Tweet
THE BATTLE FOR FRENCH, TURKISH CITIZENS' MINDS
Hurriyet, Turkey
Oct 13 2011
With low approval ratings and the French welfare state model in
crisis, President Nicolas Sarkozy is a busy and desperate man. The
Yerevan declaration warning Turkey to read Ottoman history the way
France officially does was not only a shameful display of electoral
opportunism. It also highlighted the threat posed by politicians to
the principles of freedom of speech and thought even in so-called
advanced democracies.
The perfect "statist" storm is brewing in France. The spiraling debt
crisis, deepening global recession and upcoming national elections
are combining to consolidate a deeply rooted tradition of state
interventionism at the expense of individual and economic freedoms.
Not content with l'Etat controversially dictating thoughts on
sensitive points of French history to its citizens with memory laws,
the president took the opportunity of a foreign stage to threaten
intervention in Turkish minds too.
A few inconvenient facts: The 2001 law whereby "France recognizes
the Armenian genocide" was passed in the National Assembly with 28
deputies casting a ballot out of 577. That a parliament would write
the history of other nations is contentious enough. But as the latest
episode of presidential diplomatic buzz made painfully obvious once
again, legislating on the Armenian tragedy has little to do with
history. Rather it is about the search for votes among the small but
well-organized Armenian community.
The president's threat to revive the bill criminalizing the denial
of the "genocide" - incidentally buried by the Senat last May -
was also meant to upset the Turks. It did. Given that the Socialist
Party motion was defeated by the ruling UMP, the situation now verges
on the politically absurd. Worryingly for democracy, it reveals that
in the current "hyper presidential" system the executive can ignore
recommendations by the legislature.
The National Assembly report (2008) cannot have escaped the
attention of the government's Armenia "adviser," the staunchly
Armenian nationalist Patrick Devedjian. In short, "memory laws"
and the criminalization proposal pose risks of un-constitutionality,
abridgement of fundamental freedoms, disguised censorship through the
threat of legal action, creation of a precedent for thought crime,
restriction of the fundamental principle of freedom of scholarship.
The report's conclusion is unambiguous: "It is not the role of
Parliament to write history."
Legal scholars appealed for their annulment. Historians have
united in the battle against state-edicted truths. Professor
Pierre Nora, president of the association Liberte pour l'histoire
(www.lph-assos.fr), does not mince his words. "Legal truth is a
practice of totalitarian regimes." France is not the Soviet Union but
like Russia its politicians write history. One has to wonder what the
"hyper" leader has in mind for thought-crime offenders? Throwing
thousands of Turks in overcrowded French prisons to purge the one
year sentence? Labor camps to pay for the 45,000 euros fine and plug
the budget deficit?
Unfortunately this is no storm in a cup of tea. With all candidates
having hit the campaign trail, there is a real danger that the
proposal will resurface. Clearly the Armenian tragedy is too serious
and sensitive a subject to be left to politicians. However some rose
to the occasion by standing for liberty. Senator Josselin de Rohan
(UMP) deserves praise for his integrity. "The proposal," he stated,
"undermines liberty. It is inquisitorial and obscurantist." Where do
we go from here?
* Sophie Quintin Adali is an analyst for the French classical liberal
think tank UnMondeLibre.org. The opinions expressed are those of the
author only.
From: A. Papazian
Hurriyet, Turkey
Oct 13 2011
With low approval ratings and the French welfare state model in
crisis, President Nicolas Sarkozy is a busy and desperate man. The
Yerevan declaration warning Turkey to read Ottoman history the way
France officially does was not only a shameful display of electoral
opportunism. It also highlighted the threat posed by politicians to
the principles of freedom of speech and thought even in so-called
advanced democracies.
The perfect "statist" storm is brewing in France. The spiraling debt
crisis, deepening global recession and upcoming national elections
are combining to consolidate a deeply rooted tradition of state
interventionism at the expense of individual and economic freedoms.
Not content with l'Etat controversially dictating thoughts on
sensitive points of French history to its citizens with memory laws,
the president took the opportunity of a foreign stage to threaten
intervention in Turkish minds too.
A few inconvenient facts: The 2001 law whereby "France recognizes
the Armenian genocide" was passed in the National Assembly with 28
deputies casting a ballot out of 577. That a parliament would write
the history of other nations is contentious enough. But as the latest
episode of presidential diplomatic buzz made painfully obvious once
again, legislating on the Armenian tragedy has little to do with
history. Rather it is about the search for votes among the small but
well-organized Armenian community.
The president's threat to revive the bill criminalizing the denial
of the "genocide" - incidentally buried by the Senat last May -
was also meant to upset the Turks. It did. Given that the Socialist
Party motion was defeated by the ruling UMP, the situation now verges
on the politically absurd. Worryingly for democracy, it reveals that
in the current "hyper presidential" system the executive can ignore
recommendations by the legislature.
The National Assembly report (2008) cannot have escaped the
attention of the government's Armenia "adviser," the staunchly
Armenian nationalist Patrick Devedjian. In short, "memory laws"
and the criminalization proposal pose risks of un-constitutionality,
abridgement of fundamental freedoms, disguised censorship through the
threat of legal action, creation of a precedent for thought crime,
restriction of the fundamental principle of freedom of scholarship.
The report's conclusion is unambiguous: "It is not the role of
Parliament to write history."
Legal scholars appealed for their annulment. Historians have
united in the battle against state-edicted truths. Professor
Pierre Nora, president of the association Liberte pour l'histoire
(www.lph-assos.fr), does not mince his words. "Legal truth is a
practice of totalitarian regimes." France is not the Soviet Union but
like Russia its politicians write history. One has to wonder what the
"hyper" leader has in mind for thought-crime offenders? Throwing
thousands of Turks in overcrowded French prisons to purge the one
year sentence? Labor camps to pay for the 45,000 euros fine and plug
the budget deficit?
Unfortunately this is no storm in a cup of tea. With all candidates
having hit the campaign trail, there is a real danger that the
proposal will resurface. Clearly the Armenian tragedy is too serious
and sensitive a subject to be left to politicians. However some rose
to the occasion by standing for liberty. Senator Josselin de Rohan
(UMP) deserves praise for his integrity. "The proposal," he stated,
"undermines liberty. It is inquisitorial and obscurantist." Where do
we go from here?
* Sophie Quintin Adali is an analyst for the French classical liberal
think tank UnMondeLibre.org. The opinions expressed are those of the
author only.
From: A. Papazian