I have always been in favor of holocaust denial being illegal. It is my understanding that most of the people who do so know that they are lying but do it to further their political hate beliefs. The traditional complaint against making holocaust denial illegal has been that it is a slippery slope. Soon, the argument goes, we will be making all sorts of ideas illegal and that's just plain scary. I agree that that set of circumstances would be scary, but I have always dismissed that argument as being alarmist and silly. Holocaust denial is a special circumstance. Now I am not really so sure. This story disturbs me in ways that some of the other recent and more sortid stories didn't because I didn't think something like this could happen. [rquoter] French lower house approves Armenia genocide bill PARIS (Reuters) - Ignoring Turkish protests, the French lower house of parliament approved a bill on Thursday making it a crime to deny that Armenians suffered genocide in 1915 at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. French businesses fear a Turkish backlash because of the legislation, which has highlighted broader anxieties about Turkish efforts to secure European Union membership. The bill still needs to be ratified by both the upper house Senate and the French president to become law, but Turkey has already warned that Thursday's vote would damage ties between the two NATO allies. Turkey denies accusations of a genocide of some 1.5 million Armenians during the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in World War One, arguing that Armenian deaths were a part of general partisan fighting in which both sides suffered. However, France's Armenian community, which is up to 500,000-strong and one of the largest in Europe, had pushed hard for the bill and found cross-party support within parliament. The motion was carried by 106 votes to 19. The legislation establishes a one-year prison term and 45,000 euro ($56,570) fine for anyone denying that a genocide occurred -- exactly the same sanctions as those imposed for denying the Nazi genocide of Jews during World War Two. The French government did not support the motion, saying it was up to historians and not parliament to judge the past, but the ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) gave its lawmakers a free hand in the vote, ensuring it would pass. "Imagine for a second that Germany today denied the Holocaust. It is totally unacceptable," UMP politician Patrick Devedjian, who is of Armenian origin, told RTL radio. © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. [/rquoter]
The Armenian genocide is one of the most under-the-table incidents of genocide in human history. Read up about it. It was practically a massacre of nearly a million Armenians by the Turkish government. I still think its stupid to pass a law making it illegal to think otherwise, but it is a real historical fact that for some reason never makes it to the public's attention.
Denial and bad law Oct 12th 2006 From The Economist Global Agenda French MPs vote to make it a crime to deny that a genocide took place in Armenia in 1915, provoking anger in Turkey and raising doubts about freedom of speech “I DON’T like what you say, and I will jail you for saying it”. That inversion of the definition of free speech commonly attributed to Voltaire sounds so unappetising that it is hard to see why anyone should support it. But that is just what is happening. The lower house of the French parliament voted on Thursday October 12th to make it a criminal offence to deny what is commonly called the “Armenian genocide” of 1915. Many Armenians, especially in the wealthy and well-connected diaspora, feel that until Turkey relaxes its stance on what they call the genocide of 1.5m compatriots, negotiations on its membership of the European Union (EU) should be blocked (Turkey denies a genocide took place). Many in the diaspora, especially in France, also want it to be a crime for anyone to claim that a genocide did not occur. There is a precedent: denial of the Nazi Holocaust is illegal in a dozen European countries. Armenians say recognition for their historical suffering should be protected in the same way. Though many countries’ parliaments have voted to recognise the Armenian genocide, few have gone further. The French government, mindful of its ties with Turkey, is calling the vote “unnecessary and untimely” and is trying to make sure that it remains symbolic. To become law, the bill needs the backing of both the upper house of parliament and the president. But the vote has already prompted fury in Turkey, where discussion of the issue is seen as a hypocritical Western ploy, manipulated by Turkey’s enemies abroad. Yet the very discussion of what happened in 1915 is fraught with legal difficulties within Turkey. Writers and scholars who raise the matter are prosecuted, and sometimes imprisoned. One of these writers, Orhan Pamuk, who had faced trial in December for talking about the deaths of the Armenians, was awarded the Nobel prize for literature on October 12th. Many Turks recognise that hundreds of thousands of Armenians died during “relocation” to other parts of the then Ottoman empire in 1915, but they argue that this was not a deliberate policy of mass murder, and that the deaths took place in a context of internal rebellion and inter-communal warfare. One problem is that the archives concerned are not easily accessible. They are written in archaic Ottoman Turkish, using the Arabic script, rather than the Latin alphabet introduced by the Turkish republic’s founder, Kemal Ataturk. Allowing the production of a scholarly and accessible edition of the relevant files would be a big step forward—but for many nationalist Turks even that would be an unwelcome move towards their critics. Turkish officials doubt this issue will affect negotiations for EU membership (Cyprus is a far more serious concern). But the country is trying to counter-attack in the propaganda war. Turkish deputies want to introduce a law making it a crime to deny that the French committed genocide in Algeria. That seems a big stretch: France conducted a brutal colonial war, but no reputable scholar argues that its aim was the mass extinction or expulsion of an entire ethnic group. The bigger question is whether laws on Holocaust or genocide denial are a good thing in principle. Most of the countries which forbid it were Nazi-occupied, or Nazi allies, during the second world war. They generally passed the laws in the early years of post-war democracy, typically along with bans on Nazi symbols, songs and regalia. That may have been justifiable when a clean break with the past was vital; it seems less so today. Many scholars are convinced that making it a crime to deny the Holocaust is a mistake. Fines and jail sentences create martyrs; they do not deter those who hold outlandish views. The proposed law in France, for example, sets a one-year prison term and €45,000 ($56,570) fine, the same punishment as for denying the Nazi genocide. Enforcing that against the thousands of Turks living in France for whom denying the Armenian genocide is part of national identity, would be all but impossible. Passing unenforceable laws looks like gesture politics, rather than good jurisprudence. Copyright © 2006 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved. economist
This is an instance where ONE VERSION of history is being made Law. Ottoman - What makes the Holocaust a 'Special Case'? Is one Genocide more horrific than another? Rocket River
This would all be swell and good if every nation in the world -- including the French -- acknowledged their 'checkered' pasts. Since that's not the case, this is nothing more than a politically-motivated piece of legislation. It's no secret that the French are vehemently opposed to Turkish membership in the EU. There has been tension between the two nations. This is a mere byproduct of that. Now, since we all know the French are 'fair and balanced', I except them to acknowledge the 'genocide' committed by other nations in the world as well, and not just singling out Turkey.
Please forgive my ignorance, but does France have any constitutional protections on freedom of speech? If so, could this stand up to challenge? I wouldn't think so.
they definately dont have freedom of religion as they banned muslims from wearing headscarves in schools a couple years ago. this was not the only thing that contributed to the anger among muslim youth which led to the riots in paris, but it was certianly a factor.
I think I explained it. The people who argue against the holocaust all seem to understand that it did, in fact, happen. The reason that they argue dishonestly is that they wish to portray the Nazis in a favorable light so that they can take reduce sympathy to Jews and take a step towards bringing back the policies of the Nazis. Given Europe's history, that is akin to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater - it's a public health risk with no real merit. The claims which they make are verifiably false, but when confronted with this evidence they continue to argue their case, usually 'finding' new evidence. Holocaust denial in Europe is essentially akin to slander in that it seeks to attack the reputation of European Jews with a malicious intent or to do damage. Slander is a form of 'free speech' which is not allowed. As far as I am concerned the French law does meet the same criteria. There is no ideological movement in Europe that wishes to remove Armenians from the face of the Earth. For Europe it is essentially an academic question.
France doesn't have freedom of religion, they actually have freedom FROM religion. As alien as it seems to us, their state religion is effectively secularism.
I think the french are going too far but I believe it's something that should have been doen long ago and something that was never done effectively, a STRONG condemnation and censure over Turkey for this blatant disregard for human life. One can call it anything they want, but when it comes down to it ,it's nothing but mass murder. And for the Turkish govt. to say otherwise is just digging a larger hole for them to ever get out of. And part of the problem is no one will learn from that whole sick and sad episode and things like this will happen again and again until the only thing people start fighting over is "IF" it happened and who is to blame. That's the disgusting part. And wether you disagree or not some people use this as an excuse to do it again:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_quote France could have handled this differnetly but it's their country and they can pass any law they want.
I agree having a law seems too far and this strikes me more as a political stunt but Turkey should live up to its genocidal past. I see Turkey's treatment of this issue somewhat akin to the situation involving Japan's and their militaristic history in Asia. In both cases both countries would be better off dealing with their history openly to improve relations with their neighbors and move on.
France is what I like to call a 'secular extremist' state. Secularism is the state-sponsored religion, the French themselves make no secret of it. The essential difference between us and the French is that while our constitution prohibits our government from 'sponsoring' or 'legislating' religion or favoring one over the rest, the French believe that they can legislate against religion. The irony here is that Turkey is the most secular Muslim-majority nation in the world (Turkey's population is over 99% Muslim), and yet it seems to be the one nation France isn't a big fan of. Of course, they have no problems dealing with the Saudis, Pakistanis, Egyptians, or any one else...they just don't like them Turks. Here's an idea: the U.S. should cut all diplomatic ties with Turkey in order to improve Turkish-French relations. Heck, they might be best friends before you know it...
I think another potential point of contention is that some countries could try to 'spin' their actions in a way to avoid the 'genocide' tag.
The denial of slaughter by Turks is certainly wrong, and frustrating. I understand the spirit behind the law, but it is extremely odd and seemingly wrong to make the denial a crime. I just can't support such legislation even though I agree with the principle.
I agree. What would be wrong with just saying that the official stance of the government is that the Armenian genocide happened? It makes the same statement without legislating beliefs.
I'm not beeing ornery here but that is you opinion some people . . .may LEGITIMATELY beleive it didn't happen [See the People Never going to the Moon thing] Even here in America the Nigh Genocidal treatment of the Native American is VERY DOWN PLAYED People downplay, spin or lie about all kinds of things like that for politic, social and religious reasons .. . Outlaws one person's Spin and not another one .. is atrocious To me. . . It would be like making a law that says No one can ever say . . . that what happened to the Native American is Genocide. While those that beleive it may not be mainstream . . . they should be able to say I just don't see anything *special* about the Holocaust beyond it is the most recent and most well documented. Rocket River
