Tweet
[DOES ANYONE BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH?] POLITICAL CORRECTNESS FRENCH STYLE
by Christopher Vasillopulos
Today's Zaman
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-266467-does-anyone-believe-in-free-speech-political-correctness-french-styleby-christopher-vasillopulos*.html
Dec 22 2011
Turkey
"I hold that the Sun is located at the center of the revolutions
of the heavenly orbs and does not change place, and that the Earth
rotates on itself and moves around it."-- Galileo
The short answer to my question is, "No," although nearly everyone
in the West, especially governments, would say, "Yes." "Of course,
there is free speech," countless officials would say, "but..." What
comes after the "but" would vary; the meanings nevertheless would be
distressingly similar. Free speech must be regulated in the interests
of the state or society. The meaning of free speech has of course
been controversial, even in the US where it has been enshrined in it
founding document, the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law...
abridging the freedom of speech... " Naturally, various American
administrations have tried to limit these words, often conflicting with
the Supreme Court. Generally speaking, as I, an admitted natural rights
advocate, would have it, free speech means that unless words can be
tied to inevitable action, they cannot be restrained or punished by
government. In brief, this means unless words provoke an immediate
act, like a riot or a panic, that is, unless words become in effect
acts, they cannot be restricted. Even when speech is alleged to have
provoked unavoidable acts, this charge must be made in a court of law
and subjected to the provisions of due process. The Roman Catholic
Inquisition was not bound by such niceties. So Galileo's opinion,
backed up with scientific evidence to the contrary notwithstanding,
ran afoul of the authorities. Galileo was convicted of heresy and
confined to house arrest for 12 years until his death in 1642, a long
time ago, as the Roman Church is at pains to point out. Yet the war on
free speech continues, as anyone who works in a politically correct
American university can attest. One can be fired for expressing
opinions, even if true, which might cause offense to a protected
minority, even by state universities that can be considered extensions
of government. In my view political correctness when backed up by the
coercive authority of the state is unconstitutional, but the Supreme
Court does not agree with me.
What has all this to do with the French law that makes it a crime
to deny the Armenian Genocide. First of all, let me make clear that
the French state can make any law it likes so long as it does not
violate its constitution. It does not matter how stupid or foolish it
is or how much it insults the people of another nation. This is not
the question. The issue is rather one of hypocrisy or pandering to
political correctness French style. How many times have the French
and other Europeans criticized others for not living up to the UN
Charter or the European Convention on Human Rights. How many times
have the Turks been the principal target? There is no question
that Turkish history has not been unblemished. There have been,
as in nearly every other country, violations of human rights. This
record has been decried, not denied, by the current government,
as some of its leading members have been jailed for their views. I
refer the reader to the remarks of Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu,
as reported in Today's Zaman of Dec. 21, 2011.
Free and open debate
Let me be precise. My point deals with free speech, not what happened
to thousands of Armenians during World War I. Let me be personal, as I
have confronted this issue head on in front of a Turkish audience. On
my first visit to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC),
as a keynote speaker, itself controversial among the Greek-American
community, I confronted a Turkish-Canadian professor who essentially
denied that anything happened to the Armenians. He received a standing
ovation from the Turkish audience. As a group of international scholars
sat stunned, I angrily asked if he thought thousands of Armenians
went away for the weekend and never came back? Now everyone was angry,
and the conference had to adjourn. I do not know what happened to the
Armenians during a war that was filled with atrocities and millions
of civilian casualties. And it is often forgotten by the West that
the majority of Armenians, Ottoman citizenship notwithstanding,
supported the Russians against the Turks. The truth may never be
known to the degree that it will satisfy ordinary Turks and Armenians,
to say nothing of their ideological extremists.
Certainly, it is premature to assign the label "genocide" to those
tragic events. Conflicting opinions on this, as on all emotionally
charged issues, will persist even if the facts ever become
established. Nevertheless, free and open debate and free and open
inquiry remain the indispensable tools with which to build the truth
or at least as much of it as can ever be ascertained. Unfortunately,
most political leaders are not interested in free inquiry or the
truth. There are, however, a few precious exceptions.
That evening, at an official dinner, I was introduced to then-President
Rauf DenktaĆ~_. I fully expected to be excoriated.
Without recanting my words, I told him that I apologized to my
colleague for my tone. DenktaĆ~_ said, in that case, "What's the
problem?" No problem indeed, if free speech is respected. Of course,
DenktaĆ~_ is a great man and Sarkozy is a Lilliputian, but more is at
stake than an assessment of politicians. Without free expression there
is no possibility of democratic government. Of course this means a lot
of nonsense will have to be tolerated. Don't people tolerate a lot of
nonsense from politicians? A second point needs to be made. How can
the deep cleavages of the world be healed, how can pressing global
economic crises be confronted, how can political hatreds be assuaged
if the leaders of the world's most important nation-states pander to
the worst prejudices of their most ill-informed people? Free speech is
absolutely critical to dealing honestly and frankly with the world's
problems. Let me quote Foreign Minister Davutoglu: "In the Europe of
the 21st century, expression of ideas that do not incite violence
should not be criminalized simply because they are not liked." And
further: "Freedom of expression does not obliterate the memories of
the past but allows the establishment of historical truth." Thomas
Jefferson could not have said it better.
*Christopher Vasillopulos, Ph.D., is a professor of international
relations at Eastern Connecticut State University.
From: Baghdasarian
by Christopher Vasillopulos
Today's Zaman
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-266467-does-anyone-believe-in-free-speech-political-correctness-french-styleby-christopher-vasillopulos*.html
Dec 22 2011
Turkey
"I hold that the Sun is located at the center of the revolutions
of the heavenly orbs and does not change place, and that the Earth
rotates on itself and moves around it."-- Galileo
The short answer to my question is, "No," although nearly everyone
in the West, especially governments, would say, "Yes." "Of course,
there is free speech," countless officials would say, "but..." What
comes after the "but" would vary; the meanings nevertheless would be
distressingly similar. Free speech must be regulated in the interests
of the state or society. The meaning of free speech has of course
been controversial, even in the US where it has been enshrined in it
founding document, the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law...
abridging the freedom of speech... " Naturally, various American
administrations have tried to limit these words, often conflicting with
the Supreme Court. Generally speaking, as I, an admitted natural rights
advocate, would have it, free speech means that unless words can be
tied to inevitable action, they cannot be restrained or punished by
government. In brief, this means unless words provoke an immediate
act, like a riot or a panic, that is, unless words become in effect
acts, they cannot be restricted. Even when speech is alleged to have
provoked unavoidable acts, this charge must be made in a court of law
and subjected to the provisions of due process. The Roman Catholic
Inquisition was not bound by such niceties. So Galileo's opinion,
backed up with scientific evidence to the contrary notwithstanding,
ran afoul of the authorities. Galileo was convicted of heresy and
confined to house arrest for 12 years until his death in 1642, a long
time ago, as the Roman Church is at pains to point out. Yet the war on
free speech continues, as anyone who works in a politically correct
American university can attest. One can be fired for expressing
opinions, even if true, which might cause offense to a protected
minority, even by state universities that can be considered extensions
of government. In my view political correctness when backed up by the
coercive authority of the state is unconstitutional, but the Supreme
Court does not agree with me.
What has all this to do with the French law that makes it a crime
to deny the Armenian Genocide. First of all, let me make clear that
the French state can make any law it likes so long as it does not
violate its constitution. It does not matter how stupid or foolish it
is or how much it insults the people of another nation. This is not
the question. The issue is rather one of hypocrisy or pandering to
political correctness French style. How many times have the French
and other Europeans criticized others for not living up to the UN
Charter or the European Convention on Human Rights. How many times
have the Turks been the principal target? There is no question
that Turkish history has not been unblemished. There have been,
as in nearly every other country, violations of human rights. This
record has been decried, not denied, by the current government,
as some of its leading members have been jailed for their views. I
refer the reader to the remarks of Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu,
as reported in Today's Zaman of Dec. 21, 2011.
Free and open debate
Let me be precise. My point deals with free speech, not what happened
to thousands of Armenians during World War I. Let me be personal, as I
have confronted this issue head on in front of a Turkish audience. On
my first visit to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC),
as a keynote speaker, itself controversial among the Greek-American
community, I confronted a Turkish-Canadian professor who essentially
denied that anything happened to the Armenians. He received a standing
ovation from the Turkish audience. As a group of international scholars
sat stunned, I angrily asked if he thought thousands of Armenians
went away for the weekend and never came back? Now everyone was angry,
and the conference had to adjourn. I do not know what happened to the
Armenians during a war that was filled with atrocities and millions
of civilian casualties. And it is often forgotten by the West that
the majority of Armenians, Ottoman citizenship notwithstanding,
supported the Russians against the Turks. The truth may never be
known to the degree that it will satisfy ordinary Turks and Armenians,
to say nothing of their ideological extremists.
Certainly, it is premature to assign the label "genocide" to those
tragic events. Conflicting opinions on this, as on all emotionally
charged issues, will persist even if the facts ever become
established. Nevertheless, free and open debate and free and open
inquiry remain the indispensable tools with which to build the truth
or at least as much of it as can ever be ascertained. Unfortunately,
most political leaders are not interested in free inquiry or the
truth. There are, however, a few precious exceptions.
That evening, at an official dinner, I was introduced to then-President
Rauf DenktaĆ~_. I fully expected to be excoriated.
Without recanting my words, I told him that I apologized to my
colleague for my tone. DenktaĆ~_ said, in that case, "What's the
problem?" No problem indeed, if free speech is respected. Of course,
DenktaĆ~_ is a great man and Sarkozy is a Lilliputian, but more is at
stake than an assessment of politicians. Without free expression there
is no possibility of democratic government. Of course this means a lot
of nonsense will have to be tolerated. Don't people tolerate a lot of
nonsense from politicians? A second point needs to be made. How can
the deep cleavages of the world be healed, how can pressing global
economic crises be confronted, how can political hatreds be assuaged
if the leaders of the world's most important nation-states pander to
the worst prejudices of their most ill-informed people? Free speech is
absolutely critical to dealing honestly and frankly with the world's
problems. Let me quote Foreign Minister Davutoglu: "In the Europe of
the 21st century, expression of ideas that do not incite violence
should not be criminalized simply because they are not liked." And
further: "Freedom of expression does not obliterate the memories of
the past but allows the establishment of historical truth." Thomas
Jefferson could not have said it better.
*Christopher Vasillopulos, Ph.D., is a professor of international
relations at Eastern Connecticut State University.
From: Baghdasarian