The law punishing the denial or outrageous minimization of the Armenian genocide of
1915
has been adopted by the French parliament. In this pre-electoral period, the Senate has
decided to reconsider its earlier rejection of a text whose purpose was identical. Let us hope
that the passage of this law by the French parliament will soothe the moral wounds that the
Turkish authorities' obstinate refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 has caused
the victims. I know, from my own personal experience, how cruel negationism is for the
descendants of the victims of a genocide. But apart from this therapeutic function, I believe
this law will bring only difficulties, including those that will afflict the Armenian community
itself.
Let us suppose, for example, that a Turkish high official or specialist of public law
questioned, in France, about the Armenian genocide should offer the official Turkish
version of events. The Armenian associations will file suit in the French courts. The
individual prosecuted will not fail to point out that the law is unconstitutional as it conflicts
with his liberty of opinion and expression, as based upon the QPC (Priority Question of
Constitutionality). In the debate, the Constitutional Council will necessarily be obliged to
consider the question of the constitutionality of the memorial law of 2001 recognizing the
Armenian genocide, as it has never been compelled to do so before. If, as a number of jurists,
particularly the doyen Vedel, who expressed his viewpoint in 2002, believe this law of 2001
is tainted with unconstitutionality, both the memorial law of 2001 and the current repressive
law will disappear from our legal statutes at the same time. This judicial boomerang will turn
against its authors. Law will prevail and take vengeance on politics.
II.
Parliament does not have the competence to dictate history, as was excellently expressed by Pierre Nora and the members of the Liberté pour l'histoire association. Only totalitarian regimes
accept an official line of history, determined by the powers that be and imposed by the
judge. French justice offers others means of condemning those who would forge history,
who fail in their scientific duty to intellectual honesty, rigor, and objectivity in their work.
But it is not up to French legislators to put themselves in the place of historians and judges
by proclaiming, in a French law, that a crime of genocide was committed in Asia Minor a
century ago.
Judicial authority is the only one competent to declare if a crime has been committed and
who its perpetrators are. Thus the Jewish genocide by the Nazis was established by the
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. This tribunal, in which French magistrates
participated, was the result of the London Accords, signed by France in 1944. The judgments
of Nuremberg were considered res judicata, hence authoritative, in France. The same is true
of crimes against humanity that occurred in ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda and were judged
by international criminal courts. No such thing exists for the Armenian genocide of 1915,
committed before the international community became conscious of the moral imperative that
butchers of humanity should not go unpunished. But this mission is the duty of international
jurisdictions, first of all the International Criminal Court. The French parliament has no competence whatsoever in this respect and cannot set itself up as a universal judge, capable of proclaiming by French law the existence of crimes that, since they are historic, are in no
way within the realm of their competence.
III.
This hubris on the part of the French parliament shall not fail to inspire reactions against
France. First of all, in the international domain. The Turks are a great people who play a
great role, particularly in the Middle East. They are proud of their history, even though it
bears the stains of crimes and exactions of all kinds, just like that of all conquering peoples.
We can call upon the Turkish authorities to go back over their history, as other European
states have done. But to condemn (for that is the implicit meaning of the law of 2001) the
Ottoman predecessors of a Turkish state that is our friend, to register this condemnation in our
laws, this measure intended to soothe the pain of one will inevitably cause the furor of others.
Since we're talking especially about Franco-Turk cooperation that currently flourishes in
university and cultural spheres, we are bound to feel the weight of Turkish resentment against
this legislative intrusion into an already long ago past.
I do not know if the Turkish constitution allows the parliament to vote on laws concerning
history, including that of foreign nations. If such is the case, we should prepare ourselves for
a rejoinder on the part of Turkish nationalist legislators proclaiming that France is the author
of crimes against humanity committed in its former colonies, especially in Algeria during the
war of independence. Will we protest that these tragic events do not concern Turkey? But
what did the French parliament do with regard to her yesterday? Our long and tragic history
should place us today on the side of international justice. It does not qualify us to appoint
ourselves the judge of universal history and the moral conscience of the world.
One thing needs to be asserted in this case: this genocide was carried out because of Turkish nationalist intolerance and xenophobia of the late period of the Ottoman Empire. For centuries the Christian Armenian minority was not physically threatened, and were permitted to freely worship their Christian religion. Secondly, other Muslim subjects within the Empire such as the Arabs were as persecuted for being non-Turkiic, and suffered tremendously under nationalist leadership of The Ottoman Empire.
In fact, it is thanks to the Muslim population of Syria and Lebanon that the starving and dying wretched deportees found refuge and dignity.
The Armenian genocide is the result of a nationalist leadership bent on destroying all non-Turkish nationals, be they Armenian, Assyrian or Greek, form its territories.
"and were permitted to freely worship their Christian religion"
How big of them.
Author seems to have been deeply concerned about the fallout and the sanctity of free speech, and rightly so. But why not the same concern for truth itself? Is that not also important?
Time and again it has been shown that Armenian allegations are simply myths and severe distortions of truths. In fact, isn't that why such legal protection is needed in the first place?
The fact that your family suffered casualties doesn't make the Genocide a myth.
Many Armenian, Greek and Assyrian families also lost their loved ones, their properties and their livelihoods dues to sytematic killings.
History is NOT on your side. Get over it!
There never was any Ottoman policy to exterminate a whole group. There never were any such decisions, orders or documents or any evidence of such intent. There were no concentration camps, no gas chambers, furnaces, and no mass killings, not even mass graves! Imagine 1.5M murdered and no mass graves? Of course there were no 1.5M Armenians in the whole of the Empire at any time.
If the intention of the Ottomans were to cleanse the whole Empire of non-Muslims, then why would they try to relocate them to another corner of the country? Why would other Christians and Armenians in the West and in government service were exempt?
At the end of WWI, there were still about 0.25M Armenians left in Anatolia. Maybe around 0.7M refugees in Russian Armenia, Lebanon and Syria. What genocide?
I dont mean to imply terrible things did not happen. Ottoman and Turkish governments have been surely guilty of various vile acts, but Armenian genocide is not one of them.
Do not let the facts disturb your myths though.
For your info, there were mass killings, entire villages and towns. There were concentration camps, crude ones. there were gas chambers, in caves found in Deir Zor, Every time skeletal remains are found somewhere in Turkey, the Turkish authorities quickly seal them or, as it happened recently, flood them before European experts examine them. But these are things you "probably" know but refuse to acknowledge and instead delve into a poor alaturka propaganda.
Turkey keeps bringing up before France the events that occurred in Algeria.
Through this statement, Turkey explicitly confesses to its crime.
Turkey means to say we did it, and so did you. They have been covering up their crime since 1915.
Also the Algerian President recently told Turkey to stay out of their business. Algeria and France made peace.
End of free speech? Ask Turks about their law 301. Thousands of people, mostly journalists have been jailed
due to their so called "freedom of speech.
An ordinary Turk in France will not be punished for denying the genocide,
as the bill is valid only for newspapers, associations and official institutions.
Turkey has no business meddling in another countries' internal affaires.
"End of free speech? Ask Turks about their law 301. Thousands of people, mostly journalists have been jailed
due to their so called "freedom of speech."
So essentially you're saying that this specific bill against free speech, but Turkey also doesn't have free speech, so it's ok. Should the countries base their free speech laws on the others that have restrictions on free speech. Should the US just abandon the first amendment because of Turkish law 301?
It is also accepted in Turkey that there had been really really bad things in 1915. Nobody refuses it. But not only to the Armenians. Turks, Kurds and other ethnicities had hundreds of thousands of losses. Who killed others?
You said, "Turkey has no business meddling in another countries' internal affaires" but France has it, or? Interesting point of view....
If France really would like to be a pioneer for the human rights and really cares about other people as well, it should first start with its own history...
I do not know if the Turkish constitution allows the parliament to vote on laws concerning history, including that of foreign nations. - YES, The Government of Turkey has the same law!... Hence, I recommend you try to read this article with replacing the word France with Turkey.... and see how it comes out...
Really? First of all governments don't have laws, countries or states do. Secondly I don't believe there is a law in Turkey that prosecutes people who deny any genocide.
Therefore, not only the Armenian Genocide issue, but Kurdish as well as many issues that the Turks feel "uncomfortable" are effectively controlled and muzzled. That is why today Turkey has more journalists, commentators, publishers and intellectuals in jail or currently being prosecuted than any other nation, including China and Iran combined.
Mr. Badinter, who are you trying to fool with your overtly biased views!!!
b) Try "insulting Turkishness" [whatever that means] anywhere in Turkey and see where it lands you! Imprisonment, fines etc. All these things you are suggesting [sarcastically] France to do are a REALITY in Turkey.
The sooner you people come to terms with your past, the better your chances of moving into the future. It's been almost 100 years. Time to face the hard facts.
why be so biased and Allow one Government to have such a law, but not another....at least a mirror version of it...
http://www.amazon.com/Lose-Battle-France-1940/dp/0141030658/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1327594433&sr=8-3
And by the way, your fictional story/comment is totally off topic so, try again!
How come there are so many journalists in jail????
Do you know what can happen to you if you "insult Turkishness" anywhere in Turkey???
Is that your understanding of "freedom of speech"?
You should be thankful that the French, English and Italians defeated this criminal regime otherwise all Europe and you now would be speaking Turkish language. Unfortunately they did not completely punishing the war perpetrator at that time.
I say long live France… Vive la France Vive…
I really don't get why everyone is troubled with France... Turkey passed it first!!!