The Nine Sages have spoken
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/28/world/europe/france-armenia-genocide/index.html
The French Constitutional Court has rejected the bill that would recognise the Armenian genocide. The question is which factor exactly made the judges make a U-turn on the issue. Was it the striving for the ultimate Truth or was it the diplomatic pressure from Turkey and the desire to not destroy the last remnants of decent relations between France and Turkey? Either way, the decision is very questionable and comes in a very disturbing fashion. Because it reveals a certain amount of bias on part of the Court. And that sounds bad for a court that is supposed to uphold the Constitution.
The bill which was earlier adopted by the French parliament provided for sanctioning any acts of Armenian genocide denial, similarly to the existing laws about Holocaust denial in Germany. This provided a convenient reason for the Constitutional Court to shoot it down, basing their decision on concerns about the freedom of speech. Of course nothing and nobody should stand above the law, especially when we are speaking of the highest law and the highest court in the land. But still, the respect for the legal order should not make people blind for some disturbing facts about this court decision.
I am talking about the enormous pressure from a number of Turkish envoys who even resorted to outright threats eventually, in the days before the Court's decision. I am talking about the nationalist protests at the doors of the Senate. And I am talking about that letter which carried the signature of the CEO of one of the most influential French corporations, who was even selected a co-chairman of the "scientific committee" of the most influential Turkish lobby in France, the Bosphorus Institute. Henri de Castries, the boss of the insurance company AXA wrote that letter in which he was urging the French MPs to reject the bill, stating the diplomatic and trade relations between France and Turkey as the primary reason to play nice.
And let's have a closer look at the judges and ask the question what undermines the faith in their impartiality and wisdom. One of the so-called "Nine Sages" is Hubert Haenel, member of the Bosphorus Institute. That was never a secret. Well, he was excluded from the vote for this very reason. But what we shouldn't miss to mention is that before that he tried to influence his colleagues with a letter where he was warning of the potentially damaging consequences for the "economic relations between France and Turkey". Similarly to Haenel, the judge Jacqueline de Guillenschmidt wasn't allowed to vote either, because of her widely known pro-Turkish positions. One might begin to think that the Court was cleaning the way to an anti-Turkish vote, but no. The list of pro-Turkish judges does not end there. Michel Charasse, another openly anti-Armenian-genocide judge was on the vote panel, and her colleague Jean-Louis Debre wasn't any less unbiased.
We are not talking about putting the entire superior Court institution in question. But we shouldn't forget that this presumably highest legal institution in France has not always displayed itself to be so high as we are supposed to believe. The judges are claiming that the verdict is aiming to protect the freedom of speech and nothing more. But this pretense sounds a little weak because they themselves betrayed their own true intentions by publicly throwing qualifications about the genocide, such as "extermination" and other such substitute terms, immediately after the court decision was announced. A court that discredits itself in such a way could not have the pretense of the protector of the ultimate Truth.
And, all said and done, a court consisting of judges who may know everything about the Constitution, is not automatically a panel of expert historians at the same time. They may shoot down a bill like this, whether out of pure intentions like protecting the freedom of speech, or more Realpolitik kind of considerations like the "economic relations" between their country and a strong emerging economy... But they will never erase the authenticity of an enormous atrocity like the Armenian genocide, no matter how hard they try to blur it with vague PC terms.
The French Constitutional Court has rejected the bill that would recognise the Armenian genocide. The question is which factor exactly made the judges make a U-turn on the issue. Was it the striving for the ultimate Truth or was it the diplomatic pressure from Turkey and the desire to not destroy the last remnants of decent relations between France and Turkey? Either way, the decision is very questionable and comes in a very disturbing fashion. Because it reveals a certain amount of bias on part of the Court. And that sounds bad for a court that is supposed to uphold the Constitution.
The bill which was earlier adopted by the French parliament provided for sanctioning any acts of Armenian genocide denial, similarly to the existing laws about Holocaust denial in Germany. This provided a convenient reason for the Constitutional Court to shoot it down, basing their decision on concerns about the freedom of speech. Of course nothing and nobody should stand above the law, especially when we are speaking of the highest law and the highest court in the land. But still, the respect for the legal order should not make people blind for some disturbing facts about this court decision.
I am talking about the enormous pressure from a number of Turkish envoys who even resorted to outright threats eventually, in the days before the Court's decision. I am talking about the nationalist protests at the doors of the Senate. And I am talking about that letter which carried the signature of the CEO of one of the most influential French corporations, who was even selected a co-chairman of the "scientific committee" of the most influential Turkish lobby in France, the Bosphorus Institute. Henri de Castries, the boss of the insurance company AXA wrote that letter in which he was urging the French MPs to reject the bill, stating the diplomatic and trade relations between France and Turkey as the primary reason to play nice.
And let's have a closer look at the judges and ask the question what undermines the faith in their impartiality and wisdom. One of the so-called "Nine Sages" is Hubert Haenel, member of the Bosphorus Institute. That was never a secret. Well, he was excluded from the vote for this very reason. But what we shouldn't miss to mention is that before that he tried to influence his colleagues with a letter where he was warning of the potentially damaging consequences for the "economic relations between France and Turkey". Similarly to Haenel, the judge Jacqueline de Guillenschmidt wasn't allowed to vote either, because of her widely known pro-Turkish positions. One might begin to think that the Court was cleaning the way to an anti-Turkish vote, but no. The list of pro-Turkish judges does not end there. Michel Charasse, another openly anti-Armenian-genocide judge was on the vote panel, and her colleague Jean-Louis Debre wasn't any less unbiased.
We are not talking about putting the entire superior Court institution in question. But we shouldn't forget that this presumably highest legal institution in France has not always displayed itself to be so high as we are supposed to believe. The judges are claiming that the verdict is aiming to protect the freedom of speech and nothing more. But this pretense sounds a little weak because they themselves betrayed their own true intentions by publicly throwing qualifications about the genocide, such as "extermination" and other such substitute terms, immediately after the court decision was announced. A court that discredits itself in such a way could not have the pretense of the protector of the ultimate Truth.
And, all said and done, a court consisting of judges who may know everything about the Constitution, is not automatically a panel of expert historians at the same time. They may shoot down a bill like this, whether out of pure intentions like protecting the freedom of speech, or more Realpolitik kind of considerations like the "economic relations" between their country and a strong emerging economy... But they will never erase the authenticity of an enormous atrocity like the Armenian genocide, no matter how hard they try to blur it with vague PC terms.