Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Türkiye'deki azınlıklar" in Turkish language version.
Oran farther points out that the rights set out for the four categories are stated to be the ‘fundamental law’ of the land, so that no legislation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations or prevail over them (article 37). [...] According to the Turkish state, only Greek, Armenian and Jewish non-Muslims were granted minority protection by the Lausanne Treaty. [...] Except for non-Muslim populations - that is, Greeks, Jews and Armenians - none of the other minority groups’ language rights have been de jure protected by the legal system in Turkey.
Today, the largest communities of Circassians, about 5–7 million, live in Turkey, and about 200,000 Circassians live in the Middle Eastern countries (Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Israel). The 1960s and 1970s witnessed a new wave of migration from diaspora countries to Europe and the United States. It is estimated that there are now more than 100,000 Circassian living in the European Union countries. The community in Kosovo expatriated to Adygea after the war in 1998.
The legal status of Armenians designed by the Treaty of Lausanne gave them the opportunity to establish their own schools, religious and secular organizations, to teach younger generations the Armenian language, to publish books and newspapers in Armenian, to worship in their churches etc. These regulations helped them to live as a community, to maintain their cultural values, i.e. to prolong Armenian identity.
The fact that Turkish constitutional law takes an even more restrictive approach to minority rights than required under the Treaty of Lausanne was recognised by the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in its concluding observations on the combined fourth to sixth periodic reports of Turkey. The CERD noted that “the treaty of Lausanne does not explicitly prohibit the recognition of other groups as minorities” and that Turkey should consider recognising the minority status of other groups, such as Kurds. In practice, this means that Turkey grants minority rights to “Greek, Armenian and Jewish minority communities while denying their possible impact for unrecognized minority groups (e.g. Kurds, Alevis, Arabs, Syriacs, Protestants, Roma etc.)”. Thus, the Turkish reservation purports to grant Turkey the freedom to limit a right intended for all persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities – in other words, a right which “establishes and recognises a right which is conferred on individuals belonging to minority groups” – to just one elevated subset of one category of minorities, namely particular non-Muslims. [...] Nothing in Turkey’s explanation indicates the level of importance that it attaches to the reservation. However, in its combined second and third periodic reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Turkey highlights that the state’s “supreme interests” require minority rights to be used “as a sign of respect for ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity” rather than “as a tool for separatism and secessionism”. To that end, Turkey reports that “it is essential that current practices are sustained”. The report indicates that Turkey considers its current practices relating to minority rights essential to the avoidance of separatism and secessionism, and that its current practice is part of its supreme interests.
The fact that Turkish constitutional law takes an even more restrictive approach to minority rights than required under the Treaty of Lausanne was recognised by the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in its concluding observations on the combined fourth to sixth periodic reports of Turkey. The CERD noted that “the treaty of Lausanne does not explicitly prohibit the recognition of other groups as minorities” and that Turkey should consider recognising the minority status of other groups, such as Kurds. In practice, this means that Turkey grants minority rights to “Greek, Armenian and Jewish minority communities while denying their possible impact for unrecognized minority groups (e.g. Kurds, Alevis, Arabs, Syriacs, Protestants, Roma etc.)”. Thus, the Turkish reservation purports to grant Turkey the freedom to limit a right intended for all persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities – in other words, a right which “establishes and recognises a right which is conferred on individuals belonging to minority groups” – to just one elevated subset of one category of minorities, namely particular non-Muslims. [...] Nothing in Turkey’s explanation indicates the level of importance that it attaches to the reservation. However, in its combined second and third periodic reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Turkey highlights that the state’s “supreme interests” require minority rights to be used “as a sign of respect for ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity” rather than “as a tool for separatism and secessionism”. To that end, Turkey reports that “it is essential that current practices are sustained”. The report indicates that Turkey considers its current practices relating to minority rights essential to the avoidance of separatism and secessionism, and that its current practice is part of its supreme interests.
The legal status of Armenians designed by the Treaty of Lausanne gave them the opportunity to establish their own schools, religious and secular organizations, to teach younger generations the Armenian language, to publish books and newspapers in Armenian, to worship in their churches etc. These regulations helped them to live as a community, to maintain their cultural values, i.e. to prolong Armenian identity.
Oran farther points out that the rights set out for the four categories are stated to be the ‘fundamental law’ of the land, so that no legislation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations or prevail over them (article 37). [...] According to the Turkish state, only Greek, Armenian and Jewish non-Muslims were granted minority protection by the Lausanne Treaty. [...] Except for non-Muslim populations - that is, Greeks, Jews and Armenians - none of the other minority groups’ language rights have been de jure protected by the legal system in Turkey.
The fact that Turkish constitutional law takes an even more restrictive approach to minority rights than required under the Treaty of Lausanne was recognised by the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in its concluding observations on the combined fourth to sixth periodic reports of Turkey. The CERD noted that “the treaty of Lausanne does not explicitly prohibit the recognition of other groups as minorities” and that Turkey should consider recognising the minority status of other groups, such as Kurds. In practice, this means that Turkey grants minority rights to “Greek, Armenian and Jewish minority communities while denying their possible impact for unrecognized minority groups (e.g. Kurds, Alevis, Arabs, Syriacs, Protestants, Roma etc.)”. Thus, the Turkish reservation purports to grant Turkey the freedom to limit a right intended for all persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities – in other words, a right which “establishes and recognises a right which is conferred on individuals belonging to minority groups” – to just one elevated subset of one category of minorities, namely particular non-Muslims. [...] Nothing in Turkey’s explanation indicates the level of importance that it attaches to the reservation. However, in its combined second and third periodic reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Turkey highlights that the state’s “supreme interests” require minority rights to be used “as a sign of respect for ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity” rather than “as a tool for separatism and secessionism”. To that end, Turkey reports that “it is essential that current practices are sustained”. The report indicates that Turkey considers its current practices relating to minority rights essential to the avoidance of separatism and secessionism, and that its current practice is part of its supreme interests.
Today, the largest communities of Circassians, about 5–7 million, live in Turkey, and about 200,000 Circassians live in the Middle Eastern countries (Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Israel). The 1960s and 1970s witnessed a new wave of migration from diaspora countries to Europe and the United States. It is estimated that there are now more than 100,000 Circassian living in the European Union countries. The community in Kosovo expatriated to Adygea after the war in 1998.
The fact that Turkish constitutional law takes an even more restrictive approach to minority rights than required under the Treaty of Lausanne was recognised by the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in its concluding observations on the combined fourth to sixth periodic reports of Turkey. The CERD noted that “the treaty of Lausanne does not explicitly prohibit the recognition of other groups as minorities” and that Turkey should consider recognising the minority status of other groups, such as Kurds. In practice, this means that Turkey grants minority rights to “Greek, Armenian and Jewish minority communities while denying their possible impact for unrecognized minority groups (e.g. Kurds, Alevis, Arabs, Syriacs, Protestants, Roma etc.)”. Thus, the Turkish reservation purports to grant Turkey the freedom to limit a right intended for all persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities – in other words, a right which “establishes and recognises a right which is conferred on individuals belonging to minority groups” – to just one elevated subset of one category of minorities, namely particular non-Muslims. [...] Nothing in Turkey’s explanation indicates the level of importance that it attaches to the reservation. However, in its combined second and third periodic reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Turkey highlights that the state’s “supreme interests” require minority rights to be used “as a sign of respect for ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity” rather than “as a tool for separatism and secessionism”. To that end, Turkey reports that “it is essential that current practices are sustained”. The report indicates that Turkey considers its current practices relating to minority rights essential to the avoidance of separatism and secessionism, and that its current practice is part of its supreme interests.
