Tweet
Debates over Headscarf and Genocide
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 19 2006
[COMMENTARY]
by Herkul Millas
This week, I had actually wanted to write an article on the damage
inflicted upon the scientific sphere by Article 301, which restricts
the freedom of speech.
However, I thought it more appropriate to tackle that topic some
other time, and decided to write about France when the law passed
recently became a more urgent issue.
The prohibitory law of France is more important; because it involves
more than one country (France, Turkey, and Armenia) and carries the
potential danger of engulfing the whole EU. At least Article 301 is
not "expansionist" by nature.
I have not been able to digest France's action; and still worse, I
have a hard time understanding it. This seems to be a big problem;
speaking out against injustice while being haunted by inability to
take any action doesn't mean anything. Disliking or criticizing
something when we are also not right could both be parts of the same
picture. On the other hand, "understanding" is a totally different
concept. Opposing the other party only after understanding its aim is
far more consistent and safer. Reacting after having a full grasp of
the problem, should not be as a result of a moment of rashness
triggered only by sentiments.
What I mean by "understanding" is knowing what sort of thought system
and belief an attitude stems from. The influence of the Armenian
lobby, the base strategy of getting more votes from a small segment
of the society and its desire to prevent Turkey from getting closer
to the EU could all be explanations to a certain degree; but they are
far from being adequate. How can mighty France be too blind to see
that it has struck a sharp blow at the most basic principle of human
rights? This is the France where "The Declaration of the Human
Rights" was issued in 1789. Article 10 talks of a right that "No one
may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as
long a the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the
established Law and Order." Liberty and independence have long been
the national symbols of this country. How can those who claim to be
proud of Voltaire criminalize a different view?
------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
France Behaved Shamefully
When we look at France's past actions and compare them with those of
other European countries, like England, we seem to find some clues
that will deepen our understanding. The French nation-state came to
existence as a result of an extremely bloody revolution, not a
compromise, and the killing of innumerous people was justified on the
bases of a "sublime" ideal and a series of "truth." This positivist
understanding and limitless self-confidence became the dominant
elements in the model of the French nation-state. The truths welcomed
by the nation acquired claims to a sort of universality. On the other
hand, the truths of Parliament were recognized as those welcomed by
the "abstract" nation. The varieties, the marginal sections and the
minorities got lost in this vicious circle. "Citizenship" was
perceived as the general truth that should be followed by everyone,
and opposing the truths was perceived as opposition to the "nation."
Recently, it has been frequently said that the headscarf ban at
schools and public domain became more widespread because of this
understanding. (We have not forgotten those who hailed France's
prohibitive practices at that time.) Some proudly said that Turkey
emulates France and its state model within the context of secularism.
Now, we have seen and experienced the outcomes of this model. We are
watching similar practices both in France and Turkey at the same time
in a particularly interesting conjuncture. The headscarf issue is a
problem in both countries, freedom of expression too. Both of them
have resorted to a forbidden practice with the "state legitimacy"
discourse. The contradiction between the two countries is not in
understanding but in the aim. There is a consensus on the headscarf
issue at the state level now. However, there is seemingly a
difference of opinion over the genocide issue: One side says there
was no genocide while the other says the opposite. Both opinions are
the same when evaluated from the point of view of social life: They
consider different views an offense and specify punishments.
------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------
What headscarf prohibiters don't see
Punishing those who deny genocides, was first regarded as a sign of
respect for the victims. Respect, without any doubt, is a good thing
and no one is against it. But, when should a different view be
considered a crime and when shouldn't it? The important thing is not
whether or not an event is considered genocide, but being able to
express our views explicitly and fearlessly on any issue and not
being jailed or threatened when we express them. Because, if the list
of events we should "respect" increases tomorrow, new laws may be
enacted. So, we may end up living in a fascist environment with a
long list in our pockets of only the things we can to say.
What I have at least begun to see is: In both countries, a group of
people, who know what's "true" and "real" and constitute the
majority, either ignore or try to suppress diversity, pluralism,
small groups and the weak. The results of the debates over the
headscarf and "genocide" issues are evidence of this. Those who
oppose this approach are a small but struggling minority in both
countries. From this viewpoint, the conflict is not between France
and Turkey but between these two different approaches. Those who
silence individuals in Turkey by means of Article 301, and those who
put a gag order on people in France with a threat of sentencing them
to jail, are not in conflict in terms of human principles but only
agree to disagree on various fields. They are not against compulsion
but are only trying to impose their own truths on a similar
mentality.
If those who criticize the new bill in France dispraise it not
because it bans diversity but because "it supports a wrong
interpretation of history," they are acting in the same way as
France. This is the same for those who oppose the ban on headscarves.
Those who oppose this ban not because this practice is against human
rights but because a "right" choice is not implemented are also
acting in the same way since they will try to implement their own
"truths" at any given opportunity. In other words, defending our own
truths may differ from defending principles for all.
If we look at the issue from this perspective, we can determine who's
friend or foe correctly. The implementers of Article 301 and those
restricting the freedom of expression in France are the same, and are
harbingers of a dangerous future. European Commission President
Jose-Manuel Barroso, European Union Enlargement Commissioner Olli
Rehn, Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Commission Co-chair Joost
Lagendijk and Turkey rapporteur Camile Eurlings, and thousands of
European individuals, are closest to those who oppose the bans in
Turkey. This is a human rights struggle; it is not a struggle among
nations.
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 19 2006
[COMMENTARY]
by Herkul Millas
This week, I had actually wanted to write an article on the damage
inflicted upon the scientific sphere by Article 301, which restricts
the freedom of speech.
However, I thought it more appropriate to tackle that topic some
other time, and decided to write about France when the law passed
recently became a more urgent issue.
The prohibitory law of France is more important; because it involves
more than one country (France, Turkey, and Armenia) and carries the
potential danger of engulfing the whole EU. At least Article 301 is
not "expansionist" by nature.
I have not been able to digest France's action; and still worse, I
have a hard time understanding it. This seems to be a big problem;
speaking out against injustice while being haunted by inability to
take any action doesn't mean anything. Disliking or criticizing
something when we are also not right could both be parts of the same
picture. On the other hand, "understanding" is a totally different
concept. Opposing the other party only after understanding its aim is
far more consistent and safer. Reacting after having a full grasp of
the problem, should not be as a result of a moment of rashness
triggered only by sentiments.
What I mean by "understanding" is knowing what sort of thought system
and belief an attitude stems from. The influence of the Armenian
lobby, the base strategy of getting more votes from a small segment
of the society and its desire to prevent Turkey from getting closer
to the EU could all be explanations to a certain degree; but they are
far from being adequate. How can mighty France be too blind to see
that it has struck a sharp blow at the most basic principle of human
rights? This is the France where "The Declaration of the Human
Rights" was issued in 1789. Article 10 talks of a right that "No one
may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as
long a the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the
established Law and Order." Liberty and independence have long been
the national symbols of this country. How can those who claim to be
proud of Voltaire criminalize a different view?
------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
France Behaved Shamefully
When we look at France's past actions and compare them with those of
other European countries, like England, we seem to find some clues
that will deepen our understanding. The French nation-state came to
existence as a result of an extremely bloody revolution, not a
compromise, and the killing of innumerous people was justified on the
bases of a "sublime" ideal and a series of "truth." This positivist
understanding and limitless self-confidence became the dominant
elements in the model of the French nation-state. The truths welcomed
by the nation acquired claims to a sort of universality. On the other
hand, the truths of Parliament were recognized as those welcomed by
the "abstract" nation. The varieties, the marginal sections and the
minorities got lost in this vicious circle. "Citizenship" was
perceived as the general truth that should be followed by everyone,
and opposing the truths was perceived as opposition to the "nation."
Recently, it has been frequently said that the headscarf ban at
schools and public domain became more widespread because of this
understanding. (We have not forgotten those who hailed France's
prohibitive practices at that time.) Some proudly said that Turkey
emulates France and its state model within the context of secularism.
Now, we have seen and experienced the outcomes of this model. We are
watching similar practices both in France and Turkey at the same time
in a particularly interesting conjuncture. The headscarf issue is a
problem in both countries, freedom of expression too. Both of them
have resorted to a forbidden practice with the "state legitimacy"
discourse. The contradiction between the two countries is not in
understanding but in the aim. There is a consensus on the headscarf
issue at the state level now. However, there is seemingly a
difference of opinion over the genocide issue: One side says there
was no genocide while the other says the opposite. Both opinions are
the same when evaluated from the point of view of social life: They
consider different views an offense and specify punishments.
------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------
What headscarf prohibiters don't see
Punishing those who deny genocides, was first regarded as a sign of
respect for the victims. Respect, without any doubt, is a good thing
and no one is against it. But, when should a different view be
considered a crime and when shouldn't it? The important thing is not
whether or not an event is considered genocide, but being able to
express our views explicitly and fearlessly on any issue and not
being jailed or threatened when we express them. Because, if the list
of events we should "respect" increases tomorrow, new laws may be
enacted. So, we may end up living in a fascist environment with a
long list in our pockets of only the things we can to say.
What I have at least begun to see is: In both countries, a group of
people, who know what's "true" and "real" and constitute the
majority, either ignore or try to suppress diversity, pluralism,
small groups and the weak. The results of the debates over the
headscarf and "genocide" issues are evidence of this. Those who
oppose this approach are a small but struggling minority in both
countries. From this viewpoint, the conflict is not between France
and Turkey but between these two different approaches. Those who
silence individuals in Turkey by means of Article 301, and those who
put a gag order on people in France with a threat of sentencing them
to jail, are not in conflict in terms of human principles but only
agree to disagree on various fields. They are not against compulsion
but are only trying to impose their own truths on a similar
mentality.
If those who criticize the new bill in France dispraise it not
because it bans diversity but because "it supports a wrong
interpretation of history," they are acting in the same way as
France. This is the same for those who oppose the ban on headscarves.
Those who oppose this ban not because this practice is against human
rights but because a "right" choice is not implemented are also
acting in the same way since they will try to implement their own
"truths" at any given opportunity. In other words, defending our own
truths may differ from defending principles for all.
If we look at the issue from this perspective, we can determine who's
friend or foe correctly. The implementers of Article 301 and those
restricting the freedom of expression in France are the same, and are
harbingers of a dangerous future. European Commission President
Jose-Manuel Barroso, European Union Enlargement Commissioner Olli
Rehn, Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Commission Co-chair Joost
Lagendijk and Turkey rapporteur Camile Eurlings, and thousands of
European individuals, are closest to those who oppose the bans in
Turkey. This is a human rights struggle; it is not a struggle among
nations.