Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Engrish.

I'm still trying to figure this one out...

Turkey defeating California Assembly Bill 961
04.06.2009 00:55 GMT+04:00 Print version Send to mail

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ National and grassroots Turkish American associations joined power to defeat California Assembly Bill 961, a proposed law that sought to punish companies who did business in the Ottoman Empire or do business in Turkey today. The bill was introduced by Armenian Assemblyman Paul Krikorian and supported by nationalists Armenian groups, TurkishNY reports.

On the front line were activists from ATAA component organizations, the Turkish American Association of California (TAACA) and the Association of Turkish Americans of S. California (ATASC). Ergun Kirlikovali and Karahan Mete lead over 25 local Turkish Americans to provide statements at the public hearings of the Business and Professions and Judiciary Committees.

ATAA President Nurten Ural submitted a statement to the California Assembly that A.B. 961 was an unconstitutional creation of foreign policy and an unconstitutional interference against the private sector. President Nurten stated:

"A.B. 961 is nothing more than Armenian ethnic politics to legislate Turkish history and a genocide conviction against Turkey, and to vent that condemnation by punishing companies, including but not limited to energy (e.g., BP, Shell, Exxon), insurance (e.g., New York Life, AXA), and other sectors (e.g., Nestle), who did business with the Ottoman Empire nearly one hundred years ago and to prohibit them from doing business with the State of California. A.B. 961 contravenes good history, good law, and good social responsibility in business. A.B. 961 contradicts federal foreign affairs efforts to support truth and reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia."

6 comments:

Hayaser said...

thats no suprise for me
turGAYS have too much money and power. how can PK and his JEWnca ever stand up against this powerful (helps rule the world for zionists) enemy of ours with out the mass millions of dollars that turGAY and its zionists can spend at drop of a hat. JEWnca's 2.5 millions is joke againt turGAY and zionists 2.5 BILLION/yr they use to fight against us

Ani said...

Earlier Asbarez story clarifies it a bit: http://tinyurl.com/oq64b5

California is in severe financial straits. So obviously the thing to do would be make a list of every company who has done any business with not only Turkey but also the Ottoman Empire over the past one hundred years (!) and boycott them. Piece of cake and really practical!! Gosh, I wonder why this bill didn't pass...

Anonymous said...

Celebrating Armenian Turkish friendship!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a3qdVnJLuA

nazarian said...

Since I cut my ties with AAA and ANCA over their encouraging statement for SS after the March 1 massacre, I am out of the loop on proposals like this. It's not a bad bill. But there are two reservations that I have:

1. bills like this get defeated and have no chance of passing. Does this harm the cause?

2. looks like bills like this have motivated the Turks to get organized. Will they out-organize us?

Anyway, here is the complete text:

BILL NUMBER: AB 961 INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY

Assembly Member Krekorian

FEBRUARY 26, 2009

An act to add Article 14 (commencing with

Section 10485) to

Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Public

Contract Code,

relating to public contracts.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 961, as introduced, Krekorian.

Public contracts: state contract

eligibility: genocidal regimes.


Existing law authorizes contracting between state agencies and

private contractors and sets forth requirements for the procurement

of goods and services by state agencies and the various

responsibilities of state agencies and the Department of General

Services in implementing state contracting procedures and policies.


Existing law prohibits a scrutinized company, as defined, that is

involved in specified activities in Sudan, from entering into a

contract with a state agency for goods or services, subject to

specified requirements and exemptions.


This bill would prohibit a scrutinized company, as defined, that

was engaged in business with perpetrators of genocide, from entering

into a contract with a state agency for goods or services. The bill

also would require a prospective bidder for those state contracts,

that currently or within the previous 3 years has had business

activities or other operations outside of the United States, to

certify that the company is not a scrutinized company and would

impose civil penalties, as specified, for a company that provides a

false certification.


The bill would allow the Director of General Services, under specified

conditions, to permit a scrutinized company to enter into state contracts

for goods and services.


Vote: majority. Appropriation: no.

Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: no.

nazarian said...

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Article 14 (commencing with Section 10485) is added to

Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code, to

read:


Article 14. Prohibition on Contracts with Companies that Aided

Genocidal Regimes 10485. For purposes of this article, the

following definitions apply:


(a) “Genocide” means any of the following events:


(1) The atrocities committed by the Ottoman and

Turkish governments against Armenians from 1915 to 1923,

inclusive, which constituted the Armenian Genocide, and the

massacres of Armenians committed by the Ottoman Empire from

1894 to 1909, inclusive.


(2) The Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany against Jews from 1938

to 1945, inclusive, and the persecution and massacre of Roman,

Slavic, Polish, Soviet, disabled people, homosexuals, and political

and religious dissidents by the Nazi regime.


(3) The oppression, forced labor, and murder of the Cambodian

people by the Khmer Rouge regime from 1975 to 1979, inclusive.


(4) The aggression and ethnic cleansing committed by the Rwandan

Hutu majority against minority Rwandan Tutsis that constituted the

Rwandan genocide of 1994.


(5) The aggression and ethnic cleansing committed by elements of

the Bosnian Serb army against the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina

from 1992 to 1995, inclusive.


(b) “Scrutinized company” means a company, and any affiliates of

that company, that was engaged in business with the perpetrators of

genocide and that still holds looted or deposited assets of a victim

of a genocide or his or her heirs.


10485.5. (a) A scrutinized company is ineligible to, and shall

not, bid on or submit a proposal for a contract with a state agency

for goods or services.


(b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Director of General

Services may permit a scrutinized company, on a case-by-case basis,

to bid on or submit a proposal for a contract with a state agency for

goods or services, if it is in the best interests of the state to

permit the scrutinized company to bid on or submit a proposal for one

or more contracts with a state agency for goods or services.


(2) In making this determination, the Director of General Services

may consider attempts by a scrutinized company to settle claims

against it by a victim of genocide, or his or her heirs, or evidence

refuting those claims presented by the scrutinized company.

10486.


(a) A state agency shall require a company that submits a

bid or proposal with respect to a contract for goods or services,

that currently or within the previous three years has had business

activities or other operations outside of the United States, to

certify that the company is not a scrutinized company.


(b) A state agency shall not require a company that submits a bid

or proposal with respect to a contract for goods and services to

certify that the company is not a scrutinized company if the company

has obtained permission to bid on or submit a proposal for a contract

with a state agency pursuant to subdivision (b) of

Section 10485.5.


10486.5. (a) If the Department of General Services determines

that a company has submitted a false certification under Section

10486, the company shall be subject to all of the following:


(1) The company is liable for a civil penalty in an amount that is

equal to the greater of two hundred fifty thousand dollars

($250,000) or twice the amount of the contract for which a bid or

proposal was submitted.

nazarian said...

(2) The state agency or the Department of General Services may

terminate the contract with the company.


(3) The company is ineligible to, and shall not, bid on a state

contract for a period of not less than three years from the date the

state agency determines that the company submitted the false

certification.


(b) The Department of General Services shall report to the

Attorney General the name of the company that the Department of

General Services determined had submitted a false certification under

Section 10486, together with its information as to the false

certification, and the Attorney General shall determine whether to

bring a civil action against the company. The company shall pay all

costs and fees the plaintiff incurred in a civil action, including

costs incurred by the state agency and the Department of General

Services for investigations that led to the finding of the false

certification and all costs and fees incurred by the Attorney

General.


10487. (a) If any one or more provision, section, subdivision,

paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this act or the

application thereof to any person or circumstance is found to be

invalid, illegal, unenforceable, or unconstitutional, the same is

hereby declared to be severable and the balance of this act shall

remain effective and functional notwithstanding such invalidity,

illegality, unenforceability, or unconstitutionality.


(b) The Legislature hereby declares it would have passed this act,

and each provision, section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,

clause, phrase or word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one

or more provision, section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,

clause, phrase, or word be declared invalid, illegal, unenforceable,

or unconstitutional.