The Nine Sages have spoken

[nairiporter]

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

Comments

[htpcl]

One could also ask why Sarkozy pushed this bill through right now, and why so hard. I'd guess it's because he's trying to gain some support among undecided voters by playing tough with Turkey (an old exercise in Europe) while appeasing the traditionally strong Aremanian diaspora in France and posing as the protector of historical justice. Or something.

[lai_choi_san]

Pretty this. And instead of gaining support, this caused an outcry among French people. Law must not interfere with the writing of History. Also, as if denying the Armenian genocide were a big threat here...

[underlankers]

Does France have laws against Holocaust Denial? If it doesn't penalize a genocide committed in European territory that it directly helped contribute to, it has no business raising the hoary ghost of WWI to penalize that. But of course it's no surprise that rules applying to one set of Europeans are never expected to fully apply to another.

[underlankers]

This is not, additionally, to minimize 1915, just to point out an obvious hole in the argument that a country should sanction one set of free speech and neglect the one that butchered 6 million Jews in Europe, in a genocide committed by the wealthiest country in Europe. If France does have these restrictions, then I would have not really any problem with it whatsoever.

[nairiporter]

In France, the Gayssot Act, voted for on July 13, 1990, makes it illegal to question the existence of crimes that fall in the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-46. When the act was challenged by Robert Faurisson, the Human Rights Committee upheld it as a necessary means to counter possible antisemitism. Source.

[underlankers]

In that case never mind, my point was invalidated.

[paedraggaidin]

1. On the one hand, this is just plain stupid, because no one, not even the Turks who bother actually looking beyond the propaganda, seriously denies that what took place in Great War-era Armenia constituted "genocide." No, it's pure nationalistic politics and brand-control perpetuated by a Turkey that likes to think of itself as part of Europe and not the Middle East (because Europeans never commit war crimes, I guess) and doesn't want its name tarnished by past atrocities.

2. "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."

*bangs head on desk*

Alright, I'm sorry. I can sort of understand German sensitivity to Holocaust issues, but like with "hate speech" laws, what the heck good does criminalizing Holocaust/genocide denial actually do?There are a whole slew of nonsensical, repugnant, utterly stupid, and hateful things that people say, which are not criminalized. People say they've been

[nairiporter]

My opinion is that there is a middle ground between recognising a historic act of atrocity and outright criminalising its denial. Historical sensitivities are one thing, freedom of speech is another, and turning one's back to a huge episode in history for the sake of political correctness is a third.

[htpcl]

Well, since this bill was apparently going to criminalize its denial, one could begin to see where its weak spot was and why it was easily shot down by the constitutional court.

[nairiporter]

Good point, and the question what would France gain from recognizing the Armenian genocide would be sensible. I think you are on to something with your above comment.