Author: nina hovnanian

CAVALIER OF ST. MESROP MASHTOTS ORDER DISPUTES THE BILL CRIMINALIZING GENOCIDE DENIAL

Mediamax
Feb 2 2012
Armenia

Yerevan/Mediamax/. Upon the initiative of several dozens of members
of the French Senate and the Lower Chamber of the parliament, the bill
criminalizing the denial of genocides is disputed in the Constitutional
Council of France.

Christian Poncelet, who was the President of the French Senate in
1998-2008, is among the authors of the initiative.

Christian Poncelet was awarded one of the highest state awards of
Armenia- the St. Mesrop Mashtots Order. President of Armenia Robert
Kocharian handed over the award to him in Paris on 15 July 2003.

It seemed that the official who was awarded such a high award could
at least take a neutral stance over the bill and not become one of
its main opponents.

However, it’s not the first time that Christian Poncelet takes an
ambiguous stance on the issue of Armenian Genocide. Visiting Yerevan
in July 1999, he said that “the past century has seen many disasters,
including the Armenian Genocide. But it is also the century of revival
of the Armenian state.” Speaking about why the Senate didn’t discuss
the bill on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide passed by the
National Assembly, Poncelet said then that this problem “will be
resolved sooner or later”, adding that “when the bill was submitted to
the Senate, the events in Kosovo began and France deemed it inexpedient
to discuss such a topic when a new war was blazing in the Balkans.” He
also said that he recommended the government of France to recognize
the Armenian Genocide in 1982.

In February 2000, the Senate headed by Christian Poncelet again
refused to discuss the issue of recognition of the Armenian Genocide,
which aroused a wave of resentment in Armenia. In May 2000, Charles
Aznavour said he had turned down Christian Poncelet’s invitation to
sing at the solemn reception in the Senate on July 14.

“If I sung in the Senate on July 14, it would mean I was renouncing my
origin. The Senate made this decision because of Turkey’s threats. But
is France a country that can be threatened?” Charles Aznavour said
then.

We can only state that Charles Aznavour’s question remains timely
also today.

TURKEY WELCOMES FRENCH CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF GENOCIDE LAW
BYLINE: James Goundry

Global Insight
February 1, 2012

More than 130 French senators and MPs from across the political divide
called on the constitutional court to verify the legality of a law
passed by the Senate on 23 January, criminalising denial of genocide.

They argue the law violates freedom of speech. The number of lawmakers
far surpassed the 60 required to secure a constitutional review of
the legislation before it can be signed into law by President Nicolas
Sarkozy. The bill, which would introduce a EUR45,000 (USD58,000) fine
and a prison sentence of up to one year for those denying genocides
recognised by the state, was controversial and prompted a storm of
criticism and threats from the Turkish government as it made its
way through the French parliament (seeFrance – Turkey – Armenia: 24
January 2012:). France recognises the deaths of hundreds of thousands
of Armenians in Eastern Turkey during the First World War as genocide.

Turkey vehemently refutes this label.

Significance:The referral to the constitutional court is likely
motivated by a mixture of lawmakers fearful of the impact of Turkish
retaliation on French business and those who disagree with a law which
has been criticised by Amnesty International as limiting freedom of
speech. Sarkozy signalled his displeasure at the move, stating that
it was not helpful and warned that it could lead to a reconsideration
of France’s law criminalising denial of the Nazi holocaust. Turkey
will hold off announcing any threatened “retaliatory measures” until
the review is completed in eight days’ to one month’s time.

GENOCIDE COMPENSATION PROCESS HITS SNAG WITH MISSING CLAIMS

asbarez
Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

Geragos (left) is pictured here with Phil Angelides, Brian Kabateck
and Vartkes Yeghiayan (far right) BY MARK KELLAM

LOS ANGELES (Glendale News Press)-After months of legal wrangling,
a multimillion-dollar legal dispute involving a compensation fund
for descendants of Armenian Genocide victims has hit another snag:
more than 1,700 of the 13,500 claims cannot be found.

In U.S. District Court on Monday, attorney Roman Silberfeld said 1,766
claims “cannot be accounted for” after 41 boxes of claims were moved
from the offices of attorneys Mark Geragos and Brian Kabateck to a
neutral location at the Loyola Law School.

Silberfeld said he has documentation that the fund’s administrator,
Glendale resident Persagh Kartalian, transferred 51 boxes of insurance
claims at one point, but Silberfeld isn’t sure of their destination.

It now appears that 10 of the boxes are missing.

As part of an earlier agreement between the two sides, all claims of
more than $15,000 will be audited for possible inaccuracies.

Originally, Silberfeld’s client, Glendale-based attorney Vartkes
Yeghiayan, wanted all of the claims made to a compensation fund set
up by France-based insurer Axa S.A. checked for discrepancies.

Silberfeld asked Kabateck to double-check the offices to see if the
missing claims can be found.

If they don’t turn up, Silberfeld requested that Kartalian be asked
what he did with the files.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder ordered a deposition with
Kartalian to answer questions about the administration of the
compensation fund. The attorneys have already spent about 12 hours
with Kartalian, questioning him in an informal setting.

Now a formal deposition will be conducted, which can last up to four
hours, Snyder said.

Silberfeld said he can do it in less than the maximum time.

“We now have some specific questions for him,” he said.

Kartalian has also been ordered to turn over all records, including
electronic, about the fund.

“He undertook this obligation and he’s going to have to follow it
through,” Snyder said.

She also agreed with Silberfeld’s request for Pacific Western Bank
to send him images of the backs of checks that have been sent to
claimants to make sure they have been cashed properly.

Kabateck decried not knowing about the missing claims or request
for the images of the backs of checks until about 45 minutes before
the hearing.

Geragos, Yeghiayan and Kabateck were on the same legal team that in
2005 brought a lawsuit that resulted in Axa’s compensation fund, which
was set up to pay claims that it failed to compensate descendants of
Armenian Genocide victims who bought policies between 1875 and 1923.

The next hearing on the matter is scheduled for April 2.

90 ARMENIAN CITIZENS STUCK IN GEORGIA’S HIGH-MOUNTAIN REGION

news.am
February 03, 2012 | 13:36

Ninety citizens of Armenia got stuck in the neighboring Georgia
because of avalanche threat in high-mountain Kazbegi region

Local authorities said it is still unclear when the road would be
cleaned. Thirty Georgians got stuck in the high-mountain region as
well, Novosti Gruziya reports.

Georgia has registered the coldest winter for the last 15 years. All
the territory is covered with snow.

AZERBAIJAN’S DREAMS ABOUT DUDUK HAVE BURST LIKE A BUBBLE

arminfo
Friday, February 3, 13:57

For old time’s sake the Azerbaijani Mass Media again speak of the
“plagiarism” by Armenian musicians. This time, certain Alihan Samedov,
a Turkish musician, Azerbaijani my origin, told Day.az a bloodcurdling
story about the famous duduk player Jivan Gasparyan who regularly
performs his music. Samedov’s pain and sorrow are natural since he
has never performed Gasparyan’s repertoire. It is hardly possible
to trust in this tale as far as Jivan Gasparyan is a world-renowned
musician unlike Samedov.

To draw parallels with Ivan Krylov’s “Elephant and Pug”, one can just
google “Alihan Samedov” and “Jivan Gasparyan” and see the results –
65600 and 482 thousand respectively. Neither can Samedov boast of his
views on Youtube. While his music on youtube is approaching 40,000
views, Jivan Gasparyan’s Dle Yaman alone has been viewed by almost
300,000 times.

In this light, Samedov’s statement calling the Armenian duduk an Azeri
balaban arouses just an indulgent smile. Suffice it to say that in
2005 UNESCO announced the sounds of Armenian duduk masterpiece of
non-material cultural heritage of humanity. No comments.

DM SEYRAN OHANYAN ATTENDS NATO MEETING IN BRUSSELS

armradio.am
03.02.2012 12:36

The delegation headed by Armenian Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan
visits Belgium February 2-4 to participate in the sitting of the
Defense Ministers of the countries participating in the International
Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and Kosovo, Information and
Public Relations Department of the Ministry of Defense reported.

LE BHK DEVRAIT SOUTENIR SERGE SARKISSIAN AUX ELECTIONS
Laetitia

armenews.com
vendredi 3 fevrier 2012

Un membre du BHK a annonce mercredi que l’homme d’affaires,Gagik
Tsarukian et son parti Armenie prospère (BHK), soutiendront le
president Serge Sarkissian a l’election presidentielle de l’an
prochain, niant toute ” mefiance ” entre les deux partenaires de
coalition.

” Nous avons tout simplement aucune raison de ne pas soutenir
Sarkissian “, a dit Vartan Bostanjian lors d’une conference. ” Bien
sûr, comme vous avez pu le remarquer, j’ai toujours evite de parler
au nom de mon chef. Mais en tout cas, nous avons toujours la preuve
des documents que nous avons signes. ”

Vartan Bostanjian a fait reference a une declaration conjointe qui a
ete publiquement signee en fevrier 2011 par Serge Sarkissian, Gagik
Tsarukian et Arthur Baghdassarian d’Orinats Yerkir. Le communique
indique que les trois partis de la coalition feront campagne pour la
reelection du president sortant en 2013.

Gaggik Tsarukian a souleve des questions sur cet engagement en
septembre quand il a refuse de reaffirmer le soutien a la reelection
de Sarkissian. Il a parle du scrutin presidentiel de 2013 de manière
evasive quelques jours seulement après que l’ancien president Robert
Kotcharian a manifeste son desir de faire son retour en politique.

Sarkisian, Tsarukian et Baghdassarian se sont reunis lundi pour
discuter des prochaines elections et de la situation politique generale
dans ce pays. Peu de details de cette reunion ont ete rendus publics.

Vartan Bostanjian a egalement annonce que les deux partis ont convenu
de designer leurs candidats aux elections legislatives.

AVEC LES ARMENIENS !
Jean Eckian

armenews.com
vendredi 3 fevrier 2012

Depuis que les députés francais ont adopté le 22 décembre 2011
la proposition de loi visant a pénaliser la négation du génocide
des Arméniens, des intellectuels aussi éminents que Jean Daniel,
Pierre Nora et Robert Badinter ont eu les mots les plus durs pour
condamner cette initiative parlementaire.

Bien qu’ils ne nient pas ce génocide, ils s’obstinent a présenter
cette loi comme l’illustration parfaite de la dérive législative
mémorielle francaise. On comprend mal leur réaction, d’autant
qu’ils ne demandent pas l’abrogation de la loi Gayssot pénalisant
la négation de la Shoah !

Dans Le Monde,Robert Badinter affirme que le génocide des Arméniens
n’a pas été établi et ses auteurs n’ont pas été condamnés
par une juridiction internationale ou nationale dont l’autorité
de la chose jugée s’impose a tous. En écrivant de tels propos,
l’artisan de l’abolition de la peine de mort témoigne de manière
éclatante de sa méconnaissance historique : entre 1919 et 1922,
les tribunaux militaires turcs ont poursuivi quelque 300 dirigeants
Jeunes-Turcs, accusés de participation aux tueries de 1915. Les
principaux architectes du génocide, Enver Pacha, Djemal Pacha,
Talaat Pacha et le docteur Nazim ont été jugés coupables et
condamnés par contumace. Ces procès ont permis d’amasser une
quantité impressionnante de documents sur ce crime et de mettre
a jour l’organisation et la mise en Å”uvre de l’élimination des
Arméniens par ces dirigeants Jeunes-Turcs.

Des historiens israéliens ont heureusement réagi différemment
que ces intellectuels francais. Spécialistes des génocides, ils
parlent en connaissance de cause. Fondateur du Journal pour les
études sur l’Holocausteet le génocide, Yehouda Bauer a déclaré
que la négation du génocide des Arméniens est une négation de
l’histoire. Et IsraÔl Charny, fondateur de l’Institut de recherche sur
l’Holocauste et le génocide, a Jérusalem, s’est exprimé sur cette
question devant les membres de la Knesset : ” Aucun Juif décent,
aucun Israélien décent, ni aucune personne décente ne peut nier
les faits historiques établis du génocide d’un autre peuple. Que
direz-vous et que diriez-vous a quelqu’un qui nierait l’Holocausteâ~@~I
? Y aurait-il certaines conditions dans lesquelles vous “comprendriez”,
“admettriez”, ou d’une quelconque manière, accepteriez la nécessité
et par la suite la légitimité de leur négation ? ”.

Suggérant naïvement la création d’une commission internationale
d’historiens chargée de déterminer les conditions et l’ampleur du
génocide arménien de 1915, dont la Turquie s’engagerait a suivre les
conclusions, Robert Badinter et Pierre Nora devraient prendre la peine
de s’entretenir avec IsraÔl Charny qui s’est livré a cet exercice…

en 1982. Lorsqu’il a organisé cette première conférence
internationale sur l’Holocauste et le génocide réunissant de
nombreux experts internationaux, il a subi d’énormes pressions de
la part de la Turquie qui refusait de voir aborder le génocide des
Arméniens. Outre les menaces de sanctions a l’égard d’IsraÔl, on
lui a très cyniquement fait remarquer qu’il risquait de mettre en
danger la communauté juive de Turquie. En dépit de ces menaces et de
ces pressions, la conférence s’est tenue et 300 participants y ont
assisté. Cet épisode a le mérite d’établir que la Turquie n’est
pas prête a accepter les conclusions d’historiens indépendants,
même si elle ne cesse de réclamer depuis des années la création
d’une ” commission mixte internationale ” sur cette question.

Au lieu de conforter le nationalisme turc le plus intransigeant, nous
devons soutenir les Arméniens, précisément parce que nous avons
souffert du négationnisme. Mieux que quiconque, les Juifs savent
que ce fléau est une imposture qu’il faut réprimer. Nous avons
accueilli avec soulagement la pénalisation de la négation de la
Shoah en France et en Belgique. Ce qui est valable pour la Shoah doit
l’être pour le génocide des Arméniens. Au nom de la fraternité
des réprouvés, placons-nous du côté des Arméniens pour que ”
leur ” génocide ne soit pas celui qu’on aurait le droit d’oublier
et de nier en toute impunité. Cette attitude nous honorerait et ne
remettrait pas en cause les singularités de la Shoah qui en font
son unicité a la fois sur le plan historique et mémoriel.

1er février 2012

Nicolas Zomersztajn – ” Regards ”

Revue mensuelle tirée en Belgique a 15 000 exemplaires

Centre Communautaire Laïc Juif asbl

Rue de l’Hôtel des Monnaies 52 a 1060 Bruxelles – Tel : +32 2 543
02 70 – [email protected]

CARTE DE FRANCE : LISTE DES PARLEMENTAIRES QUI ONT SAISI LE CONSEIL CONSTITUTIONNEL
Stephane

armenews.com
vendredi 3 fevrier 2012

Le Monde publie la liste des elus qui ont signe les deux recours
adresses mardi 31 janvier au Conseil constitutionnel, contre le texte
visant a penaliser la contestation des genocides reconnus par la loi.

Les debats autour de cette proposition ont ete très vifs. Le
premier recours, depose par Jacques Mezard, president du groupe du
Rassemblement democratique et social europeen (RDSE), qui regroupe
essentiellement les radicaux de gauche, a ete signe par 77 senateurs
de tous les groupes representes au Senat, de droite et de gauche. Le
second, depose par Michel Diefenbacher, depute (UMP) de Lot-et-Garonne,
a ete signe par 65 deputes, a l’initiative, notamment, de Jacques
Myard et Jean-Paul Garraud, deputes UMP et membres actifs de la
Droite populaire.

Le texte, issu d’une proposition de loi portee par Valerie Boyer,
deputee (UMP) des Bouches-du-Rhône, avait ete approuve a l’Assemblee
nationale le 22 decembre, et adopte au Senat le 23 janvier, par 126
voix contre 86. Il prevoit une peine d’un an de prison et 45 000 euros
d’amende a l’encontre de ceux qui ont “conteste ou minimise de facon
outrancière” l’existence de genocides reconnus par la loi francaise.

Derrière cette qualification, c’est en premier lieu le genocide
armenien de 1915, reconnu par la loi du 29 janvier 2001, qui est
concerne.

Il n’est pas de precedent d’un recours au Conseil constitutionnel signe
par des senateurs de six groupes politiques. Le Conseil constitutionnel
dispose d’un delai d’un mois pour statuer sur la conformite de la
loi a la Constitution.

Les 71 deputes ayant signe le recours au Conseil constitutionnel sur
la loi penalisant la contestation de l’existence de genocides reconnus
par la loi sont :

51 UMP : Jacques Myard (Yvelines) , Michel Diefenbacher (Lot et
Garonne), Jean-Paul Anciaux (Saône et Loire), Jean Bardet (Val d’Oise),
Jean-Louis Bernard (Loiret), Marc Bernier (Mayenne), Claude Birraux
(Haute-Savoie), Bruno Bourg-Broc (Marne), Loïc Bouvard (Morbihan), Yves
Bur (Bas-Rhin), Gilles Carrez (Val de Marne), Pascal Clement (Loire),
Francois Cornut-Gentille (Haute-Marne), Olivier Dassault (Oise),
Jean-Pierre Decool (Nord), Lucien Degauchy (Oise), Sophie Delong
(Haute-Marne), Paul Durieu (Vaucluse), Cecile Dumoulin (Yvelines),
Marie-Louise Fort (Yonne), Yves Fromion (Cher), Jean-Paul Garraud
(Gironde), Claude Gatignol (Manche), Herve Gaymard (Savoie), Franck
Gilard (Eure), Jean-Pierre Gorges (Eure et Loire), Francois Goulard
(Morbihan), Arlette Grosskost (Haut-Rhin), Michel Heinrich (Vosges),
Antoine Herth (Bas-Rhin), Francoise Hostalier (Nord), Denis Jacquat
(Moselle), Yves Jego (Seine et Marne), Jacques Lamblin (Meuthe et
Moselle), Laure de la Raudière (Eure et Loire), Jacques Le Guen
(Finistère), Jean-Francois Mancel (Oise), Alain Marty (Moselle),
Jean-Philippe Maurer(Bas-Rhin), Jean-Claude Mignon (Seine et Marne),
Pierre Morange (Yvelines), Jean-Marc Nesmes (Saône et Loire), Michel
Piron (Maine et Loire), Didier Quentin (Charente Maritime), Michel
Raison (Haute-Saône), Jean-Luc Reitzer (Haut-Rhin), Jean-Marie Rolland
(Yonne), Daniel Spagnou (Alpes de Haute-Provence), Eric Straumann
(Haut-Rhin), Lionel Tardy (Haute-Savoie), Andre Wojciechowski
(Moselle).

15 PS et apparentes : Jean-Paul Bacquet (Puy de Dôme), Christian
Bataille (Nord), Jean-Michel Boucheron (Ille et Vilaine), Christophe
Bouillon (Seine-Maritime), Christophe Caresche (Paris 18ème), Gerard
Charasse (PRG) Allier)), Jean-Louis Dumont (Meuse), Laurence Dumont
(Calvados), Paul Giaccobi (PRG-Haute-Corse, 2ème C)), Jerôme Lambert
(Charente), Apeleto Albert Likuvalu (Wallis et Futuna), Didier Mathus
(Saône et Loire), Sylvia Pinel (PRG-Tarn et Garonne)), Chantal
Robin-Rodrigo (PRG-Hautes-Pyrenees), Gwendal Rouillard (Morbihan).

2 Nouveau Centre : Pascal Brindeau (Loir et Cher), Philippe Vigier
(Eure et Loire).

3 non-inscrits : Abdoulatifou Aly (Mayotte), Rene Couanau(ex-UMP-
Ille et Vilaine), Daniel Garrigue (Dordogne).

Les 77 senateurs signataires sont :

15 RDSE : Jacques Mezard (Cantal), Nicolas Alfonsi (Corse du Sud),
Gilbert Barbier (France-Comte), Jean-Michel Baylet (Tarn et Garonne),
Christian Bourquin (Pyrenees Orientales), Jean-Pierre Chevènement
(Territoire de Belfort), Yvon Collin (Tarn et Garonne), Pierre-Yves
Collombat (Var), Anne-Marie Escoffier (Aveyron), Francois Fortassin
(Hautes -Pyrenees), Francoise Laborde (Haute-Garonne), Jean-Pierre
Plancade (Haute-Garonne), Robert Tropeano (Herault), Raymond Vall
(Gers), Francois Vendasi (Haute-Corse).

22 PS : Alain Anziani (Gironde), Bertrand Auban (Haute-Garonn),
Didier Boulaud (Nièvre), Helène Conway-Mouret (Francais hors de
France), Jean-Pierre Demerliat (Haute-Vienne), Claude Dilain
(Seine-Saint-Denis), Josette Durrieu (Hautes-Pyrenees), Alain
Fauconnier (Aveyron), Gaetan Gorce (Nièvre), Bariza Khiari (Paris),
Virginie Klès (Ille et Vilaine), Claudine Lepage (Francais hors de
France), Jeanny Lorgeoux (Loir et Cher), Philippe Madrelle 5gironde),
Jean-Pierre Michel (haute-Saône), Jean-Marc Pastor (Tarn), Jean-Claude
Peyronnet (Haute-Vienne), Gisèle Printz (Moselle), Roland Ries
(Bas-Rhin), Gilbert Roger (Seine-Saint-Denis), Yves Rome (Oise),
Richard Yung (Francais hors de France).

18 UMP :Alain Chatillon (Haute-Garonne), Christian Cointat (Francais
hors de France), Andre Dulait (Deux-Sèvres), Alain Fouche (Vienne),
Christophe-Andre Frassa (Francais hors de France), Rene Garrec
(Calvados), Patrice Gelard (Seine-Maritime), Francois Grosdidier
(Moselle), Jean-Jacques Hyest (Seine-et-Marne), Fabienne Keller
(Bas-Rhin), Jean-Rene Lecerf (Nord), Jean-Louis Lorrain Haut-Rhin),
Roland du Luart (Sarthe), Francois Pillet (Cher), Christian Poncelet
(Vosges), Hugues Portelli (Val-d’Oise), Jean-Pierre Vial (Savoie),
Andre Villiers (Yonne).

12 UCR : Marcel Deneux (Somme), Yves Detraigne (Marne), Muguette Dini
(Rhône), Jean-Leonce Dupont (Calvados), Francoise Ferat (Marne),
Nathalie Goulet (Orne), Jacqueline Gourault (Loir-et-Cher),
Sylvie Goy-Chavent (Ain), Pierre Jarlier (Cantal), Catherine
Morin-Desailly (Seine-Maritime), Jean-Jacques Pignard (Rhône),
Jean-Marie Vanlerenberghe (Pas-de-Calais).

8 ecologistes : Leïla Aïchi (Paris), Aline Archimbaud
(Seine-Saint-Denis), Esther Benbassa (Val-de-Marne), Marie-Christine
Blandin (Nord), Corinne Bouchoux (Historienne-Maine-et-Loire), Ronan
Dantec (Loire-Atlantique), Joël Labbe (Morbihan), Jean-Vincent Place
(Essonne).

2 CRC : Michel Billout (Seine-et-Marne), Robert Hue (Val-d’Oise).

GENOCIDE DENIAL: SILENCING DEBATE DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD
Richard King

ABC Australia

Feb 3 2012

The word ‘genocide’ did not exist when, in 1915, under cover of the
fog of war, the most revolting campaign of massacre and mayhem was
visited upon the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian population.

Nevertheless, that this systematic assault constitutes a paradigm
case of the kind of eliminationist violence that would call that
dread word into existence is not disputed by most historians with an
interest in the area. Raphael Lemkin, the Jewish lawyer who coined
the term in 1944, referred specifically to the Armenian experience
when explaining his motivation for doing so:

“I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times,”
Lemkin told a CBS reporter, “It happened to the Armenians; and,
after the Armenians, Hitler took action.”

Anyone wishing to challenge the view that a genocide took place in
the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century is thus faced with a lot
of opinion to the contrary, some of it straight from the horse’s mouth.

All the same, there are such people, some of them of no small
reputation, and they are perfectly entitled to their view. Or rather
they were entitled to their view until the French government decided
that they weren’t. Last week, the French Senate passed legislation
banning any public denial of the Armenian genocide upon pain of a
one-year jail sentence and a fine of 45,000 euros. The measure will
now be sent to president Nicolas Sarkozy for final approval, which
it is almost certain to get.

Many Armenians, in France and elsewhere, are deliriously happy
about the new law. The Turkish government continues to dispute that
genocide occurred in 1915, and the spectacle of Turkish officials and
nationalists fulminating over the French legislation is, I imagine,
a blissful one to behold. (There have even been reports of an Armenian
couple naming their new-born baby ‘Sarkozy’.) But the bloody nose
delivered to Turkey is bought at the price of a broken jaw. Make no
mistake: this law is a bad one, especially for the people it seeks to
‘protect’.

Like many countries in Europe, France has laws banning Holocaust
denial. To this extent, and since it officially recognised the Armenian
genocide in 2001, it is merely following its own example by passing
this latest bill into law. Needless to say, those who believe that
freedom of opinion should be an absolute right to be defended at
all costs and on all fronts were against the first measure as well
as the second and could have told the French authorities that laws
against Holocaust denial were the thin edge of the wedge. So it has
proven. Now there is no ‘official’ position, in principal at any rate,
that cannot be given the force of law.

To ban an opinion is to ban not only the right of a person to express
that opinion but also everyone’s right to hear it. This is very bad
for democracy, as it is only by testing our opinions against others
that those opinions gain validity and strength. History works in the
same way. It proceeds by unencumbered research, with experts arguing
over the evidence, subjecting each other’s claims to scrutiny without
fear of prosecution. What goes for scientific truth also goes for
historical truth: it must be falsifiable. No-one knows what new
evidence will emerge or what existing evidence may be revealed to
be tainted. And while the evidence can be overwhelming, we condemn
ourselves to intellectual laziness if we invite the state to do
our arguing for us. Ask yourself this: If you were stuck in a lift
with a man who denied the Holocaust, and who, for all that he looked
and sounded like a thug, seemed fairly well informed about certain
‘facts’, could you successfully argue the contrary position?

True, such people are hard to argue with. Holocaust deniers, like most
conspiracy theorists, proceed by reversing the burden of proof. Thus,
you may stress till you’re blue in the face the statistics, documents,
confessions, testimonies, photographs and other phenomena that prove
that the Holocaust happened, but a single photograph of a death
camp to which smoke appears to have been added by hand is enough to
convince the denier that it didn’t. Deductive fallacies, misdirection,
tangential argumentation – these are the tactics of the Holocaust
denier, pressed into service in an infuriating tone of innocence and
self-righteousness (‘Hey, I’m only asking the question. It’s you who
seems so sure about things’). But while they are hard to fight against,
it is important to make the effort to do so, not least because we
have entered a period in which, increasingly, everyone’s ‘truth’
is considered as valid as everyone else’s.

One thing you can do, and which I’ve tried to do above, is to point
out the way in which the denier argues, the dishonest nature of his
argumentation. By pointing out that it isn’t incumbent upon those
who think the Holocaust happened to explain away every (ostensible)
anomaly, and that a few such anomalies do not add up to a convincing
alternative historical thesis, one can stress the underlying weakness
in the position of the Holocaust ‘revisionist’. However, this is a
lot more difficult when the government determines to support you
in your view and give that view the force of law. ‘Well, then,’
your antagonist is apt to counter, ‘if my argument is so weak, why
did they ban it?’ Sometimes, in order to defeat an argument, it is
better to underline it that to cross it out.

As it happens, the debate about the Armenian genocide has taken place
at a rather higher level than the one surrounding the Holocaust. The
key question has to do with intention. Did the Ottoman authorities
order the extermination of the Empire’s Armenian population, or were
the (estimated) 1.5 million Armenians that perished between 1915 and
the early 1920s victims of the confusion of war and the ethnic and
religious enmities it unleashes? As I say, most historians subscribe
to the first view, but there are some, including Bernard Lewis, who
subscribe to the second. In any case, and notwithstanding Turkey’s
self-serving official stance, the debate was progressing in the way
that it should, with historians arguing over the evidence. So why did
the French government feel the need to intervene in this clumsy way?

One reason is the one already cited – that the French are merely
following their own logic by extending the laws against genocide
denial. But it is quite possible – indeed it seems quite likely –
that there is also a political calculation here. Sarkozy is likely to
stand for re-election in April, and many regard this latest move as an
attempt to win the votes of French Armenians, a constituency of around
half a million souls. Moreover, by picking a fight with Turkey in this
way, Sarkozy gets to appear both sensitive and combative. One doesn’t
have to be that much of a cynic to suspect that in this case feelings
of offence are being harnessed for ulterior political purposes.

This is part of a growing trend. Governments have always flirted with
laws that appeal to the majority and discriminate against minorities.

But to attempt to win political advantage by indulging a minority
is, in these times of conspicuous offence, of ethnic or religious
sensitivity, a shrewder and far more subtle tactic. Just look at the
recent furore in India, when Salman Rushdie cancelled an appearance at
the Jaipur Literary Festival on the strength of advice from the state
government, which had almost certainly exaggerated the threat from
local Islamists in an attempt to keep Rushdie away and endear itself
to the Muslim minority ahead of the upcoming state elections. This
is the kind of cynical manoeuvre of which we can expect to see more
in the future.

There was a generous dollop of hypocrisy in Turkey’s response to
the French legislation, especially in its self-righteous references
to free speech. Turkey, after all, is a country in which a writer
can be dragged through the courts for ‘insulting Turkishness’ if he
contradicts the official line on the Armenian genocide. But we in the
‘West’ make a rod for our own backs if we try to fight fire with fire
in this way. How is it possible to criticise infringements of freedom
of speech in Turkey or elsewhere with such ridiculous legislation on
the books? When, in November 2005, just a few months after the Danish
Cartoons Crisis, Austria arrested the British historian David Irving
for Holocaust denial, the secretary general of the Arab League wasted
no time in pointing out the double standard.

“What about freedom of expression when anti-Semitism is
involved?” asked Amr Mousa.

“Then it is a crime. Yet when Islam is insulted, certain powers raise
the issue of freedom of expression.”

Secular society has its blasphemies too.

My argument is that it shouldn’t have. Clearly, there are limits to
free speech. To make false claims about a product is to be guilty
of fraud, while to spread lies about another person is to be guilty
of defamation. But fraud and defamation are rightly regarded as
corrosive of the very search for truth that freedom of speech is meant
to guarantee. History depends on facts, yes, but it also depends on
interpretation, and to attempt to control it is as absurd as it is
wrong. I don’t imagine my views on genocide weigh very much in the
French parliament, or indeed in any parliament, but I’ll be buggered –
you’ll excuse my French – if any parliament is going to tell me what
they are.

Richard King is a freelance writer based in Fremantle, WA.