The power belongs to the law.
And to the institutions of the Republic.
Thus the Constitutional Council's invalidation of the law voted by the two Houses aiming to penalize the denial of genocides is, in the eyes of the law, and until the same two Houses reconsider it, the last word.
Nonetheless.
Respect for the constitutional State and its rules should not to blind its citizens to a certain number of facts -- case in point -- that are rather disturbing.
These include, for example, the pressure exerted by representatives of Turkey before submission of the case to the Council.
And the busloads of nationalist demonstrators gathered beneath the windows of the French Senate, demanding the right to quite freely violate the memory of the dead and the honor of the survivors.
The amazing letter of January 30th, signed by one of the magnates of the CAC40, named, for the occasion, "co-president of the scientific committee," of the main Franco-Turk pressure group, the Institut du Bosphore: in it, M. de Castries, who is also the boss of Axa insurance company, implored the legislators to resist the request of French citizens of Armenian origin.
And the very composition of the Council, whose impartiality, wisdom, and distance, imperative when confronted with a deliberation of this nature, were seriously damaged by a series of stands opportunely recalled by the irreverent French weekly, Le Canard enchaîné.
Such as former Senator Haenel, the "wise man" whose affiliation with the Institut du Bosphore has never been a secret and who, for this reason, was prevented from participating in the vote. Before that, however, he did have the time to produce a report deploring the fact that the first law, that of October 2001, recognizing the genocide, "undermined bilateral economic exchanges" between France and Turkey.
Such as attorney Jacqueline de Guillenchmidt, prevented from voting as well due to her signature, in 2008, of the famous appeal of Blois "for the freedom of History" (whose love of freedom, by the by, does not go so far as to demand that Ankara release Ragip Zarakolu, the Turkish editor incarcerated for having published works by historians denouncing the systematic extermination of the Armenians).
The ineffable Michel Charasse, former minister under Mitterrand, whose reputation for "wisdom" is not particularly well established, and whose hostility to the text was a matter of common knowledge at the time the negationist lobby began its campaign.
The President of the Council and no less hilariously entertaining Jean-Louis Debré who, as Mayor of the city of Evreux in 2006, went so far as to have an inscription mentioning the victims of genocide sawn off a plaque honouring Franco-Armenian friendship.
And I am not mentioning the conditions of the submission of the case which, in the opinion of several jurists, could amount to abuse of procedure.
The point, I repeat, is not to call into question the principle of a decree that, like every decision of every republican body, is reputed to be authorless and transcending motifs, virtues, or, unfortunately, the absence of virtue of those who have inspired it.
But the policy of spreading confusion in people's minds is such that it is by no means forbidden to recall that this high body of deliberation is not so very high as we are told and, in any case, not this Supreme Court à la française so highly spoken of here and there. We may remind ourselves that it has taken several liberties with Article 3 of the order of November 7, 1958, defining its operational rules and demanding that its members "swear" to "carry out their duties" with all "impartiality," to "keep its deliberations and votes secret," to "take no public position" and "to give no consultation concerning the questions relevant to the competence of the Council."
And it is especially not forbidden to encourage those the ballet of interests and influence around this noble cause that is the truth has led to despair -- it is not forbidden to hope that the last word will not be that of the partisans of a free speech who have already given themselves away, in their haste, the day after the vote, to requalify the Armenian genocide as a "massacre" and request "historical commissions" (we've seen it all before) to establish the "reality of the facts." A discredited Council, even if it is constitutional, is not the guardian of the Truth, and, fortunately, the decision it has just taken cannot judge in advance the outcome of a battle the historians of genocides have long since won.
Not, I've said it a hundred times, the battle for I don't know what "memorial laws," the spectre of which is brandished before us every time.
But the battle for recognition of the radical singularity of occurrences of genocide, these events that are characteristic of modern times.
A law for humanity.
A law for the respect of these very rare truths, the transgression of which is a threat to each of us, because they aim at the heart of the human race.
A just and eminently universal law we count on the next president, whoever he may be, to put back on the agenda.
Why are they afraid of simply applying to the International Court of Justice instead of spending huge amounts of money to make the propaganda of their thesis?
Why are they afraid of discussing their thesis in historical joint commissions?
Why did they not open their archives up till now, while the Turkish archives are open?
So is it not obvious that keeping Holocaust which is a proven fact same with Armenian allegations which depend on forgeries, lies and falcifications is an unjust attitute towards reality and another unjust praise given to lies?
Also, it is of note that the Armenians presented many other forgeries and lies http://www.ataa.org/reference/forgeries-delen.html, http://www.ataa.org/reference/andonian-ataov.html) Did the Jews attempt to make forgeries in documents?
And, did Nazi Germany try the officials (SS soldiers) for not taking the necessary measures during their relocation and giving rise to their death like the Ottoman government did in 1916?
(See the reporting of Talat Pasha published in Berliner Tageblatt Newspaper on 4 May 1916 ; the order sent to provinces from the Ottoman government dated 1June 1915 from Prime Ministry Ottoman Archieve SHFR, nr 54/9 which was followed by that
officials who were found faulty during the deportations were court marshalled in early 1916 (out of 1673 who stood in court, 67 were given death sentences, 524 jail term, 68 row boat and monetary punishments by Talat Pasha government, before we lost the war)
No. They attempted to make none of them except applying to the International Courts.
The Armenians claim that International scholars of genocide approve their thesis.
Did the Jews establish outlawed terrorist organizations like ASALA, JCAG (Justice Commandos for Armenian Genocide) and ARA (Armenian Revolutionary Army) and did they perform dozens of murders and hundreds of terrorist activities, to introduce their thesis to the public, like the Armenians did? (http://www.ataa.org/reference/topalian/VIS6_Berkoz_Affidavit.pdf; Michael M. Gunter, 'Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People': A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, Wesport-New York, Greenwood Press, 1986, p. 74; Gunter Lewy, 'Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People:' A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, pp. 99-100).
Did the Jews perform massacres upon the German and present the photographs of them, as if they were the pictures of the Jews killed by the German? (It is of note that the Armenians have been using the photographs of the dead bodies of Turkish/Muslim whom they themselves massacred, as if they were the pictures of the Armenians who were massacred by the Turks (for fake photoes see http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/forgeries-fotos.html).
Unlike the Jewish Holocaust, which was proven before the Nuremburg Tribunal with the trappings of due process, there has been no kind of court decision about what the Armenians call a ‘genocide’ nor has the Armenians ever applied to any court.
Moreover, International Court of Justice or domestic courts are the only authorities reserved to prosecute and proclaim genocide according to the 1948 UN Convention. Therefore, the Armenian allegation of genocide lacks evidence and legal support.
I call the readers of the forum to ask themselves these questions:
Did the Jews urge the parliaments to pass resolutions to recognize that the events which took place in WWII were genocide?
Did they bargain with the politicians of the country they live, to write their history and pass resolutions as they wished it to have been in exchange of Jewish votes? 977
Did the Jews close their archives and prevent the historians from making research?
Did the Jews threaten the historians, sue them or bomb their houses to prevent them talking all the details about their history, like the Armenians did? (www.sarigelinbelgeseli.com;http://209.232.239.37/gtd1/ViewIncident.aspx?id=56624
http://turkishweekly.net/comments.php/id2418/top/comments.php?id=594, http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/69histors-charny.htm, http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/intimidate.htm)
And it is especially not forbidden to console those who were thrown into despair by the ballet of interests and influences that surrounded this noble cause of truth; it is not forbidden to hope that the last word will not go to the partisans of free speech who, from the day of the vote, have given themselves away in their haste to recast the Armenian genocide as "massacre" and request "historical commissions" to establish the "reality of the facts" (all of which we've seen before).
Just a quick question :are you about to fight for the recognition of the genociedes of the Atzec , Incas and Indians by the Spaniards and Anglo-Saxons and French respectively ? Looking forward with interest to your answers ( and don't argue these were not genocides as unplanned : they were planned in the name of Christ and/or Civilisation ) .
For your reference I am convinced Armenians were victims of the pantouranic policy of the Young Turks and factually established by Dr Lepsius ( German ) and Arnold Toynbee amongst others , just as much Jews were by the Nazis .
Courtoises salutations
P.S You may answer in french should you wish or feel more confortable thus .
The minute the state can, for any reason, dictate what a free people can say, then truth is a very endangered commodity indeed. This proposal is the worst of ideas for the best of reasons.