Tweet
ANALYSIS: DO GENOCIDE DENIAL LAWS DENY HUMAN RIGHTS?
by Alex Pearlman
Global Post
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/rights/analysis-do-genocide-denial-laws-deny-human-rights
April 25 2012
The anniversary of the 1915 Armenian genocide has people on both
sides of the Atlantic all riled up. Are laws criminalizing genocide
denial a threat to free speech if the genocide in question is still
up for debate?
Since the mid-1980s, legislation criminalizing the denial of the
Holocaust has become the norm. There are 17 countries with Holocaust
denial laws, mostly in Europe. In general no one complains about
these laws, and there have been prosecutions in England, Austria,
Germany and France.
Yesterday, on the eve of the anniversary of the 1915 Armenian genocide,
French President Sarkozy announced he would try again for a law to
criminalize denial of that genocide, too. (France has had a Holocaust
denial law since 1990.) But the backlash from Turkey and people
of Turkish origin has been severe, many claiming these laws are an
insult to history and their country. The first law against Armenian
genocide denial was overturned last February, which Turkey called a
"positive" move. The Turkish government, then and now, has accused
Sarkozy of politicizing what they deem a historical, war-time action,
ahead of upcoming elections.
According to Al Jazeera, the International Association of Genocide
Scholars has recognized the Armenian genocide since 1997, despite
Turkey's fierce denials.
"There is no powerful state which does not reflect on its own history.
A powerful state's first sign is the evaluation by its residents. This
is the perception that it can prove the impartiality of its own
history. France demands from Turkey to review its own history. This
is not a sign of weakness," Sarkozy said in a speech yesterday.
Meanwhile, across the pond, Armenian-Americans face a different problem
with their executive. That is, President Obama did not mention the word
"genocide" Monday when he announced a new Atrocities Prevention Board
while he toured the Holocaust museum, nor did he mention it yesterday
when he commemorated the Armenian anniversay.
On the campaign trail and in the Senate, then-candidate Obama was
both a signatory on a bill to recognize the massacre of 1.5 million
Armenians as genocide and also promised in a strongly-worded 2008
statement that when elected he would, "recognize the Armenian
Genocide."
More from GlobalPost: Armenian genocide anniversary marked with
remembrance, protests (PHOTOS)
Instead, Obama said yesterday, "We honor the memory of the 1.5 million
Armenians who were brutally massacred or marched to their deaths in
the waning days of the Ottoman Empire."
The president's statements have infuriated the Armenian-American
community, which has issued calls for Obama to both acknowledge that
the mass killings were genocide, and to pressure Turkey to do the
same and investigate its history, accusing him of playing politics
to make nice with Turkey.
"Turkey, an emerging leader in the Muslim world, needs to face up to
the horrors that were unleashed a century ago and offer apologies,"
wrote Nina Shea today, a former commissioner on the U.S. Commission
on International Religious Freedom. "President Obama should take
the lead in encouraging Ankara to cooperate in an open, impartial
investigation into what exactly occurred during this period."
The Obama administration's reputation on the matter wasn't helped by
Secretary of State Clinton saying in January that the original French
law actually did infringe on free speech because the matter is still
up for debate by historians - it's not clear to anyone whether the
Armenian genocide is actually a genocide.
Bernard Lewis of Princeton University is one of the world's foremost
scholars on the Middle East and has said that there is no proof of a
conspiratorial effort on behalf of the Ottomans to target Armenians
specifically for massacre during World War One, the way there is
proof of this in other instances of genocide.
More from GlobalPost: Armenian couple name their baby Sarkozy
"This is a question of definition and nowadays the word 'genocide'
is used very loosely even in cases where no bloodshed is involved at
all and I can understand the annoyance of those who feel refused,"
said Professor Lewis in a 2002 interview with C-SPAN [PDF]. "In this
particular case, the point that was being made was that the massacre
of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was the same as what happened
to Jews in Nazi Germany and that is a downright falsehood."
He continues, after clarifying facts that armed Armenian rebels had
joined with Russia to invade, "to make this, a parallel with the
holocaust in Germany, you would have to assume the Jews of Germany
had been engaged in an armed rebellion against the German state,
collaborating with the allies against Germany. That in the deportation
order the cities of Hamburg and Berlin were exempted, persons in the
employment of state were exempted, and the deportation only applied
to the Jews of Germany proper, so that when they got to Poland they
were welcomed and sheltered by the Polish Jews. This seems to me a
rather absurd parallel."
Of course, there is the more mainstream argument that opinions like
those of Professor Lewis and the Turkish government are denialist
and generally wrong. However, because these opinions are not held
by a fringe minority (in fact, the Armenian genocide truly is hotly
debated in academia), unlike the deniers of other historical genocides
that are more recent like the Holocaust, Sudan, and Rwanda, Secretary
Clinton wasn't wrong.
The question remains: how can something like a questionable historical
fact be criminalized, if that fact isn't defined or accepted by a
wide majority? Under anti-speech laws, it would become criminal to
debate the issue, ask questions, or dig deeper for the truth.
From: Baghdasarian
by Alex Pearlman
Global Post
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/rights/analysis-do-genocide-denial-laws-deny-human-rights
April 25 2012
The anniversary of the 1915 Armenian genocide has people on both
sides of the Atlantic all riled up. Are laws criminalizing genocide
denial a threat to free speech if the genocide in question is still
up for debate?
Since the mid-1980s, legislation criminalizing the denial of the
Holocaust has become the norm. There are 17 countries with Holocaust
denial laws, mostly in Europe. In general no one complains about
these laws, and there have been prosecutions in England, Austria,
Germany and France.
Yesterday, on the eve of the anniversary of the 1915 Armenian genocide,
French President Sarkozy announced he would try again for a law to
criminalize denial of that genocide, too. (France has had a Holocaust
denial law since 1990.) But the backlash from Turkey and people
of Turkish origin has been severe, many claiming these laws are an
insult to history and their country. The first law against Armenian
genocide denial was overturned last February, which Turkey called a
"positive" move. The Turkish government, then and now, has accused
Sarkozy of politicizing what they deem a historical, war-time action,
ahead of upcoming elections.
According to Al Jazeera, the International Association of Genocide
Scholars has recognized the Armenian genocide since 1997, despite
Turkey's fierce denials.
"There is no powerful state which does not reflect on its own history.
A powerful state's first sign is the evaluation by its residents. This
is the perception that it can prove the impartiality of its own
history. France demands from Turkey to review its own history. This
is not a sign of weakness," Sarkozy said in a speech yesterday.
Meanwhile, across the pond, Armenian-Americans face a different problem
with their executive. That is, President Obama did not mention the word
"genocide" Monday when he announced a new Atrocities Prevention Board
while he toured the Holocaust museum, nor did he mention it yesterday
when he commemorated the Armenian anniversay.
On the campaign trail and in the Senate, then-candidate Obama was
both a signatory on a bill to recognize the massacre of 1.5 million
Armenians as genocide and also promised in a strongly-worded 2008
statement that when elected he would, "recognize the Armenian
Genocide."
More from GlobalPost: Armenian genocide anniversary marked with
remembrance, protests (PHOTOS)
Instead, Obama said yesterday, "We honor the memory of the 1.5 million
Armenians who were brutally massacred or marched to their deaths in
the waning days of the Ottoman Empire."
The president's statements have infuriated the Armenian-American
community, which has issued calls for Obama to both acknowledge that
the mass killings were genocide, and to pressure Turkey to do the
same and investigate its history, accusing him of playing politics
to make nice with Turkey.
"Turkey, an emerging leader in the Muslim world, needs to face up to
the horrors that were unleashed a century ago and offer apologies,"
wrote Nina Shea today, a former commissioner on the U.S. Commission
on International Religious Freedom. "President Obama should take
the lead in encouraging Ankara to cooperate in an open, impartial
investigation into what exactly occurred during this period."
The Obama administration's reputation on the matter wasn't helped by
Secretary of State Clinton saying in January that the original French
law actually did infringe on free speech because the matter is still
up for debate by historians - it's not clear to anyone whether the
Armenian genocide is actually a genocide.
Bernard Lewis of Princeton University is one of the world's foremost
scholars on the Middle East and has said that there is no proof of a
conspiratorial effort on behalf of the Ottomans to target Armenians
specifically for massacre during World War One, the way there is
proof of this in other instances of genocide.
More from GlobalPost: Armenian couple name their baby Sarkozy
"This is a question of definition and nowadays the word 'genocide'
is used very loosely even in cases where no bloodshed is involved at
all and I can understand the annoyance of those who feel refused,"
said Professor Lewis in a 2002 interview with C-SPAN [PDF]. "In this
particular case, the point that was being made was that the massacre
of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was the same as what happened
to Jews in Nazi Germany and that is a downright falsehood."
He continues, after clarifying facts that armed Armenian rebels had
joined with Russia to invade, "to make this, a parallel with the
holocaust in Germany, you would have to assume the Jews of Germany
had been engaged in an armed rebellion against the German state,
collaborating with the allies against Germany. That in the deportation
order the cities of Hamburg and Berlin were exempted, persons in the
employment of state were exempted, and the deportation only applied
to the Jews of Germany proper, so that when they got to Poland they
were welcomed and sheltered by the Polish Jews. This seems to me a
rather absurd parallel."
Of course, there is the more mainstream argument that opinions like
those of Professor Lewis and the Turkish government are denialist
and generally wrong. However, because these opinions are not held
by a fringe minority (in fact, the Armenian genocide truly is hotly
debated in academia), unlike the deniers of other historical genocides
that are more recent like the Holocaust, Sudan, and Rwanda, Secretary
Clinton wasn't wrong.
The question remains: how can something like a questionable historical
fact be criminalized, if that fact isn't defined or accepted by a
wide majority? Under anti-speech laws, it would become criminal to
debate the issue, ask questions, or dig deeper for the truth.
From: Baghdasarian