January 2012 Archive

According to Turkish law, anyone who acknowledges the Armenian Genocide will be subject to a jail sentence and a fine. According to the new French law, voted recently by both legislative chambers and soon to be ratified by President Sarkozy anyone who denies the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust will be subject to a jail sentence and a fine.

I guess, not just because I am an Armenian, I am a criminal in Turkey but not in France!

The 1915 Armenian Genocide that killed approximately 1,500,000 people has been recognized by an overwhelming majority of world historians. The independent International Association of Genocide Scholars in a letter to Turkey’s current Prime Minister Erdogan wrote:

“On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens - an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.”

Yet the Turkish Government continues to deny the Armenian Genocide and punishes those that acknowledge that it did happen.  The government even arrested and jailed its 2006-Nobel Prize Literature winner Orhan Pamuk for making a reference to it in a newspaper.

Denial is a very basic human reaction. Sofia K. Ogden, author of Psychology of Denial explains that denial is essentially a defense mechanism that helps us deal with anxiety and unpleasant realities. This attitude leads us to give ourselves excuses for our behavior and/or blame others for our mistakes. Aaron Ben Ze’ev, author of The Subtlety of Emotions believes that denial is a mean of coping with shame. “In denial, we usually de not deny the occurrence of the shaming situation - something that is very difficult to do (apparently the Turkish Government has no problem there!) - but rather that our own activity in that situation violated any norm and hence there is no reason to feel shame.

However denial is not sustainable because truth (or reality) will ultimately prevail, sooner or later.

In the Jewish and Christian tradition, recognizing our faults (sins) is the first step towards forgiveness and redemption.

Acknowledging and taking responsibility for our mistakes is liberating and allows us to learn from them and move on.

President Obama said in a speech to the Turkish parliament:

“History is often tragic but, unresolved, can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future.”

Last week, the president of the Swiss National Bank resigned because his wife, without his prior knowledge or consent purchased $500,000.- just prior to the SNB taking measures to limit the fall of the U.S. dollar. (See my most recent blog post)

Such a situation poses an interesting ethical dilemma.

One the one hand we should value loyalty particularly to those we love but on the other hand we have to be careful, in our loyalty, not to compromise on our own values.

How responsible should we be for the ethical lapses of those close to us such as spouse, other family members and close friends? How loyal should we be to them?

Aaron Ben-Ze’ev in his book The Subtlety of Emotions puts it quite succinctly when he asks: “Does our loyalty to someone imply immoral behavior to someone else?”

This is a difficult question.

We know that loyalty is a strong value and a character trait highly appreciated in society. Yet blind loyalty is dangerous and can lead to moral blindness.  For instance, the blind loyalty of millions of Germans to the Nazi regime has lead them to condone the killing of 6 million Jews.

How can we determine what should be the limits of our loyalty?

Let me list a few questions whose answer might help us determine the line that we do not want to cross.

1.       Will I be directly or indirectly partaking in an activity I strongly disapprove of?

2.       Is the activity I am objecting to illegal? In that case could I be considered by the authorities as a direct or indirect accomplice?

3.       Have I used the maximum of my influence of dissuasion on my loved one for him or her to desist from the questionable activity? We do have to remember though that there is a limit to that influence since everyone one is responsible for his or her own actions.

As Thomas Cochrane, the 19^th Century British Marquis and Naval Officer once said:

“Loyalty to the family must be merged into loyalty to the community, loyalty to the community into loyalty to the nation, and loyalty to the nation into loyalty to mankind. The citizen of the future must be a citizen of the world.”

Philipp Hildebrand, the President of the Swiss National Bank (the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Reserve) came under attack last week when it was revealed by the press that his wife, Pakistani-born Kashya, an economist and owner of an art gallery in Zurich had purchased approximately $500,000 dollars and had made a potential profit of $75,000.- This transaction came just a few days prior to a decision made by the Swiss National Bank to intervene in the currency market to prevent the rise of the Swiss Francs (or the fall of the U.S. dollars) in order to protect Swiss exports which includes Swiss Tourism.

PricewaterhouseCoopers who was hired by the Federal Council to oversee the Swiss National Bank confirmed that there was nothing illegal in the transaction.

The 48 year-old-Swiss banker has had an excellent national and international reputation in the past. He has been a strong advocate for strong bank regulation. He also played an important role in setting new global banking standards to limit risks.

The transaction was revealed by the Swiss conservative (some call it right-wing) weekly Weltwoche who is closely linked to Mr. Blocher a very conservative (anti-immigrant politician) and member of the parliament. He is the founder and former leader of the largest political party in Switzerland. He personally attacked Mr. Hildebrand asking for his resignation. The magazine had been informed of the transaction by an employee of the Bank Sarasin where Mr. Hildebrand has an account. The employee of the bank was fired and faces legal consequences for breaching Swiss Banks secrecy laws.

Facing the criticism Mr. Hildebrand gave a press conference and explained that he was unaware of the transaction until the next day and that he immediately instructed the bank not to make any more trades without his approval.  He apologized for the incident and said that his only regret was that he did not ask the bank to reverse the transaction. Furthermore Mr. Hildebrand donated the profit he (or his wife) made on the transaction to a not for profit organization in Switzerland. He also offered to make public, either to the government or to the public all his prior financial transactions.

The reactions to the press conference were overwhelmingly positive.  The Swiss press judged him to be sincere, honest, transparent and of good faith.

The Federal Council, the Executive branch of the Swiss Government who appoints the president of the Swiss National Bank accepted Mr. Hildebrand explanations.

However, although Mr. Hildebrand did everything right, a good example of how one should react when accused of inappropriate action or lack of judgment. He announced his resignation this morning! In a second press conference he said “I came to the conclusion that it’s not possible for me to deliver definite proof that my wife requested the currency transaction without my knowledge.”

The Swiss stock market was down this morning in reaction to his resignation. This is a sad story and a great loss for Switzerland.

As a friend told me once: “The truth is not always believable.”

This story brings up a difficult ethical issue: How responsible are we for the wrongdoing of those close to us?

That will be the topic of my next blog.

Twenty six year old Florida A&M University student   Robert Champion Jr died last month from a suspected hazing episode. His death has been ruled a homicide. According to the examiner’s summary autopsy report he was “previously healthy (when he) dies within an hour of a hazing incident during which he suffered multiple blunt trauma blows to his body.

Hazing is described as a ritual (rites of passage) to join a particular group, such as a fraternity a team or even a gang. It usually involves harassment, abuse and humiliation. Hazing is a form of consensual bullying, a sado-masochistic cruel exercise. Hazing is widely practiced in the US although it is illegal in 44 of our 50 states. According to Hank Nuwer, a leader in the fight against hazing and author of the book Wrongs of Passage, there have been 87 deaths due to hazing in the U.S., between 1979 and 2011.

Dr. Susan Lipkins, a psychologist and expert on campus violence and author of Preventing Hazing- How Parents, Teachers and Coaches Can Stop the Violence, Harassment, and Humiliation, says that “hazing is about group dynamics and proving one’s worthiness to become a member of the specific group.”

She describes what is called the blueprint of hazing when the newcomer, or victim, is hazed. Once accepted by the group, the victim becomes a bystander, and watches as others get hazed. Eventually, the bystander achieves senior status and power, and becomes a perpetrator.” This is a cycle that often happens in case of abuse, when the abused later in life becomes the abuser.

Hazing poses some major ethical concern both for the victim and the perpetrator.

Why would anyone subject himself or herself to such physical pain and psychological humiliation? Is it the profound need to be accepted by others that leads some to subject themselves to such abuse?

Alfred Adler, the renowned psychologist and a contemporary of Sigmund Freud believed that we all have a fundamental need to belong. He wrote “social feeling is the crucial and deciding factor in normal development.”

However we should make sure that any action we take to fulfill the need to belong (or any other fundamental need) is not a threat to our self-preservation both physical and emotional.

As for the perpetrator, hazing is an abuse of power that violates some fundamental ethical values such as respect, empathy and fairness.

As Hank Nuwer once wrote:

“Hazing is an extraordinary activity that, when it occurs often enough, becomes perversely ordinary as those who engage in it grow desensitized to its inhumanity.”