Tweet
ARA PAPIAN. ON THE CRIMINALISATION OF THE DENIAL OF GENOCIDES
noyan tapan
2011-12-25
There was a saying in my youth, "to swallow a Danish pill", which
implied to willfully accede to a position beneficial to another.
Honestly speaking, I still don't know to this day why it is referred to
as "Danish" specifically. However, that some people have swallowed the
Turkish pill today is quite clear. And what that Turkish pill comprises
is something I do know, as, over the course of these recent discussions
in the National Assembly of France, some have written and continue
to write - among them even Armenians - that the criminalisation of
the public denial of genocides is wrong, as that would mean limiting
free speech and the right to have one's own opinion. Since when has
the protection of a criminal act been "freedom of speech" or "holding
an opinion"? Go to Canada, for example, and publicly "express your
opinion" that, say, black people or Armenians are filthy or lazy. You
do know what they would do to you, right? You would end up in jail or
be penalised in some other fashion for inciting "hate speech". Declare
in Germany that Hitler had his reasons for massacring Jews. Don't
deny the Holocaust; simply try to bring up some justification or
basis for it. I believe you would know the consequences better than
I do. Well, where is that "freedom of speech", then? Or is that some
people consider us Armenians more democratic than Canadians or Germans?
It is important to underscore a few key points in order to understand
these current events. Genocide, including and especially that of
the Armenians, is not simply something that happened in the past, a
mere historical occurrence. It is the worst crime, "the crime of the
crimes", as juridical scholars put it, as it consists of a series of
the most reprehensible criminal acts - murder, rape, child molestation,
slavery, illegally depriving people of their freedom, pillaging or the
destruction of the property of others, the annihilation or acquisition
of objects of cultural value, etc. This crime brings up essentially
the whole gamut of the penal code.
Consequently, the public denial of a genocide is an attempt at the
justification of a crime. It is, in fact, the encouragement of a
crime, and that does not just imply being an accomplice to a crime,
but committing a crime itself. I repeat: genocide is not a historical
event, about which there could be differing opinions. It is a crime,
and crimes can have only one response - punishment. And if it is
impossible to punish, then one must condemn, one of the reasons
behind which is to prevent the crime in future. Nothing encourages a
criminal and motivates him to repeat a crime more than a crime that
went unpunished.
I mentioned above that, "Genocide, including and especially that of
the Armenians, is not simply something that happened in the past,
a mere historical occurrence". Why "especially that of the Armenians"?
For the simple reason that the Armenian Genocide is the only genocide
that is continuing, as the consequences of that criminal act have
an ongoing nature. Let me explain. The perpetrators of all previous
genocides have been punished one way or another, the victims have
been compensated in whole or in part, and they continue to receive
compensation, that is, the consequences of those genocides have been
overcome to some degree. The Armenian Genocide is the only one where
not only have the perpetrators not been punished or even at least
condemned internationally (the acts of retribution carried out by
Armenians cannot be viewed as "international"), but the genocide is
still happening, as the consequences of the genocide are still in
place. Armenia today has become subject to a blockade due to genocide.
The Republic of Armenia has lost a significant part of its territory
due to genocide, losing as well its access to the sea - so essential
to the country's development - and further living space, while also
being rendered strategically far more vulnerable. A major part of
the citizenry of the Republic of Armenia has a low standard of living
today. There are numerous reasons for this, including domestic ones.
But the external reasons are central to this matter, if not being
essential to it. And the most important of those external reasons are
the continuing consequences in place of the Armenian Genocide. And so,
as long as the consequences of that genocide have not been eliminated,
the citizens of the Republic of Armenia cannot enjoy a secure and
prosperous life. Of course, some improvement can be achieved with
proper management, but any such development would be very limited,
unstable, and vulnerable. Any other discussions on the matter are
either blatant propaganda for achieving power in the country or honest
self-deception. The strength of the country - that is, the prosperity
of its citizens - is a very material concept and it finds its basis
on just as material concepts. Of course the regime is very important,
and even has significance in the day-to-day, without which normal life
would not be possible. It is like the yeast, without which one cannot
have one's daily bread. But if one does not even have the grain or
the land on which one is to grow the grain, then the yeast becomes
a luxury that soon grows rancid.
It must be understood that the recognition, condemnation, and the
criminalisation of the denial of the Armenian Genocide are steps
aimed at eliminating the consequences of the Armenian Genocide. And
that is the case even more so now, where in France the attempt is a
first to place the Armenian Genocide side-by-side with the Holocaust,
with all the legal consequences that that would entail.
noyan tapan
2011-12-25
There was a saying in my youth, "to swallow a Danish pill", which
implied to willfully accede to a position beneficial to another.
Honestly speaking, I still don't know to this day why it is referred to
as "Danish" specifically. However, that some people have swallowed the
Turkish pill today is quite clear. And what that Turkish pill comprises
is something I do know, as, over the course of these recent discussions
in the National Assembly of France, some have written and continue
to write - among them even Armenians - that the criminalisation of
the public denial of genocides is wrong, as that would mean limiting
free speech and the right to have one's own opinion. Since when has
the protection of a criminal act been "freedom of speech" or "holding
an opinion"? Go to Canada, for example, and publicly "express your
opinion" that, say, black people or Armenians are filthy or lazy. You
do know what they would do to you, right? You would end up in jail or
be penalised in some other fashion for inciting "hate speech". Declare
in Germany that Hitler had his reasons for massacring Jews. Don't
deny the Holocaust; simply try to bring up some justification or
basis for it. I believe you would know the consequences better than
I do. Well, where is that "freedom of speech", then? Or is that some
people consider us Armenians more democratic than Canadians or Germans?
It is important to underscore a few key points in order to understand
these current events. Genocide, including and especially that of
the Armenians, is not simply something that happened in the past, a
mere historical occurrence. It is the worst crime, "the crime of the
crimes", as juridical scholars put it, as it consists of a series of
the most reprehensible criminal acts - murder, rape, child molestation,
slavery, illegally depriving people of their freedom, pillaging or the
destruction of the property of others, the annihilation or acquisition
of objects of cultural value, etc. This crime brings up essentially
the whole gamut of the penal code.
Consequently, the public denial of a genocide is an attempt at the
justification of a crime. It is, in fact, the encouragement of a
crime, and that does not just imply being an accomplice to a crime,
but committing a crime itself. I repeat: genocide is not a historical
event, about which there could be differing opinions. It is a crime,
and crimes can have only one response - punishment. And if it is
impossible to punish, then one must condemn, one of the reasons
behind which is to prevent the crime in future. Nothing encourages a
criminal and motivates him to repeat a crime more than a crime that
went unpunished.
I mentioned above that, "Genocide, including and especially that of
the Armenians, is not simply something that happened in the past,
a mere historical occurrence". Why "especially that of the Armenians"?
For the simple reason that the Armenian Genocide is the only genocide
that is continuing, as the consequences of that criminal act have
an ongoing nature. Let me explain. The perpetrators of all previous
genocides have been punished one way or another, the victims have
been compensated in whole or in part, and they continue to receive
compensation, that is, the consequences of those genocides have been
overcome to some degree. The Armenian Genocide is the only one where
not only have the perpetrators not been punished or even at least
condemned internationally (the acts of retribution carried out by
Armenians cannot be viewed as "international"), but the genocide is
still happening, as the consequences of the genocide are still in
place. Armenia today has become subject to a blockade due to genocide.
The Republic of Armenia has lost a significant part of its territory
due to genocide, losing as well its access to the sea - so essential
to the country's development - and further living space, while also
being rendered strategically far more vulnerable. A major part of
the citizenry of the Republic of Armenia has a low standard of living
today. There are numerous reasons for this, including domestic ones.
But the external reasons are central to this matter, if not being
essential to it. And the most important of those external reasons are
the continuing consequences in place of the Armenian Genocide. And so,
as long as the consequences of that genocide have not been eliminated,
the citizens of the Republic of Armenia cannot enjoy a secure and
prosperous life. Of course, some improvement can be achieved with
proper management, but any such development would be very limited,
unstable, and vulnerable. Any other discussions on the matter are
either blatant propaganda for achieving power in the country or honest
self-deception. The strength of the country - that is, the prosperity
of its citizens - is a very material concept and it finds its basis
on just as material concepts. Of course the regime is very important,
and even has significance in the day-to-day, without which normal life
would not be possible. It is like the yeast, without which one cannot
have one's daily bread. But if one does not even have the grain or
the land on which one is to grow the grain, then the yeast becomes
a luxury that soon grows rancid.
It must be understood that the recognition, condemnation, and the
criminalisation of the denial of the Armenian Genocide are steps
aimed at eliminating the consequences of the Armenian Genocide. And
that is the case even more so now, where in France the attempt is a
first to place the Armenian Genocide side-by-side with the Holocaust,
with all the legal consequences that that would entail.