O Genocídio Armênio (1914-1916), reconhecido por alguns estudiosos como o protótipo do genocídio moderno, é negado até hoje pelo governo turco, apesar dos protestos da comunidade armênia dispersa em todo o mundo. Oficialmente, a Turquia reconhece que ocorreram muitas mortes, mas nega a intenção estatal do ato genocida. Na mesma época ou até mesmo um pouco antes, os gregos a outra grande minoria cristã do Império Otomano também sofreram massacres e perseguições, com um saldo de centenas de milhares de mortos, vivenciando situações semelhantes às sofridas pelos armênios. Sob este mesmo viés, movimentos nacionalistas e imperialistas europeus levaram à perda significativa de territórios do Império Otomano, forçando, em consequência, a mobilização de centenas de milhares de muçulmanos que, fugindo do domínio cristão, instalaram-se na Anatólia, fortalecendo as questões etno-religiosas. Hoje, essas histórias seguem sendo motivo de questionamento, ainda que esquecidas ou silenciadas por alguns grupos. O objetivo deste estudo é contribuir para a elucidação desta polêmica, reunindo um conjunto de informações que permita uma compreensão mais ampla do assunto. Com base na historiografia especializada no tema, procuramos inventariar e comparar as versões de diversos autores, cujos discursos são complementares ou mesmo antagônicos, bem como a posição oficial do governo turco, postada no site do Ministério das Relações Internacionais da Turquia. Somam-se aqui os testemunhos de sobreviventes e as declarações de diplomatas e missionários estrangeiros que presenciaram os acontecimentos. / The Armenian Genocide (1914-1916), recognized by some scholars as the prototipe of the modern genocide, is denied by the turkish government even today, despite the protests of the armenian community around the world. Officially, Turkey recognizes that many people died in the period, but denies the genocidal intent. At the same time or little before. The greeks the other major minority of the Ottoman Empire also suffered with massacres and persecutions, resulting in hundreds of thousands dead, experiencing similar situations as those suffered by the Armenians. In the same period, nationalist and imperialist movements led to great losses of territory of the Ottoman Empire, forcing, as a result, the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of muslims, escaping from the Christian rule, who settled at Anatólia, stressing the etno-religious conflicts. Today, those stories are still a reason to argue, even if forgotten or silenced by some groups. The intention of this work is help on the elucidation of the polemica, collecting a set of informations that may allow a wider understanding of the subject. Using the specialized historiography, we tried to catalogue and compare the many opinions of authors, whose speeches are complementary or even opposing, as well as the official version of the Turkish government, posted at the Ministery of Foreign Affairs website. Here is added the voices of the survivors and the statements of foreign missionaries and diplomats, who witnessed the events.

O Genocídio Armênio (1914-1916), reconhecido por alguns estudiosos como o protótipo do genocídio moderno, é negado até hoje pelo governo turco, apesar dos protestos da comunidade armênia dispersa em todo o mundo. Oficialmente, a Turquia reconhece que ocorreram muitas mortes, mas nega a intenção estatal do ato genocida. Na mesma época ou até mesmo um pouco antes, os gregos a outra grande minoria cristã do Império Otomano também sofreram massacres e perseguições, com um saldo de centenas de milhares de mortos, vivenciando situações semelhantes às sofridas pelos armênios. Sob este mesmo viés, movimentos nacionalistas e imperialistas europeus levaram à perda significativa de territórios do Império Otomano, forçando, em consequência, a mobilização de centenas de milhares de muçulmanos que, fugindo do domínio cristão, instalaram-se na Anatólia, fortalecendo as questões etno-religiosas. Hoje, essas histórias seguem sendo motivo de questionamento, ainda que esquecidas ou silenciadas por alguns grupos. O objetivo deste estudo é contribuir para a elucidação desta polêmica, reunindo um conjunto de informações que permita uma compreensão mais ampla do assunto. Com base na historiografia especializada no tema, procuramos inventariar e comparar as versões de diversos autores, cujos discursos são complementares ou mesmo antagônicos, bem como a posição oficial do governo turco, postada no site do Ministério das Relações Internacionais da Turquia. Somam-se aqui os testemunhos de sobreviventes e as declarações de diplomatas e missionários estrangeiros que presenciaram os acontecimentos. / The Armenian Genocide (1914-1916), recognized by some scholars as the prototipe of the modern genocide, is denied by the turkish government even today, despite the protests of the armenian community around the world. Officially, Turkey recognizes that many people died in the period, but denies the genocidal intent. At the same time or little before. The greeks the other major minority of the Ottoman Empire also suffered with massacres and persecutions, resulting in hundreds of thousands dead, experiencing similar situations as those suffered by the Armenians. In the same period, nationalist and imperialist movements led to great losses of territory of the Ottoman Empire, forcing, as a result, the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of muslims, escaping from the Christian rule, who settled at Anatólia, stressing the etno-religious conflicts. Today, those stories are still a reason to argue, even if forgotten or silenced by some groups. The intention of this work is help on the elucidation of the polemica, collecting a set of informations that may allow a wider understanding of the subject. Using the specialized historiography, we tried to catalogue and compare the many opinions of authors, whose speeches are complementary or even opposing, as well as the official version of the Turkish government, posted at the Ministery of Foreign Affairs website. Here is added the voices of the survivors and the statements of foreign missionaries and diplomats, who witnessed the events.

This research examines how racism is hidden and denied by the press, and how blame is attributed to individuals in crime news stories. This research heavily relies of van Dijk's (2015) six discursive strategies to reveal how racism is hidden and denied in the press: positive self-presentation, denial and counter-attack, moral blackmail, subtle denials, mitigation, and defense and offense. Specifically, the Chapel Hill shooting is used as an example of a crime news story for my case study. This study will use framing as the primary method, and critical discourse analysis will be used to guide my interpretations of the frames. Frames are defined by Entman (1993) as texts that select "some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient" in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. I will examine words and phrases used when referring to the perpetrator and the victims in the crime story, and examine manifest frames. I begin by explicating terms that my research is founded upon: ideology, critical discourse analysis, race and racism, blame, and framing. Newspaper articles are collected and analyzed for van Dijk's six discursive strategies. The difference between national and regional news coverage is also examined. My findings suggest there are two gaps in van Dijk's six discursive strategies. I propose the addition of two discursive strategies that the press use to deny racism: negative self-presentation and contradiction.

No description available.

Thesis (MPhil)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / Bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: When South African President Thabo Mbeki began doubting that HIV was the cause of AIDS in the late 1990s, failed to provide AIDS medication and stalled its introduction, openly supported HIV pseudoscientists and doubted HIV statistics, one of the most widely reported debates in the country’s history emerged. When two independent 2008 studies found that the death of approximately 330 000 South Africans could have been prevented between 1999 and 2007 if President Mbeki’s HIV policy made provision for AIDS medication, the AIDS debate was re-introduced, and it was these findings that provided the motivation for this study. The purpose of this study was to provide a historical perspective on HIV reporting in the media during Mbeki’s presidency in order to answer how the media reflected and reported on his HIV policy, and also to provide possible reasons for the way the media reported on the matter. Research has shown that the government (particularly President Mbeki and his health ministers) and AIDS social movement organisations (particularly the Treatment Action Campaign [TAC]) were the main actors framing the AIDS epidemic in South Africa. Thus, this study examined the media’s HIV trail in reporting on these actors’ responses and counter-responses by means of content analysis. Qualitative analysis, in the form of questionnaires sent to health journalists who reported on HIV during this period, was completed in order to provide the possible reasons for the media’s reporting style. During the content analysis it was found that the media reporting was mostly positive towards the TAC and mostly critical towards Mbeki and his government, and the results of the questionnaires verified this, but also provided reasons why the media were mostly critical of Mbeki and his government. One principal reason was that the government’s policies on HIV were so blatantly contrary to scientific evidence and medically unethical that it was the media’s duty to fulfil their watchdog and surveillance role. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Toe die Suid-Afrikaanse president, Thabo Mbeki, in die laat jare negentig begin het om die oorsaak van VIGS in twyfel te trek, daarin misluk het om VIGS-medikasie te verskaf en produksie daarvan vertraag het, en openlik MIV-pseudowetenskaplikes ondersteun het en MIV-statistiek bevraagteken het, het ’n debat met moontlik van dié wydste nuusdekking in die geskiedenis van die land posgevat. Die VIGS-debat het weer op die voorgrond beland nadat twee onafhanklike studies in 2008 bevind het sowat 330 000 Suid-Afrikaners se dood kon tussen 1999 en 2007 vermy gewees het indien president Mbeki se MIV-beleid voorsiening gemaak het vir die verskaffing van VIGS-medikasie. Hierdie bevindinge het die motivering vir die studie verskaf. Die doel van hierdie studie was om ’n historiese perspektief van die mediadekking van MIV tydens Mbeki se presidentskap te verskaf om sodoende vas te stel hoe die media die debat oor Mbeki se MIV-beleid weerspieël het, maar ook om die redes te bepaal vir die manier waarop die media oor die kwessie berig het. Navorsing het getoon die regering (spesifiek president Mbeki en sy gesondheidsministers) en aktivistegroepe (spesifiek die Treatment Action Campaign [TAC]) was die hoofkarakters betrokke by die fokussering van die VIGS-epidemie in Suid-Afrika. Dus het hierdie studie probeer om die media se MIV-spore met betrekking tot beriggewing oor hierdie akteurs se stellings en reaksies deur middel van inhoudanalise te bestudeer. Kwalitatiewe analise in die vorm van vraelyste wat aan gesondheidsjoernaliste gestuur is wat in hierdie tydperk beriggewing oor MIV gedoen het, is gebruik om moontlike redes te verskaf vir die manier van beriggewing. Tydens die inhoudanalise is bevind dat mediadekking meestal positief teenoor die TAC was en meestal negatief teenoor Mbeki en sy regering. Die resultate van die vraelyste het dít bevestig, en redes verskaf waarom die media meestal krities was teenoor Mbeki en sy regering. Een van die vernaamste redes was dat die regering se beleidsrigtings met betrekking tot MIV so blatant teen wetenskaplike bewyse gekant was en boonop medies oneties was, dat dit juis die media se plig was om die rol van waghond te speel.

No description available.

Die vorliegende Arbeit analysiert den Umgang mit dem Tatbestand der Holocaust-Leugnung durch die Europäische Union (EU) und den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR). Derzeit befinden sich diese in einer heiklen Situation: Sie müssen das Gedenken an ein für die europäische Identität zentrales historisches Ereignis – den Holocaust – pflegen und schützen und zugleich die Achtung der Grundrechte, insbesondere der Meinungsfreiheit, gewährleisten. Diese besondere Situation erfordert eine gründliche Untersuchung des europäischen Umgangs mit dem Tatbestand der Holocaust-Leugnung. Der erste Teil der Dissertation steckt den Anwendungsbereich der europarechtlichen Verpflichtungen zur Kriminalisierung der Holocaust-Leugnung ab. Bewertet wird insbesondere die Bedeutung des Rahmenbeschlusses 2008/913/JHA über Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit für die EU-Mitgliedstaaten. Dabei werden einige Beispiele der Umsetzung in staatliches Recht dargestellt. Der zweite Teil der Arbeit befasst sich mit der Rechtsprechung des EGMR und untersucht das Verhältnis zwischen dem Tatbestand der Holocaust-Leugnung und der Meinungsfreiheit mit dem Ziel, die Grundsätze, nach denen Staaten verpflichtet sind, entsprechende Äußerungen zu kriminalisieren, herzuleiten. Die übergreifenden Ziele der Untersuchung sind: a) den Charakter des Zusammenspiels zwischen EU und EGMR herauszuarbeiten; b) zu ermitteln, ob die jeweiligen Positionen gegensätzlich oder komplementär sind; c) die Rechtsnatur und den Inhalt der für die Mitgliedstaaten begründeten Verpflichtungen zu bestimmen; d) herauszuarbeiten, ob eine europaweite Kriminalisierung verpflichtend ist oder lediglich gefördert werden soll; und e) ob beziehungsweise unter welchen Bedingungen ein mit Kriminalstrafe sanktioniertes Verbot der Holocaust-Leugnung erstrebenswert wäre. / The present study aims to analyse the legal treatment of the crime of denialism by the two main actors in European justice, namely, the European Union (‘EU’) and the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’). Presently, these two systems find themselves in a delicate position: they must cherish and protect the memory of an historical event – the Holocaust – which is central to Europe’s own identity, while simultaneously promoting respect for fundamental rights such as the freedom of speech. This unique balance raises a need for a thorough investigation into Europe’s approach to the crime of denialism. The dissertation’s first section seeks to measure the scope of EU-imposed obligations to make denialism a crime. Notably, the impact on EU Member States of the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on racism and xenophobia is assessed, with illustrations of a few archetypal examples of domestic implementing legislation. The second part of the dissertation turns to the jurisprudence of the ECtHR to examine the relationship between Holocaust denial as a crime and the right to freedom of expression, with a view to deducing the principles under which States must comply in the criminalization of this kind of utterance. The work’s overall goals are to assess: a) the nature of interactions between the EU and ECtHR; b) whether their positions on denialism are better portrayed in terms of contrast or mutual support; c) the legal nature and content of the obligations originating for the Member States; d) whether a Europe-wide criminal prohibition on denialism is dictated or simply encouraged; and e) whether such a prohibition would be desirable, and if so, under what conditions.