NOW, ARE WE STILL ANGRY WITH THE FRENCH?
by Burak Bekdil
Hurriyet Daily News
Turkey
March 2 2012
The ruling by France’s highest court, Le Conseil Constitutionnel,
to overturn a law that would have illegalized the denial of Armenian
genocide has added to a colorful and rich list of modern Turkish
hypocrisies.
“Was it not you,” Cem Toker, chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party,
asked the entire Justice and Development Party (AKP) machinery,
“who turned the world upside down in recent years with the fancy
argument that constitutional courts cannot examine laws in essence?”
Mr. Toker was referring to the popular AKP rhetoric of 2008 that
the Constitutional Court had hijacked Parliament’s powers when it
examined and annulled a constitutional amendment that removed the
headscarf ban at universities. A quick archive search will produce
these nice political memorabilia from the year 2008:
“This is juristocracy!”
“This is a judicial coup d’etat!”
“The court has taken the national will hostage.”
“The court’s ruling should be suspended.”
“The court has entered politics.”
“The court has breached its own legitimacy.”
“This ruling is null and void.”
“The court can in no way have authority over Parliament.”
“This is a forceful seizure of Parliament’s sovereignty.”
“The court is targeting Parliament.”
“Nowhere in Europe would this have happened.”
Now, the same men think that the Conseil Constitutionnel’s ruling is
perfectly fine, that it in no way constitutes a violation of the French
Senate’s powers, it does not take the French national will hostage,
that the French court has not entered politics, that the ruling is
not null and void, and that the council is certainly not acting like
juristocracy or staging a judicial coup d’etat. And no one wishes to
notice that the Turkish court’s decision could happen in Europe.
For instance, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arınc thinks that the
“French supreme court gave a legal lesson to French politicians.” He
was one of the loudest when the “Turkish supreme court gave a legal
lesson to Turkish politicians.”
Lesson no 1: Constitutional courts cannot examine legislation if we
ideologically like the legislation.
Lesson no 2: Constitutional courts can well examine legislation if
we don’t like the legislation.
Lesson no 3: The will of the Turkish nation > the will of the French
nation.
Lesson no 4: We defend principles, ideals and democracy.
(My own lesson: I tend to feel frightened by principles, ideals
and democracy).
But are we still angry with the French?
“Will you keep on depriving me of a bottle of Bordeaux?” I asked
the waiter at a restaurant which had returned its stocks of French
wine after Jan. 23 when the French Senate passed the bill. “No, sir,”
he replied. “You will be served one next time you visit us. In fact,
it’s all because of ‘him.'” That “him” was President Nicolas Sarkozy,
the top French enemy of the Turks, whom the waiter thought had
passed the insulting bill all by himself. I did not remind him that
Mr. Sarkozy’s presidential rival, the Socialist Francois Hollande,
has pledged to revive the insulting bill if he is elected.
The manager of another Ankara venue, a cafe-restaurant that boasts
the name of the French capital, seemed relieved. “I am hoping,” he
said cheerfully, “that the telephone threats will end.” The poor man
had been receiving a few threatening calls every day that unless he
changed the name of his premises, he would suffer the consequences.
Always exceeding the limits of their own perfection in inventing
multiple political standards, the Turks can soon start thinking that
a new genocide denial bill should be fine if it is passed by President
Hollande and not by President Sarkozy.
The denial bill was in no way Voltairesque. All the same, it made a
Bretonesque impact in Ankara: President Abdullah Gul said that the
conseil’s ruling “saved France’s honor by [proving that] in France
it is possible to defend and express opinion other than the official
state opinion.” What better “humour noir?”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
