Mick Hartley

Politics and Culture

recent posts

email me

The Armenian Genocide Law

The French Senate has finally passed the bill that makes it a criminal offence to deny that genocide was committed by Ottoman Turks against Armenians. It now merely awaits the signature of President Sarkozy to become law.

I'm baffled by this. Of course it may be an entirely cynical move to get the votes of France's half-a-million or so citizens of Armenian descent, but even in terms of the most crude realpolitik surely that's outweighed by the damage to relations with Turkey in particular, and the Muslim world in general. So presumably the French must think they're somehow doing the right thing. But in what possible respect is legislation the answer? It's no business of the government to tell people what they should or shouldn't regard as historical truth. It's not what a liberal democracy should be doing – threatening those who dissent from the state's decreed perception of the truth with prosecution and jail. That's almost a defining characteristic of totalitarianism.

There are, as we know, laws against Holocaust denial in many European countries, including France. They're understandable, perhaps, in the face of the concerted efforts of Holocaust deniers, but they're still profoundly misguided. They simply provide ammunition for the likes of the Iranian regime in their belief that the Holocaust is a politically-motivated myth driven by the West's desire to legitimise Zionism and by extension the persecution of Muslims. And now they'll have even more ammunition: further proof that the West is pushing a historically dubious version of history as part of an anti-Muslim agenda. It's not only wrong; it's counter-productive.

It's as though, in the face of complaints that blasphemy laws in the West favoured Christianity against other religions, it was decided to extend blasphemy laws to cover defamation of all religions. It's not the way to go. Just abandon blasphemy laws.

I suppose it'll add some spice to history exams though. Get the wrong answer and you not only fail: you get carted off to jail as well.

Posted in

2 responses to “The Armenian Genocide Law”

  1. Alcuin Avatar
    Alcuin

    Mick,
    I agree completely with you in principle that government has no business restricting speech except insofar as it may cause or incite actual harm or injustice. The holocaust denial laws in many European countries may not be rational but the raw emotion following the horror of Nazi crimes demanded more than just condemnation. Imperfect, yes, and perhaps, now that History has digested it and we all know what happened, the time is due for their repeal.
    But here we have a country (Turkey), and behind it an entire culture (Islam) that wants its crimes hushed up. It does not want History to acknowledge them. It does not want the shame that Germany feels for its past, and remember, shame is a far bigger driver in Muslim culture than in the West.
    Turkey shows no remorse for a truly horrific incident in its past, and is unlikely to do so. Our media is constrained by political correctness to collaborate with this denial. Would the BBC put on a documentary series showing some facts of the Armenian Genocide? I note that a link on the BBC website that led to some details, is now blocked (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A884432). You can find it here (http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A834383) QED.
    The Nazis went about their fell project with typical Germanic efficiency. They knew what they were doing was wrong, so the kept the facts from the public. Millions died, but in a somewhat clinical if grizzly production line.
    The Turks were far less “considerate”. I won’t labour the details (which are worse than most of us can imagine), but it is hard to imagine how a large section of the country took part, to the extent of making sufficient noise to overwhelm the screams of the victims. To this extent, the Turks behaved far worse than the Nazis in all except sheer numbers, and the world knows little of it.
    So I have some sympathy with the French in this exercise. If it raises much comment, both for and against, so much the better. Turkey cannot pretend to be a civilized country until it has owned up to its past. If their feet must be held to the fire, so be it. This would also draw a great deal of the outrageous moral posturing of Muslims in the ME and throughout the world.
    Tu Quoque? Flawed, yes, but very effective, and time it was turned against those who use it unsparingly.
    Best regards.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    Thanks for that Alcuin.
    I don’t really disagree with what you say: it is indeed a disgrace that Turkey shows no remorse for the slaughter of the Armenians, to the extent that they even have laws against the very mention of genocide. I just think, as I argued, that however well-intentioned the French initiative may be, it’s counter-productive. This is clearly not the way to get the Turks to admit their historic culpability – apart from the clear principle that it’s wrong to make the holding of certain beliefs illegal.
    But yes, you’ve put the case for the law as clearly and eloquently as I think it can be put. And, as you say, it does help to keep the subject in the news.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment