If a person says something, should we give importance only to what is said is true or false, or it is also important to know about who and for what it is said? There is no universal answer to all.
Let’s assume that Ilham Aliyev is saying that the human rights are violated in Armenia. This is 100 percent true. However, the logic dictates that at least two factors should be taken into consideration. First, it is said by the leader of a dictatorship (truly totalitarian) country. Secondly, this leader openly intimidates destroying our country and to do so that Armenians no longer exist in this region.
Thus, to disappear from the person of these words, in this case, is not possible. But these reservations apparently should be made when the author of the judgment is sending clear and unambiguous signals as to what are his objectives. For example, both the words and the actions of the Azerbaijan leadership do not leave any doubt about his intentions.
It’s another question when you are trying to guess the persons’ intentions, the kind of intentions about which he does not pronounce. A classic example is the issue of the rights of the same person. If someone in Armenia is talking about it, is it right to attach the label of “pro-Western” to him and immediately getting into the details about “homosexual Europe” and zoofilms. It is an excessively easy way. Let’s say, the human right defender is talking about the cases of torture on people at the police “urban stations”, and as a “proper response” to it, it is said that the speaker is a grant-eater and intends to justify the grants coming from the West. In this case, this circumstance, even if it is true, is secondary as compared to the reported fact. The facts are either true or not true. Also, the Soviet style reversal of “while in your country, the black people are oppressed” is not adequate.
Read also
The same is certainly true from the “opposite side”. If someone, let’s say, is saying that the West has also its share of sin in the fate of hundreds of thousands of refugees in the Middle East, and particularly the United States, then the best response is not to say that the person expressing such an opinion is executing the order of the Russian Embassy to Armenia, or his brain is washed out by Russian TV channels propaganda. It is more advisable to consider this allegation intrinsically.
In short, there are cases when an opinion expressing person and the intentions matter, while there are cases when they do not matter.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
