz” 2011c. Agos 2010, “Bozuk Düzende Sağlam Çark Çark Sağlam Düzende “Bozuk 2010, Zartonk Nor 2010c; Radikal 2010c; 58 Apart from these two initiatives, the Nor Nor the initiatives, two these from Apart 2010. 2010. . 59 It should be noted noted be It should 57 political attitude that prevents the implementation of of implementation the prevents that attitude political the is about it Turkish hand other the on and citizens, non-Muslim of institutions religious the protection under takes that Treaty the Lausanne of of framework the within addressed be must that issue legal in Turkey; living is a hand, it community one the on anon-Muslim of Patriarchate the administer will who about community” the to “specific only aproblem It is not media. broadcast and press in the statements Turkish the various of with notice opinion public the to matter the bring to wanted initiatives these of spokespersons the that development important an as noted be also should it that, Beyond ideas. exchanged they and lives spiritual their of domain the of outside together came segments individual and civic the society, Armenian the of experiences previous unlike the thisprocess, During public. Turkish in the reverberated occasionally also were that and society Armenian in the groups various the by mentioned discussions the to aspect interesting another was There his duties. perform to able be not he would that clear it made which Mutafyan II Mesrob Patriarch of illness unfortunate the with started which process painful the describe to We have attempted 60 Committee. Initiating Election the of initiatives the criticize who those also and aco-patriarch, of election an only be can it alive, is still patriarch the while place take to is election any if that believe who those also are there Patriarch”, the of Deputy “General of position the introduced which and election, anew permit did not that Office Governor’s the of decision the objections any without accepted which Council Spiritual the support who those to In addition years. two last the Turkey’s on been has that for crisis agenda election patriarchal the to asolution is seeking which society com/2011/01/2011e-girerken-patriklik-ve-patrik.html http://hyetert.blogspot. 2011], of eve the Patrik Seçimi” [Patriarchate and Patriarch Elections on ve Patriklik Girerken “2011’e Bebiroğlu, see: Committee, patriarchal elections and who criticized the Election elections wouldco-patriarchal be more appropriate than that argues who Bebiroğlu Murat which in article the For 60

. elections for this position.elections of the the importance in increases him by the state vested the representative power because indebate the society continue, the role of civilianunder is currently leadership theAlthough patriarch’s aspiritual will leader role as matter is also noteworthy: is also matter the of aspect legal the to regard with emphasized is either. that point One for thisproposal received was response no but adraft, as submitted also was entity legal with apatriarchate on based model organization an in 2006, In addition, state. the by accepted were never authorities relevant to submitted and by-law election patriarchal for the have they prepared drafts the that complain participants the among jurists The unanswered. left or accepted, not either were period election every at authorities the with experienced problems and obstacles bureaucratic the curb in for order elections to patriarchal statute permanent for a made petitions The for thisposition. elections the of importance the increases state him the by in vested power representative the because society in the debate under is currently leadership civilian of role the continue, will leader aspiritual as role patriarch’s 1863”. the of Code Although the of light in the elections patriarchal in the participation civic requires that centuries several of practice customary the abandoned not “has society Armenian Apostolic However, the Patriarchate. the to status activity alegal of non-recognition to due arrangement legal similar any or statutes election permanent no had patriarchate the because first caused was elections Patriarchal of matter in the experienced uncertainty the that expressed It was perspective. political a and alegal both from matter the approached have Church, participants the Armenian Apostolic the of practices customary the to reference making When elect. to right for the citizens these of demands the of face in the norms democratic through law, from which an electoral by-law can also also can by-law electoral an law, which from through possible be only can entity legal of Acquisition

57 58 no recognition of its legal competence makes the the makes competence legal its of recognition no thus and status entity legal no of presence The issue. fundamental amore was status entity legal of lack patriarchate’s the that above we mentioned elections, any permanent legal arrangements for patriarchal of lack the by created problems the addressing When I future. in the phases two of instead phase one in elections patriarchal the hold to practice democratic amore provide would it that was during thisdiscussion voiced was that opinion Another “irregular”. was today imposed procedure the therefore that and will, his on own office perform to is unable patriarch the where for situations appointed onlybe could patriarch the of deputy the hence death”; till and patriarch is “the apatriarch that interpretation the invalidates for election ground alegitimate as “resignation” of acceptance The II. Mesrob of place in the patriarch anew of election the allows which circumstances, other under or resignation or death of event in the elected be shall patriarch anew that forth sets Code the that expressed It was Regulations. of Code version,the endorsed their or practices customary in the either envisaged criteria election patriarchal the to conform not does thissituation that emphasized It apatriarch”. was of appointment facto a de made has government “the judgement is that common The imposition. an as is perceived spirituals the only by elected patriarch the of have to thisdeputy discretion ministerial the again and election apatriarchal of instead Patriarch” the of Deputy “General brand-new a introduce to decision Interior’s of Ministry The go through. can election an such process alegal of kind what through and participate, can who held, be can elections patriarchal which in situations the regulating arrangement legal basic a make to is essential it that view the strengthens This N s AL ecessary the legal grounds for this purpose. . purpose. this for grounds legal the provide cannot it however entity, legal imply might by-law election an terms in normative derived; be egal E ? S ntity tatus education education institution undersupervision. its in ahigher education clerical undertake to refused and churches; these sayregarding no has Patriarchate the Also, ceremonies. opening during the than other restored, being recently are which churches, historical in worship of prevention the are in thisregard forefront the to come that problems main The religion. of freedom of exercise the and Patriarchate, the of administration financial and administrative the both to related are problems These elections. patriarchal the with associated difficulties the to addition in problems other many caused has period Republican during the patriarchate the of status ambiguous the that out have pointed participants Workshop judiciary. the to having recourse from Patriarchate the prevents it thus and declared, be to property immovable or income economic no are there since account abank open to able being not building and church the of owner property the as recognized being not Patriarchate’s the in results This seat. apersonal as seen patriarchate seat. seat. apersonal as the Patriarchate seen makes competence of its legal no recognition thus and status entity of no legal presence The In standing”. “adcommissions, not are hoc areas cultural and in social subject aspecific research up to set Commissions Patriarchate”. the not and Patriarch the of “are counsellors the Patriarchate the at working Moreover, counsellors the publication. internal an Lraper the than other anything publish cannot Patriarchate The authorization. special to Church, is Patriarchate’s subject the i.e. Patriarchate, in the work maintenance and repair Any Patriarchate”. “on the not name, Patriarch’s the invoiced are etc. water electricity, as such bills Utility life. in daily “difficulties” some created also state the by entity alegal as thisauthority of recognition non- the participants, the by out pointed As news bulletin, which is which bulletin, news 61 status entity having legal to the importance stressed participants the that expressed We have already status. entity havenot legal do Archbishopric Catholic Armenian the and Istanbul hencePatriarchates, and of the Patriarchate Armenian Christian all and Rabbinate Chief Jewish the that rights of violation afundamental as is interpreted in Turkey, minorities non-Muslim and it rights human of protection to Venice regard the with Commission of reports in the and Reports Commission’s Progress in European made suggestions and criticism In the model. and approach “laicism” country’s the with together addressed be should that and foundations, community of problems the to in relation later discuss we will issue, which organization internal an concerns that is amatter 1863 of Code in the Patriarchate the to granted status legal the of adaptation The society. Armenian the among decided and discussed first be must that matters all are Patriarchate the of structure organizational the and benefits, potential its status, such of scope the is recognized, Patriarchate the of status entity If legal the patriarchs. the of initiatives and capabilities skills, individual the to is limited structure, institutional an of support get the cannot which and entity legal no has which patriarchate, the of administration The exist. legally cannot years 550 of ahistory with institution ahistorical that in itself It is acontradiction E patriarchate. the as is addressed patriarch the of person tension), the political of during times Armenians Turkey’s “intimidate” to as so or diaspora, Armenian Turkey of promotion for apositive in the especially (abroad and is needed power representational when institution an as patriarchate the not recognizes state the short,

valuation Religious Communities in Turkey”, Venice. Turkey”, in Venice. Communities Religious of Status Legal the on “Opinion 2010, Commission) Venice (aka: Law through Democracy for Commission European but the patriarch as aperson as patriarch the but and R ecommendations 61 . However, Ateşyan, who was elected as the general deputy of of deputy general the as elected was who Ateşyan, Aram Archbishop that is understood it contrary, the change.On didnot decision government’s the Initiative”, Want To Patriarch “We the Own Our Elect and Initiating Committee Election the by government the and judiciary the through raised objections the Despite crisis. all-out an into turn to years two last the of process election patriarchal problematic already the caused has Council Spiritual the of suggestion the with patriarch” the of deputy general “the of position the introducing instead and (or co-patriarch) patriarch a of election allow to refusal government’s The hand-in-hand. run should processes participation secularization/civic different two think these who those also are There society. Turkish in the movement democratization collective in the participating stress mostly perspective different a from participation secularization/civic approach who Those society. Armenian the of affairs temporal institutions in the internal administration of the existing currently the of effectiveness the increase to designed be to has model organizational civil new hand, abrand other the On in force. is currently that legislation restrictive the abandoning and report), in this addressed (as we have already institutions foundations, educational and society’s associations the of operations the regarding arrangements legal necessary the making first requires domain civilian in the society Armenian the of problems the them,solving to According asolution. such accept not do society Armenian in the secularization and participation favour civilian who Those arrangement. an such against are participants most that remember we should and institution; areligious of jurisdiction the to directly affairs civilian in leaving result might disposition of right the and ownership property their and foundations, of administration the affairs, education, charity and health society’s Armenian the also but Patriarchate the only not encompass will in away that status thislegal of arrangement However, elections. for patriarchal and administration ground legal forperpetual the Patriarchate’s a provide will in away that Patriarchate the to granted

59 60 conform to the principles of democratic state state democratic of principles the to conform not does Mutafyan II Mesrob Patriarch of friend” a“close was he because Egemen by Bağış– statement a to –according was patriarch the of deputy general the as appointment Ateşyan’s Aram for Archbishop reason the that claim government’s The sensitivity. of spirit in acommon and Church the of practices traditional the with in line patriarch own their elect to Council, ignore and the demands citizens of Armenian Spiritual the of preferences onlythe to according matter the decide to government the of democratic is hand,anti- it other the On society. Armenian Apostolic the within support asubstantial garnering foundations, of administrators by and groups, includingdifferent segments professional age and various of members by agenda the on brought were right, is avested election patriarchal that theory the of basis the on acting initiatives, the that It is obvious patriarch. anew of election for the petitions the ignores therefore and patriarch, the to equal patriarch the of deputy general the of the patriarch patriarch the of deputy general the to given far, also so was patriarchs to granted been only had which domain, public in the vestments religious wear to permission the that 63 62 2010. August 18 dated Ministers of Council the of Decree the with worship of places outside (vestments) attire religious wear to permission the given was Council, Spiritual the by patriarch the

Agos 2011e. Agos see: confidential, kept was Decree information about the Decree and criticism about how the including and 2011 3May dated Committee Initiating For the announcement of the Patriarchal Elections Agos 2011e. Agos See: 2010. August dated Ministers of Council the of Decree the contradicts 2010 June dated Interior of Ministry the of letter the how interesting also It is alive. still was II Mesrob Patriarch as figure spiritual asecond to given be not could permission this that stated letter the Istanbul; of Office Governor’s the via sent and 200 June 30 dated Patriarchate the to letter its in patriarch the of deputy ageneral elect could Council Spiritual the that stating when law this recalled Interior of Ministry the such, As mass. outside and worship allowed to wear of places outside religious vestments is leader spiritual one only Garments”, Certain of Wearing of Prohibition the “Concerning 2596 no Law to According 63 shows that the government holds holds government the that shows 62

The fact fact The patriarchal elections. elections. patriarchal healthy conduct to which with by-law election have to an society Armenian for the and status legal have to patriarchate for the guarantee democratic a as viewed in. be It should step to problem the of solution in the involved those of characters and positions political as such variables the allowing and bureaucracy, the and will political the of initiative the to it leaving aunique case, as addressed be again once to elections patriarchal next the of problems the cause today, seen by-law, as will apermanent of lack The future. in the problems raise to continue will elections patriarchal regulating by-law apermanent of lack The is disregarded. society the of will democratic the that shows Patriarchate the head will who figure spiritual the of election in the society Armenian the of initiative collective the to listen to unwillingness The government. Section Five openly practicing it, or are forced to convert, this is an thisis an convert, to forced are or it, practicing openly from refrain religion, their hide to attempt treatments, avoiding of such sake for the If people, system. faith their of denigration the and speech, hate and hatred to exposure individual and collective their society, in the faiths religious their to due discrimination to religions different of members of exposure include religion of that undermine the freedom practices and Attitudes debate. political of atopic constitute and laicism to approach state’s the to related all are structure autonomous have or an state the to attached be should organization such whether and religion, of freedom of for protection organization umbrella institutional an have to is necessary it Whether arrangements. legal and institutional requires thisrealm of protection worship. The and religion of freedom of realm the within included also are Church the of functions customary the with in accordance ecclesiastics and patriarchs the of election/appointment and churches, its over supervision spiritual of freedom Patriarchate’s the ensuring churches, of administration religious education, ensuring freedom in the for clergy training and education religious Receiving legislation. applicable the as effect much as has religions different towards respect social of extent the areas, In these needs. existing the with in line grounds burial or worship of places new of opening and cemeteries, and worship of places of repair and maintenance protection, the of matters the covers worship. It also individual of freedom or wedding or ceremonies, funerals feasts, religious in masses, participation collective to only limited is not worship and religion of freedom The and Religious Rights Religious and Religion of Freedom of Violations Muslim minorities equal rights to establish, manage manage establish, to rights equal minorities Muslim non- gives also 40 Article purposes. charitable or religious for educational, bugdets other and municipal the from ashare receive minorities non-Muslim the 41/2 foresees Article nature”.that Furthermore, of institutions private other to guaranteed are which facilities necessary the of any institutions, charitable and religious new of formation for the refuse, in Turkey”, existing present at “not minorities and to said the of institutions charitable and religious the to and foundations, pious the to authorization and facilities all “grant to minorities, non-Muslim the of establishments” religious other and cemeteries, synagogues, churches, the to protection “full grant to Turkishdecided the has Lausanne, Government […]”.belief Treaty the of of 42/c Article to According or religion creed, any of private, or in public whether exercise, free Turkey to of entitled be shall inhabitants 38), “All (Article Treaty the to Lausanne According of religion. and faith of freedom the restrict directly that attitudes and practices the address we will In thissection, identity. Armenian ethnic and religious the targeting speech hate and discrimination of effects the discussed already Discrimination”, and we have “Armenianon Identity section In the country. in that established well is not belongingness religious of freedom that indicates also majority the by practiced religion the than religion adifferent of amember but is acitizen one where in acountry rights economic and social, cultural, political, equal exercise to Inability discrimination. this of apart also are schools at instructed the coercions encountered in religious courses previously, we have mentioned As restricted. being is religion of freedom to right their that indication

63 64 these samethese purposes. former, for similar introduce to new institutions also and the support to institutions charitable and educational any and social, assets institutions, their religious of minorities formaintenance and the protection Muslim rights, envisages of positive it aseries also rights for non- individual equal as rights freedoms and religious protect for the obligation to calls While the of Treaty Lausanne 65 64 purposes. same for these institutions new similar introduce to former, the also and support to institutions charitable and educational social, any and assets institutions, religious their of maintenance and protection for the minorities non-Muslim for rights positive of aseries envisages also it rights, individual equal as freedoms and rights religious protect to obligation for the calls Treaty Lausanne of the while Therefore, institutions. social and religious charitable, any expense own their at control and World War.World Second the following UN the of umbrella the under instituted regime rights human international the with conscience and religion”introduced was in accordance thought, of freedom to right the has “Everyone that provision the and Treatythe Lausanne, of to limited not were religion of freedom the protecting of freedom of religion and worship, and have been worship, have and and been religion of freedom of area in the them to guaranteed rights the of many of deprived have been minorities non-Muslim Since 1923, religion. of freedom on articles include (ECHR) also Rights Human on Convention European the and in 1993, Assembly General UN the by adopted Minorities, Linguistic and Ethnic, Religious or National to Belonging Persons of Rights the on Turkey, by signed Declaration instruments the as such

& Francis Group, p. 447-486. p. 447-486. Group, & Francis Eastern Studies Middle Equality”, and Difference Between Regime: Rights Minority “Turkish 2006, Soner and İçduygu http://www.belgenet.com/arsiv/sozlesme/iheb.html “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, Article 18, 18, Article Rights”, Human of Declaration Universal “The 65 Universal and regional international law law international regional and Universal , volume 42, issue 3, May, Routledge, Taylor May, 3, Routledge, issue 42, , volume 64 Provisions Provisions . reports, in the publications of the US Secretary of of US Secretary the of publications in the reports, in EU progress reflected be to continue freedom religious on restrictions of extent the and rights religious of violations widespread the developments, positive these Despite direction. positive for achange in the ahope given have all cases, various in foundations community in favour of judgments ECtHR the to thanks made gains the and years, recent in the in Anatolia monasteries and churches Armenian historical the of restoration for the governments “mosque”) of instead worship” of (adopting “place word the 2003 of Building Code in the made amendment the with purposes religious for used buildings between equality of observance the and process, EU accession in the adopted laws harmonization the through foundations church of problems for the extent, acertain to introduced, was asolution that fact the Nevertheless, masses. and ceremonies religious to shown “tolerance” the by allowed area the and synagogues, and in churches worship in Turkey to right non-Muslims the to is limited the of religion of freedom the In short, introduced. have been yet sanctions deterrent no years, recent in the non-Muslims targeting attacks and speech, hate increasing the Despite possible. as narrow as kept was freedom institutional of area the and instruments, law in international freedom religious for expected norms universal the behind lagged amendments The minorities. non-Muslim the cover to failed provision action affirmative the yet equality; of principle the contradict not does action affirmative that stipulated 2010 September 12 of Referendum Constitutional the with constitution 1982 the of 10 Article to made amendments latest The implemented. fully have been never Treaty Lausanne of in the enshrined rights minority the Constitution, the as power equal has it Although rights. these of exercise for their support institutional limited very with rights, these restricting practices to exposed 66

Cemaat Vatıfları Göre Düzenlemelere Yasal Son 2003, Zonano, and Reyna 66 , the support by the state and by local local by and state the by support , the , Gözlem Yayınları, İstanbul, p. 144-146. p. 144-146. İstanbul, Yayınları, , Gözlem platforms. platforms. rights human by reports monitoring in the and State, 67 security. of sense asocial families and individuals Armenian some gives chime bell the hearing and tower, bell church,the seeing established is an there where in aneighbourhood living also and church the to close being not, or pious whether that expressed “deliberate”. as It is seen be to tends restriction a such hence solidarity; of environment an create and other, each know get to socialize, community the of members where places also but worship of only places not are worship. Churches of freedom of restriction is aclear churches new of construction for the is granted permission no that fact the and İstanbul, in Küçükçekmece and Alibeyköy as such Anatolia, from migrating Armenians of areas settlement new relatively in the churches no are there that fact The church.” in the mass attending or worship only mean not does “Religion identity: religious manifest to able be to in order is necessary freedom that It is emphasized revealed. is identity religious when “foreign” as treated being over one’s anxiety hide to an or need religion, a create easily can pressure Social domain. private one’s than other in places is revealed identity religious where in situations or departments, in state places, work at street, the on is experienced uneasiness in churches.” Yet, safety have spiritual “We practices: worship daily or ceremonies religious masses, ferial or Sunday performing to in regard concerns or problems have they no that expressed participants The Worship F reedom R of content&view=article&id=1150 protestankiliseler.org/index.php?option=com_ http://www. 2010”, of Violations Rights Human on “Report 2010, Affairs Legal and Freedom Religious for (Turkey)Committee Churches Protestant of Association www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/148991.htm Labor-International Religious Freedom Report”, http:// and Rights, Human Democracy, of Bureau “Turkey: 2010, State of Department US 2010; Commission European 67

eligion . , F and aith ; [converts] and denigrated. denigrated. [converts] and dönme as treated on later were efforts such through Islam to converted were who people and families, Armenian visiting when missionary” a“Muslim as “sheikh” act would a sometimes that neighbours, Muslim their by religion” right the to “invited were they that explained Participants differences. religious the from originated identity, that and the oppression they suffered areligion-based mostly was identity Armenian their for them, that expressed participants Istanbul, to migrating before villages Anatolian in East lives their Describing baptisms. for villages other goto “secretly” Muslims, they with together live Armenians where in villages that and small, relatively was population Armenian the where places in some İstanbul to Anatolia from migration massive the before 1960’s and in 1950’s experienced also were problems similar that It is expressed leaders”. spiritual local and ministers own have to “their want in Anatolia Armenians pious However, in Church Elazığ). Assyrian the (for example, vicinity in the any are there if churches Christian other have go they to or to Istanbul– from comes minister a when occasions special very than –other churches have they no since etc. masses funerals, baptisms, as such practices religious perform to unable are Anatolia Southeastern and in Eastern living families Armenian in numbers, small very Although registered in the Ottoman archives in 1912; however however in 1912; archives Ottoman in the registered and territories in Ottoman churches monasteries and 2200 were worship. There of freedom the violating abehaviour and “cultural of massacre” example an as remembered is still which administrators, by seriously taken not was expropriation the of aresult as structures the to done Damage in 1950s. expropriated was Istanbul, of in Karaköy,heart the at located churches Armenian oldest the Church, of one Lusavoriç Krikor The Anatolia. of “remote” places the to limited been Moreover, not thishas practice. aroutine became cemeteries and churches Armenian of destruction in 1915, starting process In the C Destruction emeteries of C hurches and

65 66 suffered large-scale destruction and even used as stables. as even and used destruction large-scale suffered havepopulation migration and exchanges Istanbul, to deportations, forced to due without acommunity left were which Christianchurches, all era of the Republican periods It is awell-known that fact the from beginning early in Akhtamar, Van. In the Çavuşoğlu neighbourhood of of neighbourhood in Van. Akhtamar, Çavuşoğlu In the ( Cross Holy the of Church the of restoration the following step prominent next is the Diyarbakır of Municipality Metropolitan the of contribution back to the 16 the to back dating East Middle in the churches Armenian largest the Church, of one Giragos Surp the of restoration the live, families Armenian 10 currently where Diyarbakır, In attention. drew that years recent in the witnessed developments positive some have been There in Anatolia. survive less or more to have that managed churches the repair to possible been not organization”,“umbrella has it an as guardianship its continued Patriarchate the and relationship, close-knit in amore lived “community” Armenian the where in Istanbul active were churches the Although identity. religious to linked directly have been practices punitive that indication clear in Yozgat, building tax not) is road a pay for which the (could didnot citizens Armenian when a retaliation as down torn were churches In 1930s, era. Republican during the forms in various continued and fire on set were in Anatolia churches Armenian many when in 1915 started destruction The stables. as used even and destruction large-scale have suffered Istanbul, deportations forced to due acommunity without left were which churches, Christian all era Republican the of periods early the from beginning that fact It is awell-known tolerance”. “religious of sincerity the about doubts serious raising and “cultural the massacre” dimensions of the is minimal, demonstrating monasteries and churches surviving the of number the today population exchanges and migration to to migration and exchanges , population th century, a few months ago with the the with ago century, months afew Surp Haç Surp ) of the existence of “downright oppression”: of existence the of proof the as described are humour” “black of example an as in Sivas lands monastery and church the on units the of deployment military and cemeteries, Armenian old on Schools, Police as buildings, such governmental erecting of practice the particular, In “torment”. causes buried” be to left have place no “we that vicinity, feeling in the the remain cemeteries Armenian no where in Anatolia In places abolished. licence burial its had in Kuruçeşme cemetery the and destroyed, totally in Topkapı was cemetery the a“public into bazaar”, Yeşilköy converted was in cemetery the İstanbul, from examples some To pain. great give causes that something wipe-out, total even or destruction face that cemeteries the also but monasteries, and churches the only not It is buildings. historical in these for treasures search to attempts the and structures Armenian historical of destruction the have condoned administrations and governments local the how ruefully recalled It is also so. rarely even respected, are in Anatolia heritage cultural and worship of places Armenians’ the that National Estate) National DG the and Foundations DG the Municipality, Malatya the between shared ownership (withChurch its ( Taş year-old 250 Horan the of restoration the support to community Muslim local the of eagerness the born, also was Dink Hrant where and live families Armenian afew where Malatya, 68 those of lands the office; governor’s the of approval in the Yozgat, with In 1932 down torn were churches

Ermeni-Kilisesi.htm>. team-aow.discuforum.info/t3200-Malatya-Tas-Horan-

aintenance Döşemeciyan et. al. 2011. 2011. al. et. Döşemeciyan Churches , R epair O and pening 69 implemented partially and only and until 1974. partially implemented was purposes” or charitable religious for educational, the State, under or other budgets municipal public funds application which may beprovided of the sums out of share in equitable the an enjoyment and guaranteed non-Muslim minorities, minorities these shall be belonging proportionof to Turkishconsiderable citizens that whereis “in there districts and towns of Lausanne It that the provision is expressed 41 of the Treaty of Article 70 ( Cross Holy the of Church the of restoration the of completion the After associated cost. associated the of regardless properties, immovable their of repair and for maintenance permission obtain to foundations for community requirement the removed thereby and in 1999, By-Law Foundations the of articles these of implementation the discontinuing announced DGF repaired. properties have immovable to their wanted for community foundations factor a deterrent that DGF, the of became it powers and therefore and duties supervision and inspection the beyond went and procedure along to subject was thispermit Obtaining By-Law. Foundations in the specified amounts tiny the with accomplished be not could that foundations of properties immovable of repair for the required procedures directly related to church repairs: repairs: church to related directly procedures any include not does regulation the since difficulties bureaucratic encounter still they that and disappeared have not repairs church concerning problems

Reyna and Zonano 2003, p. 91-92. p. 91-92. 2003, Zonano and Reyna measures for the conservation of churches. of conservation the for measures necessary take to free completely be should it equality, and laicism of sake the For time. every rats bureauc with administrators foundation of relations personal the and bureaucracy the of will the to tied repairs have to the pressure It creates demand. citizenship anormal being stop repairs church that, do you When repairs. mosque than treatment different to subjected be not should repairs Church 70 However, the participants said the the said However, participants the Surp Haç Surp ) inVan, Akhtamar, the -

67 68 area in the 10 in the area the (915) ruled that Artzruni Kingdom of Armenian the in Anatolia, history Armenian the of periods brightest and oldest the of one to back dated lying and in ruins Armenian society. These obstacles originate from the the from originate obstacles These society. Armenian the by faced problems fundamental the of one worship, and is religion of freedom the of components important the of one education, clergy of Prevention C repairThe of this religious monument sentiments. conflicting some created 2010 September 19 on held ceremony opening official the of events 71 ( Cross Holy the of Church Akhtamar the opening not However, 2010. in August Monastery Sümela the at Bartholomeos Patriarch Orthodox Greek by led mass the following Anatolia of temples Christian historical great in the held ceremony religious second the was ceremony the at Ateşyan Aram Archbishop by led mass The state. the of “sincerity” the about doubts church for the inauguration some ceremony raised the on cross the mount However, to region. refusal the in the presence Armenian ancient the remembering of in terms development important an was remembrance of the Armenian history in Anatolia. history Armenian the of remembrance Turkish the of the to nationalism reaction harsh the of also but religion of freedom to right the of exercise unequal the only not of example astriking was island, Akhtamar the on church the of inauguration the of in “retaliation” finished, been yet not have works restoration whose and church Armenian old an from in is Ani, converted which Mosque Manucehr Ebu’l the at Friday salah their practicing (MHP) Party Movement Nationalist the from protesters of agroup of event The Ani. of settlement Armenian historical in Church the Pırgiç Surp the of visitors the to prohibited Similarly, was praying religion. of freedom the breached that restrictions dayswere worship to subsequent the visitors Surp Haç Surp

lergy 205-207. Redgate 2000, The Armenians 2000, Redgate ) for worship and not allowing the Armenian Armenian the allowing not and ) for worship E ducation th and 11 and th centuries in the vicinity of Van, of vicinity in the centuries , Blackwell, Oxford, p. Oxford, , Blackwell, 71 , which was was , which the school was “not working to its full capacity” full its “not to working was school the that and students enough not were there that grounds the on Education National of Ministry the of a decision with in 1967 down closed was school, education higher a of status the had which school, clergy this Armenian However, government. DP the of permission the with clergy train to Okulu Ruhban Tıbrevank Haç Surp name the under place same in the opened was institution anew IHaçaduryan, Karekin Patriarch of initiative personal the of aresult as In 1954, in 1932. shut down Üsküdar to provide religious education in the 17 in the education religious provide to Üsküdar in Church Haç Surp the under opened classroom The their number.increasing and for the clergymen their demands to catering from society theprevented Armenian in Turkey. serve to allowed situation This has of divinity outsidefaculties of Turkey, not are and in monasteries who educated have been who and notclergymen, are Turkish citizens School. Christian Clergy Furthermore of Tibrevank Surp for theHaç reopening issued been Turkey no permission stage, has at alater privateAlthough in allowed universities were aproblem. become education communities, on clergy thus the restrictions for non-Muslim religion on education higher private allow not do laws Republican The schools. Armenian in course religion the teach will who teachers community, the for to and service religious provide will who clergy, the of education to regard with legislation 72 reopening of this school. Furthermore Christian Christian Furthermore thisschool. of reopening for the issued been has permission no stage, a later in Turkey allowed were at universities private Although Harç School in late 18 in late School Harç Surp the as instituted and expanded later was century

1971 together with other private universities. private other with together 1971 in down closed was Patriarchate Orthodox Greek the of Halki [The Seminary] Okulu Ruhban Heybeliada known, As th century, serving until it was was it until century, serving th 72

. to the religious needs of the Christians”. the of needs religious the to cater to as so abroad from invited and/or be to invited clergymen to given be permit residence citizenship or “Turkish that was education clergy to related demand Another country”. the across Christians the all for serving and religion Christian the of survival for the is essential which education, clergy of implementation “allowing legal included letter in the demands the others amongst Review; Rights Human on Committee Turkey of Assembly Parliamentary National Grand the to aletter wrote minorities Christian of representatives spiritual In 2003, number. their increasing from and catering to their demands for the clergymen society Armenian the prevented has situation This Turkey, of in Turkey.outside serve to allowed not are divinity of faculties and in monasteries educated been Turkish not have are who who and citizens clergymen, 73 ministers for a long time, and has to summon summon to has and time, for along ministers no It has in Anatolia. surviving village only Armenian Hatay, is the in Samandağ, Village city. Vakıflı in the located currently are that churches 30 about serve to clergymen have not enough does Istanbul difficulties. creates which back, come will abroad studying clerics of number small avery Only Jerusalem). in Eçmiadzin and seminaries in the (for example abroad rules) Church to have according study to marry vardapet at found in Turkey, be not could are who clergymen those sincequalified that expressed also participants Accordingly, Council. Spiritual in the serve could who clerics in Turkey senior train to serve in afailure result to want who clergymen for the requirement birthplace in Turkey seminaries of the “pressure”. and lack The for putting and education clergy preventing for used being instrument an as country in the serve in Turkey to birth of able be to have place to their clergymen the obliges that requirement the to referred in Üsküdar. also TıbrevankHaç They Seminary Surp the of closure the of issue the raised Participants

Agos 2003. 2003. level (more senior clerics under oath not to to not oath under (more level clerics senior 73

religion in the wider area. area. wider in the religion of freedom the breach that hindrances and coercions of aseries are there but in churches, restricted is not worship religious of Freedom level. society or state the at encountered behaviours and practices discriminatory the from law, originate some domestic in the restrictions legal the from stem violations these of some While Commission. European the and Europe of Council the of reports in the primarily and documents international in various religion of freedom the of violations Turkey as mentioned are in institutions religious and citizens non-Muslim by encountered obstacles and restrictions the Turkey, by ratified instruments rights human other the of provisions the and Treaty the Lausanne of Despite recommendatıons E financial facilities while also ensuring that the the ensuring that also while facilities financial some provide will budgets government local and state from shares of allocation Treatythe Lausanne, of of provisions the worship. to According of places new open to difficult it make communities the of means limited the and processes bureaucratic the Both past. in the wrought destruction the repair to initiatives take should administration the and government the In addition, laws. of framework the within taken be should measures penal and investigations, through pertinent administrational authorities by them) followed upon be buildings should erect to demolished cemeteries treasure, find to excavations (for example adversities These lands. ancient their on Armenians the of “de-historicization” the in it and results dimension of the identity” Armenian is psychological “a the on in Anatolia blow cemeteries clearingofchurches Armenian and and destruction The the church to serve as non- as serve to church the in trained are professions own their longerno perform who individuals married sometimes society, Armenian in the candidates ministerial of number low the given circumstances, these Under newborns. their baptise cannot they and for funerals, Istanbul from ministers valuations and vardapet clergy ( clergy kahana ). ).

69 70 between Muslims and non-Muslims. non-Muslims. and Muslims between in treatment inequality is afundamental there that worship, of illustrates which places of maintenance and to the construction of clergy education the from fields, of range wide of administration the It entity. oversees alegal being not despite ( Affairs Religious of is aPresidency There in practice. false is laicism of framework the within treatment equal in Turkey groups religious receive all that assertion The Turkey. of Republic the of citizens are who clergy training of problem the to solution ultimate the be will Tıbrevank the of Seminary department tertiary the reopening that is hand, understood it other the On consideration. into taken not was which education, for clergy department auniversity of opening the proposed Mutafyan II Mesrob Patriarch the 2008 in closed, remained Tıbrevank Haç Surp Seminary the of Department Theology the As society. Armenian the by faced problems main the of one constitute component of the freedom of religion faith, and education, important an on clergy Restrictions wrought with the genocide. destruction the in repairing step important an be -will repair under or in ruins -currently monasteries and churches Armenian ancient of restoration the over discretion asayand has society Armenian the ensuring that arrangements for new initiatives Government inequality. the of acontinuation implies worship of in places ceremonies Moreover, official allowing only funding. European some community, and donations, the of contributions the through possible been mostly have works these that is evident it development, apositive as is noted years recent in the monasteries and churches Christian Anatolian ancient some of restoration the Although cemeteries. and churches of repair and maintenance to contributing consider also should governments local and state the framework, same the Within is observed. equality of principle Christians in Turkey illustrates the mentality used to to used mentality in the TurkeyChristians illustrates of religion of freedom the of assurance an as Bardakoğlu, Ali Affairs, Religious of President former by ago months afew in aspeech used sentences The Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı İşleri Diyanet ), which is a state organ organ is astate ), which our tradition and a requirement of our religion.” our of arequirement and tradition our of apart as it We see churches. own in their worship in Turkey to Christians that able are magnanimity our of example is an “It thisinequality: legitimize 74 communities in order to institute laicism in reality. in reality. laicism institute to in order communities non-Muslim these of institutions religious the to state the from support material-financial provide to and communities non-Muslim of religion of freedom the restrict that practices the eliminate to arrangements legislative new have be will to there existence, in remains structure current in its Affairs Religious of aPresidency as long As religions. all to distance equal at is not state the that shows already Muslims Diyanet the onlyas serves that department thisstate of existence The basis. tangible have not any “embracing does nature” asserted the that is obvious it faith, Sunni-Hanefi the of adherents the than other for those services religious to dedicated abudget had never budget,has state the from allocations earmarked direct with operates which Considering of thatReligious the Presidency Affairs, denominations. and religions different of existence the of adenial and laicism against assertion an also is in country” our people million 72 the of presidency “the was Affairs Religious of Presidency the that asserting speech same in that statement Bardakoğlu’s attitudes. discriminatory various causes it how and level society the at adopted equality, is also of in breach “tolerance” areligion-based on structured “protection”, of thismentality how Discrimination” “Armenianmentioned in the section and Identity law. of We rule the havecitizenship and already equal of principle the against completely are status, have who Muslims ahigher the of “benevolence” and “tolerance” the about talking and freedom, religious of aguarantee as times, Ottoman the from inherited “indebtness” of amentality such asserting 24), (Article Constitution the and Treaty Lausanne of the of framework the within protection legal is under Turkey, non-Muslims of religion of freedom the where

tumgazeteler.com/?a=6386937 http:// Order], Life Daily Into Interfere Should [Imam Karışmalı” Hayata Sosyal “İmam Bardakoğlu, . of Sunni-Hanefi Sunni-Hanefi of 74 In In Section Six

Surp Agop Surp ( hospital two also are there Istanbul, in located foundations the Among foundations. church or church school and as cemetery and church directly foundations, as operate some function them of abig majority While in Istanbul. based are them of 46 and Armenians, Protestant and Catholic Apostolic, to belonging foundations 51 are there Today, society. today’s Armenian of institutions health and charitable and lives, cultural and educational religious, the of continuation for the importance vital of are times, Ottoman the from inherited institutions, These non-Muslims. to belong that orphanages and hospitals schools, cemeteries, churches, monasteries, as such institutions of administration the oversee foundationsCommunity the are organisations that Organization and Property Ownership, Administration, Legal Status and Problems Related to Associations: Foundations and They acquired their land and immovable properties properties immovable and land their acquired They foundations. than rather institutions charitable as acting institutions anonymous as established were they as certificates), (foundation charters approved have no orders, imperial via mostly and times Ottoman sincethe have which survived foundations community the foundations, Islamic Unlike the 1997. Assistance], Social and Culture Education, for Health, Foundation Yardım [The Vakfı Sosyal ve Kültür Eğitim, SEV-Sağlık, in Turkey], Teachers’ Armenians of and School 1965 Yardımlaşma Vakfı Öğretmenleri Okulları Azınlık Ermenileri TEAO-Türkiye (1926): Code Civil the of adoption the after established Kalfayan ) foundations. There are only two foundations foundations two only are There ) foundations. ) and two orphanage ( orphanage two ) and [Benevolent Society of Minority Minority of Society [Benevolent Karagözyan Karagözyan Surp Pırgiç and Pırgiç Surp and

introduced some restrictions in breach of the Treaty the of of in breach restrictions some introduced have period Republican during the adopted laws the community ( community the of members trustworthy some either of name the in registered properties immovable their had usually institutions charitable these income, generate to able himself. To sultan the by be allocation only through 76 75 37]”. [Article clause a supremacy with guaranteed also was rights these of “inviolability autonomy, the and granted were foundations community state, the of obligations positive of scope the within protection under taken were rights their and minorities non-Muslim of institutions educational and social religious, the Lausanne, Treaty the of of 42(3) 41 40, and Articles With deed in their own names. own in their deed title the on properties immovable their register to opportunity and right the them entity, granting legal foundationseducational of the community acquired and (1328), charitable in 1912 religious, the adopted alaw With assemblies. civilian and spiritual up by set commissions by afterwards and 1863, of Code the until Patriarchate the by undertaken was foundations the of Church, administration the Armenian Apostolic the For deeds. title them allow didnot time ( saint patroness

A.g.e. 9-10. 9-10. Turkey” in Communities and Foundations Non-Muslim of Problems Ownership Estate Real Alien(ation): an of Story “The 2009, Hatemi, and Kurban , p.11. , p.11. nam-ı müstear nam-ı mevhum nam-ı , TESEV Publications, İstanbul, p. İstanbul, Publications, , TESEV 75 ), or a patron or or apatron ), or ) since the laws of the the of laws the ) since 76 However, various

73 74 form of unlawful decisions. ofform unlawful the took on later which decisions incontradictory resulted of the immovable of foundations, properties title registry of 1936 on the grounds The Declaration, introduced act an members members ( ( saints of name in the declarations their registered charters, no had which foundations, community the of properties the of However, held. they sincesome properties immovable the listing declarations property submit and prepare that demanded foundations should Declaration The decisions. unlawful of form the took on later which decisionsof foundations, resulted in contradictory properties immovable the of registry title of grounds the on introduced act an Declaration, 1936 The DGF. the to granted powers supervisory the of in terms limited left were competencies entity legal their in 1949, law in the made amendment an through status “annexed their foundation” lost they Although seizure. their facilitate that provisions introduced [annexed foundation] vakıf and mülhak as defined it which foundations, community of rights entity legal DGF, of the limited supervision exceptionally it the to foundations existing all subjected Law Foundations Foundations). of the While General (Directorate community foundations under of the DGF the tutelage brought 1935 of 2762 no Law Foundations the and foundations, community to apply didalso 1930 of Law Municipal the with municipalities to cemeteries of transfer The thisscope. from foundations community excluded but foundations, new of establishment (1926) endorsed Code Civil the First, Lausanne. Declaration were seized through court decisions on on decisions court through seized were Declaration 1936 the after acquired properties foundation Some Treasury, the grounds. or various on Administration Foundations the either to time, of course in the transferred, was properties these of ownership The foundations. the of name in the properties these of registry title allow didnot Administration nam-ı müstear nam-ı mevhum nam-ı ), the Foundations Foundations ), the ) or community community ) or operation of these institutions. these of operation effective the affect negatively also society Armenian the within agenda the on come that attitudes discriminating and participation, democratic broad prevent that practices foundations, of administration internal in the troubles hand, the other the On circles. political and legislators authorities, of state attitudes the with in connection all is restricted, activity of field their that and autonomy full with managed be cannot foundations that problem fundamental a as It judiciary. appears the and executive the by decisions and practices inconsistent the as well as administrators, of election and administration internal rights, ownership property status, legal their regarding arrangements legal the of vagueness community foundations due and to the inadequacy of problems the in solving encountered are obstacles of aseries Nevertheless, Summit. Helsinki 1999 in the Turkey’s to approach EU membership positive the with in Turkey starting initiative partial the of continuation a of nature in the are 2008 in September Law said under issued Regulation the and 2008, in February coming effect into no. 5737 Law Foundations new in the arrangements positive Some foundations. of problems ownership estate real the to regard with reached been has solution apartial Only times. modern our of requirements the to compared when restricted very kept is still organization and association for room the that is seen init 2000’s, process EU accession in the agenda the on came that laws harmonization the of framework the within adopted acts associations and foundations new the with made have been improvements relative some Although entities. legal “foreign” as foundations community the described it as state the adimensionthreatening had foundations community by acquisitions property that 1974, ruling dated adecision with thisconduct verified also Cassation of Court the of Chambers Civil of Assembly The declarations. in the property immovable of acquisition on clarity no was there that grounds the O F Chambers of the Court of Cassation dated 8May 1974 dated Cassation of Court the of Chambers Civil of Assembly the of decision unanimous the of rationale in the wording used The in 1974. judgment final astriking ruled which Cassation of Court the to transferred was file foundation; the the of name the in aphilanthropist by donated estate areal of registry for Treasury the against alawsuit filed Hospital] Greek Balıklı the [the of Vakfı Foundation Hastanesi Rum Balıklı In thiscontext, foundations. community to whatsoever payment any making without property the acquired Estate Real National DG the of Treasury the and Foundations DG the inheritors, or owners no were there Where possible. when inheritors or owners former their to either transferred were properties immovable thispractice, With 1936. after property immovable any acquire not could foundations community that forth setting provisions no were there although Foundations, DG the to Declaration 1936 the of submission the after testament and donation bequest, purchase, through acquired properties all of seizure approved Cassation of Court the of Chambers Civil of Assembly the interpretation, unlawful an With throat. the by foundations community grabbed which charters/statutes, foundation as accepted were in 1936 submitted declarations 1974, the dated Cassation of Court the of Chambers Civil of Assembly the of decision the With other foundations.non-Muslim with together foundations “community” Armenian by faced problems fundamental the of source main the have in 1970s, constituted effect into put was which requirement, Declaration 1936 subsequent 77 1935 of no. 2762 Law Foundations The T oundations their P and L he

wnership Yayınları. Yayınları. Barosu İstanbul Önerileri, Çözüm ve Sorunları Bugünkü Vakıfları: Cemaat 2002, Grubu Çalışma Hakları Azınlık Merkezi Hakları İnsan Barosu İstanbul see: Declaration, discussions on the Foundations Law and the 1936 and papers For 1935. June 13 3027, No. Gazette Official see: 1935, 5June dated and 2762 no. Law Foundations the For egal S tatus C of P roblems ommunity 77 and the the and roperty introduced with the Regulation on Foundations, Foundations, on Regulation the with introduced DGF, the by restrictions the authorization and to tied was properties immovable of acquisition However, the thistime 2003. 2January of Package 78 among citizens: discrimination is ethnic there that and observed not are Constitution the and Treaty Lausanne of the of provisions the that acknowledgment is aclear which was included in the 4 in the included was which no.4778, Law the with were made improvements Some Summit. Helsinki 1999 the at status candidacy Turkey’s of announcement the EU after launched reforms the through extent, an to began, Cassation, of Court the 1974 of the decision following visible more became which practice, unlawful the of reparation The non-Muslims: against pursued policy deliberate a of indication an as orders court by owners original to return their and Administration Foundations the by foundations community of properties immovable deeded the seizureof the interpret Participants

Centre, Minority Rights Working Group] 2002, p. 87. 2002, Group] Working Rights Minority Centre, Rights Human Association, Bar [Istanbul Grubu Çalışma Hakları Azınlık Merkezi Hakları İnsan Barosu İstanbul that scope. that from excluded have been […], entities legal foreign Empire in Turkey Ottoman the during property own to right the given also were persons natural foreign […] restricted Although isnot properties immovable acquire to right their if may occur problems various and dangers certain may face state the that clear is it therefore and persons, natural than powerful more are entities legal isbecause This properties. immovable acquiring from prohibited are individuals non-Turkish by […] established entities Legal power diminishes survivability. survivability. diminishes power economic of restriction its institutions; non-Muslim of survival for importance vital of are which ons foundati the control to wants it dangerous; property of acquisition their considers it Muslims; to gives it rights the non-Muslims give not does it citizens; its as non-Muslims consider not does State The 78 th EU Harmonization EU Harmonization -

75 76 Sub-Commission. intelligence organizations, Minorities the and and security the are organizations and institutions public unnamed these Oran, Baskın to According discussed at the Parliament in 2006, deputies of the the of deputies in 2006, Parliament the at discussed being was no. 5555 Law Foundations on Bill the When bureaucracy. to limited only is not resistance This possible. way in be no would persons third of property private the have that become properties of recovery that insisted and Foundations, DG the of control the under placed or state the by seized been had that but foundations community to belonged that properties the return to refused Administration Foundations’ the as reforms, legal new the resisted bureaucracy the that clear became it this process, 79 practices. Declaration 1936 the of framework the within seized been had which properties immovable 262 of return for the foundations Armenian the by Foundations, on Law the 7of Article provisional under 2008 November of as Foundations DG the to made applications the of only 10% for received been has response Apositive obstacles. bureaucratic to due 20% exceed didnot in registry resulted those properties, seized 2250 approximately of return for the 2004 and 2003 between filed institutions and organizations when necessary”. when organizations and institutions public ministries, relevant the from opinion of “upon receipt made the be foundations community of acquisitiondecisions disposal and regarding property that providing foundations, other from demanded not is that arequirement imposes Regulation hand, the other the On Administration. Foundations’ former the of violations rights and practices repressive previous the of endorsement an means properties immovable of acquisition the to permission grant to institution the as DGF the to mandate the Giving problems. new some caused 2004, January 24 on issued 80 81

see: Reyna, Y., E.M.Zonano, 2003, p. 127-146. p. 127-146. 2003, Y., Reyna, E.M.Zonano, see: 2003, of Regulation the and 4772 no. Law 4771, no. Law For Setrak Davuthan and Attorney Sebu Aslangil. Aslangil. Sebu Attorney and Davuthan Setrak Information compiled with from Attorney interviews oral 125-126. s. 2004, Oran 80 In the end, of all the applications applications the end,all In of the 81 During During 79

minority in Greece. minority Muslim-Turkish the on inflicted oppression the of basis the on “reciprocity” of principle the violated also it that was in Baykal’s argument attention drew that aspect additional An equality. of principle the as well as Lausanne of a“breach” was bill the that argued even Baykal Deniz foundations”. leader CHP a“safe heavenof Turkey as “foreigners” to offered it that and Treaty the to Sevres of areturn was bill the that (CHP) claimed People’s Party Republican 84 83 restrictions. such to subjected be cannot rights minority and law, rights human international modern the of in view that, It unfounded. is obvious completely is rights of violation for the basis the provided has obligation, aparallel as in Greece minority Muslim the on in conferred Turkey be non-Muslims on also will conferred rights the that forth sets which Lausanne, Treaty the 45 of of Article that argument The 82 Constitution. the and Lausanne the of in violation statuses, power, former in their changes no social and despite economic to acquire them enable would that privileges and rights new ago, long gain would established thatargument the community foundations, in sum, forrelied, vetoing the on reason Sezer’s enterprises). economic establish to capacity activities, engage in international to disposition, ability of acquisition rights and foundations (property community in favour of rights of violations previous the repair and practices discriminatory eliminate to oriented arrangements positive some include Sezer Necdet Ahmet President by vetoed articles the All

November. 30 House], Presidential the In Stopped Got Reform Foundations Radikal p. 10. İstanbul, Publications, TESEV Turkey, and Greece in Foundations Minority Reciprocity: of ATale 2010, Tsitselikis and Kurban September. 22 Betrayal!], Ignored, Been Has Reciprocality of Principle The Objection: [CHP’s İhanet!” Sayıldı, Radikal 2006b, “Vakıf Reformu Köşke Takıldı” [The [The Takıldı” Köşke Reformu “Vakıf 2006b, Yok İlkesi Karşılıklılık İtirazı: “CHP’nin 2006a, 83 84

82 by jurist participants, this is a limited arrangement arrangement thisis alimited participants, jurist by Sezer to the bill: bill: the to Sezer and CHP of objections the criticize heavily Participants 85 7). Article (Provisional years recent to 1960’s from seized were that foundations community of properties the of some of return the 41). envisages it (Article In addition, DGF the of organ supreme Assembly, is the which Foundations’ sitin the to foundations community by elected inamember history, time first for the introduces, law the that development apositive also was 26). It (Article companies and enterprises economic 25), up set (Article and is notified Foundations DG the that in Turkey provided organizations abroad and from donations in-kind and 12), in-cash receive (Article property dispose and acquire to right the foundations community gives In law sum, new the June 2010. in Court Constitutional the by rejected was law the of MHP, and CHP namely cancellation for the parties, opposition by application The 2008. September in Regulation associated the and 2008, February in effect into came Foundations on no. 5737 Law Sezer, by vetoed the previously articles in the changes no with Law the approved Gül Abdullah President As no 26800 and dated 27.2.2008. dated and 26800 no Gazette Official see please 5737, no. 20.2.2008 of Law Foundations the For society level. level. society the at reinforced be to perception alien this causes also media in the argument reciprocity the of use The athreat. as perceived isstill non-Muslims of les - strugg survival the that show grounds veto Sezer’s foreigners. as but citizens as perceived not weare that shows it and citizenship equal of principle the isagainst reciprocity of concept The Treaty Lausanne. of in the foreseen as state the of obligations positive the of institution the as interpreted be in fact should foundations community the concerning bill in the included arrangements Yet, positive the obstacles. legal are there that discourse in the shelter seek and Lausanne the misread parties opposition the and state The 85 However, as pointed out out However, pointed as Furthermore, in Article 25 concerning international international 25 concerning in Article Furthermore, 101/4). (Article is restricted” community or race adistinctive supporting of aim the with foundation a of “formation that 101/4), (Article states which Code Civil the of provision the to in reference limitation afinal introduces 5/2 law. Article previous the to fashion in asimilar 2008, February of no. 5737 Law Foundations the by stipulated foundations community new of establishment the concerning limitations the was workshops the at emphasized point Another 1974”. of mentality the to areturn for preventing also post-1974, of but practices unjust the of for reparation only not ensured be should guarantee “constitutional participants, the by expressed as Hence, DGF). the or Treasury the of name in the registered on later were which foundand be not could owner former where atrustee to left were that order,court properties or with registries title the from properties the of removal of aresult as Treasury the of DGF of owners former to returned (such properties as Cassation of Court the 1974 of the decision than other practices and reasons to due foundations of disposal the from removed have that been properties of return the enable not does also law The Cassation. of Court the of decision 1974 the with Treasury the or DGF the to transferred have that been properties the of some only of return the foresees law the circumstances, these Under restricted. being indirectly are arrangements positive the in reality, that shows which foundations, the of” disposal the under “being of condition the stipulates it foundations, the of disposal the from removed have that been properties immovable of return the on provision aclearer introduce to expected was law the While arrangement. contradictory extremely an created has foundations community of” disposal “under be the still must seized and deed atitle with registered Declaration 1936 in the declared properties that condition The problematic. also 7are Article in Provisional expressions ambiguous the In addition, anticipated. is not properties for these compensation and impossible, remains seizure after parties third by acquired properties of Return properties. seized the of aportion only of return the enables and

77 78 preventing a return to the mentality of 1974”.preventing the mentality to areturn of post-1974, practices reparation of the unjust for but also not only for should beensured “Constitutional guarantee positive developments the EU reforms were were EU reforms the developments positive some despite that emphasized participants The patterns. mentality old of in Turkey influence the under lawmakers the still are that thisshows Furthermore, developments. positive some contains which law new the of implementation in the criterion adetermining as included country, was the of citizens the of equality the and rights human violates which thismentality, above, 2). addressed As (Article law” the of implementation in the reciprocity international of principle the “reserves law the is that workshop during the emphasized matter A final blocked. also are in Armenia foundations cultural and social with solidarity and cooperation possible waysof that fact the about frustration expressed They ignored. were suggestions these law, of most draft in the revisions comprehensive for suggestions of anumber authorities relevant to submitted they although and enacted, was law new the before administrators foundation with consultations proposed they although that complain Participants restricted. been has activity” of freedom “the At thispoint, activities. international of scope the under included are which of abroad”, all organizations of amember becoming and organizations, higher establishing abroad, representations and branches “opening includes This times. our of requirements the and needs foundations’ the with in line foundations their of activity of area the widen in fact would that opportunity an of deprived have they been that disappointed are participants foundation statutes, have no times Ottoman from foundations community since before, mentioned As foundations. community for obstacle aserious creates which statutes”, “foundation in their specified cooperation or activity having of such requirement the to is tied foundations by cooperation or activity international any activities, judgment. aECtHR upon Patriarchate the to returned also was in Büyükada Istanbul of Patriarchate Greek the building of orphanage the of deed title the known, As Turkey. against was judgment the -whenever parties third by owned properties for the compensation pay ceding to government the or solution, amicable an as foundations relevant the to properties seized the return ceding to government with either ended Kevork, Surp Samatya of Cemetery and School Church, Armenian the of Foundation the and Hospital, Pırgiç Surp of Foundation the including foundations Armenian by EctHR the at initiated cases applications these of aresult .As process anew - marked Cassation of Court the 1974 of the judgment following properties seized the of return for the exhausted were remedies domestic all -once ECtHR the to made applications the that noted also They insufficient. 86 of in charge Settlement and Works Public of Ministry the and Administration Foundations’ the of charge in Ministry State the of practices differing widely the example, For administration”. the of “inconsistency the from stem problems the of some restrictions, legal the from apart participants, the to According properties. immovable seized their of return for the initiatives similar undertake to Diyarbakır and in Kayseri encouraged of church the administrators foundations also has in İstanbul foundations the of struggle remedy. legal The domestic through possible be also can acquisition that indicate –already Hospital Pırgiç Surp to back properties estate real 19 of 7out return to decision the –including Assembly Foundations’ the by taken decisions positive the as well as gains Law Foundations new the offered procedure the in scope, limited Though remedies. domestic to having on insist recourse and remedies legal seek and struggle up legal take should foundations more and more that said They foundations. for community hope promises process legal new the Patriarchate], 30 November 2010. November 30 Patriarchate], the Radikal , “Patrikhane’de Çifte Bayram” [Double Rejoice at at Rejoice [Double Bayram” Çifte , “Patrikhane’de 86 Participants were in consensus that this that in were consensus Participants goes beyond simple “incompetence in law-drafting”. in law-drafting”. “incompetence simple beyond goes that intention is a“deliberate” there that scepticism the strengthen situations Such bureaucracy”. the of hands the into plays law in the ambiguity arising the whatsoever”, conditions further no “with stipulate to “governing specified no since are provisions” and clear wording sufficiently law’s isSince not the system. title the to properties these registering to comes it when wayanother or one surface the to come difficulties some immovable, the of registry the concerning Assembly Foundations’ the by is issued decision Even apositive if astalemate. cause sometimes can Administration Registry Land the E and this research which brings to the fore the coordination coordination fore the the to brings which this research of dimension One for organization. model for anew is asearch there that show basis, that on participants the by out carried discussion the and years, recent in the foundations of administration the to regard with witnessed developments The society. Armenian of thepractices internal administration of the usual the and arrangements legal the by both imposed model organization atight from originate problems the that is seen it perspective, awider from considered When participation. broad prevent that attitudes outdated of result is the second the and gaps, and restrictions legal from stems first The two-folded. are directors their of election in the and foundations of administration in the encountered problems The A bureaucracy”. in the law plays of the into the hands whatsoever”,conditions the arising ambiguity “with stipulate to no further specified sinceand no “governing provisions” are Since the law’s clear wording is not sufficiently of the administration”. thefrom “inconsistency some stem of the problems restrictions, legal the from theapart participants, to According dministration lection T of of heir D F oundations irectors

However, the central board of trustees, which served served which trustees, of board However, central the in 1956. expired office of term its until authorities official of approval the with serve to continued board The foundations. Armenian of administration the undertaking committees the between coordination ensure to members elected 14 of composed trustees” of board a“central of establishment the allowed government (DP) Party Democrat the In 1954, status. entity legal their with in accordance foundations” “community to granted was administration in autonomy of akind Foundations”. Hence, DG the and authorities relevant by audited “shall and be community” given that within elected committees and persons by administered be shall that “thefoundations of communities tradesmen and stipulated was it 1935, of no. 2762 Law Foundations the to in 1949 amendment another With world. Western liberal the of respect gaining the of hope Turkey by the with efforts democratization the with ( labor forced as executed service military non-ordinary Vergisi Tax Wealth the of ( form -in the war during the in effect remained and War II World the before place took that practices discriminatory the Furthermore, individuals. elected of organ executive autonomous an from society Armenian (1938) the dissolved,depriving were Committee (1934) Administrative the then and Committee Civil the first state, the from pressures increasing of wake in the period, that During trustees. of board elected an of instead Administration Foundations’ the by appointed directly a“single by trustee” non-Muslims administration of “community foundations” of the envisaged in 1938 thereto made amendments the and in 1935 published Law Foundations The administration. in “community” secularization for demands with across cuts in general foundations community of circumstances specific for the tailored laws different of adoption the and particular in foundations community Armenian between 20 kura 20 ) and the recruitment of non-Muslims into into non-Muslims of recruitment the ) and ) - were somewhat relaxed after the war in line in line war the after relaxed somewhat ) -were Varlık Varlık

79 80 discrimination. They noted that in order to take action action take to in order that noted They discrimination. aclass-based out pointed participation, broader to open being for not administrations foundation criticized who participants Some date. to administrations in foundation participation from excluded been have women often and people young that -noting themselves earlier, have criticized directors foundation as serve didalso whom of some participants, The salary. on work to origin ethnic any of cadres managerial well-educated well-equipped, employing even or professionals, of consisting board executive an of establishment the suggested participants some asolution, As “transparent”. is not administration the that noted been also has It directors. of board in the sitting people same the is it often very as power” of a“concentration causes risks, foundation,creates same the of roof the under churches, and schools different functions, such as having entirely institutions of consolidation that expressed other. been each It from has independently run that foundations of administration internal the in problems fundamental Moreover, some are there refused also was organization” “umbrella an of establishment the enables that law in the aprovision include to in 2008, Law Foundations the of phase drafting during the came which suggestion, Their rejected. have been state the to far so submitted suggestions However, foundations. the all between coordination ensuring of purpose the with past the of trustees” of board “central the to similar board executive ajoint establish to necessary were arrangements legal that emphasized participants Some thisdate. to continues that ensured, apractice be cannot coordination and separately managed is foundation each Therefore, May 1960. 27 of coup military the of aftermath in the Istanbul, of Governor Tulga, Refik of orders Military the on disbanded was arrangements, legal new any without government the by authorization aspecial of basis the on 87

Bakar 2001, p. 265-268. p. 265-268. 2001, Bakar 87 basis: basis: amaterial on foundations the of problems the address only to wrong be would it while necessary, was pool ajoint of creation the that noted It was foundations. struggling to foundations well-off of resources the words,transfer to and,in other problems financial of types these overcome to structure Turkey, of society important an be Armenian can the within time for some debated is being which , pool” financial a“joint of creation The community”. the of benefactors “affluent the of contributions the through and event, during the is distributed meat love] of madağ at or [tables seğan siro at collected donations through possible is only support, state without feet” own their on stand “barely can which foundations, strained these of survival the participants, by expressed As deficits. in Topkapı) Vartuhyan Levon and haveFeriköy budget in Merametçiyan of foundations school example, (for means financial limited very with owning schools Foundations the In particular, sources. financial of communityArmenian foundations is the inadequacy by encountered problems pressing most the of One circles. Patriarchate the by supported assumingly are who directors, foundation “aristocratic” “ the of influence the break to is necessary it practice adiscriminatory such against discrimination. based broader participation,to out pointed aclass- forfoundation not open being administrations date. who Some criticized participants inparticipation foundationto administrations from excluded been women have often -noting that peoplethemselves and young earlier, foundation directors as have criticized some participants, serve of whomThe did also gement of the foundations will not end. Common Common end. not will foundations the of gement mismana of problem the savings, more wemanage if even increase, possessions and properties our Even if [sacrifice] since sacrificial [sacrifice] sincesacrificial amira ” type ” type - 89 88 education. of quality the increasing and system accounting ajoint creating projects, cultural and social developing on working start to decided committee The foundation. Armenian including foundations Catholic the participated, up for VADİP, set been has 10 47 the 45 of in which of committee Acoordination foundations. community Armenian among thisend” to endeavor organized and coordination joint through community the of assets spiritual and material the maximizing of purpose the “for VADİP] 2009 Platform, in April Dialogue and Dayanışma Platformu Vakıflararası establish to reached was consensus discussions, lengthy pool”. a“joint After establish to path the cleared has basis legal This abroad”. and home at purposes for similar established associations to foundationsdonations gratuity and and in-cash and in-kind “can abroad”, give and and from persons, institutions organizations and at home gratuity and donations in-cash and in-kind receive foundations, including community foundations, “can 25/2) that (Article provision the includes 2008 in effect into came that Law Foundations new The insignificant. matters in temporal interference patriarchate’s the making by efforts participation civic and secularization reinforce also can initiative an of kind Such is adopted. method working transparent” and a“fair once society Armenian the of trust the earning by functional become might thisstrategy basis, legal no has it Although

Release]. Press and Members Its Aim, Founding [VADİP’s Bildirisi” Agos September. 19 Agos, Samimiyetsizlik”, ve Güvensizlik Kaynağı “Sorunların 2008, Koptaş see: please pool, joint the regarding analysis an For matter within the Armenian society. society. Armenian the within matter this for struggle ademocratic wage to necessary also It is discrimination. class-based no with participation broad on based are that administrations democratic We need forefront. the to brought be should poor the of situation the improving the and needs 2009a, “VADİP’in Kuruluş Amacı, Üyeleri ve Basın Basın ve Üyeleri Amacı, Kuruluş “VADİP’in 2009a, 89 [the InterFoundation Solidarity

88 administrations in quite a difficult situation. adifficult in quite administrations foundation the left which foundations, the of vicinity in the living people fewer and fewer were there since directors foundation enough find to inability in an resulted practice This administration. foundation for the elected be not should foundation the of vicinity in the living not community the of members that held which introduced was practice anew 1972, after However directors. of board the of amember become to right the had not, or foundation the to close lived they whether of regardless in Istanbul, living community Armenian the 4year, of member any every and elections of practice the on based rules the to according held were elections administration foundation Consequently, out. carried be would elections these how to as clarity no members”, with yet their by elected committees by “shall managed be foundations community that provision the introduced Law the in 1949, made amendment the With decisions”, depending on the situation. “secret or “police orders” either with filled on later was which occurred loophole alegal committees; elected the of powers the and constituency the elected, the and electors the of qualities the determine would who held, be should elections the how about arrangements certain no were there recently. until issued Since been not had regulation secondary applicable an times, several changed has Law Foundations the Although administration. foundation’s the of election the concerns administration in foundation problem Another F 90 oundation the foundation’s constituency for foundation directors. directors. foundation for constituency foundation’s the in residence of requirement the brought and constituency a as vicinity church each recognized which Elections”, Principles and Proceduresfor Applicable Foundation “Election on 1972 of Interior of Ministry the of order the with started practice This p. 21. 2002, Grubu Çalışma Hakları Azınlık Merkezi Hakları İnsan Barosu İstanbul see: Davuthan, Setrak Attorney by statement this For E lections 90

81 82 Anatolia: Anatolia: and in İstanbul constituency awider declaring enables 2008), (February no. 5737 Law Foundations the on based and 2008 inforce September into came Regulation Foundations the of 29 Article following points: points: following the underlined participants Some foundation. the of directors of board for the elections province-wide have to have apply will to directors line, foundation In this basis. legal and clarity in asense, brought, has regulation above-mentioned the of promulgation The for elections. run also can is located foundation the where district the residingoutside those and constituency, awider of declaration of event in the manner in aflexible interpreted be also 31) can (Article director foundation as elected be to in order constituency” in the aresident “being of requirement The initiatives. own their on constituency, wider a of for declaration directorates regional to apply can foundations community of directors cases, In such 91 gov.tr/001_Menu/02_Mevzuat/VakiflarYonetmeligi.cfm http://www.DGF. see: Regulation, Foundations the For province that has the largest community. largest the has that province may the foundation’s declare the as constituency General Directorate the enough, big isnot located is foundation the where province the of territories municipal in the community the if Or located. is foundation the where province the as constituency may the foundation’s General declare torate Direc the enough, big isnot foundation the of district in the community the where incases directorate, regional the by out carried survey the of results the with in accordance and foundation the of application However, the upon foundation’s constituency. the as isdeemed located are structures le foundation’s charitab community where district The fact shooting the Armenian society in the leg. leg. in the society Armenian the shooting fact in are directors foundation the applications, these filing match”. Bynot the of “referee the becomes and board election the as acts also directors of board The 91 . - - quarrel”. quarrel”. to community the wants state “the that commented participants some considered, not was suggestion this why asked When it. allow didnot regulation new the and refused, was astructure such enable would that arrangement for alegal level state the to suggestion aprevious However, that added they thisboard. of control the under simultaneously in Anatolia) (including those elections foundation for foundation, each elections separate holding and all conducting of instead board” election “central up a setting suggested participants some point, DGF. the of permission the At this with constituency awider of declaration enables but basis district a on constituency defines that provision the amending by constituency, direct the Istanbul of entirety the make to petitioned be could it that said perspective alegal from matter the approaching Those associations, and some of the members of the the of members the of some and associations, alumni traditional unlike the assistance”, material and spiritual professional, “ensure scientific, of kinds all in Turkey, Armenians of to aimed in 1961, founded Teachers’ School Minority of Society Benevolent The ensembles. and companies dance music and Armenian founding various of in the role effective an have played associations these in participated who Individuals society. Armenian the in Today, associations alumni stage. active 14 are there the on plays performed associations these of some in 1946, theatres Armenian on ban the of abolishment the With 1960s. and in 1950s widespread became in 1947, schools Getronagan and Mıkhitaryan Pangaltı Esayan, the of alumni the by first period Republican during the established and period Ottoman late in the starting atradition on based associations, These groups. these among place important have an schools Armenian of associations alumni The society. inside their ensuresolidarity and lives cultural and social their protect to aim that organizations Turkey of Armenians The havecultural some A ssociations 92 society. Armenian in the adopted be to starting is organization of model anew that shows generation younger the by led formations civic The Dersim. and Malatya Sason, from Armenians and historians art and architects by established were associations new recently, compatriotism”. More some “local on based Hatay, of is District Samandağ in today the Anatolia in village remaining only Armenian and one the Vakıflı, from Armenians by in İstanbul 2000 in late founded Association, Village Vakıflı The in 1965. name same the with afoundation established on later Association promoting or spreading languages or cultures cultures or languages spreading or promoting protecting, by minorities creating or language, culture or denomination, religion, race, of differences on Turkish the within based Republic minorities are there that proposition the forward “putting of purpose for the foundations of establishment the purposes”,prohibiting “risky these clarified 1983 of law The denomination’s or members. religion class, race, region, a for privileges create potentially can that for purposes established be not could foundations that stipulated was it and interpreted, broadly was religion, denomination, congregation, sect, or race a of using or on name the based associations of prohibition the in 1983, and in 1972 both intervention military the after issued laws associations’ control”. In “disciplinary the under society whole the put 1938 of Law To Associations briefly, the summarize free. relatively became society civil the within organization where era anew of beginning the marked EU process the of scope the within 2004 4December on published no. 5253 Law Associations new The years. many organizingfor association-type against adeterrent as have acted laws these caused that mentality political oppressive the and era Republican the of periods in force various into put laws associations’ The

Republic. the of years first the since actively operating been have branches sports various in teams up setting and activities sports in solely engaged clubs sports these, from Apart 92

the state. the wing of military the of mentality is in the threat” of “elements as minorities of perception the strong how illustrates This subdued. be to targets as declared in Turkey Teachers’ Armenians of School were Minority of Society Benevolent the and associations alumni some including organizations, non-Muslim some that show in 2003 meeting seminar military in a addressed Plan] trials Coup Sledgehammer [the Planı Balyoz through and trials Ergenekon in the revealed facts such, the desk”. As “foreigners the with intertwined was desk” “minorities sincethe reinforced was treatment thisdiscriminatory that expressed also They 1983. after Department Police Istanbul the of desk” “minorities the of attitude arbitrary the to due measures police-related and coercive permitted who authorities to exposure recall Participants Treaty the Lausanne. of of provisions the against is clearly cultures own their protect to Muslims non- by founding of associations of prohibition the minorities, non-Muslim the target directly didnot it wing in Turkey left the of and segments large the and Kurdish the movement of association and assembly the repressing at aimed originally was interventions, military with strength gained which mentality, thisprohibitive that maysaid it be Although 94 93 law new the is that citizens for non-Muslim significant is particularly change that Another organizations. society civil as associate to easier became also law, 3). new the (article it With notice” prior without “rightfoundassociations to the granted were act” to capacity with entities legal and “natural persons law, new In the laws. previous the to compared opportunities association liberal more allows in 2004 adopted no. 2908 Law Associations The separate from the Turkish the culture”. from and Language separate

orak-azinlik-eylem-plani--32908.html>. Minorities],

83 84 “protecting, promoting and conveying to future future to conveying and promoting “protecting, to exchanges, in addition ensuring social and them, between solidarity social/cultural increasing in Turkey living abroad, and Malatya of Armenians the together bringing as mission their declared have administrators Association Association. Village Vakıflı the of example the from differs it whereas glance, first at compatriots local of association an like may look in Istanbul, living Malatya of Armenians the by 2010 in August founded Hay-Der), (Malatya Association Armenians Philanthropist Malatya The knowledge. professional improve to events many organized in Turkey projects and architecture and engineering in many participated Turkey; association the of Armenians the among association professional a as organized was which Charities, Researching and for Reviving Engineers and Architects of Association is HAY-CAR, them aSolidarity of One mentioned. were purposes for different founded associations new three years, recent in the society Armenian the in organization of model anew of adoption the of sign Moreover, a as in İstanbul. Armenians Anatolian by established association first the was 2000 of end the at in İstanbul founded Association Village Vakıflı The potential. impact their increase and associations of activity of area the widen to opportunity the gives 22) also (article properties immovable selling and purchasing and 21) (article in advance notified are units administration state the that provided abroad organizations and agencies from aid in-kind and in-cash 10), receiving (article purposes for similar founded organizations professional unions and trade parties, political associations, from assistance receiving 5), (article purposes for similar abroad founded foundations or joining associations abroad, branches or representations opening cooperation, or activity in international engaging as such rights with equipped Being culture. and language denomination, religion, of basis the on founding associations prohibited that law old the of provisions the include not does dimension coercion and of the destruction, day day, by numbers growing along-hidden reveals in we encounter whom Armenians, “Muslimized” the of voice The Istanbul. to immigrated recently have who relatively Dersim of families Armenian the accepting before Church in the education religious of period aspecific stipulated Istanbul of Church Apostolic Armenian the since have doubled difficulties their how explained participant exclusion, the faced has in İstanbul society Armenian the also but Dersim of Armenians the only not among solidarity promote to founded association, the that Expressing Christianity. their questioning by them against discriminated who those and society Armenian in the them recognize to want didnot who those also were there that out pointed he Nevertheless, culture. Armenian their acknowledge to fate same the sharing others call is to association the of founding purposes the of one says also participant The disappears”. culture its and ends identity Armenian “the that in Tunceli so authorities dugwere administrative by churches and off torn were gravestones Armenian the how witnessing to in reaction adult an as life cultural Armenian in the exist to chose he that explains participant One in secret. live to had they recently until and forgotten never were clan his crowded in Armenians the that Christian), to expressed Muslim change (from recorded card on his identification his religion had he how and courts the to applying by his changed he name how explaining participant, The identities. Armenian their recognise openly to want now in Dersim in 1915 Alevism to converted who Armenians many the of grandchildren the of consisting agroup that expressed was it present, also was association the of founder the where workshops In the organization. of type anew signals İstanbul, in 2010 in October founded Dersim, of Armenians the of Association Solidarity Social and Faith The culture”. country’s the to contribute continuing to country, and our of structure social the of building blocks main the of is one life,which social to services great rendered have who minorities the of values the generations sexual differences within a transparent social social atransparent within differences sexual and cultural religious, ethnic, for all and everyone for “a for democracy with demand and Dink” Hrant of heart the and language the cause, the dreams, the alive “keeping of purpose the with in Istanbul 2007 Dink InternationalThe Hrant Foundation, founded in internet. the on broadcasting Turkey, of peoples the of radio richness to and in Turkey, rights human and cultural authentic the participation civic secularization, democratization, Olmak in Turkey” ( Minority “Being entitled one the including surveys conducting from activities, of range awide out Turkey” carries group . The of Society Turkey,of Armenian the from starting to strengthenthe intellectual of capacities all peoples aview with activities out “carrying include purposes 2007.Its in Dink January Hrant of murder brutal the after citizens young of Armenians group activist an by formed organisation Awakening), acivic (New Zartonk 95 and problems. woman identity the and models role equality, gender-based gender on focusing and Istanbul of women Armenian generation young by in 2001 founded platform, Hay-Gin is the groups these of One 1990s. of half second in the beginning activities various through voices their raise to started groups activist civic some associations, new relatively founding these the of Before in Turkey. authorities bureaucratic and political by Armenians against demonstrated attitudes discriminating the thismay that fuel concern the by caused is mostly uneasiness This society. Armenian the of segments in some uneasiness creates identities Armenian their with existences their continue to people these of choice the that However, is 1915. understood it by created devastation

2009, p. 382-384. 2009, al. et Özdoğan and p. 334-335; a.g.e. see: please Hay-Gin, of activities the for Yayıncılık; Yazar, Aras Feminist Ermeni Beş Türkiye’ye Osmanlı’dan Feryadı: Adalet Bir 2006, Ekmekçioğlu see: please Ottoman-Turkey, feminism in Armenian Forregarding the information ), to political and cultural panel meetings on on meetings panel cultural and political ), to 95 Another group is Nor is Nor group Another Türkiye’de Azınlık Azınlık Türkiye’de 96 stipulated rights positive and citizenship status equal the of in breach restrictions introduced generally have era Republican during the implemented policies discriminatory and law, adopted laws the domestic over supremacy has treaty, which international this by governments on placed obligation the Despite Republic. the of establishment during the Treaty the Lausanne of of clauses rights minority the with protection under taken were rule, Ottoman the millet the of practices the and law Islamic the of norms the with in accordance established foundations, Community times. Ottoman during the Turkey established “community foundations” are Turkey of Armenians of the of Republic in the lives cultural and social religious, the of preservation in the role acentral play that institutions the of majority The E educational institutions in Turkey institutions abroad. and educational and universities, organizations, society civil and media various with cooperation through influence wide has also Foundation The purposes. these towards impact tremendous created that activities many signatureheritage, the Foundation put its has under historical/cultural common the protecting and prejudices, and discrimination of forms all eliminate to as so groups cultural different between dialogue increasing racism, and nationalism from freed history on studies support speech, hate against awareness Aimingraise to level. society the at Armenia and diaspora the between building dialogue and Armenia; Turkey between and relations of normalization areas; ensuring Turkey’sin all history; democratization the with ties their severing culture, without Armenian the primarily generations, Turkey next to it convey to and of cultures different the all promote to Dink’s struggle continuing Hrant towards works Foundation The function. and position special avery has awareness” citizenship with individuals of consisting structure valuation

Foundation], http://www.hrantdink.org Dink [Hrant Vakfı Dink foundation, see: pleased Hrant the of activities and objectives purpose, funding the For and R ecommendations . system of of system 96

85 86 stemming and from attitude the discriminatory hindrances The participants. the by criticized is also that shortcoming main the as is identified Lausanne, Treaty the of of framework the within conferred rights positive the of exercise broad and free allow will that foundation,and community as registered (1935) later and statute afoundation without period Ottoman in the established foundations the of cases special the consideration into take that arrangements or provisions special any of lack the developments, in positive resulted has EU process, Turkey, of agenda coming the on a entered has which reforms the of framework the within foundations community all of properties immovable past for the compensate to laws new of adoption Although ECtHR. the at years recent in the continued has thisstruggle and property, immovable seized their of indemnification and for return in courts have Turkey foundations fought community Armenian recently, until the From 1960 properties. immovable own not could entities legal “foreign” that effect the to reflex, ideological and political atotally 1974 with in Cassation of Court the by given decision unlawful the was rights ownership property of violation the in point culmination The rights. ownership of exercise limited foundations’ in the resulted status, legal their despite foundations, community of rights ownership property the of restriction Law. long-term The Foundations the of framework the within stipulations as well as decisions administrative unlawful with foundations of disposal the at properties immovable the of registration to introduced obstacles the through Administration Foundations’ the by names, in their deeded were they when even foundations, these of properties existing the of seizure is the foundations community of existence material the threatening practice primary The survive. to foundations community Armenian for difficult very it made that conditions created has differences, ethnical and religious against model nation-state homogenous and acentralized dictating regime, Republican The Treatyin the Lausanne. of minority rights. However, the Copenhagen criteria and and However, criteria Copenhagen the rights. minority about a“paranoia” contains thisargument behind baggage’ ‘ideological the that It is obvious violated”. be would Lausanne of “Treaty the that argument the in thisline,hiding behind policies any producing from in Turkey level state the refrain and circles political The meaning. abroader with rights” “minority address that conventions international contemporary the with in accordance them interpreting re- by protection legal under taken be must Treaty in the Lausanne of granted rights positive The for association. freedom the of scope the broadening a allow directly not do reforms recent The association. for room little avery granted were assets, their reproduce and protect to citizens non-Muslim for the importance vital of are which foundations, community the Furthermore, beginning. very sincethe association of freedom the given have been not in general citizens non-Muslim the that signifies foundations community the than other status entity havenone legal that fact the institutions, non-Muslim all Considering limited. rather was capacity” “autonomous their but status, entity legal granted were institutions These participant. one by put as foundations, community for the cut been has dress” a“tight that It is obvious citizens. all of participation is for it the that and democratization” “Turkey’s of scope the within demand awider on is based it that note we should foundations, community to is specific thiscall Although methods. “democratic” through known” “making demands their and conditions “abnormal” despite citizenship rights” “normal voicing their struggle”, “legal the abandon to not called participants the of majority considerable a Nevertheless, levels. judiciary and executive the at or process law-making perception”, in the it be “threat on is based that and “reciprocity”, behind “foreigners”,hides that as “minorities” non-Muslim classifies that mentality the of face in the struggle alegal wage and rights seek to difficult more continuously It becomes difficult. foundations community of survival makes also Administration Foundations the of inconsistencies administrative supra structure criticized VADİP, criticized structure the supra that said and VADİP. as such formations favouring acivilian Those towards approach acautious adopt beliefs religious and ethnicities all of citizens other with together act they where in initiatives citizens Armenian all of participation the to refers that something something entirely of the “community” outside as and as participation civic and secularization interpreting Those forefront. the to rights individual bringing by organization, intra-communal an to addition Turkish citizenship in the equal on in society, based struggle” in “democratic participation joint favours stance second the and created, been previously already had which trustees”, of board “central elected an as such committee, administration a joint establishing favours stance first The effective. be not could basis legal no with structure civil ahigher that reservation the weaside leave if other each exclude didnot stances two these administrations; foundation about discussions in the participants the among Two materialized positions leadership. different civilian aseparate requires administration” “intra-communal whether of analyses with continued society, Armenian in the patriarch the of capacity questioning representation of the temporal the with began first discussion, which The 1990s. in late society Armenian in the started representation for civilian and foundations the of coordination for the structure for acivil search hand, the other the On formations. new these behind force driving the was foundations between solidarity financial allowing arrangement legal recent The experiences. the foundations, sharing and information and between ensuring solidarity properties, the protection under taking and identifying problems, financial for have solving that emerged groups civic new are law, by there defined is not foundations community of administration in the coordination Although Treaty. Lausanne the beyond arrangements new of enforcement the also but Lausanne, Treaty in the of rights minority concerning obligations the of fulfilment the only not require in fact party, Turkey which to conventions, is a international other no allocation was made to foundations from the state state the from foundations to made was allocation no Treaty in the Lausanne, of granted rights the Despite structure. institutional anew allow will that arrangements legal for demanding basis asound offers “positive rights” of in logic Turkeyfoundations The abroad. and similar with cooperation effective and projects, joint foundation directors, development of individual or of election the to properties, foundation’s immovable on disposal of rights the from extending area in a wide law of norms universal to conforming manner in a organize to have freedom should the foundations the assets, and existence their improve and protect to able be to In order civilians. by administration have liberal to more in order citizenship rights, equal individual to parallel structures, institutional their for rights positive demand to centuries, to going back ahistory with foundations, for community inevitable Yet, meaning. their have and lost is it substance of devoid left have been “positive rights” that surprising be not should it in place, have been citizenship status equal the of in violation policies discriminatory where and Republic the of promulgation the since fulfilled been not extent, have, alarge to rights In Turkey, minority protect to obligations the where state. the from everything expect who individuals into them turns it ultimately and passive them makes it minorities, Muslim non- the of status “victim” the reinforces it that grounds the on to objected they which discrimination, positive that citizenship have equal argued of basis on the defending for democracy a common struggle “positive discrimination”. of requirement Those a is in fact effective more be to them allowing basis legal the providing that havefoundations emphasized of administration the in coordination ensuring for groups civilian to importance attaching Those pool”. “joint and foundations insincerity of powerful cooperation about as such factors intra-communal the of because and power sanction no has it is because expected as effective as be to failed has thisplatform why reason

87 88 environments. environments. cultural and opportunities communication modern of use through associations these revive to necessary become has it dwindled, generations younger from participation as years, recent In the practices. oppressive and restrictions legal various culture, despite and identity Armenian the of protection in the years for long function important an have foundations, assumed than different status a with founded associations, alumni that It is clear “ethnic to identity”. respect and law of norms the of framework the within for asolution issues the approach and “religious tolerance” of discourse the aside leave to government AKP the demand to necessary become has it At thispoint, continuous. and perpetual be to expected are supports although they are inadequate. are they although developments, encouraging all -are Foundation the to back restored then and persons third by seized first was which Foundation the by owned land of aplot on place take to construction – the in Şişli Foundation Orphanage Karagözyan to income rental bring would abuilding that of construction the for prepared project the of realization in the Erdoğan Minister Prime of initiatives the School; Dadyan the of garden building in the school amodern of construction for the Istanbul of Municipality Bakırköy the by given support the in Church Diyarbakır; Giragos Surp the of restoration the to contribution government’s local the example, For years. recent in the developments positive of However, examples some are there efforts. own their with money raising from prevented also moreover, budgets; were government they local or 97 the Karagözyan Orphanage, please see: Hürriyet About 2010d; Agos see: please School, Dadyan the About 97 These and similar similar and These 2011. 2011. Section Seven history narrated starting from the migration of Turks of migration the from starting narrated history Turkish of myth the of elements the all encompasses it Armenians; the to happened what to limited In Turkey, only is not history the with coming terms to broken. are judgments these unless level society and state the at Armenians to approach the correct to It is difficult history. of understanding nationalistic same the from stems unreliable” and “traitorous of Armenians as depiction society’s Moreover, and state’s in thisland. unjustly the treated term, mildest in its been, has that group a are Armenians the that fact to accept to media, the by supported and schools, at taught history, Ottoman/Turkish the accepted widely and adopted who in general public for the Today difficult is very it past. the of reparation words, is, it sense, in one other in state; the of practices the of aresult as especially victimized, constantly and unfairly treated been have that segments for social authority public the by arrangements legislative special some of introduction involves Presently, discrimination positive for Armenians. discrimination positive apply could state the circumstances certain under that mentioned we have example, For knowledge. historical of lack to due and history to approach a narrow-minded to due society, the and state the both from resistance Turkey of with Armenians met the be of will situation the improve to taken be to measures the of some that possible is very it Therefore, sources. different from knowledge historical our feed we can unless and thisland, of history recent and distant the on view former, abroader the of we take unless derivatives Turkey’s by are faced which problems Armenians nor the to freedomdemocracy and pertaining today’s problems neither solve to It is impossible Coming to Terms with History means a type of acknowledgement. acknowledgement. of atype means it and about; talked be can everything that accepting means it remembering; means it contrary, the beginning”. On the from start and everything forget “let’s mean not does it aparticipant, by stated As mean? “cominghistory” with So, does what terms to in Turkey history. the is facing “democratization” towards step important an Hence, Progress. and Union of Committee the to and sultans, Ottoman the of mothers the to Asia, Central from abandoned. abandoned. be therefore should it that discussion, and healthy to conducive asituation facilitates that mentality a thisis not that It is obvious past. in the happened what of aspects all learning hence and restrictions without history at looking from people prevents inviolability of halo man-made This inviolability. this of subject the be can Atatürk, of character the to State Ottoman the of birth of date and place the from worship]. to Everything, idols own [mankind its makes “ saying the of example an and phenomenon, religious almost an into turned been has insult “Turkishness”. to an History as perceived be can and indignation, public cause to potential the has history written that contradicts that comment or assertion smallest the even powerholders, the by adopted and Turkey. is written history Once in phenomenon inviolable asacrosanct, as almost is seen state, the by dictated as narrative, history Turkish the of framework the that said be It can U H nderstanding aS of istory kendi yapar kendi tapar acrosanct ”

91 92 question “What happened to Armenians?”. to happened “What question the of discussion in free asymbol and amilestone also 99 98 “treason”. for atendency with a“cruel” nation are Armenians that emphasized is always it and books; history school high in the frequently seen is atheme others” Turks ungrateful “fair and Öztürk, Mutlu by expressed As textbooks. or books, school the are “others” the towards enmity the feed that and generation account frominaccurate generation historical to an convey that vehicles important most the of One T pressures the and ban court the surmounting after University Bilgi the at in 2005 held Democracy”, of Issues and Responsibility Empire: Scientific the of Collapse the During Armenians “Ottoman conference The Armenians. the by suffered tragedies the on books publish, to many continues and published, also has Zarakolu, Ragıp and Ayşegül by managed Similarly, Publications, Belge the normalization. to path the opened and time, the at role iconoclastic an played Akçam’s book 1990s. in early published Question), Armenian and Identity (Turkish National Sorunu Ermeni ve Kimliği Ulusal Türk Akçam’s book in Turkey discussion of area the broadening is Taner through normalization of process in the progress the enabling mentioned be first should that points turning the of One progressive. as considered be should This state. one any of interests political current the to according written is not history ensure that and history-writing, on view nationalistic the of pressure the crush history, with associated accounts and taboos the all eliminate to It is necessary students harbouring a general enmity against against enmity ageneral harbouring students extbooks

dkih/download/mutlu%20ozturk.pdf>

also be possible to create a new one”. anew create to possible be also should it here, nation awhole annihilate to possible is it “If thought simply They emerged. a Turkish state of possibility the of asense there, gained was success is, since That genocide. that commit to able being of consciousness isthe state this established What Turkey, the percentages are striking. are Turkey, percentages the of whole the represent not may sample the Although University. Gazi in thesis agraduate for Çankırı in schools high different six from students school high 240 on administered was survey The p. 266). 2009, Öztürk, in p. (Cited 49 Ankara, Dalı, Anabilim Tarih Eğitimi Enstitüsü, Bilimleri Eğitim Üniversitesi Tezi, Gazi Lisans Yüksek Tasarımı, Ünite Yeni bir Işığında Görüşleri Öğrenci ve Öğretmen Kitapları, Ders Yayınlar, Mevcut Çağdaş Öğretimi: Meselesinin Ermeni Derslerinde Atatürkçülük ve Tarihi İnkılap Cumhuriyeti Metin 2007, Türkiye Lise 100 Hence, one of the most important steps steps important most the of one Hence, N urkish ation -S tate said on the matter: the on said participants the of one is what Here in thisregard. given be can examples Many “touched”. or researched be to issue thisproperty allow to unwillingness in its adamant was state The resistance. strong some with met be likely very will which wealth, certain of origin the question to today, requires it faced because be must that issues challenging and important most the of is one This area. residential the of notables the or administrators civil local the either generally were properties immovable and movable these confiscated who Those upon. capitalize to economy Republican for the sources main of one constitute Armenians from by taken forcibly properties opinion, the public in the voice finding rarely though participants by underlined frequently as In addition, I P the and 1915 state. the of existence the and history face to need the between link thismental severing without history the discuss and for discussion environment afree create to difficult is considerably it Hence, state. the of end the mean would it thisas accept never could definition, by genocide was, in 1915 Armenians to done was what that Turks the believe said who even participant One state. the of existence very the against athreat as seen are 1915 of Turks;many events the of discussions by nurtured perception this is the At least, state”. this of “discussing discussing existence the means 1915 participants, the of one of words the repeat to in Turkey; thistopic about for, talk to difficult it makes Turkey of that Republic founding the of is afactor the and massacres 1915 the of intertwinement ssue were re-written. And every time they are re-written, re-written, are they time every And re-written. were they Imean fixes, several have seen logs population the live, minorities where in places Especially change. strangely registries […] population the wesee Then, down burned been have always burned, get always they lived; population Armenian the where especially and in 1935s, especially fire, caught have not that offices registry land or offices registry population no are there perspective, ahistorical from If look you O roperty wnership 101 participants said: our of one As everywhere. like that always not was it that fact the see to is necessary it 1915, with” terms harmony. ‘‘come to and In order to peace constant in live to used territories Ottoman in the people in Turkey perception the is that popular the example, For evil. the and ugly the about openly talking is through structure social and political for ahealthier groundwork the lay and conscience social the clear to Yet, agonies. of full way the and bloody is rather which is ahistory in Turkey,faced be to has that history the Especially knowledge. historical distorted completely in believe to made have been who long society, entire is an it past; the with terms to come or process this go through must who individuals only afew Moreover, questioning. is not it honest an requires it and truth, whole the to correspond not does least at or true actually is not far so we have believed what of most that acknowledging means it because easy, not but is necessary, 1915 with’ ‘Coming terms to ‘C attitude still fresh in the minds. in the fresh still attitude this of example abuse”, is another which political and for “ethnic environment asuitable create to potential in its risky be would Archives State of General Directorate the to over handingthem and media digital into period Ottoman the from Logs Registry Deed Title the transferring that stated (MGK) Council Security National the in 2005, Cadastre and Registry Land of General Directorate the to sent letter In the

oming to with terms born when they received their surnames. surnames. their received they when born were people islike it records; old reach to difficult […] isahuge problem there regard, In that It is […] aproblem encounter always you back, look you when Hence, missing. isalways information some the neighbours had been like that, then things would would things then that, like been had neighbours the […] that like and this like were If so. not were no, they in Turkey; isloved neighbours say they Romanticism Eylül, 16 base], a‘Limited’ in Archives Property Estate Real Hürriyet “Tapu Arşivlerini ‘Sınırlı’ Kullanın” [Use the the [Use Kullanın” ‘Sınırlı’ Arşivlerini “Tapu 2006, 101

’ 1915

93 94 that it would not be right to say “Turks didthis”. say“Turks to The right be not would it that “Turks”, as and named be not should perpetrators the that adding while plundering, and killing of in thisacts participate didalso civilians, society, the of legitimizing agent”, that some segments argued and a as serves it state; the of ideology an only this is not neighbours; massacring neighbours without happen cannot “something thisscale of said participants Some history. with coming terms of to part important is an in 1915-1922 Armenians of genocide the of culprits and perpetrators the were who of question The country. free and democratic peaceful, amore into evolution its to for Turkey pathway the contribute will and clear will ’1915 ‘coming with terms to democratization, of framework the Within ordinary. something as it taking and powerful the by is different what of extermination the acknowledging mean will today act this eyeto turning or ablind legitimizing different; was what exterminating of act an were 1915 of events The it. followed ones “smaller” incident, “biggest” the with coming terms no to was there since said, participants the of one As on. so and Çorum Maraş, Dersim, of massacres the as –such massacres Turkey 1915, witness to continued after history, her other. the of Throughout extermination of logic the from in today Turkeycircles itself purged not have still intellectual and political the unfortunately because Turkey’s to culture, contribution political positive a be in general, will, ‘overcoming’ thus 1915 and ‘coming’ challenges, with terms to these all Despite the topic. topic. the avoiding wekeep because blood, that about heard yet wehave not and topic bloody isavery it Because sun. in the awalk be will ahistory such about talking that thinking are you if yourself deceiving are you and from, wecome history of kind is the […] […]other kidnapped were women That Armenian each raided they and villages, Armenian purely and […] lives Turkish purely were separate there led they segregated, was it east; in the co-existence no was [...] world, in the place there integrated most the was land Ottoman the if As level. this to have gotten not Armenians between brothers” ( brothers” between state and who are deprived of such instruments. such of deprived are who and state that of citizens are who –Armenians– people are there side other the on and apparatus, its and mechanism state is the side, there one the On parties. official and equal two between astruggle not were events 1915 either, sincethe correct be not would 1915 of events the terms “mutual killing” ( “mutual killing” terms the using that participants by expressed also was hand, it other the On supported. is widely accomplice their into people ordinary the of asegment turned who time the of rulers the with lies treated were way Armenians the concerning responsibility the that arguing view I the and 1915 102 is today apoor Armenia why world, the of four corners in the scattered are today Armenians why of cause root is the 1915 that words, is clear it tangible in more To nation’s that of it past. put imprisonment the and anation’s of future embezzlement the but masses, of annihilation the only not are 1915 of events The for them. trauma of source is a 1915 identities, ethnic their construct to cement a into Turkey’s 1915 Although turn didnot Armenians one participant said: example, For for them. value amoral carries genocide the of recognition the Hence, 1915. of events for the mourn even to opportunity the of deprived were they and oppression, state the with and “Turks” the with live to continued they since Armenians, Diasporan the to compared 1915, of events the on adiscussion raise

gone through. through. gone have ancestors my what to done” be will So, “justice answer. that get Emine, Iwill became grandmother my why, to asudden, of all answer the get will I Personally, restored. be will pride my Personally, isrecognized? genocide the if happen will What Azınlık Gençleri Anlatıyor Gençleri Azınlık 2001, Koçoğlu University; Boğaziçi thesis, master unpublished Turkey in Armenian Being About Stories Other and Lullaby Lost The 2004, Bilal see: please subject, this On

T of dentity kardeş kavgası kardeş 102 mukatele They are hardly able to to able hardly are They , Metis Yayınları, İstanbul. İstanbul. Yayınları, , Metis ) to describe the the describe ) to ) or “a) or war urkey , ’ s situation as follows: as situation this explains ajournalist, is also who participant, One identities. own their from Armenians the of alienation the and memory adiminishing it social with the of brought today. has situation This history their know Turkey of Armenians the saythat to possible is not in Turkey, schools Armenian in the it history Armenian the to regard with taught be can that courses the on imposed restrictions the and oppression, state the and 1915 with wrought destruction the words, both do”. these to we have Despite else nothing past; in the shelter takes that anation “we are as situation this expressed participant One for them. point afocal 1915 made loss thisenormous Understandably, wealth. intellectual their and manpower, arts their educated their all knowledge, accumulated their all lost have them,they also with along but events, these in people their For, lose only didnot Armenians the destroyed. been today,low culturehas their why and in Turkey Armenians of number the country, why is so prove that the real villain was actually the victim. For For victim. the actually was villain real the that prove to a campaign launched state the dead, the respects and injustices, the sees sorrows, the acknowledges that mentality and apolicy pursuing of Instead 1915. in back 1915 left not also has Armenians the and 1915 both to regards with Republic the by pursued policy Additionally, the and demonstrated the attitude not exist in the community’s schools. schools. community’s in the exist not does opportunity an Such history. own their about learn to in Turkeyans opportunity have the not do Today, case. the isnot Armeni this the but history; their of knowledge the with well-equipped are they that history, their over command have agreat Armenians that assume They it. about neighbours Armenian their ask go and can they example, For information. alternative for search can people in Turkey, ataboo be to halts question Armenian the […] lost become Yet,days. has As today, memory this those of conditions the given mentality advanced avery represented actually it in 1863, adopted was Millet Armenian the of Regulations of Code the When opinions. own its and roots own its past, own its forgotten has it that erosion identity of environment in this alienated so become has community The - matters is the attitude of the people of Turkey: of people the of attitude is the matters really what participant, same the to According abroad. in participated he commemorations in the nothing” in Turkey, commemoration the with “felt he while moved very year, was he said last commemoration the at present also was who and abroad commemorations similar attended who participant One visibility. high their to due opinion public in the reverberation of level acertain in creating succeeded have streets the on place taking commemorations The in 2011. held also were ceremonies commemoration Similar Train Sirkeci the in 2010. Station in Turkey, ceremony public Taksim the at and Square a with victims the commemorate to possible been also It has since2005. events commemoration genocide its with in thisrespect role aleading played has in Turkey.genocide Association) Rights (Human İHD the of victims the commemorate freely to people the allow to is necessary it that have stated participants the thisthought, of extension or reflection a As happened. it where settled be should event in Turkey, only– not –but first this that and entirety in discussed be should 1915 think that Participants C C G 1915. of trauma the overcome to achance Armenians the given never has state the annihilation, and oppression, denial, of policies its words, with other In itself. 1915 the wounding as thisis as Armenians, that a large part of the Armenians who are called called are who Armenians the of part alarge that remembered be It thisaffair. of should out completely diaspora Armenian the keep to attitude fruitful politically and ajustified is not it commemorations, genocide the holding hand, when other the On eremonies A and ampaigns enocide President said. said. President US the what than important Turkey more was from friends with sorrow this Sharing there. tear a shed to chance the Ihad ancestors. my for candle a light to opportunity the Ifound time, first the For C ommemoration pology

95 96 text apology the criticizes participant One campaigns. in these used was 1915, to refer to how and manner sayin which to what determine to source”, attempting ahigher from comes that alanguage language, participants claimed that “an authoritarian tone of some In addition, campaigns. these of sincerity the about doubts to rise given has which politics, Turkey’s “ease would that in international hand” manoeuvres as actions as these portray will which in pawns agame as words, treated being in other the issue’s conscience and dimension moral or, aside, pushing by campaigns these of instrumentalization political the from stem concerns Their points. certain at reservations or concerns had they said participants some appreciated, and welcomed generally are campaigns these Although agenda. workshop the on also were actors society civil and intellectuals some by led campaigns “Apology” recent The in Anatolia. have roots and their 1915 of genocide the of victims the are today “Diaspora” hence that they should be supported: be should they that hence and years previous to compared campaigns these in made been had progress some that expressed who participants some also were hand, there other the On 103

rophe]? We called it “ it rophe]? We called Why did you choose this sterile word [Great Catast [Great word sterile this choose you did Why touches people’s conscience. So, is this how the the how So, isthis conscience. people’s touches that Today issomething funeral? there Hrant’s at march people thousand hundred two-three those now.did Why people of conscience the touched that issomething going now. are There things how with it compare ago, and years 15-20 stood things in Turkey,Take progress the how at at alook look imza kampanyası. kampanyası. imza Apologize] [I Diliyorum” “Özür see: please text, the For the literature and cut and paste it here. it paste and cut and literature the from aesthetic something choose you it, with coping of instead Because this? No, don’t. you beautifying by anything achieve you do And You it. use don’t word? this use you Can “cutting”. means literally it 103 as follows: as çart ”. “ Çart ” is a terrible word, ” isaterrible - are contrary to the views of the commission? the of views the to contrary are that opinions commission, asserting the from on not are who historians, some prevent will Who possible? thisever Is not? or agenocide was there whether about word” have acommission “final such the so, if how? power, Will and binding, be it will sanction have thiscommission a Will ancestors. their of sufferings the discuss openly would which commission a against were sentimentally, more matter the approaching Armenians, some that observed also was matter, acommission”. to the it yourefer resolve It to want not youdo “If matter: the settling than issue, rather the out dragging then something”, and “doing of impression the giving by initiatives possible any block to move atactical but nothing is commission forhistory ajoint proposal the that words, is believed it In other tactic”. a“stalling of sort is acommission such that impression the is also there Furthermore, providers. information as and observers as only involved be would they sayand decisive any have not would Turks where formed, Armenians and commission have international to an beneficial more be could it that expressed they Instead, face. will commission the that pressures political potential is the doubts for these reason The be. would commission history ajoint such legitimate how about doubts had participants that observed It was 1915. of events the regarding findings and facts the analyze to countries Turkey,from third-party and Armenia historians of up acommission set is to 1915 to regard with government AKP current the Turkish and state the by offered Currently, solutions main the of one J oint own way. […] These efforts should not be rejected. rejected. be not should way.own […] efforts These in their something have done They something. done have they Yes, least, at do. But, they shortcomings. have they Do campaign. apology an organized have people view. These this change to enough are society the of dynamics The it? wechange will how So things?No. at look authorities the how state, H istory C ommission 104 this In asense, history. the facing of in terms helpful be would geography alarger over them expanding and studies such of number the Increasing basis. family a on history the with coming terms of to method good a as considered be can years, recent in the examples of number agrowing we see as studies, history oral The high-tension. potentially are that issues about talk to thismay easier it make accepting and Seeing believed. previously than intertwined more are descent Armenian without or with those that seen be will it examined, are trees family and histories family when example, For in time. ones larger-scale to lead can above quote in the mentioned history with terms coming of to acts smaller-scale and singular The happen: thisshould how asked when answer interesting an gives participant One societies. between for dialogue ground the prepare and path the open is to history the with way for coming terms to best the words, maybe other In history. the in facing state the as much actor, as an become also should and can society The academics. onlysomething and onpoliticians statesmen, that falls as seen be not should history the with terms to Coming E valuation

grandfathers before opening the history book. book. history the opening before grandfathers own their by [told] written book the read to le cousins? […]my Muslim against feelings peop I want hostile Inurture can how family. then, own So my in Muslims were there Irealized tree, family own my drawing family. own When my of example the from conclusion this at Iarrived valuable. isvery societies two these between relation apeaceful for taken be to step first the Ithink self. own our and family own our of history the face first isto history] the face [to way easiest the alphabet, the deciphering first by reading welearn way same In the larger-scale. ina past the with terms to acoming witness wecan Ithink then Only ourselves. and history family own our with terms to come weshould First, Altınay and Çetin 2009; Neyzi and Kharatyan 2010. 2010. Kharatyan and Neyzi 2009; Çetin and Altınay 2004 Çetin see: years, recent the in done studies such For and R ecommendations 104

- ; matter, you acommission”. it refer to “Ifyou do the not matter: resolvesettling want to the something”, out the issue, dragging then and ratherthan possible initiatives by giving the impression of “doing movecommission is any block nothing to but atactical It that is the believed proposal for ajoint history Armenians’ history and culture. and history Armenians’ the promote to working are that institutions the Culture, support of Ministry the through can, state The society. Armenian the on knowledge of lack the remedy to working organizations leading two as mentioned be must Foundation Dink Hrant International the Publishing and Aras Today, gap. thisinformation close will that studies of kinds all supporting covers also history the with terms Coming to state. the by ignored and destroyed been have infar Turkey; so information Armenians because of lifestyles and literature culture, arts, history, the about is known in what gap is avast There 1915. onlyto limited be not should history the with terms coming to in question, are Armenians When foci. other may from that come interventions limitative such any preventing and studies, these on limits ideological any putting not for researches, facilities and opportunities the providing implies path the Clearing studies. academic their and people for these path the clear is to here authority public the on falls What so. do to continue will they and findings; new of light in the history the write to continue Historians yet. completed been not has history recent of writing The studies. micro-level more with period pre-1915 the about available knowledge of accumulation the increase to try to horizon broader a may it open not, or genocide were 1915 of events the whether i.e. question, toughest and biggest the from starting of instead example, found. For be also can ways other yet it, do way to best maythe be history family Facing the own. its on amethod as considered be indeed can units” small into “dividing solution the and steps” baby with “Progressing parts. small into solution the dividing as perceived be can suggestion

97 98 Section Eight

11 the to back date diaspora Armenian the of origins the Although setting. geographic large avery over spread people of agroup are Armenians that It is known diaspora occurred mostly in the 20 in the mostly occurred diaspora Armenia/Turkey triangle. diaspora/ the think about they what and Armenia, and diaspora the of view their learn to important Turkey, of discussing Armenians the when is it Turkey. of Armenians the of situation At thispoint, indirectly, if even general the effect, to potential the have state Armenian the and institutions Armenian diasporan the of policies the that we time, see same Armenia”, “Armenian is the who Turkey”. of and At the Armenian”, “Armenian is the who of “Diasporan is the who define to easy It always is not Armenians. Turkey of Armenians diasporan have kinship with the and in Anatolia, have roots their world in the diaspora Armenian the of majority large The politics. Armenian global the of actors important are downs, ups and with relationship havewhich afluctuating Diaspora, Armenian the and Armenia of Republic the At Union. thispoint, Soviet the of disintegration the with being into didcome state Armenian independent an 1918-1920, between instability of time short for avery thiscentury, of except years 10 last she felt upon visiting Armenia: Armenia: visiting she felt upon what described for them”. participant One anything “Armenia mean not said Some does Armenia. about thoughts and feelings of avariety disclosed have people These once. least at Armenia visited had who some were there participants, the Among Armenia Armenia and Diaspora and Armenia th century, their transformation into a global aglobal into transformation century, their th century. In the In century. the future in Armenia. future have a must Armenian Not Armenia. every to related have investment an do not must think that any Armenian there,from Ido and not thinkthat Iwill way ever […] feel I awoman [but]night as that Inever Iwas got the feeling at around stroll beable to to strange felt me, it and also around Armenian people speaking hear to strange It was adversity or pressure. An example of those who feel feel who those of example An pressure. or adversity any of event in the shelter” take go to and “a place as Armenia see who some also are there fresh, still are felt in Turkey.never memories bad since In addition, have they that Turkey ease of asense go there who of is “normal”,Armenians the Armenian thisgives and Unlike Turkey, sense. cultural being is where Armenia in the Armenia to felt close they that and “homeland” their as Armenia saw they said who participants some also were there Unlike thisapproach, said: and approach, asimilar took also participant Another alone alone under here. the Armenian identity Turkey, of Turkey. Armenians the as weare Hence, of Armenians the about afig gives Armenia think not […] “my of Ido country” feeling And the me give not [Turkey]. does Armenia country this of man the I am Armenia. in have afuture must Armenian every Not Armenia. to related investment have an must Armenian […] way that feel ever any that think not Ido Iwill think not Ido and there, from I was that feeling gotthe [but] Inever awoman as night at around stroll to able be to strange felt also it and me, around Armenian speaking people hear to strange It was

101 102 place, Armenia willplace, bemy Armenia destination. if, beauty. and And onecomfort day, Ihave leave this to […] there much; comfortable Iam atmosphere an It has of much, that’s and about it […] very love Armenia Ialso very tie Turkey? me to to Ilovethere Istanbul Istanbul, alive there. Neither in my mother’s hometown. What is but they never would leave meIt Istanbul, is to right next Pamukova, IgoCan to where [once] my grandfather lived? times: many Armenia to went also Yerevan has who and in is studying son whose this way is aparticipant my destination. destination. my be will if, day, Armenia one place, this leave Ihave to And back. coming be never would son my understood I moment, In isthat.” that name my why or there Iam why anything, answer to obligation the without anyone, to account give to obligation the Without being. ahuman like live to how and worry, without breathe to how Ihave learned is. freedom what Ihave learned “There, there. him happy makes what him Iasked happy? be he should why so conditions, financial difficult very under there is living kid This there!” happy so Iam place. this Imiss because not you;is it Imiss because coming Iam here, coming day, One no. Iam “If said said, he always he And Eminönü, Isay... or Kadıköy to you take me Let food. that or him this buy or there or him here take to try Ialways longing, my of out comes, he When there. year ishis fourth this in Armenia; isstudying son My Turkey leaving of […]summer, thought never Ihad this of beginning the Until beauty. and comfort […] of there atmosphere an It has comfortable am I much; […] it very Armenia about love that’s Ialso and much, very Istanbul Ilove Turkey? Istanbul, to me tie to isthere What hometown. mother’s in my Neither there. alive me leave never would they but Istanbul, to next It isright lived? grandfather [once] where my Pamukova, Igo to can thought, I feelings. these developed asudden of Iall like way. this not Turkey feel me It made was was who It Turkey to me ties isIstanbul. that thing only the that Slowly, time. Iunderstood over shape took This shelter. find go and Ican aplace isahome, Armenia participant analyses this process as follows: as thisprocess analyses participant A thisimage. to gave abody Armenia of emergence in Turkey. people image for most The abstract an than more nothing “Armenia” the was concept 1990s, in Turkey. taboo Armenian the early Until breaking in role important an has country a neighbouring as Armenia of emergence the aside, these all Leaving others. for some problem a not was it while participants, for some disturbing was perception This Armenia. of extension organic an are Armenians and Armenians, all of motherland the is Armenia thismentality, to According Armenia?”etc. from didyouarrive Armenia?”,to “When is, “Havebeen youever Armenians to asked frequently questions the of one another.or example, For way in one Armenia to link or havemust aconnection in Turkey Armenian perception every general is that Turkey. of Armenians the alienate to The instrument an as used is sometimes acountry as Armenia in Turkey, is that aparticipant by underlined point important An different. be could Armenians diasporan Turkey of Armenians Armenia, and of Armenians of priorities and preferences political the that expressed It was Armenia. of extension apolitical as perceived being about uncomfortable were participants some that evident was it may different, be Armenia about thoughts and feelings their Although “readily available source of language and culture”. and language of source “readily available is a Armenia is that diaspora) the of Armenians the of Turkey of part Armenians for alarge (and in fact for the Armenia of aspect important most The “ok, let the process flow with its own pace”. own its with flow process “ok, the let said, they emerged, state new the when state, the of domination the under Turkish the by society analyzed and interpreted perceived, was issue this since and scale, aglobal on question Armenian this settle could she whom with state acounterpart find to unable Turkey time, that was end, before in the Because, hearts. from far very but eyes to close very was that aneighbour us, as to next right there, appeared the time independence and Armenia regained its in Turkey was ataboo be to ceased issue Armenian the when time first the concerned, Iam as far As by one participant: one by put identity, as the protect to used be can source This problems such an encounter may give rise to: to: rise may give encounter an such problems facing Armenians Armenia, and hence and the avoid to apretext as issue Karabagh the used has Turkey participants, some to According . on policy Armenian its based Turkey extent alarge to has sincethen, thisrationale, Tying with hands own its Karabagh. over Azerbaijan and Armenia between conflict the to due territory Azerbaijani the of parts some isof Armenia’s occupation borders the sealing Turkey. by closed for was Turkey’s rationale official countries the between border the and countries, two the between relations diplomatic permanent or direct is no there astate, as Armenia recognize officially to countries Turkey first the of one Although was P and Border Turkey identities. of their Armenians the by protect to out carried be will that activities as regarded be should activities These exchanges, etc. teacher activities, arts culture joint and visits, ways,as such various in language, their revive to source thisliving from Turkey of Armenians benefit The dialect). can different (even life daily a the of with if areas in all and literature in lives that is alanguage Armenian there, Armenia; in Turkey. in situation such is no there course, Of sense social in the language aliving as quality its lost had Armenian that chapters in previous mentioned already we had thisstatement, To expand further the world. around the Armenians all for true is also This culture. our and identity of both our in terms values our survival of all of the is the guarantee Armenia Hence, Armenia. to connected directly are identity our of preserving in the sense values our All true for all the Armenians around the world. world. the around Armenians the all for true isalso This culture. our and identity our both of terms in values our all of survival the of guarantee the is Armenia Hence, Armenia. to connected directly are identity our preserving of sense in the values our All rotocols important role in the process coming to an end. end. coming an to process in the role important an image had an such of projection the or past the about forget to for Armenia abribe as protocols the of perception that mentioned yet countries, two any between relationship diplomatic anormal institute like thisto steps support Participants reasons. various for Assembly Plenary the to sent not were protocols the countries, both of parliaments In the ratification. parliamentary required they because practice into come didnot protocols these yet Armenia, Turkey between and relations diplomatic of initiation for signed were protocols two 2009, In October opening borders. for in return Karabagh leave or genocide the about forget to Armenia propose to results any yield not It would follows: as understood be should expression This “at cost”. whatever opened be to borders the allow not will it hence and borders, closed with live to how learned has Armenia that haveonce, forward put than more Armenia have who visited participants hand, some other the On problem. the of solution the to contribute would borders open that and opened be should countries two the between borders the that participants among view It held is acommonly report, although considering although conditionsreport, the difficult this of asubject constitute directly not does people these of situation The permits. work or residence in Turkey working and any living citizens without Armenian are there that fact accepted commonly is a it is unknown, number exact their Although Turkey A fromrmenians A through all that coming to terms with the past. past. the with terms to coming that all through going from relieved was it Thus, negative. be course of would stance that And astance. take to forced was Turkey issue, Karabagh Turkey,the to thanks because for alifesaver was issue Karabagh The dilemma. independence, but then found facing aitself Armenia’s It recognized unprepared. caught was it policy, Armenia no had it Since asurprise. with faced Turkey was independence, its declared Armenia on later and disintegrated Union Soviet the When inrmenia

103 104 105 every and each interpret to is wrong it narratives, genocide of actors Turkey” inevitable the are “Turk and although From thisperspective, meaning. that preserve to attempt Armenians diasporan the identity, and that of holders the of eyes in the meaning unique its has identity every and Each Armenians. diasporan the of identity political and cultural the of go, apart and come is still it generations as impact its may lose 1915 of narratives the Although diaspora. the of memory collective in the place important an has 1915 understandably, Hence, 1915. of genocide is the prevalence) size (inof and form terms current its in d’etre diaspora the of raison the in 1915, begin not did diaspora Armenian the of formation the Although Diaspora live, they which under compatriots who have come back”. have back”. who come compatriots “fellow as seen be should people these perspective, Trabzon. or this from Bursa viewed Adana, When Maraş, Malatya, Sivas, from originally are today here live to Armenia have from who come those of Turkey. most of families the that forget We not should with relationship their to comes it when immigrants other to compared position different slightly have a comingArmenia from those immigrants, for all thisis true view. humane Although amore with policy immigrant and migration general Turkey its reshapes that is desirable it Hence, life. for abetter ahope with have, Turkey to end, income the people These issues. migrant and migration in all done –as perspective rights ahuman from approached be should matter Yet, this authorities. higher by time to time from uttered are necessary when used be to card trump apolitical as people these sees authority political the thismatter. that Words signalling address briefly

Foundation, Istanbul. Istanbul. Foundation, Turkey in Migrants Armenian of State the Identifying 2009, Turkey, in Ozinain see: Armenia from Armenians the on information detailed more For conditions. these to examples as given be can years for families their from away stay to having and conditions, Low wages, long working hours, poor accommodation 105 it becomes necessary to to necessary becomes it , Eurasia Partnership Partnership , Eurasia years shared the following observations: following the shared years for USA long in the living been has who participant fanning enmity, as pointed out by aparticipant. by out pointed enmity,fanning as without and groups between harmony the marring without schools at genocide the teach to USA for the issue adomestic together, live is also it backgrounds and identities cultural different many with people of groups where USA, in the example, in. For live they countries the of dynamics social and political the as well as existence own their to in relation seen be should diaspora the of phobia”. activities The “Turcophobia of Turkey- or acts as 1915 concerning institutions Armenian diasporan the of activity participant. without out pointed by enmity, a fanning as groups and the harmonymarring between without the genocide at schools teach to USA live together, issue adomestic for the it is also identities backgrounds and cultural different where groups of people withIn the USA, many 106

this issue … issue this about knows nobody here, But this. about think to has also legislator the Hence, classrooms. same the to going are Turks Armenians and both because debate, public of amatter is also in there textbooks the enter will this Whether curriculum. in the taught topic isa genocide comparative there; books history also are there goschools; to also there people these of children the survival; of amatter similar. only It isnot very in fact are here problems the and there out […] here well problems the understood are diaspora in the people the of acts the that think not I do similar identity problems. problems. identity similar encounter to start they as identities, their protecting of a tool become can genocide the of rejection and denial the for working USA, the in day by day growing is that diaspora Turkish the For identity. their of protection the towards working is genocide the of recognition towards working that hence and diaspora, Armenian the of identity the of apart is genocide that said been long It has 106 A s cultural for their struggle their and problems daily own their with busy are communities diaspora many Yet, anti-Turkish to energy activities. their all dedicate who and countries, in their conditions comfortable in extremely live who people are they is that diaspora In Turkey, Armenian the about opinion common the countries. many across spread groups heterogeneous highly of is acombination diaspora Armenian the that forgotten be not It should images. false from also and in person them knowing of lack information, of alack from stem generally do diaspora Armenian the about opinions negative the of Most have matter. asayin groups the these that natural words, is truly it In other legitimate. indeed is solution the of apart as and debate the to party a as involvement their that seen be can it events, those of aresult in fact are who and 1915 of events the from affected have who been groups and individuals consider of consists that the diaspora Armenian If we diaspora. “demonizing”or Armenian the marginalizing excluding, by solved be cannot 1915” of “events the as or “Armenian the Question” as called in Turkey is that issue the understood that be It should Armenians in 1915 is not forgotten; otherwise no one in one no otherwise forgotten; is not in 1915 Armenians the to done treatment the ensure that bills these that express to need felt the hand, some other the On politics. international of is amatter This Turkey of whatsoever. Armenians consequence ?No the on bill genocide failed or apassed of consequence the be would What me. concern not do bills Genocide said: participant one it, about thought they what participants our we asked When institutions. diasporan various of efforts the through USA, in the in particular countries, in different parliaments of agenda the to brought are 1915, with starting period during the Armenians Ottoman the against committed genocide the recognizing of purpose for the drafted bills/motions the then and now Every G urvi enocide val. val. bills this matter anyway.this matter forgotten; otherwise no one in about Turkey care would in 1915 done thethe Armenians treatment to is not that ensure that bills express these to Some the felt need “international” issue. an as country the before forward put now Turkey) from in fact are communities of is portion large a as (including diaspora, the people own its with solve Turkey which problem, to a“domestic” has In fact, initiatives. own their with thisgap filling are countries other problem, the of ownership the take not does sinceit and problem own its as Turkey 1915 see not does words, in thismatter. since Inhave other initiative the Turkey that said not be does can it thiscomment, on [in agenda”. the on thisway] remain always they Based because passed, not are bills the that is good it fact, “in expression: following the used participant One anyway. thismatter Turkey about care would with the . Here the various various the Here diaspora. Armenian the with Moreover, dialogue well. Turkeyas insufficient has difficult Turkey dialogue makes Armenia between and relations official such any of lack The relations. is, undoubtedly, dialogue diplomatic inter-state for platform important most the And level. society civil the at and level state/government the at both continued be should Armenia with Dialogue institutionalized. be should it all, of most and effective, and continuous be should it purposes; for show purely designed visits several to limited be However, not should thisdialogue representatives. institutional (school, foundation, church)association, the with communication of channels keeping open means them with citizens; dialogue already are Turkey of Armenians The side. other the understand to try and to Turkey listen and conditions equal on of Armenians the and Armenia diaspora, the with talk in Turkey,‘’ to is important it the as is called which issue the solving While E valuation and R ecommendations

105 106 engage in dialogue with the diaspora. diaspora. the with engage in dialogue waysto Turkey seek Therefore, also arena. should for Turkey end not will international in the Question” “Armenian the process, the from is excluded diaspora Armenian the as long as Armenia, with problems Turkey that her we assume all if even solves Besides, this. of out comes that consequence other no is There hands. their into cause”, plays it national so us in our divide to trying are they saying “look, are side other the of nationalists The happens? what And diaspora. the and Armenia distinguishing between Turkey And consensus. of atmosphere is doing by it in this Armenians between acrack create to politics, Now, own her consensus. through Turkey is trying, have they which on issues two the of one perhaps in Turkey. is genocide of issue the Armenians, Among we witness is thissituation There side. Armenian the on nationalists the serves other], each of opponents Turkey of the Armenians the and as Armenia diaspora, the show to [Turkey’sThis attempts follows: as it explains affairs internal Armenian the with is familiar who participant Turkey’s of asign as Ajournalist intent”. “ill shown and “cheap tactics”, and policies “separatist” as Armenians the by identified are in conflict elements Turkey by three taken other. these steps show to The each of antithesis the are they that mean not does this them,yet among views differing and differences are there course Of strategy. correct the is not other Turkey of and each against diaspora the of Armenia, of Armenians the place to attempt political The state/government. Turkish the by partners dialogue as chosen be might 107 institutions

National Committee of America. America. of Committee National Armenian Assembly of America and of Assembly Armenian America the mention can we organized, most the be to appears diaspora Armenian the where USA; the in institutions the Among aproject. of framework the within addressed be should engaged be will dialogue whom with and How diversity. and number ahigh have institutions Diaspora 107 established by the diasporan Armenians Armenians diasporan the by established the Armenian

Section Nine the historical Armenian existence and culture in and existence Armenian historical the by encountered devastation great the with terms to come to officials government the and Turkish society the to shelter, acall communal by is accompanied in a and identity areligious to confinement beyond Turkey. of goes which democratization process, This for the and citizenship rights of exercise for the initiatives society in civil rate participation increasing in the as well as foundations, of rights ownership property for the level judicial the at waged struggle in the witnessed are society Armenian in the process anew of signs hand, the other the On administration. internal effective an establish to them enable will that basis alegal of deprived are institutions Today, citizens. and institutions Armenian Armenian by encountered problems the concerning and democracy conforming to the norms of contemporary arrangements legal basic comprehensive of adoption the to lead didnot they and partial, remained they Turkey’s reparative, EU were the to membership for acondition as in 1999 Criteria Copenhagen the of adoption the with started corrections the Although life. daily and social in the practices oppressive the within re-produced was pattern mentality discriminatory the while citizenship rights, equal violated that practices to led discrimination based ideological- and political from stemming obstacles governmentMiscellaneous decisions and bureaucratic guarantee. under rights these take directly that made have been arrangements legal no Lausanne, Treaty for in the of provided rights minority positive the of exercise the restricted period Republican in the adopted legislation of pieces some While ideological. political- and legal axes: main two on addressed Turkey of Armenians be the by can faced problems The Recommendations Conclusion: General Evaluation and M requirement of contemporary democracy. requirement of contemporary a as practices, of aset and method negotiation and aconsultation enable to circles administrative and government is for the solutions proposed the and consideration the demands of the society Armenian in Turkey. into take way to history-writing other One official the criticize that segments social the by participated is also which and Turkey 1915, after in and legal entity were made subject to the Foundations Foundations the to subject made were entity legal with foundations Minority Istanbul. of Patriarchate Armenian the to status entity alegal grant not did identity, and cultureand Armenian the conserving foundations and schools in of minority characteristics and intotake importance consideration the central did not introduced legislation the and adopted laws The suspended. extent, alarge were, to survival their of furtherance and protection for the Lausanne of Treaty in the envisaged rights positive the recognized, are maintenance the undertaking foundations the and orphanages, and hospitals schools, churches, as such institutions of existence the Treaty Lausanne, of in the non-Muslims on conferred rights minority the of framework the within While time. Ottoman the of autonomous administration inherited from practice the continue to institutions for Armenian impossible it made regime Republican the of model nation-state homogenizing and Turkey centralist the with in line in passed Laws Republic. the of zero year and treaty founding the as is accepted which Treaty Lausanne, of the of implementation the from doubt, no stems, problems legal of determinants main the of One C B etween ontemporary inority L R ausanne ights H uman CODES and and

109 110 and conventions on minority and human rights to to rights human and minority on conventions and treaties to adhere and Turkeycontext, ratify should In this governance. minority contemporary the of part indispensible an become has guarantee under taken be should citizenship rights of aspects cultural the also but social and political civil, the only not that view The Treaty the Lausanne. of as such WWI, the after signed treaties in international envisaged rights minority the than context comprehensive amore inhas Europe 1990s of as agenda the coming on rights minority of regime new The rights. human and of understanding minority contemporary the behind is far Lausanne that forgotten be not should hand, it other the on Lausanne; the from out drawn be can solutions words, some In other Armenians. of foundations and schools the to related problems certain solve to able be would it Lausanne, Treaty the of of articles relevant the implement Turkey. of Armenians Turkey of IfRepublic the to were the of representative the as Patriarch Armenian millet the continues somehow that attitude an adopts hand, it other the On minorities. to related arrangements to comes it when Treaty the Lausanne of duly implement not does state the In fact, circles. official some by asserted as Treaty the Lausanne of against not are minorities non-Muslim by institutions similar and associations through foundations,freedom of association of ensure expansion to arrangements legal New citizenship rights. equal of in violation resulted and oppression the reinforced also decisions judicial unlawful and obstacles bureaucratic administration, the of approach negative the guarantees, legal some despite In addition, assets. material their of maintenance the on exerted was pressure and statutes, foundation of the foundations their declarations as property 1936 the accepting way of by prevented extent, large a were, to foundations these by properties immovable new of acquisition the and properties immovable existing the of disposal and registry the statutes, have foundations”. didnot foundation Since they “community as classification aseparate with Law system, by accepting the the accepting by system, Treaty of Lausanne in the new Constitution, as as Constitution, new in the Treaty Lausanne of in the contained rights the Assuring differences. and diversity cultural of protection and recognition for arrangements legal make to is aneed there rights, minority contemporary of concept in the envisaged as hand, other the On such. as state the by recognition their of status the of regardless minorities” “the to assurance constitutional afundamental provide would identities, ethnocultural any to references making words, without in other or faith, and religion ethnicity, on based differences any of regardless rights of exercise full of in terms status a constitutional Recognizing citizenship as equality. and inclusiveness rights-based is against that mentality discriminating a citizenship is aTurk”) of allows bond the through Turkish the to bound state “Everyone 66: Article of citizenshipdefinition in Turkey (Constitutional the to ascribed implication identity ethno-cultural the participants, the by out pointed hand, as other the On actions. such EU, the to anyhow,membership necessitates Minorities). Turkey’s National full of target of Protection the on Convention Framework Europe of Council the and Discrimination, against Convention UNESCO (such the as aparty yet is not it which to subject, the to related conventions international those to aparty become should Rights), and Political and Civil on Covenant the to pertaining those as (such reservations its lift should Child), the of Rights the on Convention UN (such the as is aparty it which recognition by the state as such. as by the state recognition of their of the status minorities” regardless “the to assurance constitutional fundamental identities, provide would ethnocultural a any to without references making ethnicity, religion faith, and or in other words, on based of any differences regardless exercise of of rights full in terms status aconstitutional as citizenship Recognizing exercise of these rights. rights. these of exercise the strengthen will that arrangements for legal path the clear also will participants, some by suggested past”, advocated the necessity for positive for positive necessity the advocated past”, the of a“reparation being of have quality the practices discrimination positive that stressing participant, One culture. and education Armenian the of survival for the is needed government the of support Direct opportunities. educational restrict that or alive, cultures and identities their keep to Armenians for difficult it make that barriers the remove to itself limit to government for the longeris no sufficient words, it .. In other assistance state without existence in Turkey their Armenians of position precludes disadvantageous current the that fact the of account on discrimination positive of necessity for the argued who participants some also were hand, there other the On Armenians. the of problems the for solving suffice would democracy country’s the of furtherance of equalunderstanding citizenship, the and this group,practiced to According afully said: discriminating, be would discrimination positive that thinking participant, One subjects”. “entrusted as non-Muslims perceives already that mentality the strengthen would laws into applications discrimination positive such putting that citizenship, advocated even and class asecond- of indicator an as discrimination positive to subjected being perceived they as favourable it find didnot Some identities. ethno-cultural of protection to regard with discrimination positive to Turkey of Armenians subjected the be should whether on perspectives different had participants The P ositive feel that I am a part of the society. society. the of apart Iam that feel to Iwant here. different as myself see to want not Ido isAlevi. other the yet and isKurd other the and Turk, are you and Armenian Iam Alright, different. as myself see to Yet, want not Ido different. as yourself regarding already are you means it then yourself, for discrimination positive If want you D iscrimination precludes their existence without assistance. their state existence precludes in position Turkey disadvantageous ofcurrent Armenians positive discrimination of thethat fact the on account of for who the necessity some argued participants also On the other hand, were of there the Armenians. problems for solving the suffice would the democracy country’s of citizenship, of equal the and furtherance Understanding Armenians in the historical process: historical in the Armenians the of dispossession the of basis the on discrimination “strangers” in their own “homes and lands”, are the lands”, the are and “homes own in their “strangers” difference, theof perception Armenians and as Turkey, ethnic and religious to them reducing by of Republic the citizenship of adopted voluntarily the and thiscountry of existence historical the of apart being of denial The policies. discriminating to subjected are and citizens equal as considered not are “minorities” that showing examples of is full Republic the of issue”. history a“security The of terms in Turkey in them administrators address for to the reflex political a constant become “strangers”. It has and “elements positionedand as of threat” perceived are in particular Armenians the and general in Turkey. level in state the at non-Muslims The deadlock ideological and is the political arrangements legislative fair and comprehensive more adopt to legislators the of reluctance the and arrangements legal current for the reason main the that It is clear Attitude P I and olitical done to repair the past. the repair to done be must something Hence, opportunities. such from benefit not could generations new the them, without now. have And them We not do dispossession]. to subjected been not [if wehad centres cultural more many and schools more many have had we would and children more many of schooling the fund to able have been wewould and systems scholarship more many have had wewould example, For generations. many affects that issomething Dispossession deological

111 112 latest examplesof this approach. latest the as roof until the inauguration considered day all were a year, on mount the the church cross to the and refusal Patriarchate of Turkey; worship for permitting only one day the Armenian to Island on the Akhtamar church Armenian non-restitution of the historical perception. The this reinforces “bestowments” further as presented are by the state that fact the rights accorded The accepted at the society level. level. society the at accepted is also mentality same the that show media in the echoed discourse nationalistic” “racist-ethnic the and life daily the in encountered attitudes Discriminating Turkey. of Armenians the by encountered problems the of denominator common highlighted most impression that the state or the government is taking is taking government the or state the that impression is the There ostensible. and superficial been citizenshiphave, “ equal sincethe institute to as so rulers the by taken steps the that and today, to specific is not thissituation that expressed is “pretending”. it that or Moreover,tactic”, was it Turkey, of Armenians is a“stalling pursuing it that the of problems the to approach in its sincere not is state the that participants the among perception It is awidespread confidence. of problem underlying an reveals initiatives the of assessment The PM Erdoğan. of personality and will the on dependent excessively was process whole the that AKP”, of and votes potential the Europe’s over “increase “pull or wool the eyes” to just done are they that superficial, are initiatives the that include criticisms the of some example, For thisprocess. regarding criticisms and reservations some However, also occurring. are are changes there positive some that and initiatives, some brought have laws EU harmonization the of introduction the with agenda have the on that come reforms the that participants the all almost by It is accepted I nitiatives Tanzimat ”, ”, Armenian society that have long seen violence on on violence have that seen long society Armenian of trust the gain to easy maybe it not violence, to exposed been long has who achild of trust the regain to easy is like never it Just reaction. shy” twice burned is simply a“once initiatives the towards attitude their hence, disappointed; always are they confidence, feel they whenever hopeful, are they Whenever experiences. historical their of in terms explained be can initiatives the about caution Armenians’ The outside”. Turkey’s over concern the from “image independently and norms law international the with conformity in “sincere” policies produce is to administrators the of change”. is expected What a “mentality is through democratization inclusive amore realize to way The problems. the of some surmount to enough be shall will political determined but Asimple steps. concrete these to examples be can schools foundation of support financial ameaningful providing or Church are noteworthy: are Church Akhtamar the on aparticipant of words following the example, an As thisapproach. of examples latest the as considered day all were inauguration the until roof church the on cross the mount to refusal the and Turkey; dayof for one only worship ayear, permitting Patriarchate Armenian the to Island Akhtamar the on church Armenian historical the of non-restitution The reinforces further this perception. “bestowments” as presented are state the by accorded rights the that fact The calculations. political some of because only but right” and good something do to “not as so problems in these interest an the 19 the to back dates which thisperception, break will that steps concrete take to state for the be will problems the of solution in the step important an Hence, make-up for the EU. the for make-up a as and return, touristic for restored being just are they currently Ibelieve But, should’. it what did state the done, ‘well say Iwill Then community. my of use the to church the gives it when and if only deed agood do to this done has state the that believe I will th century. Returning the foundation properties properties foundation Returning the century. towards democracy, and there are doubts about about doubts are there and democracy, towards ahead road along is still there that It is emphasized years: previous to incomparable liberalization and is arelaxation there years recent in the that, It is accepted years. recent in the made progress the to praise expressed also participants some criticisms approaches, these cautious and all Despite citizens. Armenian of counter-demands cultural and societal political, legitimate the them,and against discrimination ideological and political Republican the genocide; 1915 the of effects devastating the as well as in thiscountry existence historical their of ignorance and dehistoricization; their infers day lives present Turkey their of basis the on merely in groups religious different many of one as Armenians treating Moreover; citizens. individual as status their and cultures, and identities ethnic their both denying means communities” Turkeyof “religion-based as Armenians the regarding case, In any rights. religious for guarantees legal include should and religions all to distance equal an at be should state the religion, of freedom the protect to in order laicism, of requirement a As societies/religions. between relationship hierarchical the re-produces and laws before equality ignores it as initiatives, for the foundation the be can that approach an is not level society the or level state the either foreat to comes sometimes that approach “tolerance” religion-based hand, the other the On practices. and steps confident more and is clear government the and state the from is expected what initiatives, the to regard With Armenians. the alone let society, the of segment in any confidence instilling from far are progress back” steps two “one forward, the and step policies solicitous and inconsistent Besides, lands. these process. process. abetter into evolve can these all how to as known thoughts own our wehave make to course, Of done. been has that all once at refusing mean not does this yet thought, wehad way in the implemented be may it not wemayor have wished, as be mayit not Yes, denied. be should done works the of none I think ( “cemaat” the within for self-enclosure opted and visibility based “Armenian an avoided identity” hesitation. no with issues various on thoughts their voiced freely have participants The communities. to attributed is generally that nature reserved closed, tightly have didnot the participants the example, For group. asmall constitute they community, though even a as them describe to impossible it make that Turkey of Armenians the havecharacteristics some Yet, that we saw itself. within workshops, during the ideas of diversity awide demonstrate not does which and factor dominant is the religion in which result, a and,as values common their to devoted strictly aspects, in all homogenous are which for groups used the sociological sense. In short, the term “ term the In short, sense. sociological the in loaded is fairly that aconcept at points thisword as attitudes. They have finally started to make make to started have finally They attitudes. and policies discriminatory of because era Republican “ a from transition the of indicators the as interpreted be can years ten to five Turkey of Armenians last in the the by made demands and taken positions the workshops, the beyond look ageneral we take When society. Armenian the of multivocality the confirming necessary, even and normal was ideas of diversity that expressed participants the that, beyond And topics. some on views have opposite voiced participants acommunity. of The members of unexpected is which views, and ideas of have adiversity Armenians living in Turkey as a “ a Turkey in as living Armenians the describing avoided In thisstudy, we purposefully F immediately. created be should permanent gains these render will that arrangements legal Thus, not. or permanent be will achieved gains the whether 108 It can be said that both confidence in the institution institution the in confidence both that said be It can 108 community cemaat rom aC contributed to this. this. to contributed years 10 last the in liberalization towards country the by made progress the and study this organizing (TESEV) ” to equal citizenship. The Armenian society society Armenian citizenship. The equal ” to 108 for a long time throughout the the throughout time ) for along In addition, it was observed that they they that observed was it In addition, to C ommunity cemaat itizenship ” (community), ” cemaat ” is

113 114 ECtHR after all domestic remedies were exhausted. were remedies domestic all after ECtHR the to referred were cases some and foundations, Armenian of rights ownership property the violated that decisions judicial and practices administrative against in courts shy away fighting from didnot society Armenian the In addition, in 2000s. starting process democratization in the reverberated have identity Armenian for the respect citizenship and for equal call 1990’s; sincemid their heard themselves internal dialogue channels were not sufficiently open. open. sufficiently not were channels dialogue internal society’s Armenian the that was self-criticism Another practice. into reflected be should it how and administration civilian of definition the on consensus or clarity no was there that observed was it In addition, “number the institution. remain one” should Patriarchate the that argued who participants some also were hand, there other the On needs. all meet to able being from far was Patriarchate the that such as and society; the of problems the solve to responsibility take to circles spiritual the only not and civilians thing for the right the be would it that and Patriarchate, the from expected be should everything not that approach oriented initiative the of acontinuation as expressed It was state. the against filed case court the withdrew they unless handled” be not would “transaction their that officials state by threatened being have witnessed even They remedies. legal to apply that institutions Armenian to obstacles and difficulties create authorities state that participants the by expressed also However, adopted. was it be should remedies legal through rights focusing seeking on attitude aggressive amore that expressed It was weight. gained society Armenian the by questioned sufficiently is not thispassivity that idea the and passive, Turkey of as society Armenian the described and enough struggle the find didnot participants the of many cases, court these all hand, despite other the On D I C ntrospective iscussions and riticisms started to express themselves. express to started have who onlyrecently and Muslimized become have who Armenians “crypto” these towards group other the by displayed attitude isolationist the about complain in thisgroup included those In addition, too. aMuslim be well very can Armenian group, an second in the for those In short, Armenian. being of non qua asine is is not “only and areligion” Christianity others; for identity, while Armenian the of part inseparable an was Christianity some, For aconsensus. reaching other, from each to far contrary were this subject on opinions the that understood It was Armenian?” an be anon-Christian Could identity? Armenian the of components the are What Armenian? is an “Who as such questions “big” some discussion to opens topic This identity. that protect to want who and roots Armenian their have who disclosed individuals Muslimized the towards take would society Armenian the that position the was assessments self-critical of topics controversial most the of One problems. the of resolution for the thisis vital that and other each with frequently Turkey, of Armenians the more talk to need they as thinkingthat, workshops the left and opportunity” for “such thanked an participants end,In the the thisoccasion”. to thanks things new of alot “learned having and interest” and curiosity “with workshop the at discussions the to having listened expressed participants Many groups: and segments different between dialogue of thisshortage visibly revealed for thisstudy held Interestingly, four workshops the problems, must ensure the involvement of Armenians Armenians of involvement ensurethe must problems, their of solutions the to regard with Armenians of views Turkey of Republic the personal mind the must of To bodies negotiation. clearly,the more it state put Turkey, of Armenians and is dialogue which the of problems the of solution in the mentioned be must principle ageneral recommendations, concrete more some to on passing Before S D olution N and ialogue egotiation for segments demonstrating civic initiative. State officials officials State initiative. civic demonstrating segments the also but dignitaries spiritual the only not including organized be should negotiations patriarchs, their elect to want they how to regard With problems. own their of solution sayin the have first to the able be should words, Armenians In other suggestions. their solution prioritize negotiation and process, a within positions political and segments social all of its citizens and try to meet their demands. their meet to try and citizens its of requests the to priority give must state democratic acontemporary, Besides, anegotiation. of sort is this relationship state-citizen the of requirements one of the main democracies, contemporary “compromising” “losing position”. or In as Armenians with in consultation policymaking or Armenians the by launched initiatives the regard not should

115 116 • • • • • T Recommendations • Bureaucracy P arties P o the nal principle. nal should be adopted. adopted. be should society” for the “state of principle The state”. the of “security as such grounds on limited be not should which freedoms, and rights fundamental on based The new be Constitution should aconstitutio as adopted be should difference and diversity cultural to respect and of Recognition identities. ethnic of basis the on made be should references In thisview, groups. no ethnic all to distance equal inclusive amore contain should Constitution new The stipulated in international conventions signed by by signed conventions in international stipulated as discrimination, of elimination the concerning obligations the law domestic into integrate to made be should arrangements legislative Necessary abandoned. be should foundations of activity of fields the to education from ranging areas many in rights minority of suspension the causes which and rights, human contemporary against and “ of application The Minorities. National of Protection the on Convention Framework Europe of Council the and in Education Discrimination Against Convention UNESCO the sign should Child; Turkey the of Rights the on Convention the and Rights Political and Civil on Covenant UN the on reservations Turkey its withdraw dards, should In order to stan comply with contemporary , G arliament that stands at an an at citizenship stands definitionthat overnments and unlawful reciprocity”, is unlawful which , P olitical - - • • • • • but as something that is wrong in principle. in isprinciple. wrong that something as but “public or peace”, “public order” threatens that act an as only not addressed be should crime hate punish hate and speech deter to rearranged be should Turkish the of (TCK) Code 216 Penal Article Discrimination. Racial of Forms All of Elimination the on Convention International the and Rights, Human of Turkey, Declaration Universal the as such tion of the law, a board with supervisory and and supervisory law, with the of tion a board implementa ensure effective to in order inclusive; more made be should discrimination of forms all of prosecution legal enable will a way that “ for debate to opened arrangement legislative The fulfilled. be should Treaty Lausanne of the from arising obligations rules; and institutions should implement equal its citizenship all with bureaucracy the and government the of organs All ( Law Council Television and Radio Supreme the and Law Media the to added be should language discriminatory and denigrating of usage prevent to Articles speech. of freedom individual the limit not does arrangement said ensurethat to taken be should identity, care another or identity Turkish the of denigration preventing while However, effect. that to amended be should article religious identities and ethnic all to apply should Turkish identity” “insulting the to regard with shown sensitivity The denigration of any and all identities all and any of denigration hate speech containing organs media of publications and punish broadcasts and deter to prevention and elimination of discrimination” in Radyo Televizyon Üst Kurulu Kanunu Kurulu Üst Televizyon Radyo and the currently effective law law effective currently the and . and and ; ) - • • • • • • • textbooks. history from removed be should Armenians against discourse discriminatory and hostility” and “hatred contain which Narratives languages native their in education receive can children that from so Armenia adopted be should Child the of Rights the on Convention UN the of les princip the to pursuant arrangements Legislative inschools Armenian enabled be culture should and history Armenian teach that courses courses, language Armenian to In addition activities. drama Armenian and broadcasts radio Armenian to given be should Culture Armenian the and Language Armenian the alive keep to in order universities in established be should Culture and Language Armenian of Departments of number A sufficient for schools Armenian deficits budget closing of and salaries teacher of payment teachers, training textbooks, of preparation the in support financial provide should government the arrangements, Together legislative such with tion. discrimina positive of principle the observe should thismatter on arrangement legislative The ties. particulari their with in accordance status special apermanent granted be should schools, minority other with schools,together Armenian The culture. and identity Armenian the of erosion the danger of the against Lausanne, Treaty in the of envisaged as discrimination positive of manner in the support, provide should Turkey, of Armenians for the state Specifically the state. the of duties primary the among accepted in Turkey be should lifestyles and ges, cultures - of all theandlangua protection existence ces, differen of equality the of understanding an With consulted and their needs should be assessed. be should needs their and consulted in Turkey discrimination to be exposed should systematically are who individuals and groups the for which established, be should power sanction . . ; support ; support . - - - - • • • • • • • • • Tıbrevank School should be allowed. allowed. be Tıbrevank should School Haç Surp the of section education clergy the education clergy the enable to In order Patriarchate. Armenian the to over handed be should administration their and worship to opened be should restoration through have churches Armenian that gone Historical repairment of churches and cemeteries and for maintenance Treaty the Lausanne, of of provisions the per as allocated, be should budgets government local and state the from Shares education clergy to worship of places maintaining and opening from ranging domains in many observed be should Muslims with Equality property ownership rights of “ of rights ownership property the violate that practices and restrictions legal the for compensate to oriented are that laws new The bylaw. election permanent and have to official an possible be should it government, the from authorization election patriarchal each subjecting of Instead inelections patriarchal practices traditional the with in line is determinative participation civilian that so government, the from demanded elections patriarchal the allow should government The existence. institutional of protection for the foreseen rights positive in the inherent already act an be will it and Treaty the Lausanne, of against be not will Patriarchate the to status entity legal Granting entity. legal with status official an patriarchate the give to laicism body, of requirement is the it agovernmental as Affairs Religious of Presidency legal entity granted be should Istanbul of Patriarchate Armenian The investigated. be should administration of the negative practices and and restrictive minorities, non-Muslim the by encountered lems prob the of elimination to regard with Erdoğan (of Tayyip PM Recep by published May 13 2010) circular the behind stand should government The . In Turkey, is a there where community . , opening , opening .

- to to .

117 118 • • • • • • • • third parties. parties. third to over have that passed for those paid be should compensation and returned, be should state the of disposal the to transferred and foundations the from seized properties immovable All rectification. foundations should be established. be should representatives non-Muslim of participation enable will that board advisory tions, official an community founda community by encountered problems the of solution the to may that contribute amethod As law. aseparate with regulated be should found, their and administrations and operations were they which waysthrough distinctive the and characteristics historical their of in view status Community foundations community foundations of ownership property the to regard with Cassation of Court 1974 the Ruling citizenship, the of equal as such of principle the violate that decisions judicial block in to ensured be should guarantee Constitutional community foundationsabandoned. be should by property of acquisition prevent to aim which Declaration, 1936 the as such rationales Unlawful material and moral support to facilitate the the facilitate to support moral and material provide should governments local and state The administrators. foundations the of administration in the ensure coordination to made be should arrangements Legislative foundations of rights ownership property the of exercise and inconsistencies encountered in the compensation and barriers administrative the of elimination in the responsibility take should government The established. be should minorities non-Muslim the of problems “ and/or a Board, Review Issues Minority in the included be should representatives Non-Muslim which will address the the address will which Department” Minorities and joint election of foundation foundation of election joint and . ” as of 2000s, can only provide partial partial provide only can 2000s, of ” as should be given a new anew given be should . - • • • • M T • • o C edia publications in/to Turkish. in/to publications foreign-language of translation/publishing as such activities of in front put obstacles penal potential the remove should and mic studies, problems and produce solutions. solutions. produce and problems the analyse to in order society, Armenian the of representing differentsegments participants negotiations out with carry to initiatives take should administration the and government The abolished. be should arena foundation of activity of areas the restrict that provisions Law Treaty the Lausanne. of of foundations framework of the within maintenance history-writing in boundaries ideological the for removing ment environ the prepare should authority public The regard, civil society organizations are expected to to expected are organizations society civil regard, ofon Armenians lands these history the and culture Armenian the about public the to knowledge sufficient imparting and speech hate and discrimination against awareness raising to regard with mission of asense develop to has media the arrangements, legislative to In addition acrime. committed have who officials state the for investigating lity responsibi take should government the judiciary; the to submitted be should evidence material relevant individuals; responsible and perpetrators murder the of investigation parliamentary The genocide discussions. the or issue Karabagh the to indexed be not should neighbours” with “zero of problem concept the life to bringing countries; two the between relations the of normalization to contribute will Turkey Armenia and between borders of opening for the signed protocols the effect into Putting S ivil and should be deepened so as to expose all all expose to as so deepened be should O ociety in the national and international s in international nationaland the Universities , should clear the path for acade path the clear , should rganizations . In this , - - - • • • Turkey T • • • • A o the initiate educational activities. and media the to notifications necessary the issue only for spiritual matters and that the Armenian Armenian the that and matters only for spiritual Patriarchate the that If is thought it foundations the of properties seized for the ECtHR the to ons applicati the and courts in domestic struggle The culture their discriminationagainst and for of the protection democracy for struggle overarching the into Turkey of Armenians incorporated be The should of. use made be should abroad from publications in Turkey, encouraged be should thistopic on and Studies in thiscountry. Armenians the culture of history the with terms to coming dimension of One ged. encoura be should history, oral as such studies, micro and period, pre-1915 the on information of imparting and examples, impressive some with recently we have which witnessed histories, history in facing state, the to measure actor, an be in equal should and be can people The happened. has what indemnify and repair to also but facts the reveal to only not taken Tangible be history. should steps Ottoman the of period last in the Armenians of annihilation mass the to led that phenomenon dark the with coming terms of to It matter is the public. the to them explain to and events these of culprits and perpetrators the clarity in all expose to debt It is amoral cultures. and ideas different of co-existence and Turkey’s democratization 1915 Facing practices and policies discriminatory hate speech against struggle democratic in Turkey their on initiatives persist should and organizations society civil intellectuals, The is gaining awareness about the history and and history the about is gaining awareness S rmenian will make positive contributions to to contributions positive make will should be continued. be should . of ociety is responsible is responsible . . Family , - - • • • benefit in tapping into this potential. thispotential. into in tapping benefit is there art; of works culture and Armenian the of protection and heritage, in Turkey cultural its and presence Armenian the about Turkishthe society reminding to regard with diversified being are es activiti and association hed with the wider society establis being are links that development positive participation, civic of aspect another As solution. a in reaching initiativessociety effective be would civil spreading and realm public in the lems prob voicing the Patriarchate, the of mediation the with sufficing of instead and “community” the within position apassive accepting of Instead thismatter. on reached be should consensus representation, acivilian needs society its own among members its ideas and ensureinformation exchange to of channels dialogue democratic and healthy, perpetual Turkey of establish should society Armenian The . it is a it

- - -

119 120 The list below does not include all the workshop participants. workshop the all include not does below list The of. part are they institutions the represent necessarily not do participants the by quoted Viewpoints personally. experience, and specialization of areas their within thisstudy into contributed below mentioned Names viewpoints. participants’ workshop the with wholly or partially concur maynecessarily not they and authors, the to belong in thisreport viewpoints The Program. Democratization TESEV the of auspices the under 2011, January 15 and 2010 December 11 2010, November 27 2010, October 23 on organized were workshops closed Four into the Closed Workshops List Persons Of Who Participated Kayuş Çalıkman Gavrilof Çalıkman Kayuş Hosrov Köletavitoğlu Heriknaz Avagyan Özdoğan Göksu Günay Garo Paylan Etesiya Tırtır Esra Bakkalbaşıoğlu Kartun Dença Cem Ercin Cem Çapar Besse Kabak Mumcu Belinda Gutsuz Ayda Arusyak Koç Monnet Koçunyan Ara Alin Ozinian Participant’s Names Table 1–ListofWorkshopParticipants Aris Nalcı Equality and Democracy Party (EDP) Member – Sayat Nova Choir Member Choir Nova –Sayat Member (EDP) Party Democracy and Equality HAYDERMalatya Teacher University Marmara report, the of Author School Elementary Armenian Yeşilköy EngineerElectrical Program Democratization TESEV Student University Galatasaray Pastor Associate Church, Protestant Armenian Surgeon Veterinary of Sociology Graduate Dentist Principal –School Preschool Armenian Karagözyan Private Agos Jamanak Writer, Researcher Institution / Profession Newspaper, IMC TV IMC Newspaper, Newspaper, Editor-in Chief Zakarya Zakarya Mildanoğlu Yetvart Tomasyan Tatyos Bebek Takuhi Tovmasyan Zaman Özoğlu Şuşan Silva Kuyumcuyan Sevan Değirmenci Setrak Davuthan Sayat Tekir Sıradağ Sarven Arık Sarkis Bilal Rafi Rafi Hermon Araks Pakrat Estukyan Genç Özge Ohannes Kılıçdağı Mıldanoğlu Nora Nazar Büyüm Nayat Muratyan Bağdat Natali Misak Hergel Gültekin Pırgiç Miran Melkon Karaköse Melisa Akan Mariam Drameryan Manuel Çıtak Luiz Bakar Ağabaloğlu Kirkor Architect, Agos Architect, Publisher Dentist PublishingAras House School Principle, Retired Principal School, High Armenian Getronagan Private Jamanak Lawyer InitiativeNor Zartonk Member Engineer Software Derneği) Yetişenler Tıbrevanktan Haç (Surp Association Alumni Tıbrevank Haç Surp (SHP) Party People’s Democrat Social of President Vice Former Engineer, Mechanical Writer, Researcher Agos Program Democratization TESEV University Bilgi Istanbul report, the of Author DinkHrant Foundation, Project Coordinator Adam Publishing House, Publisher Consultant Press and Media Private Getronagan High School Derneği) Dayanışma ve Kalkındırma Köyü (Vakıflı Association Solidarity and Development Village Vakıflı Derneği) (Dersimli Ermeniler Dersim of Armenians the of Association of President Foundation Church Kevork Surp Bogazici University Student Marmara Newspaper Photographer Lawyer Pastor Church, Protestant Armenian Newspaper Newspaper Newspaper, Writer (Aras Yayınevi) (Aras

121 122 BAKAR, Diran(2001).“Uygulamadan AyrımcılıkÖrnekleri BİLAL, Melissa(2004).TheLostLullabyandOtherStories AYAN CEYHAN,MügeandD.KOCABAŞ(2009).“Çift EUROPEAN COMMISSION(2010).“Türkiye2010Yılı ORGANIZATION FORSECURITYANDCOOPPERATION ATAOĞLU, Sevan(2001).“DarAlandaKısaPaslaşmalar”, ASLANDAŞ, A.S.(1996).“1980SonrasıDernekler”, ARTİNİAN, Vartan(2004).OsmanlıDevleti’ndeErmeni ARAL, Fahri(der)(2011).İmparatorluğunÇöküşDöneminde ALTINAY, A.GülveF.ÇETİN(2009).Torunlar,Metis AKÇAM, Taner(1999).İnsanHaklarıveErmeniSorunu: US DEPARTMENTOFSTATE(2010).“Turkey:Bureau Bibliography İstanbul BarosuİnsanHaklarıMerkezi, İstanbul Üstü veUluslarArasıHukuktaAzınlık Hakları ve AzınlıkVakıflarınınSorunları”, master thesis,BoğaziçiUniversity. About BeingArmenianinTurkey egitimdehaklar.org/pdf/6.pdf > Dillilik veEğitim”,EğitimReformuGrubu, of MinorityLanguagesintheBroadcastMedia”, IN EUROPE(OSCE)(2003).“Guidelinesontheuse of Turkey)issue,August-September2001,TÜSİAD. Görüş magazine“TürkiyeliErmeniler”(Armenians İletişim Yayınları,İstanbul. Cumhuriyet DönemiTürkiyeAnsiklopedisi İstanbul. Anayasasının Doğuşu,1839-1863,ArasYayıncılık, Sorunları, BilgiÜniversitesiYayınları,İstanbul. Osmanlı Ermenileri:BilimselSorumlulukveDemokrasi Yayınları, İstanbul. Yayınları, Ankara. İttihat Terakki’denKurtuluşSavaşı’na www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/148991.htm International ReligiousFreedomReport” EUROPEAN COMMISSIONFORDEMOCRACYTHROUGH EKMEKÇİOĞLU, L.andM.BİLAL(2006).BirAdalet DÖŞEMECİYAN, K.,Y.ÖZUZUNM.BEBİROĞLU ------(2005). “Bizve Sivilleşme”, DİNK, Hrant(2004).“BuZihniyetDeğişmedikçe”, ÇETİN, F.(2004).Anneannem,MetisYayınları,İstanbul BOZKURT, Gülnihal(1996). “Birleşmiş MilletlerİnsanHaklarıEvrenselBildirgesi”, “United NationsConventiononthePreventionand BRAUDE, B.(1982).“FoundationMythsofMilletSystem”, BEBİROĞLU, Murat.“2011’eGirerkenPatriklikve BARDAKOĞLU, Ali.“İmamSosyalHayataKarışmalı”, 22 November. AD(2007)001-e.pdf 2007, com/2011/02/musluman-olmayan-azinliklar- 2011”, February2011,. Human Rights,Article18) Madde 18.(UnitedNationsUniversalDeclarationof 78/volume-78-I-1021-English.pdf>. treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20 Punishment oftheCrimeGenocide”,< New YorkandLondon. Ottoman Empireiçinde,Holmes&MeierPublishers, Braude veLewis(der.),ChristiansandJewsinthe html.> com/2011/01/2011e-girerken-patriklik-ve-patrik. Patrik Seçimi”,< Gayrimüslim Osmanlı Birgün, KAYA, A.veT.TARHANLI(der)(2006).Türkiye’de KAPLAN, SefaandM.KÜÇÜK(2010).“PatriklikKavgası”, KALİGİAN, DikranMesrob(2009).ArmenianOrganization KABOĞLU, İ.(ed)(2002).Ulusal,UlusalüstüveUluslararası İSTANBUL BAROSUİNSANHAKLARIMERKEZİAZINLIK İNSAN HAKLARIORTAKPLATFORMU(İHOP)(2010). İNSAN HAKLARIDERNEĞİ(İHD)(2000).TuzlaErmeni İÇDUYGU, AhmetandAliB.SONER(2006).“Turkish IŞIK, T.(2011).“TürkHalkıBirTekKendiniSever” ------(2010). “OpinionontheLegalStatusofReligious KOPTAŞ, Rober(2008).“Sorunların KaynağıGüvensizlik KOÇOĞLU, Yahya(2001).AzınlıkGençleriAnlatıyor KILIÇDAĞI, Ohannes(2006).“AbdülhamidMisyonerleri KAYA, Nurcan(2009).UnutmakmıAsimilasyonmu? ------(2010). “KanayanBirYara:DinÖzgürlüğü”, Yurttaşlık Tartışmaları Çoğunluk veAzınlıkPolitikaları:ABSürecinde com.tr/goster/ShowNew.aspx?id=16427362> Hürriyet, 2December,. 16 March2010,

123 124 ------(2005). “AzınlıkmıVatandaşmı?”, YUMUL, A.(1999-2000).“Osmanlı’nın İlkAnayasası”, ------(2010). ULUSLARARASI HRANTDİNKVAKFI(2009).HrantDink: TOKSÖZ, F.(1983).“Dernekler”, TER MİNASSİAN,Anaide(1992).ErmeniDevrimci SOSYAL DEĞİŞİMDERNEĞİ(2010).“UlusalBasında REYNA, Y.veE.M.ZONANO(2003).SonYasal REDGATE, A.E.(2000).TheArmenians,Oxford,Blackwell. PULUR, H.(2011).“70YılSonraVarlıkVergisi”, PROTESTAN KİLİSELERDERNEĞİHUKUKVE PREECE, J.J.(1998).NationalMinoritiesandtheEuropean PENTASSUGLİA, G.(2004).“Introduction”,Mechanisms PANOSSİAN, Razmik(2006).TheArmenians:FromKings ÖZUZUN, Y.(2003).“BirAzınlıkKlasiğiDaha”, ÖZTÜRK, Veysel(2009).“TarihDersKitaplarıveİnsan Toplum veBilim,Kış83,p.338-351. İzlenmesi”, İstanbul. under theproject“MedyadaNefretSöyleminin Yaralayan Fiiller:NefretSöylemiveSuçları” presented attheconference“İncitenSözler, Bu KöşedekiAdam,2009,İstanbul. İstanbul. Türkiye Ansiklopedisi,c.2.,İletişimYayınları, İletişim Yayınları,İstanbul. Hareketinde MilliyetçilikveSosyalizm1887-1912, uploads/2010/10/nefret_suclari_light-.pdf> . protestankiliseler.org/index.php?option=com_ “Hak İhlalleriİzlemeRaporu”,< İNANÇ ÖZGÜRLÜĞÜİZLEMEKURULU(2010). York. Nation-States Ssytem,OxfordUniversityPress,New Europe, Strasbourg. for theImplementationofMinorityRights, Company, London. and PrieststoMerchantsCommissars,Hurst March. pdf> tarihvakfi.org.tr/dkih/download/mutlu%20ozturk. Kitaplarında İnsanHakları”Projesi,< Haklarına Dair:BazıSatırbaşları”,TarihVakfı“Ders Nefret SuçlarıveSöylemi,papers Cumhuriyet Dönemi

http://www. Türkiye’de , Gözlem http://www. Council of Milliyet Radikal, 23

, 26 ZEKİYAN, BoğosLevon(2001).ErmenilerveModernite, W Başbakanlık Genelgesi,13Mayıs2010,2010/13tarihli 05.01.2004 tarihve3530sayılıAzınlıkTaliKomisyonu 07.11.1962 tarihve28-4869sayılıAzınlıkTaliKomisyonu L ------(2009a). “VADİP’inKuruluşAmacı,Üyeleri veBasın “ ------(2004). Agos (2003).“HıristiyanAzınlıklarınRuhaniTemsilcilerinin N 20.2.2008 tarihve5737sayılıVakıflarKanunu,27 Vakıflar Kanunu1936Beyannamesi.(FoundationsLaw 5 Haziran1935tarihlive2762sayılıVakıflarKanunu,13 aws directives and fromews N ebsites İstanbul. translated byAltuğYılmaz,ArasYayıncılık, İstanbul. Yurttaşlık Tartışmaları Çoğunluk veAzınlıkPolitikaları:ABSürecinde eskiler/2010/05/20100513-17.htm

q Resmi Gazete(FoundationsLaw spapers and içinde, TESEVYayınları, > , Nor Zartonk(2010).“BozukDüzendeSağlam ÇarkOlmaz”, ------(2010). “Ermenilerin PatrikKriziMahkemelik”,2 ------(2006b).“Vakıf ReformuKöşkeTakıldı”,30 Radikal (2006a).“CHP’ninİtirazı:KarşılıklılıkİlkesiYok ------(2011). “Karagözyan Yetimhanesi”,16March. Hürriyet (2006).“TapuArşivlerini‘Sınırlı’Kullanın”, Doğan HaberAjansı(2011).“Org.Koşaner’denşoktespit”, ------(2009b) “Malatya-Merkez-SurpAsdvadzadzin Armenian onwebForum(2009a).“BizlerMalatya’nın 16 Eylül2006, alternatif-tarih-yazilmaya-calisiliyor--son-dakika- 20 May 2011, . discuforum.info/t3200-Malatya-Tas-Horan- Taş HoranErmeniKilisesi”,. 6 May. Aratmıyor”, 25March. March. Seçiyor”, 18February. 14 January. Yeniden Değerlendirecek”,6August. Karşılamayan Açıklama”,6August. Seçimlerine İlişkinGelişmeler”. >. “Orak AzınlıkEylemPlanı”,< İstanbulBilgiÜniversitesi,SosyolojiveEğitim “Patriğimizi Seçmekİstiyoruz!”signaturecampaign, “Özür Diliyorum”signaturecampaign, Hrant DinkFoundation“NefretSöylemi”,< Hrant DinkFoundation,< Azınlık TaliKomisyonuveSorunlarını W ebsites com/haber/orak-azinlik-eylem-plani--32908.html> www.secbir.org> Sociology andEducationStudiesUnit) ozurdiliyoruz.com> nefretsoylemi.org> B0.aspx?content=130> http://www.stratejikboyut. http://www. www.

125 126 Turkic republics, and minority issues. issues. minority Turkic and republics, in post-Soviet process nationalization policies, nationality Turkish and Soviet nationalisms, Balkan on books and Turkish in journals various foreign and articles of number and TESEV; by published supported aresearch on a based 2009) Press, University Turkish, Bilgi İstanbul: (in Community-Individual-Citizen Turkey: in Armenians Kentel) Ferhat Karakaşlı, Karin Füsun Üstel, (with coauthored 2004); Turkish, Bağlam, İstanbul: (in Security and Justice Gender, Global Rights, Human Migration, Relations: International in Issues Transboundary (with Kaya) Eren,Ayhan 2000); (İstanbul, Citizen and State Nation, (with Tokay) Gül Redefining Eren, 1995); (İstanbul: Order International New the of AMirror : Saybaşılı) (with Kemali coedited has (2002). prize Foundation’s She research Historical the Turkish received and Turkish, 2001) İletişim, İstanbul: (in 1931-1946 Period, One-Party During “Gray-Wolf’: Turkism From Turan’ as published was to dissertation doctoral (1990). Her University Boğaziçi from Science Political (1975) Economics in Ph.D of and School London from Relations in Industrial M.Sc an (MURCIR). She has Relations for International Center Research University Marmara of director the as acts and Istanbul University, Marmara of Relations International Science and of Political Science at the Department Political of member is afaculty Özdoğan Günay Göksu G About The Authors ünay G Ö öksu zdoğ an Bilgi University Sociology Department. Sociology Bilgi University at position Turkish. assistantship ateaching holds He English from stories and reviews book translated has He Ottomanism. of concept historical the and history Armenians Ottoman Ottoman, late on articles published has He University. Bogazici of Department History the at aPh. D. Candidate currently Revolution”. is He 1908 the after Armenians Anatolian among Ottomanism and tranformation Bourgeois “The as University, entitled Bogazici of History Turkish for Modern Institute Atatürk in the thesis his master’s completed He Departments. Relations Sociology, Science International and Political and University Bogazici from degree undergraduate his double-major completed Kılıçdağı Ohannes O hannes K ılıçda ğ ı 127 128