Dear Editor,
Another year, another substance-less Armenian Genocide-related controversy. This time France is criminalizing the denial of the Armenian Genocide, making it punishable with imprisonment as well as hefty fines.
Armenians gathered in front of the French Senate
I will not elaborate long on the background information; I assume those are pretty well known.
Voltaire once said, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Robert Kennedy once suggested changing the First Amendment of the Constitution to have it read, “The greatest of these [freedoms] is speech.”
Unless speech is meant to incite violence, there are absolutely no philosophical grounds for restricting it. None at all. The benefits of banning speech will never be equal to the harm of having a silent society. Have we suddenly forgotten that line of the First Amendment that we hold so dear—the one referring to Congress making no laws abridging the freedom of speech—when the issue at hand deals with us, with our personal/collective histories?
There has been the stench of hypocrisy in the air regarding this issue. When Hrant Dink was killed, we all jumped on Turkey, condemning the fact that the government, with its constant prosecution of Dink thanks to laws that curtail freedom of speech, was ultimately responsible for the murder. We condemned a so-called progressive country for trying to join the European Union while allowing its citizens to be killed for expressing opinions. And now, France, a member of that same dysfunctional group called the European Union, is emulating Turkey. Yes, there are no ifs or buts about this. The law in France is not there to prevent future genocides. The law in France is there to punish Turkey (don’t underestimate the anti-Muslim bias of many Europeans), and to curtail the freedom of speech in a free country.
In addition, it is ridiculous in the sense that the law could only lead to the opposite of what it intends to do. Does anyone actually believe that making a conversation taboo will decrease the incidence of that conversation? We all know that what is not allowed is even more attractive, or that, at least, just by disallowing something, one certainly can’t kill an idea. Whatever the quality of that idea, it will never be killed by a ban. Ever. It will fester, it will infect, it will invade the minds of those who never thought of it. In fact, banning an idea will give it a new shine, a new attractiveness to certain people.
Although I am an Armenian, if such a law were to be enacted in the United States I would fight against it, because the fact that I’m a free human being is more important to be than being Armenian. Because the idea that a government can tell me what to say or what not to say makes me angry, makes me rebel against the whole concept, makes me lose a bit of hope in humanity. I can say whatever I want. A Turk can say whatever he wants. A Frenchman can say whatever he wants. The worst way of trying to make the Armenian Genocide a part of history is by criminalizing its denial.
And by the way, before anyone asks, yes, I feel the same way about the Jewish Holocaust. I am glad, in a sense, that I do not live in European countries where the denial of the Holocaust is a crime. I would never, in a million years, deny it or listen to someone denying it, but I will vigilantly guard that freedom, even if unused.
Freedom—the only real condition for happiness—should never be curtailed unless it impinges on someone else’s freedoms and rights. I simply do not understand how the same Armenian leaders and writers who constantly chant freedom suddenly feel like the freedom to say whatever you want is unimportant. So, in the spirit of that great luminary Voltaire, to anyone who denies the Armenian Genocide, I say, I disagree with you, but I will protect your right to say such ridiculous things.
Simon Beugekian
Boston, Mass.
Bedrosyan: Searching for Lost Armenian Churches and Schools in Turkey (1,391)
Erdogan ‘Apologizes’ for Dersim Killings, Insults Diaspora (548)
Mouradian: Voir Ani et Mourir: Dispatches from Turkey (Part V) (518)
AR
January 26, 2012
I agree with the substance of the article. However, if a country already has a law against denying the Holocaust, then it is only fair that that same law be applied to other genocides. France already had a law on the books making it illegal to say the Holocaust is a myth. That is the key piece you are missing.
Edward Yaghoobian
January 26, 2012
I agree with him, whish there will be more of this …..
Random Armenian
January 26, 2012
AR,
The other key piece to consider is that the Holocaust also occurred in France. The Armenian genocide did not. And there is no anti-denial law in the US, although there are anti-hate laws
AR
January 26, 2012
France itself, the government that was recognized did not partake in the Holocaust, and there were no camps in France.
France was involved in the Armenian Genocide, indirectly. They were fighting the side responsible for the genocide, the Ottoman Empire, and they gave shelter to the survivors of the Genocide. Moreover, France handed Cilicia back to the Turks in the early 20s and we saw pogroms against the remaining Armenians.
Well said Avery. It is easy to speak of freedom of speech when you are in a civilized country with civilized people. It is another issue when you consider that the people and culture we are talking about have no qualms about bashing your face in if you insult them, regardless of how minor the offense may be.
Garrek
January 26, 2012
I happen not to agree on grounds that denying what happened to my great grand-parents does incite violence in me. I get angry. And why shouldn’t I? I am not going to go into what I particularly know about the fate that befell my ancestors but if a person were to seriously deny this to my face I would be unable to talk through it and would bash him in his face.
Is this concept hard to accept? There are thoughts that ought to not be expressed when it comes to denying history, or say praising a violent act that was committed, or say spreading falsehoods about someones spouse/parents/kids and so on… These examples fall outside of the narrow exception you allow: “speech meant to incite violence”.
Denying killing my great grandfather’s 8 brothers 1 sister and their father by burning them alive in a barn incites violence in me. I would take it as a great personal insult if someone were to refuse truths that have been passed down to me by my grandmother who in turn heard it from her father who in turn was an eye witness.
Only fools get confused about the limits of their privileges and speech is both a right and a privilege. The nuance is for an intelligent man to interpret properly.
Boyajian
January 26, 2012
I get your point Simon and sympathize with your views, but AR is right. France’s proposed new law is consistent with its Holocaust denial law. I wish it wasn’t necessary to take such actions, but without it the genocide denial industry proceeds unfettered to manufacture lies and distortions that hurt not only Armenians but all humanity. I think even Voltaire would take pause to consider the words of another great mind, Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Genocide denial for the sake of avoiding responsibility or protecting national pride is more than just ‘ridiculous.’ It is an evil that has been shown to beget similar evil. Should we do nothing?
Avery
January 26, 2012
Simon Beugekian:
As AR noted, where just as concerned when France passed laws criminalizing JH Denial ? Or you remember the great luminary Voltaire only when it comes to the AG ?
Mr. Beugekian, were you in Artsakh when AzeriTurks, who have joined the Turks in the AG Denial campaign and militarily supported by Turks, were attempting to exterminate your Armenian brothers and sisters ? Was Voltaire there ?
Were you in Sumgait with a copy of Voltaire’s writings as Azeri mobs were gang-raping Armenian women and massacring unarmed Armenian civilians ?
You sit safe and comfortable in Boston and dispense advice to Armenians who face an existential threat from Azerbaijan and Turkey.
When Japan attacked US, it killed less than 3,000 American in uniform.
In response to the unprovoked attack, US vaporized two Japanese cities.
After 9/11, when 3,000 Americans were murdered, the US Constitution was practically suspended (Patriot Act).
Today, POTUS can have you arrested and sent to Guantanamo on his word alone: you will disappear without a trace with no access to lawyers: all it takes is the he/she declare you a ‘terrorist’.
So stop preaching us about the French law, and devote you energies to make sure the remaining Armenians in the world do not become the Dodo Bird.
And before you concern yourself with Voltaire and France, try to publicly state that the Jewish Holocaust is a hoax: see what happens to you in Boston.
(Hint: David Duke)
RVDV
January 27, 2012
“Today, POTUS can have you arrested and sent to Guantanamo on his word alone: you will disappear without a trace with no access to lawyers: all it takes is the he/she declare you a ‘terrorist’.”
I am a little confused as to what point you are trying to make. Are you arguing that calling out France is pointless because even the freest of countries like the US have limitations to freedom and freedom of speech?
When Japan attacked US, it killed less than 3,000 American in uniform.
In response to the unprovoked attack, US vaporized two Japanese cities.
And here. I didn’t quite understand the connection you were making with France’s bill and Armenian Genocide.
And… “You sit safe and comfortable in Boston and dispense advice to Armenians who face an existential threat from Azerbaijan and Turkey.”
You live in the US, no? Are you also not dispensing advice to Armenians from a safe distance even though your message is for Armenians to defend themselves against a constant threat?
Avery
January 27, 2012
Yes, I do live in the US. And yes I do dispense advice from a safe distance.
(I do a lot more than dispense advice, BTW)
If you are not able to see the difference between my advice and that of Simon Beugekian, then it will be a waste my valuable time to try.
I told you this before, RVDV: you are too intelligent to pretend you do not see the difference. So obviously your post has an ulterior motive. And you are intelligent enough to know I am intelligence enough to pickup on it. Like I said, you need to be on the level.
David
January 26, 2012
Dear Simon
Genocide is a universal crime and its denial is part of that crime – it’s the last stage and the first stage of the next genocide. Genocide denial has meant that Armenians have continued to suffer in Turkey since the First World War. Denial means that Turkey can blockade Armenia and cause financial pain to the descendants of the victims of genocide. Denial means that Turkey can support Azeri Turks to massacre Armenians in Karabakh, Sumgait, Baku etc. Denial means that Armenian heritage can continue to be destroyed and the world does nothing about it. Genocide denial means that tomorrow’s genocide in _____ will not be prevented.
In America, one is free to drive but not free to speed because speeding is recognised as causing injury. One is allowed to advertise but not to use ‘misleading and deceptive advertising’. We have many laws in society that curb our rights for the good of society. Genocide incorporates death, it represents suffering, it represents slavery – all on a massive scale.
Criminalising genocide denial is the lesser of the evil. France has shown that it recognises the many facets of the crime of genocide, that it’s not simply an act of killing but an intellectual crime which has a component called denial which needs to be curbed for the betterment of humanity. If Turkey comes to terms with the genocide, than there would not be any need for such a law.
Jerry
January 26, 2012
The denial of Genocide functions in this instance to incite to violence — it is not only a sanction for denied violence on a mass scale, but it it a continuation of the cover up that genocide needs in order to succeed. Those who viciously deny the fact of the Armenian Genocide do so with an agenda — they come from a place where Hrant Dink was assassinated for trying to be both a proud Turk and a proud Armenian, and this was too much. It is in its deepest sense an incitement to violence, the necessary cover-up for violent racist practices. This is why the denial needs to be criminalized, whether we are talking about Neo-Nazis or Grey Wolves.
Parandzem Rshtouni
January 26, 2012
I completely DISAGREE with this author and I DO NOT UNDERSTAD WHY THIS TYPES OF articles are being published in such a journal as AG, now, when the French Senate had done such a tremendous job in establishing THE justice The author must be using other media for posting his”free-style” and ”hard-to-dispell’ viewpoints.
RVDV
January 26, 2012
Armenian Weekly, by publishing this article, is presenting both sides of the criminalization bill argument. Things like this are what make it a legitimate and credible news outlet.
Jirair
January 26, 2012
I could comment almost on every sentence of Beujekian’s article. Since that would take too many words and time, I will comment only on a couple of items.
1. Voltaire never said what Mr. Beujikian twice claimed that the French writer had said. The quote was written by one of Voltaire’s biographers. It’s absolute phony. So please don’t drag Voltaire’s authority to buttress your argument..
2. I wouldn’t quote Robert Kennedy as an authority on freedom of speech. We know only too well how he operated. People, unaware of the man’s opportunistic and corrupt ways, might have given him some credence to him in the ’60s. Not now.
3. “Unless speech is meant to incite violence, there’s absolutely no philosophical grounds for restricting it,” you say. Although I would argue with that assertion, I would point out that the denial of genocide is an incitement not only to violence but also to future genocides. As genocide scholars agree, denial is the last stage of genocide. Denial says you can get away with it… that genocide can vanish into “he said this” and “she said that” mire.
4. The French bill doesn’t silence society. It says people can’t PUBLICLY deny genocides–Armenian, Rwandan, Jewish, Cambodian. They may do so in the privacy of their home but not in the media or at public gatherings. Turks in France can continue to deny the Genocide of Armenians in the privacy of their homes as often as they wish, but doing so in public is now banned. A minor inconvenience for their bloody hands.
5. You call the European Union “dysfunctional.” The EU has been an effective, progressive and humane organization much more than the United States. It’s unbecoming of Americans to gloat over the recent financial problems of EU. I am sure European nations will overcome their current problems and make sure their continent doesn’t imitate the American model of 99:1 ratio of inequality.
6. “Freedom–only real condition for happiness,” you say. This is a highly debatable assertion. If you were correct billions of Chinese, Indians, Indonesians, Mexicans…in fact most of the world must be living in misery day in day out.. By the way, happiness–a naive and childish concept much marketed by Americans–is wishful thinking. Lucky people experience instances of joy but no happiness–a long-term, almost permanent psychic state.
Hovsep Melkonian
January 26, 2012
I had great difficulty segregating facts from opinions as expressed in this letter, especially since the use of adjectives there seemed rather exagerated and uncalled for : dysfunctional E.U. , hypocrisy etc. etc. Quoting Voltaire has been fashionable in recent weeks … A lot of people do so without realizing that this is apocryphal, meaning it is a statement of doubtful authenticity , although widely circulated as being true. In fact this phrase was created in 1906 by a British writer named Evelyne Beatrice Hall in her book titled ” the Friends of Voltaire” and is nowehere found in Voltaire’s writings.If these were there for effect, then where is the substance ? In fact where is the beef?
If the writer had followed the debate in the French Senate, which I did, he would have discovered that nowhere in the proposed text mention was made of the Armenian Genocide, and that the proposed law was meant to stop ALL negations of genocides. The Armenian Genocide was there by inference only, France having officially recognised the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide.So the law applies to these genocides and any other genocide that France will or may recognize. French Minister Patrick Ollier, and other speakers, repeatedly emphasized this important point.
The issue of the “freedom of expression” is an artificial argument that Turkey inserted in the debate from the very beginning of its offensive against this measure striking, I must admit, a sensitive cord in one segment of the society. But then you must credit the French with the same attachment to freedom of expression as other western democracies profess. In fact , since 1990 when the Gayssot Law was passed in France against Holocaust denial, not a single case has been brought againsy this measure as restricting freedom of expression. As always the courts are there to settle such issues and so far no one has heard anything to the contrary. You can rest assured that the French people , the press, their elected representatives can take care of themselves , the same way Switzerland and Slovakia who have passed similar measures are handling their side of civil liberties.
Raising issues should be based on facts , not on second hand opinions.
Simon Beugekian
January 26, 2012
Hi,
As the person behind the article, I’d just like to make ONE point. This is not a response to anyone. The responses on this page are not, to be honest, challenging my arguments, rather, they’re challenging my quotations and my “naive” assertions. Nobody is actually debating the argument behind it, as in, should personal freedoms outweigh whatever social “good” comes of this.
But my one point is, I bet the same people here who call freedom of speech a naive and childish concept, or the idea that freedom is the condition of happiness a childish concept, PROBABLY USED THE SAME ARGUMENTS I AM USING WHEN HRANT DINK DIED – that Turkey is a place where freedom of speech is curtailed, etc, etc.. The same people who hold those ARF maxims about freedom to the heart.
It is this HYPOCRISY that must be terminated.
Boyajian
January 26, 2012
I disagree with you Simon. I think several of the commentators presented ideas defending the spirit of the French bill and reasons to support it, not merely an argument against your quote of Voltaire. Please re-read these and you may see that no one disputes the virtue of freedom of speech, or argues that you are wrong in suggesting that there is some hypocrisy at play (given a black and white interpretation of the concept). To me, the defense of the bill comes from a more nuanced understanding of freedom of speech and parameters for its occasional limitation in service of a greater good. As in many things in the life, the gray area may make things more complicated but it makes for a deeper appreciation for the concept in question.
Jerry
January 27, 2012
Simon, you began your arguments with this statement:
Unless speech is meant to incite violence, there are absolutely no philosophical grounds for restricting it.
I believe my comment directly challenged this assertion, on which seems to hinge the whole argument about “free speech.”
Jerry
January 27, 2012
PS I mean to say my response challenged the assertion that genocide denial is not meant to incite violence
Garo Avedis
January 27, 2012
Dear Mr.Simon
after 32 years in America,I dont really feel or experiance freedom of speech,what freedom of speech are you talking about? or are you just talking about the law?
are you capable of asking a question or holding a conversation with Obama?
you are living in a fantasy.but when turks use freedom of speech to insult the momory of my relatives whom are deceased and insult me,thats when you lost your argument.
john
January 27, 2012
Is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater a right of speech? of course not. “Free Speech” comes with responsibilities..The denial of Genocide will and does make history repeat itself. And for the same reasons if these laws stop humanity from mass murder then I believe there are exceptions to any free speech rules within a free society.
Hamasdegh
January 27, 2012
It pains me to see that the hard work and the stupendous result achieved by the joint efforts of Armenian organizations in France is being overshadowed by the byzantine discussion of a topic that was skillfully planted by Turkish lobbyist efforts internationally and subsequently swallowed hook,line and sinker by some here,as this discussion shows. Frankly, the issue of restricting freedom of expression was never the intention of the measure but was designed rather as a means to combat negationism, particularly the type of negationism that hired “provocateurs” seize upon to spread their hatred and disrespect towards the memory of the just. Switzerland in fact had to fine and threaten with imprisonment on March 15, 2007 a Turkish national named Dogu Perincek who had dared authorities there to try him for challenging the veracity of the Armenian Genocide as recognized by the Swiss Parliament in a law enacted in December of 2003. The provision of the law were crystal clear and Perincek defied the law in full cognizance of its provisions and consequences while on Swiss soil. Therefore the French measure has nothing to do with limiting freedom of expression but more with stopping this type of hate speech that disturbs societal peace and order. All the noise that the Turkish authorities are making serve only one purpose and one purpose only: to stop all possible references to the Armenian Genocide from gaining further international traction in anticipation of the Tsunami they anticipate with regard to the 100th anniversary of the 1915 events. Who is therefore limiting freedom of expression – Armenians in France and the diaspora intent on seeking justice for atrocities committed against our nation or Turkish authorities who are trying to muzzle all possible references to this Genocide?
Avery
January 27, 2012
“It pains me to see that the hard work and the stupendous result achieved by the joint efforts of Armenian organizations in France is being overshadowed by the byzantine ”
Right Hamasdegh.
I am furious that the countless hours spent by Armenian organizations and volunteers to add a powerful layer of security and safety to our vulnerable Artsakh and Armenia brethren – is being so cavalierly dismissed by Mr. Beugekian.
My Dad used to say that many Armenians are: Պապեն ավելի պապական.
It is the residue of having been subjugated for so long.
Of having been a second class gyavur for generations.
There is the desire to show your masters that you are a loyal servant.
Daron
January 27, 2012
The adoption of French Senate Genocide Denial Bill is a political maneuver more than anything, executed by France in an attempt adding an extra block on the wall to keep Turkey out of EU. There is a possibility that France will try to promote a similar resolution in EU which will make it impossible for Turkey to join EU at any time soon. I don’t think that French people in general have lost their sleep or appetite over the denial of AG.
Also, we need to take into consideration the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East and North Africa where France and Turkey are competing over leadership and the natural resources. Nevertheless, I respect the courageous decision by the French displaying leadership in Europe, where as in ME most of Arab countries had succumbed to Turkish pressure.
Noble ideas and principles like freedom of speech, human right, Democracy and so on are modern tools that are being used by regional players to create suitable conditions to push forward their national agendas. So, as much as it sounds noble not be a “hypocrite”, in the political arena there is no place for ethics and morals.
Dear Simon,
Since you do suggest that hypocrisy must be terminated, then I would like you to take a look at the hypocrisy and suppression of freedom of speech in Turkey and maybe it will inspire you to write an article about it before attacking your own kind.
“Our neighbors and friends in the region should take their people’s wishes into consideration,” said Davutoglu. “Turkey is a democracy and everyone has the right to meet and discuss things here. This should not be construed as meddling in someone else’s internal affairs,” said Davutoglu, referring to a meeting in Istanbul by some Syrian opposition figures.
• The Turkish representative for U.S.-based Human Rights Watch, Emma Sinclair Webb, says the latest detentions are part of a worrying trend.
“The arrests represent a further clampdown on dissenting critical voices in Turkey,” said Webb. “This has become a pattern, of the last few months. It has intensified since the general election. The trouble with Turkey’s terrorism laws is that [they are] so widely drawn and vague that any of us can find ourselves suspect in terrorism investigation.”
But Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan defends the ongoing probe, even making a thinly veiled threat against its critics, saying they should question their motives.
• Former Turkish ambassador and teacher of international relations at Kultur University, Murat Bilhan, says the journalist detentions and the resulting intimidation in the wider society is a worrying sign about what direction Turkey is heading. He says the removal of democratic checks on the government could have major regional repercussions.
“Turkey is changing to a civilian dictatorship now,” said Bilhan. “If this continues like that, our allies and partners will feel [it] to their bones. Maybe hostile Turkey, more ‘Arabized’ Turkey, Turkey changing its identity.”
• Dr. Ahmed Uysal, General Coordinator of the Congress of Arab-Turkish Social Sciences announced: “Relations between Egypt and Turkey improved considerably after the Revolution succeeded in overthrowing the previous regime, stressing that Egypt gives freedom to all other religions of non-Muslims, while Turkey does not provide such freedoms to the communists, adding that Egypt does not need to take the Turkish model”. Dr. Ahmed continued, “Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey restricts freedom of media and imprisoned many media members after newspapers published cartoons portraying Erdogan having Islamic background but claiming to be secular”.
• Turkish Ambassador in Lebanon, Annan Ozheldez claimed that “Turkey’s policy toward Syria has not changed and that the mutual trust between the two countries still exist, and that Turkey was and still keen on stability in Syria. Mr. Ozheldez stressed that “Turkey cannot be part of any foreign plot hatched against Syria”.
It is an open secret now, Turkey has been harboring and arming Islamic Brotherhood of Syria and directly interfering in Syria’s internal affairs.
The next article was written in an Arabic news paper:
Since the successful popular revolution in Tunisia and Egypt, and the wave of protests in a number of Arab countries, Turkey is presenting herself as the leader of the Movement for Change in the Arab world using the language of a superpower.
Turkey talks about democracy and pluralism and human rights, only to discover that Kurds in Turkey who number more than fifteen million are being showered by bombs by Turkish planes while they are living on their own mountains.
Turkey talks about human rights and democracy, and then she denies the identity and the rights of sects and national/religious minorities. And so she finds herself facing history with chronic issues and problems, like the Armenian genocide and Orthodox Church in Istanbul.
Turkey talks about diversity, only to find herself being transformed into one-party rule (Justice and Development), who gained the control of the government, the parliament and the Republic. After gaining the upper hand, Justice and Development Party seeks to change the Constitution to appease Erdogan’s wishes…
Turkey talks about Zero problems and strategic depth, to find out that they have chronic problems with neighboring States from Armenia in the east to Greece and Bulgaria in the West, Iraq, Syria and Cyprus in the south. Then to realize that the theory of zero problems have turned in a few years to the theory of zero confidence.
Turkey claims that the events that are taking place in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Libya … are Turkish internal affair, but she refuses any interference from outside in regards to Turkish internal issues, though recognized by international resolutions for decades.
In Her way of addressing the brothers “neighboring Arab countries”, soon they realize that the brotherly speech has turned into warnings, threats, deadlines and opportunities …
Turkey also has non-Turkish nationalities like Kurds, Arabs, Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks numbering over twenty-five million who’s rights are not recognized. There are also religious minorities and sects (Alawis, Shiites, Christian and Jews) that live in Turkey who are denied of their rights.
I do agree with my compatriot Avery, it easy to sit in a safe environment and to be “Holier Than Thou”
Armen
January 27, 2012
Seems ridiculous…
Criticizing the law, Talking about the rights of freedom of speech, phylosophysing around… Thats the easy way out to fill out pages and publications…
Any idea how to get 1.5 million Armenians express their feelings and fight for their freedom of speech after being banned of that right forever…!!!???
Stop being babaganem aveli babagan…
Garrek
January 27, 2012
Simon, please respond to Boyajian’s rebuttal in the preceding comment. He put it extremely well.
I read all the comments also and it seems to me that many folks are trying to tell you that denying genocide should not be protected under the freedom of speech banner which is the foundation of your article. If defemation/libel is a crime why wouldn’t genocide denial be a crime? And also why isn’t defemation protected by the 1st amendment? Explain the differences please. Another person commented that in the privacy of ones home one can deny anything they want but in public surroundings denial of genocide shouldn’t be protected. Keep in mind that the word genocide was coined to depict what happened to the Armenians in 1915 and claims by Turks that it simply shouldn’t be called genocide but mass killings is thus a moot point.
ragnar naess
January 27, 2012
Ar
if you agree with the substance of the article, wouldnt the consequence be that France should repeal its existing law against denial of the Holocaust? The same arguments as Simon Beugekian forwards would apply whether the law against denial is passed in the country where the crime was committed or not. But if victims and/or descendants are traumatised it means that particular care should be used in how to formulate an opinion which will hurt people. But to outlaw an opinion just because some people are offended by it, is highly questionable juridically speaking. It is against rule of law.
David
you write:
Genocide is a universal crime and its denial is part of that crime – it’s the last stage ….Comment:
Are you not turning the things on its head here? First, you have to agree on whether something happens or not and then you can apply your logic.Otherwise there would be no difference between a rumour and a true statement.
Melkonian
interesting that the proceedings did not mention the AG specifically. But this does not make much difference from a point of principle. Why should one criminalize a false opinion, priovioded that you agree that it is false?
Boyajian
I cannot see that there are any real arguments against mr. Beugekian’s point of view in the posts so far.
VTiger
January 27, 2012
On the Criminalization of the Denial of Genocides
By: ARA PAPIAN
Since when has the protection of a criminal act been “freedom of
speech” or “holding an opinion”?Go to Canada, for example, and publicly “express your opinion” that, say, black people or Armenians are filthy or lazy. You do know what they would do to you, right? You would end up in jail or be penalised in some other fashion for inciting “hate speech”. Declare in Germany that Hitler had his reasons for massacring Jews. Don’t deny the Holocaust; simply try to bring up some justification or basis for it. I believe you would know the consequences better than I do. Well, where is that “freedom of speech”, then? Or is that some people consider us Armenians more democratic than Canadians or Germans?
VTiger
January 27, 2012
You can read the whole article of Ara Papian’s On the Criminalization of the Denial of Genocides
http://www.ramgavar.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=392%3Aon-the-criminalization-of-the-denial-of-genocides-by-ara-papian&catid=56%3Aramgavar-mamoul&Itemid=27&lang=en
I totally disagree with Simon Beugekian.
Avery
January 27, 2012
Great article by Mr. Papian
Mardiros
January 27, 2012
In the meantime just check this link to see how the Turkish mafia is manipulating the results of an online survey to drive home the message that France’s decision to criminailize denial of the Armenian genocide was wrong.The French daily has been conductin since Tuesday an online survey.
The survey questions are as follows:
a) France showed its greatness by voting this law
b) France made an error
c) do not care about the issue
d) no opinion
Since the survey was launched an avalanche of entries was recorded to say that France made an error in passing the law. Guess who initiated this campaign?
Here is the link to the ongoing survey.
http://www.lemonde.fr/a-la-une/sondage/2012/01/24/le-senat-a-adopte-definitivement-la-loi-penalisant-la-negation-du-genocide-armenien-pour-vous-cela-est-le-signe_1633951_3208.html
Serop
January 27, 2012
In all this shuffle we seem to have forgotten the nonsense that Mr. Boghos Beugekian has written causing all this commotion. Has he learned anything from all these exchanges? I wonder.
Murad Meneshian
January 27, 2012
“Speech meant to incite violence” will also fall under freedom of speech, unless it eventually causes harm to others. Is one allowed to shout “Fire” in a theater? Why isn’t it a case of “freedom of speech?” because it will cause harm to others. In the case of the damage to Armenians, it is the psychological and emotional harm brought upon the descendants of the victims.
Boyajian
January 27, 2012
Simon, I really appreciate that you were free to express your opinion and took the time to present a thoughtful letter. I am glad to have this discussion, which in the end helps us to understand that we don’t have to completely agree with one another to respect one another. And with respect, I have to say that I think your criticism of this bill is too simplistic.
Of course I see the inconsistency in criticizing Turkey for free speech violations and at the same time supporting the French genocide denial bill. I also understand the slippery slope it puts us on. But I don’t call it hypocrisy, which implies that different rights exist for me than exist for you or them. The French are simply applying the same limits on genocide deniers that would be applied to you or I if we were trying to obstruct justice. This bill has to do with preventing negationism (lying) which has dangerous consequences for all. Where on earth does freedom of speech guarantee the right to lie in order to cover up a crime or to avoid punishment?
Absolute freedom of speech is a construct that exist only in the realm of the ideal, not in everyday society. Many examples have already been offered above. What happens in reality is that people make choices everyday about what they express publicly and privately, and often the two are very different. We weigh our thoughts and at times censor ourselves according to the social mores of our environment; sometimes out of fear of rejection by others, but also out respect for one another.
In my opinion, there are always times when individual freedom bows to social “good.” This is a lesson we all learn at home from our parents and siblings and in the sandbox at kindergarten. None of us escapes this honing and shaping of our concept of freedom as we grow. Our freedoms come with responsibility to one another and often require compassion and empathy in their expression. When we choose to ignore how our free expression affects others, than we have to be ready to face the possible consequences. C’est la vie!
I wonder if your objection to this bill is made with full knowledge of the avenues taken by the negationist Turkish government to avoid facing the truth of the crime committed against our ancestors? These actions cause real harm, and are a crime in and of themselves. I wish it was as simple as a person asserting an uninformed or misinformed opinion, but it goes well beyond this. Turkish negationism has hijacked justice when it comes to the Armenian Genocide, and allowed to flourish, it will pave the way to the next genocide. When do people of good will have the right to say “Not in my backyard, you don’t!”
Diran
January 28, 2012
To Simon The Libertarian, a few points:
You would do well to differentiate wit from wisdom. There is a big difference between the two.Trying to dignify your libertarian opinions by associating yourself with Voltaire does not work. Voltaire said many witty things, often contradictory, including “A witty saying proves nothing”. You say “There are absolutely no philosophical grounds for restricting speech”. No, the grounds are not philosophical, they are legal, as in perjury, libel, slander, obstruction of justice, etc. as others have suggested to you in this forum. I would suggest to you that in terms of the crime of genocide which Turkey committed against its Armenian minority, obstruction of justice is very descriptive of its program to finance and support a worldwide network of denialists who daily pour salt into the unhealed wounds of the Armenian people.
You apparently feel that a little more salt would do. France has raised a finger in objection, France, a nation that was intimately involved in saving the lives of the Armenians of Musa Dagh, whose navy bravely battled the angry waves of the ocean to launch the rickety ramps and rafts which transported the embattled survivors of Musa Dagh to salvation on the “Guichen” and other allied ships.
But, no, you don’t wish to “elaborate on the the background information.” Your stance reminds me of the Turkish guards who shouted, “It is forbidden!” at the emaciated Armenian refugees who looked with longing eyes at the water spilling from the pails of Turkish villagers going by, water that could sustain them for one more day but which they were forbidden to drink. I hesitate to recommend you look at the relevant passage in “Armenian Golgotha” (chapter 27) by Krikoris Balakian. It might cause you undue discomfort in your sanitized world of libertarian abstractions.
ragnar naess
January 28, 2012
jerry
you write:
The denial of Genocide functions in this instance to incite to violence — it is not only a sanction for denied violence on a mass scale, but it it a continuation of the cover up that genocide needs in order to succeed.
Comment:
I believe you miss the point about freedom of expression here. Your type of argument was raised by the nobility and the clergy in 1600- and 1700-eds: “The opinion X functions as…”. The answer from the supporters of freedom of expression was invariably: yes, but who is to decide? And who is to decide that the opinions of others should be forbidden? For this reason philosophers like John Locke, Spinoza and the Enlightenment philosophers in general supported the principle of freedom of speeech. And they were successful.
The argument that people can deny the AG in private, but not in public does not touch the core of the question: that the majority is allowed to outlaw a minority opinion. The private/official distinction cannot adress this principle.
Boyajian
you write:
The French are simply applying the same limits on genocide deniers that would be applied to you or I if we were trying to obstruct justice. This bill has to do with preventing negationism (lying) which has dangerous consequences for all. Where on earth does freedom of speech guarantee the right to lie in order to cover up a crime or to avoid punishment?
comment:
but again this does not adress the question of freedom of speeech. For how do we decide who is lying and who is speaking the truth? If the AW was built on the “French” principles, we would never have a real debate! We could not have the psychological tradition of therapy in which the patient simply speaks hus or her mind….The whole of the enlightenment concept of freedom of speeech rests on the assumption that freedom of speech and informed discussion in the long run is the only guarantee of good and truthful decisions. For this reason the West in the cold war did not outlaw Communist parties, not in the US, not in France, not in Norway, where I come from. Only open debate can safeguard a sane society in the long run.
Now Thierault in an article in AW some time ago made a plea for outlawing denial of genocide which was based on a critique of a naive liberalism that does not realize that there exist conscious misinformation and agents of conscious misinfiormation. I agree that many politicians and much of the Turkish official literature carries a heavy stamp of negastionism, by engaging in the debate by only considering the arguments that support one’s own position, by never referring the arguments of the opponent in a correct way, by mixing slander and unfounded accusations with real arguments. But can one solve this problem by outlawing certain opinions? I believe one can only solve this question by a vigilant public who actually judges arguments, not only listens to the received wisdom which in many cases commits mistakes
Lastly, Boyajian, this has nothing to do with the ideal of “absolute freedom of speech”. We all agree that hate speech should be forbidden. Why do you come up with this point which you certainly know is not part if the real question?
Jda
January 28, 2012
Ragnar, the non academic:
To the degree they can be penetrated, your arguments fail to deal with the situation before us. And, as usual you play the pedant by alluding to scholars for your own prestige.
The French authorities put Jewish children on trains to Auschwitz. They stained the honor of France in a way that can never be cleansed or forgotten. When in 1990 Neo-Nazis rose in France and Germany, France enacted laws to deter Genocide again. Voltaire and Spinoza never visited Auschwitz.
A society that murdered its children is entitled to view preventing Genocide as paramount. Reasonable people can make this judgment.
Your arguments are years overdue. The only philosophical idea in play now is consistency: should denial of the Armenian and other Genocides be treated differently than the JG? France says Non! So do we.
Please take your great erudition and pedantry to Trabzon. Wear a prominent pectoral Cross. Let us know what happens.
Avery
January 28, 2012
Ragnar Naess you write: “inbreds” when referring to Armenian posters @AW.
Ragnar Naess you write: “disposed of” when referring to victims of AG.
Ragnar Naess you write: ““what the ittihadists did by deporting close to one million Armenians before they could support the Russian army…….”
(in effect justifying the AG).
ragnar naess
January 28, 2012
boyajian
and then you write:
quote:. Turkish negationism has hijacked justice when it comes to the Armenian Genocide, and allowed to flourish, it will pave the way to the next genocide. When do people of good will have the right to say “Not in my backyard, you don’t!”. Unquote.
Yes, people have a right to say no, the have it by force of the right of freedom of speeech! Please dont tamper with this principle! And people have a right to outlaw hate speech, but not arguments, properly put, even if they are offensive to some.—About Turkey paving the way for the next genocide. Please, when the problems augmented in Rwanda, the french more or less supported the Hutu government for finacial and political reasons. THIS was the French responsibility, not any failure to write in the press about the Armenian Genocide. When the alert went regarding the areas in the middle Sudan – we were actually commenting on it seven-eight months ago, remember? – then the task was to intensify focus on Sudan if we were to prevent anything, not organise protest against the AG!
Avery
January 28, 2012
Ragnar Naess you write: “inbreds” when referring to Armenian posters @AW.
Ragnar Naess you write: “disposed of” when referring to victims of AG.
Ragnar Naess you write: ““what the ittihadists did by deporting close to one million Armenians before they could support the Russian army…….”
(in effect justifying the AG).
THIS is the calling card of an Armenian Genocide Denier.
THIS is the hate-speech polluting the blogoshere.
Instead of spending your remaining years on this planet insulting Armenians at an Armenian site, why don’t you go and organize another DenialFest with your buddy Justin McCarthy: it should be more fun for you Deniasts.
necati
January 28, 2012
“spending your remaining years on this planet ”
very good example of speech by civilized armenians…
Necati Genis
January 28, 2012
Avery ,
we Turks have a saying: noone can predict who will die first ..
do you have some agreement with god to live long ?
Avery
January 28, 2012
someone who wrote the following is too far removed from civilization to even know what civilization is, much less a civilized Armenian:
{necati , 26 December 2011 , 00:22
_________, whenever your grand mother opens her underwear in the tomb, then ATASE will open strategic archives of Turkish Army..} (addressing an Armenian poster)
And don’t read dark thoughts into what I wrote:
Mr. Naess is 70 years old. A 70 year old man has far fewer years remaining on this planet than a 30 year old young Turk like you. Simple, statistical life expectancy. Got it ?
Necati Genis
January 28, 2012
Avery ,
i know he is 70. that is why your words irritated me much.
you need to respect people older than you are..
Avery
January 29, 2012
the concept of ‘respect’ does not exist in your twisted world: in no culture is it acceptable to insult one’s dead Grandmother in such vile manner. Or maybe your hatred for ‘Ermenileri’ is so pathological that you find nothing wrong with insulting an Armenian’s grandmother, while at the same time professing, alleged, concern for the seniority of a Turcophile AG Denialist Norwegian.
Like I wrote previously: you need competent profession help.
Jirair
January 28, 2012
Simon, I just noticed that in your reply to the collective disagreement, you wrote: “The responses are not, to be honest, challenging my arguments.” Are you that obtuse or is your facile reply, compliments of Rhetoric 101? Send the cheap trick to Newt Gingrich.
David, among others, has shown you where your argument went wrong. Re-read his letters.
Jirair
January 28, 2012
Nekati Genis,
You say, (sic) “we Turks have a saying: noone can predict who will die first…”
You are too modest. Turks can predict who will die first.. After all, you planned the killing of 1.5 million civilian Armenians because racists that you still are, you wanted a “100% pure Turkey,” although the land you illegally occupied belonged mostly to Armenians and to Greeks.
By the way, according to recorded history, Armenians have been around at least since 2,250 B.C. (that’s Before Christ, for your information.) We intend to be around for another 2,250 years. I wish you roll your tents and go back where you came from in Central Asia, contrary to the raving fabrications of ataturk that Turks are Hittites!
Avery
January 28, 2012
“you planned the killing of 1.5 million civilian Armenians”
correction Jirair: it should say “you planned the murder…”
In certain cases Homicide (killing) is justifiable.
Murder is always a crime.
Killing unarmed civilians, including children and babies is – Murder.
Boyajian
January 30, 2012
Ragnar, the speech in a therapy session is private and protected speech and has completely different rules than that of public expression. You need not fear that the French bill criminalizing Armenian Genocide denial will trickle down and inhibit a therapy session.
Avery
January 30, 2012
“TURKISH MINISTER: I DENY THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, COME ARREST ME” (headline at TodaysZaman Jan 29, 2012)
We eagerly await to see the email that Mr. Simon Beugekian would have sent by now congratulating Mr. Bağış on his exercise of free speech.
Perhaps Mr. Beugekian can further the cause of free speech even more, by urging other Turkish officials to publicly deny the Armenian Genocide.
(BTW: A cheap publicity stunt. Mr. Egemen Bağış knows very well he enjoys diplomatic immunity)
Boyajian
January 31, 2012
I value freedom of speech as much as any of those who worry the French bill will harm this universal principle, but I have a few questions…
What do you call the forced deportation of all members of a particular ethnic group to inhospitable regions without provisions for their survival and with concurrent redistribution of their property and wealth left behind to the dominant ethnic group?
What do you call providing no protection to deportees along the routes of their deportation and allowing chettehs open access to commit all sorts of acts of thuggery and depravity against vulnerable women, children and elderly?
What do you call abduction of children and forced conversion or servitude?
What do you call purging people, streets and towns of their traditional names and reassigning names that reflect the aggressor ethnic group?
What do you call the virtual elimination of an ethnic group from their homeland in the matter of a few short years?
What is debatable about this?
Are these common acts of ‘civil war’?
Is this the way to conduct relocation for security measures? If it was merely a case of badly mismanaged security measures, why not just say that and take responsibility for the injuries incurred? Wouldn’t this be the normal response of a government to such an ‘unintended’ tragedy?
Why should ‘freedom of speech’ be misused to allow the denial of such a crime? How is this about differing opinions?
Not only has Turkey been permitted to avoid responsibility for the destruction of the Armenian community of Asia Minor for 97 years, but now they shamelessly want the world to guarantee their right to re-write history and denigrate the memory of 1.5 million innocent victims of a depraved campaign to save Turkey for Turks.
Does protecting their right to freely deny and distort this truth serve the spirit of freedom of speech which was intended to protect individuals from government oppression?
Should freedom of speech now be used to protect government oppression in its penultimate form?
Boyajian
January 31, 2012
Re-reading many of the posts above, I think that Hamasdegh put it best on January 27 when he said:
“Who is therefore limiting freedom of expression – Armenians in France and the diaspora intent on seeking justice for atrocities committed against our nation or Turkish authorities who are trying to muzzle all possible references to this Genocide?”
Jirair Tutunjian
January 31, 2012
As has been said here, freedom of expression is not an absolute. The country he is citizen of has curtailed freedom left and right in the past decade. While “Harpers’ and “Nation” have done their expected critique, the American people have become the Amen Corner and have overwhelmingly approved (Dubya was elected twice) these limitations on rights.
Turkey has for far too long exploited “freedom of speech” in Western countries to deny its crime. What’s the good of a principle when it is used to defend proven mass criminals? Turkey has been laughing all the way to the nearest “meykhana” (tavern) at the naive, romantic and misguided Europeans while Ankara retains Article 301 of the penal code in place, imprisons more journalist than any other country, oppresses 15 million Kurds, in addition to other minorities.
So the author wants to defend freedom of speech. He can always take a hike in Walden, Concorde and commune with Thoreau, Emerson, et al and invoke Voltaire’s non-existent quote. I am sure he will feel elevated and very superior to Armenians who continue to commemorate their martyrs despite it being another year, another April 24.
john the turk
January 31, 2012
Boyajian
Armenians must have answered all the questions you raise before they showed hostility toward Turks
ragnar naess
January 31, 2012
boyajian
with your last post “Who is—”, you are not adressing the freedom of expression issue at all. There are many things we are convinced of and convinced that the other ones are wrong. the question of whether an opinion is mnistaken, wrong or immoral or not is an issue different from the issue of whether certain statements should be prohibited by law or not. So you simply miss the issue, to my mind.
VTiger
January 31, 2012
It’s still a pig,even if it flies…
RVDV
January 31, 2012
I see no flaw in that argument.
john the turk
January 31, 2012
Ragnar naess
Where do you discuss the Armenian genocide subject with Turks other than this site so I can take a look at
Boyajian
January 31, 2012
Sorry, Ragnar, but there is no mistake that the Armenians were subjected to deportations and conditions that caused death and permanent displacement by the order and full knowledge of the CUP government and that resulted in the permanent loss of inheritance to their descendants and the virtual elimination of their existence on their homeland. You yourself have used the term ‘genocidal consequences’ when discussing CUP actions in 1915.
The French deemed these actions to be genocide in 2001. They have every right as a sovereign nation to view denial of this fact as an incitement to hate and to pass laws within their own territory to limit such incitement.
I think you miss the point that freedom of speech is intended to protect the rights of the individual against the government; not to permit a government to get away with a crime. Again, the French bill is not intended to limit speech. It is intended to stop negationism—the deliberate distortion of history. The Armenian massacres and the CUP complicity in the death of over a million Armenians is history. It is not merely a case of being ‘convinced’ of something. Where are the Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians of Asia Minor today? The proof of the ethnic cleansing is in the population numbers, not to mention the vast body of archival evidence, news accounts and eye-witness reports and victim narratives..
No one is disputing the merits of freedom of speech as a universal right to an individual, just defending the right of a state to limit speech they deem to be hate speech or an incitement to violence, which could be argued in
the case of genocide denial.
Jirair
January 31, 2012
Ragnar,
There was no Genocide of Armenians; there was no deportation of Armenians. One day in the summer of 1915 Armenian en mass (old people, women, children included) decided to go camping in the searing deserts of Syria, some thousand miles away. Since the desert is close to the Land of Milk and Honey (that’s what the Bible says), they didn’t take any food or water with them. I guess they were planning the biggest picnic in the world. They hit the road on foot.
The friendly Turkish gendermarie, Turkish and Kurdish prisoners released from jail tried to persuade these Polyanna Armenian folk not to join in the picnic caravan. But you know, Armenians can be funny sometimes: they insisted to hold their picnic.
Turks told Armenians that they would look after their properties while Armenians were suntanning in the desert. The Turks would also look after Armenian churches, schools and other community buildings until Armenians returned from their vacation.
For some reason, Armenians decided not to return to their ancestral homes: I guess the allure of 100 degree temperatures, the hostile landscape and the hungry wolves was irresistible to Armenians.
Somebody should write to the “Guinness Book of Records” and to nominate the Armenian Picnic as the biggest ever.
VTiger
January 31, 2012
Jirair,great sense of humor.You forgot to write about the bbq-s with the flesh of their starving children…
Jirair
January 31, 2012
Thank you, V Tiger. In fact, my version is not that different from the fables Turkey has been telling to the world. If the Pinocchio tale was true, Erdogan, Davutoglu, Ataturk et al would have three-metre noses.
ragnar naess
February 7, 2012
boyajian
you write:
Sorry, Ragnar, but there is no mistake that the Armenians were subjected to deportations and conditions that caused death and permanent displacement by the order and full knowledge of the CUP government and that resulted in the permanent loss of inheritance to their descendants and the virtual elimination of their existence on their homeland. You yourself have used the term ‘genocidal consequences’ when discussing CUP actions in 1915.
The French deemed these actions to be genocide in 2001. They have every right as a sovereign nation to view denial of this fact as an incitement to hate and to pass laws within their own territory to limit such incitement.
I think you miss the point that freedom of speech is intended to protect the rights of the individual against the government; not to permit a government to get away with a crime. Again, the French bill is not intended to limit speech. It is intended to stop negationism—the deliberate distortion of history.
comment:
I have been trying to get a copy of the actual law text. What you say now is different from what has been said before. “The deliberate distortion of history” is something different from “denying The Armenian” genocide, which in ordinary palance means to say “There was no genocide committed against the Armenians” along with an explanation.
Your formula “deliberate distortion” brings in a new concept. Yes, of course one might penalize “deliberate distortions” in given cases. So please choose what theme we are discussing!
You write:
The Armenian massacres and the CUP complicity in the death of over a million Armenians is history. It is not merely a case of being ‘convinced’ of something. Where are the Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians of Asia Minor today? The proof of the ethnic cleansing is in the population numbers, not to mention the vast body of archival evidence, news accounts and eye-witness reports and victim narratives
comment:
Well, I have to repeat myself. I Believe in their responsibility, if not necessarily complicity Further, the thesis of an extermination program og genocidal intent is as far as I know not finally established historically. There is a considerable number of historians who doubt or deny that the events should be characterized as genocide:Lewy, Lewis, Mango, Mcarthy, Shaw, Yapp, Veinstein,Stone, gunther, lowry, hurewitz,Davison, Salt, Murphey,mantran, bazin, rhodinson, Finkel, Conroy, Boekstijn,courbage, Dumont, E. Erickson, Fargues, Henze, pope, Radu, Piccoli,Young, Kerem, Wheal,williams, Zeidner, and some more. These historians are exployed by universities all over the workd. They represent the profession of historians. We may disagree, but historians as a group have got given anny definite answers. The facts you adduce cannot count as evidence of genocidal intent.
you wrote:
No one is disputing the merits of freedom of speech as a universal right to an individual, just defending the right of a state to limit speech they deem to be hate speech or an incitement to violence, which could be argued in
the case of genocide denial.
comment:
then we are back again at our former point: to present a disagreement, with due respect for those who are hurt by our opinions, is not hate speech.
Boyajian
we have now been arguing for almost two years. I like that you say “….could be argued”, because I believe you are sure about this. And believe me, your argumentation is a mess – this time – sorry for saying so
anis
February 11, 2012
Will France take responsibily of killing Algerians in sixties and make it a crime to deny that genocide,
Avery
February 12, 2012
will you first learn the difference between: atrocity, massacre, deaths during war, etc and Genocide – before you ask a vacuous question ?
Boyajian
February 12, 2012
Ragnar, I see we are repeating ourselves. Let’s not belabor our debate which in the end always hangs on your ‘ambivalence’ or ‘lack of being convinced’ that the Armenians suffered genocide. I won’t pretend to be a historian who has read every word written on the subject or that I can hold my own when the pro and con citations start flying.
For me it is simply this: Lemkin coined the word in part based on what happened to the Armenians. I accept his assessment.
I see the debate that it was not genocide as a manufactured and specious argument that allows Turkey to avoid responsibility for the great crime, the great catastrophe, the great tragedy, that was the death of Ottoman Armenians. No matter what you call these events, justice has not been served in almost 100 years, and this is in itself a tragedy. I welcome the support of the French who by passing such a bill are attempting to ensure that ‘negationism’ is not permitted within their sovereign territory; not because they value free speech any less than its staunchest supporters, but because they reject the specious denial of genocide and its unjust impact on the victims.
I will wait to see what the French Court determines regarding the constitutionality of the recently passed bill. But no matter what they decide, the fact remains that Turkey has a responsibility to Armenia, Armenians, and the world to face justice for what happened to the Ottoman Armenians, and may further be culpable for using history, politics, and unabashed denial to obstruct justice.
Jirair
February 12, 2012
Anis, Some history for you. The Algerian/French war of the ’50s was a war of independence. France had been occupying Algeria for 120 years. Algerians wanted the French out. Both sides had huge losses; there was extreme cruelty on both sides. There was no genocide. Many Algerians were pro-France. When independence was declared, hundreds of thousands of these Algerians emigrated to France. They are the core of the North African presence in France.
Do you know why the French had occupied Algeria? The Barbary pirates (in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya) had been harassing Western shipping, looting ships, enslaving passengers and selling them. That’s where the “white slavery” term was coined. Finally, fed up with the pirates, Americans sent ships to Tripoli (“From the Halls of Montezuma to Tripoli…” Marine song) to stop the Barbary pirates there. France did the same thing in Algeria.
There was no Algerian genocide. France reacted to Barbary/Algerian pirates who threatened merchant and passenger ships in the western Mediterranean.
I was in Tunisia several years ago. One boastful and vicious Barbary pirate (I forget his name..perhaps Dragut) made a hillock of the skulls of European captives. The hillock (minus the skulls) is a well-known sight in Tunis.
Now go to the library and check some history books. Or better, go to Tunis.
Anis
February 12, 2012
HUMAN HISTORY IS FULL OF SKELETONS, WHOSE VICTIMS ARE WORTH COUNTING IS A POLITICAL DECISION
Avery is teaching me the difference between “atrocity, massacre, deaths during war, etc and Genocide”. Genocide is the terms coined by the modern day “civilized” man to justify or ignore some killings for political reasons but to vilify others. Please do not hide behind the technicalities and do not put value to a human life. Lives of 3000 American lost in 9/11 were as valuable as over 300,000 Iraqis ans Afghanis.
Where will you “classify” clearing of entire Americas by European settlers by killing aboriginals, millions eliminated by Stalin, 3 million Vietnamese victims, killed by Americans, throughout Americas by European settlers.
WE ALL KNOW THAT EUROPE COLONIZED AFRICA AND ASIA FOR ECONOMIC REASONS.
Jirair, is trying t give me a lesson in the history of Algerian colonization by telling me “The Barbary pirates (in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya) had been harassing Western shipping, looting ships, enslaving passengers and selling them”.
Remember, it is Europe and USA that benefited by plundering the wealth of Africa and the Third World not the other way round. How about looting of gold/silver of Latin America by Spain (I saw that fort on the Atlantic Coast of Panama where Peruvian Gold used to be stored for onward shipping to Spain) , wealth of India by Britain, shipload timber of Java/Sumatra etc. The innocent “shipping” you are talking about was used to carry black slaves, stolen riches/raw material from the East and sending back manufactured goods to captivated markets.
Please do not tell me that France reacted to Barbary/Algerian pirates who threatened merchant and passenger ships in the western Mediterranean.
According to Alistair Horne, a western historian, during the eight years of their war for independence (1954-62) 700,000 Algerians were killed by the French army. The official estimate of France is 350,000 casualties as against 1.5 million deaths estimated by Algeria’s FLN (National Liberation Front). However, this is barely mentioned in French high school textbooks. It’s still such an emotional issue that a few months ago a group of right-wing deputies took advantage of a nighttime session of parliament to push through a law requiring schools to focus on the positive aspects of colonialism. Not only that, France is still bitter over the “loss” of Algeria; a country declared to be part of French territory.
AVERY & JIRAIR: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION BUT NOT YOUR “FACTS”
Garrek
February 13, 2012
Anis, it just isn’t appropriate to try to shun punishment for a crime by citing other crimes that have gone unpunished.
I think you are taking this matter a bit too personally. This isn’t about you or your Turkishness. Although, looking back into the pages of history I just can’t see what there is to be proud of if you are a Turk. I acknowledge your nation’s achievements in terms of land and wealth but those came at the expense of spilling the blood of other peoples and thus have net worth of nothing. Otherwise, Turks haven’t contributed much either internally or internationally to the betterment of man-kind in terms of areas of human development (ie: art, psychology, medicine, science, technology, math, social development…). Maybe just music and cuisine but this isn’t my personal opinion, I’ve heard others argue that your food is good and some like your music. But the millions of lives the Turks have extinguished have certainly had a negative effect on human development in general.
Anyway, I digress, I am trying to say that Turkey committed an international crime and judgment is long overdue and the court is still in session. Your argument regarding “HISTORY IS FULL OF SKELETONS” helps you not.
Jirair
February 12, 2012
Anis, your idea of “equivalency” is strange. Of course, the French and other European imperialists exploited most of the world, starting in the 15th century. However, that has nothing to do with vicious pirates attacking innocent people in the Mediterranean. Are you saying these freebooters were avenging, say, the Haitians, the Incas, the Aztecs?
North Africa was nominally part of the Ottoman Empire, although the local beys ran the place as they wished. Their attacks on Western shipping pleased the Turkish sultan because Europe was Turkey’s enemy. Of course, these pirates sent some of their booty, including captives, to the sultan. The captives were bought and sold by Turks as slaves.
By the way, the Barbary coast., as the name implies, was populated by white Berbers, until the imperialist Arabs conquered it in the 8th century and turned Berbers into third-class citizens. Even today, Berbers have no rights in the Maghreb, although they fought along the foreign Arabs against the foreign French.
It’s obvious you don’t know the meaning of genocide. The word means exterminating a people because of their race, ethnicity. The French killed Algerians because the latter (rightly) wanted the French out of Algeria. Injecting death statistics doesn’t change the intent. The French didn’t commit genocide in Algeria. The Turks did against Armenians.
Avery
February 12, 2012
Anis, as all Turk and Turcophile Denialists routinely do, conflates all human tragedies in one large cauldron of human suffering.
Pursuing justice for the crime of the Armenian Genocide by us Armenians does not imply indifference to the suffering of others.
Armenians and Armenian groups were very active fighting the Darfur Genocide on the political arena shoulder-to-shoulder with other humanist groups.
And if you recall, your PM Erdogan is buddy-buddies with the Indicted War criminal Genocidal Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir
Nobody in the Armenian community is stopping anybody else from pursuing justice for their own cause.
If we had the resources, we would do it all. But we have our hands full just trying to fight off Denialist assaults by the mighty Turkish State, their hired agents, and volunteer Denialists such as yourself, honored Turk guest Anis.
(I generally honor our Turkish guests with the honorific –oglu, or –Bey, or -Hanum. But since I do not know your gender, I regret that I will not be able to do so. Nothing hurts me more than not being able to greet our Denialist guests properly)
As to Genocide and Algeria: French did not invade Algeria with the intention of exterminating Algerians. That is why there are about 35 million Algerians alive today. That is why Algeria’s President told PM Erdogan to “shut it” about French committing “genocide”.
Nazis planned and carried out the extermination of Jews in Europe. That is why from pre-war population of about 9.5 million Jews in Europe, only about 1 million remain now, including European Russia (repatriation, natural growth). You may have heard that 6 million Jews were exterminated. Most of the rest escaped to other countries, or were in a safe country (e.g. England).
Turks planned and carried out the extermination of indigenous Armenian population of Western Armenia. That is why, while there were about 2-2.3 million Armenians there in 1915, now there are fewer than about 60,000 left in all of Turkey.
Genocide denial is the process perfected by the modern day “civilized” Turk&Turcophile-man to justify or ignore the extermination of Armenians for political (and economic, and strategic) reasons.
ANIS: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION BUT NOT YOUR “FACTS”.