Turkey warns France Armenian bill will hit trade, bilateral ties
Agence France Presse — English
October 6, 2006 Friday
Turkey warned France on Friday that bilateral political and economic
ties will suffer if the French parliament approves a law making it
a punishable offence to deny the Armenian “genocide.”
“The Armenian issue has poisoned bilateral ties in the past, but the
bill will inflict irreparable damage on our relationship,” foreign
ministry spokesman Namik Tan told a press conference here.
He warned the move could jeopardise “investments, the fruit of years
of work, and France will — so to speak — lose Turkey.”
France is one of Turkey’s main trade partners, with a volume of 8.2
billion euros (10 billion dolars) in 2005.
Tan appealed to the French parliament to block the bill.
“Our expectation is that France will to avoid taking the wrong step,”
he said, arguing that adoption of the bill would mean the elimination
of freedom of expression in France.
The French National Assembly is expected to convene on October 12 to
discuss the bill that would make denying Armenians were the victims
of a genocide during World War I punishable by up to five years in
prison and a fine of 45,000 euros (57,000 dollars).
The bill follows on a 2001 French law officially recognizing the
massacres as genocide.
In French law, the same punishment is applicable to those deny that
the Jewish Holocaust took place.
“If the bill is adopted on October 12, the Turkish people will see
it as a hostile act by France … It will not be possible to contain
public reaction,” Tan said, referring to a possible boycott of French
goods in Turkey.
The Armenian bill, drawn up by the Socialist opposition, was first
brought to the French assembly in May, but the vote was postponed to
October after filibustering by the ruling party.
Turkey had at the time threatened trade sanctions against France and
briefly summoned its ambassador in Paris back for consultations.
Tan said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan would meet the
French business community in Turkey in Istanbul on Saturday to discuss
the bill.
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul was expected to call his French
counterpart Philippe Douste-Blazy, an opponent of the bill, later
Friday, he added.
The Armenian massacres constitute one of the most controversial
episodes in Turkish history, often sending nationalist feelings
into frenzy.
Armenians allege up to 1.5 million of their kin were slaughtered in
orchestrated killings between 1915 and 1917 when the Ottoman Empire,
the predecessor of modern Turkey, was falling apart.
Turkey denies the claim, saying 300,000 Armenians and at least as
many Turks died in civil strife when the Armenians took up arms for
independence in eastern Anatolia and sided with invading Russian
troops; it categorically rejects the genocide label.

Neither Putin nor Saakashvili looks likely to step back from stand-off
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer
Associated Press Worldstream
October 6, 2006 Friday
Who will blink first? The leaders of Russia and Georgia are locked
in a contest of political wills that appears to be fueled as much by
their styles as by the grievances piled up between the neighboring
nations since the Soviet collapse.
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili whom some pro-Kremlin protesters
have caricatured as Hitler minces no words when describing his quest
to restore Georgia’s territorial integrity and full independence,
and that means resisting what he calls Russia’s bullying.
He came out swinging at the U.N. General Assembly last month, accusing
Russia of the “gangster occupation” of parts of his country and of
condoning ethnic cleansing.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has condescendingly referred
to Saakashvili as a hot-tempered native of the Caucasus, a region
Russians associated with warring tribes, wily traders and banditry.
When Saakashvili tried to arrange a meeting with Putin last summer to
reduce escalating tensions, the Kremlin said Putin was too busy. And
Putin, a former KGB agent who has stuffed Russia’s ruling elite with
one-time secret service colleagues, has ironically likened the actions
of the Georgian leadership to the policies of Lavrenty Beria Josef
Stalin’s henchman who ran the precursor to the KGB.
Georgians respond to Putin’s barbs with a touch of bravado, joking
that the tall Saakashvili is “the big dictator of a small country,
and Putin the small dictator of a large one.”
By now, Putin and Saakashvili have dug themselves so deeply into
their political trenches that it’s hard to imagine who will be the
first to cave in.
Behind each leader stands an army of politicians and aides eager to
outdo each other in devotion to the national interest.
After years of mutual verbal sparring, Georgia last week arrested four
Russian military officers alleged to be spies. Russia responded by
suspending the issuance of visas to Georgian citizens and slapping
a transport and postal blockade on Georgia. Police in Moscow have
closed down several casinos suddenly discovered allegedly to be run
by the Georgian mafia and have combed marketplaces and restaurants
to detain and deport Georgians without work permits.
“The Kremlin has driven itself into a dead end: it can end sanctions
without losing face only if it forces Saakashvili to his knees,”
Moscow-based political analyst Dmitry Oreshkin told The Associated
Press. “The Georgian elite also can’t conduct any rational talks with
Russia without losing face. Bilateral ties have been spoiled for good.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the sanctions will stay
in place until Georgia changes its anti-Russian course.
“That’s only the beginning of our sanctions, we could exert such a
pressure on them that even a mouse wouldn’t sneak through,” boasted
Andrei Kokoshin, the head of Russian parliament’s committee for ties
with ex-Soviet nations.
But Georgia looks unlikely to bend. Beyond Saakashvili’s natural
inclination for dramatic steps, defiance appears to be Georgia’s
strategy for attracting Western support and pressing its case to
join NATO.
Putin’s strategy in applying such unprecedented pressure against a
former Soviet republic is less clear.
“The hawks in the Kremlin don’t have any positive program,” Oreshkin
said. “They aren’t pursuing any long-term strategic goals; all they
want is to punish Georgia and hit it hard.”
Several Russian politicians have already raised the prospect of cutting
natural gas to Georgia, but such a move would also block supplies to
Russia’s closest ally in the Caucasus, Armenia.
Some Russian commentators said the Kremlin apparently hoped that
the burden of sanctions would encourage Georgians to unite against
Saakashvili. But such hopes appear illusory: the blockade and Russian
police crackdown on the Georgian diaspora would badly hurt ordinary
people but Saakashvili would likely not be blamed. In fact, the
perception of Russian interference could very well shore up support
for the president, whose popularity has been falling amid persistent
poverty and high unemployment.
“It looks like Russia needs to reach the limits of absurdity to
realize that such pressure only makes Georgia more pro-Western,”
Georgy Nodia, the head of the Tbilisi-based Institue for Peace and
Democracy and Development, told the AP.
Some pro-Kremlin lawmakers and political analysts have suggested that
Russia could go so far as to recognize the independence of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia and even move to incorporate them. South Ossetia
has already scheduled an independence referendum next month.
However, an attempt to annex the separatist regions would effectively
shatter Russia’s already freezing ties with the United States and put
it on a collision course with other Western nations an outcome clearly
not in the interests of the Kremlin striving for closer integration
into the global economy.
“Under no circumstances will the Russian leaders wage a war against
Georgia, recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia or
provide them with official military assistance,” analyst Stanislav
Belkovsky wrote in a recent commentary, adding that the Kremlin
wouldn’t risk its economic interests in the West.
Associated Press Writer Vladimir Isachenkov has been reporting on
political affairs in Russia and the former Soviet Union since 1991.
Misha Dzhindzhikhashvili contributed to this report from Tbilisi.

THE HOW BOYS SHOWED ‘EM HOW
by John Reid
KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News – Palo Alto Daily News
October 6, 2006 Friday
The representative from the Pacific Coast Conference in the 1952 Rose
Bowl was an unlikely one. The 1951 Stanford football team had no
great expectations before the season started. Even its head coach,
Chuck Taylor, thought the then Indians were a middle-of-the pack
group and didn’t make any pretenses about it. But the “How Boys”
showed ’em how, winning nine games in a row before losing the Big
Game to Cal 20-7 in front of 96,000. The loss was moot, for the Rose
Bowl berth had been already locked up by Stanford with an exciting
27-20 defeat of USC and its star, Frank Gifford, in a battle of two
unbeaten teams at the Coliseum.
Stanford led Illinois 7-6 after one half in the Rose Bowl, but was
snowed under in the second half, losing 40-7.
Seven of the members of the ’51 squad gathered at the Palo Alto home
of Dick Horn on Wednesday to talk about that magical season some 55
years ago. The fact the team ended the year 9-2 with an appearance
in the Rose Bowl was startling, mainly because Taylor was upfront
with his players about the team’s chances.
“Chuck said we had about the fifth best team in the conference,”
defensive tackle Al Kirkland said.
Taylor, an All-American guard on the Stanford team that beat Nebraska
in the ’41 Rose Bowl, wasn’t a fiery, Knute Rockne-type orator.
“Chuck Taylor wasn’t the fight-talk type,” Kirkland said. “During the
practices or the games, neither he or any of the coaches yelled at us.”
“What I liked about Chuck is that before every game, he said he
thought we could win,” defensive end Jack Rye said. “Even though the
other team might be favored.”
Taylor had a low-key, lighthearted way of relaxing his players
before the game. Kirkland related a story of when Stanford played in
Washington’s homecoming game.
“Washington invited us to their homecoming and got dates for us for
after the game,” Kirkland said. “After we warmed up we went back into
the dressing room.”
That’s when Taylor turned to assistant coach Pete Kmetovic.
“Pete, do all the guys have dates for the party tonight?” Taylor asked.
“I think they do,” Kmetovic replied.
“Let’s go out and play,” Taylor said.
Stanford beat a Hugh McElhenny-led Washington team 14-7. At the end
of the season, Taylor was named national Coach of the Year.
The players back then were much lighter than today’s standards.
Defensive guard Jesse Cone, perhaps the strongest player on the team,
was 175 pounds. Defensive guard Cappy Cook, at 185 pounds, was regarded
as one of the toughest players on the team. Offensive center Rod
Garner, at 190 pounds, was a top-flight heavyweight boxer. Garner
broke an inmate’s arm while fighting in an exhibition bout at San
Quentin Prison.
The team had star power with All-American receiver Bill McColl, fourth
in the Heisman Trophy voting that season. Running back Bob Mathias
was an Olympic decathlon champ in ’48 and ’52. It was Mathias’ 96-yard
kickoff return for a TD that tied the game at USC 20-20. Quarterback
Gary Kerkorian was an All-American that season, his injury in the
third quarter of the Rose Bowl playing a part in that second-half
collapse. Horn, a safety, was named to the 100-year all-time Stanford
team along with McColl. Reserve quarterback Bobby Garrett, who replaced
the injured Kerkorian, and receiver Sam Morley, became All-Americans
in 1953. Garrett and Morley were a pass combination at South Pasadena
High. Linebacker Chuck Essegian made his mark as a baseball slugger,
but was also a hard-nosed LB.
It was a team in every sense of the word, with players giving up their
body for the good of the cause. Defensive end Ron Eadie described a
play Rye made in the USC game.
“Rye was a powerful guy,” Eadie said. “Two guards pulled out and
tried to knock him down. A fullback came in and tried to knock him
down. Rye then tackled the halfback with the ball.”
Reserve safety Frank “Skip” Crist was one of the heroes in the USC
game with a long interception return to set up the winning touchdown.
“Skip was sent in and told to look out for a little pass,” Kirkland
said. “He intercepted it and was going in for a touchdown. Rye and
I knocked out the last guy on the outside. But Skip cut back inside
and they darn near killed him in there.”
After Crist’s interception, Stanford was inside the 20-yard line.
Kerkorian called three plays with Harry Hugasian running the ball
between powerful guard Norm Manoogian and tackle Jim Vick.
Manoogian was one of four Armenians starting on the team. Kerkorian,
Essegian and Hugasian were the other three. Manoogian related a
story about Kerkorian’s search for extra tickets for the USC game.
Kerkorian, from Southern California, had a lot of relatives living
in the area.
“Gary went up to athletic director Al Masters and asked for extra
tickets,” said Manoogian, who went on to coach football at Foothill
College for 20 years. “Al asked, ‘How many do you need?’ Gary said,
‘I only need 180.'”
“We went to an Armenian party at the Biltmore Hotel after the game,”
Manoogian said. “I wanted to have Cone meet my parents. We introduced
him as ‘Jesse Coninian.'”
Players on the Stanford team were affectionately given Armenian names,
such as “Mathiasian” or “Kirklandian.”
Mathias died recently at the age of 75. Other starters have gone on
to greater glory, including defensive tackle Bob Lathem, Kerkorian
and Garner.
“We had no cliques,” Manoogian said. “But we all had one common goal.
The coaches made us believe in them.”
There was the Stanford “Vow Boys” of 1933-35, the “Wow Boys” of 1940
and Taylor’s “How Boys” of ’51.
“We played over our heads throughout the season,” Morley said.
“That’s why they called us the ‘How Boys.’ Some sportswriter wrote,
‘I don’t know how they’re doing it.'”
“We overachieved,” linebacker Ted Tanner said.
And how, boys.

Armenian, Azerbaijani foreign ministers to discuss Karabakh Fri
ITAR-TASS News Agency
October 5, 2006 Thursday
Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov and his Armenian
counterpart Vartan Oskanian will meet in Moscow on Friday to discuss
the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh.
A diplomatic source in Moscow has said the meeting will take place
at the Russian Foreign Ministry, with the chief Russian diplomat,
Sergei Lavrov taking part.
“Moscow was chosen as the venue of the trilateral meeting for a good
reason. Russia has historically played a major role in Transcaucasia
and in efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem,” the source
said.
The co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk group for Nagorno-Karabakh, Yuri
Merzlyakov, earlier said the agreement on Armenian-Azerbaijani talks
in Moscow at the foreign minister level was achieved at negotiations
the Minsk group co-chairmen (Russia, France and the United States)
had held in Baku and Yerevan.

Nagorno-Karabakh settlement to be discussed
ITAR-TASS News Agency
October 5, 2006 Thursday
The Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers, Elmar Mamedyarov and
Vartan Oskanyan, on Thursday arrived in Moscow to discuss matters of
Nagorno-Karabakh settlement.
The meeting will be held on Friday, October 6, at the Russian Foreign
Ministry with the participation of Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei
Lavrov, a Russian diplomat told Itar-Tass.
“It is not accidental that Moscow has been chosen as the venue of the
trilateral meeting, as Moscow historically played an important role
in the Transcaucasia, specifically, in the solution of the problem
of Nagorno-Karabakh,” said the source. He said the quest for new ways
of settling the Karabakh conflict would be central to the trilateral
meeting.
“The parties are striving to find acceptable, mutually advantageous
ways in the matter and pin much hope on the Moscow meeting,” the
diplomat said.
The arrangement to hold the meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani
foreign ministers in Moscow was reached as a result of the meetings
the co-chairmen of the Minsk group of the OSCE for Nagorno-Karabakh
(representatives of Russia, France and United States) held in Baku and
Yerevan, Yuri Merzlyakov, the Russian co-chairman of the Minsk group,
said earlier.

Iran: Supplies to Armenia on time
UPI Energy
October 5, 2006 Thursday 9:22 AM EST
Iran’s gas pipeline to Armenia is expected to come onstream in 2007,
a top Iranian official said.
Reza Kasaizadeh, the managing director of the National Iranian Gas
Co., told the Mehr news agency Wednesday that Iran will initially
export 3 million cubic meters of gas per day to Armenia. This will
eventually be raised to 10 million cu. m. of gas per day.
The Oil and Gas Journal says Iran, the world’s No. 2 in reserves, has
an estimated 970 trillion cubic feet in proven natural gas reserves.
Under a May 2004 deal, Iran will supply 1.3 Tcf of natural gas to
Armenia over 20 years starting in 2007. In return, Armenia will
provide Iran with 3 kilowatts of electricity per cubic meter of gas.
The $200 million pipeline runs 85 miles.

Texte genocide armenien: pas “acte d’inimitie” envers la Turquie (Ayrault)
Agence France Presse
6 octobre 2006 vendredi 4:19 PM GMT
Le president du groupe socialiste a l’Assemblee nationale, Jean-Marc
Ayrault, a declare vendredi que la proposition de loi PS reprimant
la negation du genocide armenien de 1915 n’etait “nullement un acte
d’inimitie ou de defiance” envers la Turquie.
La Turquie a averti vendredi la France que les relations bilaterales
allaient souffrir si la proposition de loi PS devait etre adoptee.
Ce texte doit etre examine jeudi matin a l’Assemblee, dans le cadre
d’une seance reservee au groupe socialiste.
“Chaque nation est libre d’etudier son histoire en conscience. Cela ne
peut interdire au Parlement francais de porter appreciation sur des
tragedies du passe qui font partie de la memoire de toute l’humanite
et qui concernent aussi ses propres citoyens”, souligne M.
Ayrault dans un communique, en reaction a la mise en garde d’Ankara.
“C’est dans cet esprit que la France a reconnu l’existence du genocide
armenien. C’est dans cet esprit que nous souhaitons qu’Armeniens et
Turcs trouvent les voies d’une memoire partagee sur cette douloureuse
page de l’histoire”, ajoute le responsable socialiste.

Genocide armenien: Eric Raoult (UMP) votera la proposition de loi PS
Agence France Presse
6 octobre 2006 vendredi 12:06 PM GMT
Le depute UMP et vice-president de l’Assemblee nationale, Eric
Raoult, a annonce vendredi a l’AFP qu’il “votera” la proposition de
loi PS reprimant la negation du genocide armenien pour “une question
de principes”.
“Je ne cederai pas sur cette question meme si je suis un fidèle
de Jacques Chirac, un militant de l’UMP le doigt sur la couture du
pantalon. Je voterai la proposition de loi (PS) pour une question de
principes face aux craintes de la communaute armenienne”, a declare
M. Raoult a l’AFP.
En visite a Erevan où il avait juge samedi que la Turquie devait
reconnaître le genocide armenien, Jacques Chirac avait estime que la
proposition de loi socialiste “(relevait) de la polemique”.
“J’ai toujours participe a tous les combats de la communaute
armenienne, alors oui, il y a une operation politique du PS mais il y
a, au dela une realite, c’est la crainte de la communaute armenienne
face au revisionnisme”, a explique M. Raoult.
Il a notamment cite les evenements d’avril 2006 de Lyon où
l’inauguration d’un memorial du genocide armenien avait entraîne
des profanations et des manifestations pro-turques, avec des slogans
negationnistes.
Il a egalement indique que la ville du Raincy (Seine-Saint-Denis),
dont il est maire, possède “une ecole armenienne fondee en 1917 avec
212 orphelins dont les parents avaient ete decapites lors du genocide
de 1915”.
Une proposition de loi PS reprimant la negation du genocide armenien
sera examine jeudi par les deputes. Ce texte avait deja ete discute
le 18 mai mais son examen avait ete interrompu faute de temps. Les
deputes UMP et le gouvernement avaient multiplie les incidents de
procedure pour retarder les debats.
–Boundary_(ID_ktejPKblkFABVIljSbSuhg)–

Vote sur le genocide armenien: Ankara menace Paris
Agence France Presse
6 octobre 2006 vendredi 10:55 AM GMT
La Turquie a lance une sevère mise en garde vendredi a la France,
estimant que les relations bilaterales allaient souffrir du vote prevu,
le 12 octobre, a l’Assemblee nationale francaise d’une proposition
de loi visant a penaliser la negation du genocide armenien de 1915.
“Le dossier armenien a beaucoup empoisonne les liens bilateraux
dans le passe mais la proposition de loi va provoquer des degâts
irreparables dans nos relations”, a souligne le porte-parole du
ministère des Affaires etrangères lors d’un point de presse.
M. Tan a indique que la proposition aurait un effet particulièrement
nefaste sur les liens commerciaux. “Les investissements, fruits de
longues annees d’efforts, seront gâches et si j’ose dire la France
perdra la Turquie”, a-t-il martele.
La France est le 5è fournisseur de la Turquie avec 4,7 milliards
d’euros d’exportations.
Les debats sur cette proposition de loi controversee qui divise la
classe politique francaise avaient ete reportes en mai dernier après
un debut de debat houleux.
Le texte, qui complète une loi de 2001 reconnaissant le genocide
armenien, fait de la negation de ce “genocide” un delit punissable
d’un an d’emprisonnement et de 45.000 euros d’amende.
M. Tan a averti qu'”il ne sera pas possible de prevenir la reaction
de l’opinion publique turque” au cas où cette proposition serait
adoptee, en allusion a de probables mouvements de boycottage de
produits francais.
“Le peuple turc considerera l’adoption du texte comme une attitude
hostile de la part de la France”, a encore souligne le diplomate qui
a ajoute qu’alors, “la France detruira la liberte d’expression”.
Les Armeniens estiment que jusqu’a 1,5 million des leurs ont peri
dans un genocide orchestre aux dernières annees de l’Empire ottoman
entre 1915 et 1917. Ankara affirme que des massacres ont ete commis
de part et d’autre et recuse les accusations de genocide.
Le Premier ministre turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan doit rencontrer samedi a
Istanbul des representant de grandes entreprises francaises implantees
en Turquie, inquiets de l’impact de cette proposition de loi sur les
interets francais.
–Boundary_(ID_eifoBMXKNRQQXhnewPoRjQ)- –

Le Temps, SUISSE
6 octobre 2006
Antiracisme: la faute et le vrai debat;
* A Ankara, Christoph Blocher a critique la norme penale antiraciste
appliquee au genocide armenien. * Au nom de la liberte d’expression,
des intellectuels francais s’alarment aussi de la judiciarisation de
l’histoire. * Mais le ministre de la Justice a affaibli son message
par son style juge indigne d’un conseiller federal.
Et si l’on debattait du fond? Si l’on posait franchement la question
de la legitimite des dispositions du Code penal reprimant le
negationnisme, comme ont ose le faire recemment plusieurs
personnalites francaises insoupconnables de la moindre inclination
pour l’extreme droite?
Toute la journee de jeudi, les reactions ont plu, des Eglises a la
Ligue suisse contre le racisme et l’antisemitisme (Licra) et aux
partis politiques. Tous ont denonce les propos tenus par Christoph
Blocher a Ankara, où le ministre de la Justice a dit son hostilite a
l’application de la norme penale contre le racisme a ceux qui
nieraient la realite du genocide armenien.
Et si l’on rappelait que Simone Veil, ancienne ministre de Giscard,
rescapee d’Auschwitz, etait opposee a la loi Gayssot qui, depuis
1990, punit en France la negation d’un crime contre l’humanite?
En janvier dernier, a Paris, ils etaient dix-neuf a lancer la
petition “Liberte pour l’histoire”. Dix-neuf intellectuels francais
de renom a demander que la loi francaise ne punisse plus le delit de
negationnisme, qu’elle cesse de prescrire le terme qu’il faut
employer pour parler du genocide armenien, et qu’elle ne cherche plus
a imposer aux enseignants d’enseigner le rôle positif de la
colonisation.
Rene Remond, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Elisabeth Badinter, Jean-Pierre
Azema (le specialiste du regime de Vichy), Pierre Nora
(l’academicien), d’autres encore: tous s’inquietaient.
A l’origine de cette petition, plusieurs derives de la
“judiciarisation” de l’histoire en France. Aux dispositions
deconcertantes obligeant l’ecole a tenir compte du “rôle positif” de
la colonisation est venue s’ajouter la poursuite en justice de
l’universitaire Olivier Petre-Grenouilleau, specialiste de l’histoire
de l’esclavage, objet d’une plainte penale deposee par un collectif
qui lui reproche d’avoir refuse d’assimiler la traite des Noirs a un
genocide.
Auparavant deja, la condamnation du sociologue Edgar Morin pour
“diffamation raciale”, pour une tribune cosignee dans Le Monde, avait
suscite l’incomprehension. Le penseur de la complexite, qui s’en
prenait avec une extreme vigueur a la politique israelienne, a dû
aller jusqu’a la Cour de cassation pour que le verdict soit annule,
le 12 juillet dernier.
Par la suite, d’autres historiens ont pris position et defendu les
lois dites “memorielles”. En Suisse, jusqu’a ce jour, seules l’UDC et
l’extreme droite ont entrepris de remettre en cause la norme penale
contre la discrimination raciale, adoptee par les Chambres en 1993 et
approuvee en votation populaire l’annee suivante.
Difficile, pourtant, d’eluder les vraies questions qui se posent. Le
procès des diffuseurs genevois du livre de Roger Garaudy Les Mythes
fondateurs de la politique israelienne avait ainsi ete l’occasion de
très vifs affrontements autour de la liberte d’expression. Confirmee
par le Tribunal federal, la condamnation des accuses est loin d’avoir
convaincu tout le monde. Plus recemment, la demarche du groupe
parlementaire des Verts du Conseil national, qui voulait traduire en
justice l’editorialiste du SonntagsBlick Frank A. Meyer pour un
article mettant en cause l’islam, a montre que les tentations de se
servir de cette norme comme d’une police du debat public existaient
bel et bien.
Il y a cinq ans, la justice bernoise acquittait toutefois douze
accuses turcs comparaissant pour avoir signe une petition contestant
l’existence d’un genocide perpetre sur les Armeniens. Georg Kreis,
professeur a l’Universite de Bâle et president de la Commission
federale contre le racisme, admet qu’en tant qu’historien, il ressent
“un problème si le seul fait de nier un genocide entraîne
automatiquement un verdict de culpabilite. Mais la realite est plus
complexe, et je pense que la norme penale contre le racisme est
parfaitement compatible avec la liberte de l’historien. Il faut bien
comprendre ce que la loi a voulu punir. Ceux qui nient l’Holocauste
pretendent montrer que les juifs ont invente les persecutions dont
ils ont ete les victimes pour en tirer profit. Il y a dans cette
attitude une diffamation agressive et raciste que la loi vise
justement a reprimer. Si les motifs et les effets des propos des
nationalistes turcs sont les memes, il faut les poursuivre aussi. A
l’inverse, j’ai eu tendance a voir dans l’attitude defensive des
Turcs juges a Berne en 2001 la raison de leur acquittement, meme si
je pense qu’on ne peut pas nier la realite du genocide armenien.
Quant aux recents propos de M. Blocher, ils sont grotesques. Lui qui
se vante d’etre patriote n’avait pas a vouloir etre agreable a un
gouvernement etranger au detriment des valeurs etablies en Suisse.”
Pour Brigitte Studer, professeur d’histoire a l’Universite de Berne,
le contexte helvetique est sans doute assez different de celui de la
France. Cette specialiste de l’histoire suisse contemporaine recuse
toute necessite de toucher a la norme penale contre le racisme.
Certes, l’historien peut eprouver un malaise devant la tentative de
la loi et des juges d’imposer une version de l’histoire, ou lorsque
les rôles sont melanges, l’historien devenant un expert judiciaire,
le juge s’arrogeant des competences d’historien. Mais, dans le cas
precis, “l’histoire n’a aucun doute sur la realite du genocide
armenien. C’est l’Etat turc qui cherche a imposer sa mainmise sur une
realite averee. Et puis, il faut admettre que les democraties ont
aussi le droit, a travers leurs lois, de defendre certaines valeurs,
d’imposer certains principes.”
Encadre: L’article 261 bis du Code penal
“Celui qui, publiquement, aura incite a la haine ou a la
discrimination envers une personne ou un groupe de personnes en
raison de leur appartenance raciale, ethnique ou religieuse;
celui qui, publiquement, aura propage une ideologie visant a
rabaisser ou a denigrer de facon systematique les membres d’une race,
d’une ethnie ou d’une religion;
celui qui, dans le meme dessein, aura organise ou encourage des
actions de propagande ou y aura pris part;
celui qui aura publiquement, par la parole, l’ecriture, l’image, le
geste, par des voies de fait ou de toute autre manière, abaisse ou
discrimine d’une facon qui porte atteinte a la dignite humaine une
personne ou un groupe de personnes en raison de leur race, de leur
appartenance ethnique ou de leur religion ou qui, pour la meme
raison, niera, minimisera grossièrement ou cherchera a justifier un
genocide ou d’autres crimes contre l’humanite; […]
sera puni de l’emprisonnement ou de l’amende.”
Encadre: Le style du tribun ne passe plus
La “methode Blocher” est critiquee au parlement.
Par Valerie de Graffenried
La “methode Blocher” fait mal. Elle inquiète, elle agace. Le fait que
le ministre UDC ait profite de son voyage a Ankara pour remettre en
question l’article 261 bis du Code penal a suscite de si fortes
reactions que le president de la Confederation, Moritz Leuenberger, a
dû intervenir a Flims. Pascal Couchepin a aussi commente l’affaire.
Et, au parlement, les critiques ont fuse en cet avant-dernier jour de
session decentralisee pour denoncer l’attitude du ministre de Justice
et Police.
“Comme un membre du gouvernement a remis en question la norme penale
antiraciste, le Conseil federal devra a nouveau prendre position lors
de sa prochaine seance (ndlr: dans dix jours)”, a souligne Moritz
Leuenberger devant la presse. “Personnellement, je suis convaincu que
nous devons la maintenir et je suis confiant que le Conseil federal
confirmera cette position.” Pas question en revanche pour le
president de commenter le “style Blocher”. Juste l’aveu de sa
surprise devant les propos tenus en Turquie. “Nous en discuterons
entre nous”, a-t-il simplement assure, en soulignant que la loi
antiraciste a ete adoptee en votation populaire. “J’attendais
vraiment des declarations plus fermes”, reagissait sur le vif le
conseiller national Carlo Sommaruga (PS/GE), decu de la reserve du
president.
Pascal Couchepin est intervenu de manière plus percutante. “Il est
inconcevable qu’un conseiller federal s’exprime comme le rapportent
les journaux”, a attaque le ministre de l’Interieur a la Radio suisse
romande. Et d’insister: “Si c’est vrai, il est choquant qu’un
ministre de la Justice dise qu’une norme existante lui fait des maux
de ventre. Il ne peut pas s’exprimer sur une loi de son pays a
l’exterieur sans que cette position ait ete consolidee. S’il les a
vraiment exprimees, certaines expressions constituent un danger pour
la democratie.”
Mercredi, a Ankara, Christoph Blocher avait regrette que l’article
261 bis du Code penal ait conduit a une enquete en Suisse contre
l’historien turc Yusuf Halacoglu pour negation du genocide armenien.
Ce meme article a egalement valu a Dogu Perincek, chef du Parti turc
des travailleurs, d’etre poursuivi.
Au parlement, les reactions ont ete vives. Toute la matinee, les
conseillers nationaux Ueli Leuenberger (Verts/GE) et Dominique de
Buman (PDC/FR), copresidents du groupe parlementaire Suisse-Armenie,
se sont escrimes a organiser une declaration commune qui serait
acceptee par les chefs des groupes parlementaires sauf, bien sûr,
celui de l’UDC. Cet appel aurait dû etre lu par le president du
National. Mais la tentative a avorte. Le president des radicaux,
Fulvio Pelli, ne voyait pas cette demarche d’un bon oeil. Le PDC a du
coup aussi renonce a y participer. “Une telle declaration n’a de
poids que si elle est veritablement commune et que tout le parlement
est derrière. Sinon, cela ne fait que l’effet d’un petit feu
d’artifice”, commentait le Fribourgeois. De son, côte, Urs Schwaller,
chef du groupe PDC, estimait “problematique” que Christoph Blocher se
soit ainsi “mis a genoux” devant la Turquie.
Pas de declaration commune donc, mais beaucoup d’interventions
individuelles. Ueli Leuenberger a depose une interpellation dont le
texte signe par plus de 60 personnes reprend grosso modo celui de la
declaration qu’il avait redigee. Le conseiller aux Etats Alain Berset
(PS/FR) en depose aussi une ce matin. Il demande au Conseil federal
de repondre a six questions, dont l’une sur sa manière d’apprecier le
fait que l’intervention de Christoph Blocher contredise la position
constante du Conseil federal en la matière.
Les reactions les plus outrees se recoltent logiquement dans le camp
de la gauche, mais de nombreux deputes de droite elèvent egalement la
voix. “Très choque”, le liberal genevois Jacques-Simon Eggly deplore
comme beaucoup d’autres que le conseiller federal, de surcroît
ministre de la Justice, ait ose s’exprimer contre la norme
antiraciste en son nom personnel, sans en avoir discute prealablement
avec ses collègues. Et qui plus est a l’etranger. “Il a prepare son
coup. Cela s’inscrit dans sa strategie de remettre en cause certains
acquis de notre système juridique. Le Conseil federal doit reagir.
J’interviendrai a ce sujet en Commission de politique exterieure”,
soulignait le Genevois. Plus tard, invite de Forums sur les ondes de
La Première, le Genevois assurait qu’il ne pourrait plus reelire
Christoph Blocher au gouvernement.
Comme le liberal, Felix Gutzwiller (PRD/ZH) et Christophe Darbellay
(PDC/VS) reclament une position claire du Conseil federal. Le chef du
groupe radical vise les propos de tout conseiller federal qui
seraient exprimes sans discussion prealable au sein du collège. Outre
Blocher, il a dans son collimateur Micheline Calmy-Rey. “Tous ne sont
pas des enfants de choeur au Conseil federal et on a plus souvent
l’impression d’etre face a sept individus que face a un collège, ce
qui est problematique.”
Le nouveau president du PDC, Christophe Darbellay, attaque sous un
autre angle: “Christoph Blocher doit respecter strictement la
separation des pouvoirs. Il a deja voulu plusieurs fois se substituer
aux juges, ce qui est inacceptable. Voyez l'”affaire Roschacher”. Le
ministre a pousse le procureur de la Confederation a la demission
alors que le Tribunal federal l’a recemment blanchi, de meme que
l’enquete administrative lancee par Christoph Blocher lui-meme.”
Faut-il alors ne pas reelire le champion de l’UDC en 2007? En
d’autres circonstances, le democrate-chretien a repondu oui, puis
non. Aujourd’hui, il botte en touche: “La question ne se pose pas
pour l’instant.” Son vice-president, Dominique de Buman, charge
Christoph Blocher: “Sa volonte de regenter la justice est
inacceptable. Si le Conseil federal laisse passer ca, il se
discredite.”
L’accuse Christoph Blocher a fait savoir qu’il tirerait le bilan de
son voyage turc devant la presse ce matin, a son retour d’Ankara.
–Boundary_(ID_Wh26d2YPTlD2WJ7OepM7PQ)- –