Tweet
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Jan 7 2012
ASALA's Day in the French National Assembly
Saturday, 7 January 2012
`Inquisitorial, liberticidal and obscurantist' said Josselin de Rohan,
then Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the French Senate,
on May 4, 2011. The first censorship bill regarding the Armenian issue
was rejected by an overwhelming majority of senators. For purely
electoral reasons, Nicolas Sarkozy oversaw the vote of a similar, new
bill on December 22. The text was presented by Marseille's Deputy
Valérie Boyer. The text was adopted, against the opinion of most
French editorialists, from the social-democrat Jean Daniel to the
conservative YvanRioufol, who are hostile to the draft, against the
statements of prominent French historians including Pierre Nora, and
also against the hostility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs Alain
Juppé and `discontentment' of the Minister of Interior Claude Guéant.
As too often, Mr. Sarkozy acted without reflection and did not fear
self-contradiction. And as usual for the Armenian bill, only fifty
deputies attended the vote'not even ten percent of the total.
The Poisoned Gift
Actually, Ms. Boyer's text is totally counter-productive, even in a
strictly Armenian nationalist perspective. Indeed, it criminalizes the
`denial' of the `genocides recognized by the [French] law.' Only one
is `recognized''the so-called `Armenian genocide.' Georges Vedel, one
of the greatest French jurists of the twentieth century and member of
the Constitutional Council from 1980 to 1989, devoted his last paper
to demonstrate that the `law' of `recognition' (2001) has all the
aspects of an unconstitutional bill. The bill further strays from
constitutional principles in that it is purely a statement and devoid
of any legal basis. In addition, the `recognition' violates the
constitutional principles of non-retroactivity of laws and even more
obviously the principle of separation of powers: in calling an event
`genocide,' the Parliament acts like a tribunal for events concerning
foreign, deceased people, which is forbidden. Robert Badinter,
President of the Constitutional Council from 1986 to 1995, then
Senator until September 2011, reiterated the point three times (the
last one this December 22, 2011). Other important jurists did the
same.
As a result, if the Boyer bill is fully adopted'which is hardly
probable'the single concrete and direct consequence, for the Armenian
activists, would be the cancellation of both the Boyer bill and the
`recognition' bill by the Constitutional Council. Indeed, since 2008,
there is an aspect of French law called the Question prioritaire de
constitutionnalité (priority question of constitutionality). If you
are sued in the name of a law, you can ask for the conformity of this
law with the Constitution to be checked. There is not even a shadow of
a doubt that such obviously unconstitutional texts would be censored.
Turkey, or Turkish groups, could also sue France in the European Court
of Human Rights.
Anything to Please the Terrorists' Fan Club
The Wall Street Journal called the adoption of an Armenian
nationalist-backed resolution in the U.S. Congress, in 1984, `ASALA's
day.' This label is also deserved for this vote. One of the staunchest
supporters of the Boyer bill, Patrick Devedjian, was an advocate of
ASALA from 1981 to 1984, and vehemently supported its terrorist acts.
Jean-Marc `Ara' Toranian, co-chairman of the Coordination Council of
France's Armenian Associations (CCAF), was the spokesman of ASALA in
France from 1976 to 1983, and the other co-chairman, Mourad Papazian,
wrote several inflammatory articles in the 1980s to support another
Armenian terrorist group, the JCAG/ARA'i.e. the group which
assassinated the Turkish diplomat Yılmaz �olpan in Paris on December
22, 1979. Mr. Toranian and other CCAF leaders call Turkey, if not the
Turkish people, `the hangman.' The CCAF itself strongly supports the
PKK, at least with words.
The speeches supporting the Boyer bill were a remarkable collection of
absurdities, logical fallacies and half-truths. Many MPs, and the
representative of the government, denied that the bill targets a
country or even a specific `genocide,' which is denied even by the
text of the bill itself, and by other interventions, making clear that
only the Armenian-Turkish conflict is concerned. They added insult to
injury in believing that any Turk, or any French historian, could
believe such self-refuting justifications.
Michel Diefenbacher, President of the Franco-Turkish Friendship Group,
saved the honor of the Assembly with a good speech, recalling that the
bill is unconstitutional and is not improving, quite the contrary,
Turko-Armenian relations. Deputy Jacques Myard denounced it as a
`crime against thought.'
This dark event took place only for electoral reasons: Mr. Sarkozy
wrongly believes that such a bill will significantly improve the
number of his votes, and most of the opposition does not dare
challenge this bill, fearing the loss of Armenian votes.
What Next?
The Turkish authorities threatened economic reprisals'respecting the
international law' and warned of bad consequences for the French
culture and language. What else could they do? In 2001, the economic
crisis had prevented the Turkish government from taking really
dissuasive retaliation measures, and as a result it opened the way to
the `recognition' by other parliaments; in 2006-2007, the promises
that the bill would not be voted on by the Senate limited the
harshness of the Turkish reply. Now, this is the very first time that
such an anti-Turkish, liberticidal and unconstitutional initiative
takes place through the sole decision of the President. Every rational
person must hope to avoid a clash, but studying dissuasive reactions
is a must for Ankara.
There are already some interesting, albeit insufficient, signs of fear
from the French government's side. Bernard Accoyer, President of the
National Assembly and already an opponent to the bill, said that this
text will probably not be adopted until the legislative elections
(June 2012), at least because the government did not use the urgent
procedure. It is not a secret that several senators are already
preparing a new rejection motion for reasons of unconstitutionality.
This lamentable affair at least had the positive result of showing for
the first time the importance of the Turkish population in France,
including those who have the French citizenship. Between three to five
thousand Turks demonstrated in front of the National Assembly;
thousands of others were prevented from participating in the
demonstration by the police.The recently created Coordination
Committee of Franco-Turkish Associations published an open letter to
the deputies in Le Monde, as a full-page paid advertisement.
It is now the duty of every person concerned for fundamental liberties
in France to contribute to the defeat of several promoters of this
Orwellian bill in June 2012, and to finally inform the rest of the
French politicians. Enough is enough.
*Maxime Gauin is a French historian and a researcher at the
International Strategic Research Organization (USAK-ISRO).
Jan 7 2012
ASALA's Day in the French National Assembly
Saturday, 7 January 2012
`Inquisitorial, liberticidal and obscurantist' said Josselin de Rohan,
then Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the French Senate,
on May 4, 2011. The first censorship bill regarding the Armenian issue
was rejected by an overwhelming majority of senators. For purely
electoral reasons, Nicolas Sarkozy oversaw the vote of a similar, new
bill on December 22. The text was presented by Marseille's Deputy
Valérie Boyer. The text was adopted, against the opinion of most
French editorialists, from the social-democrat Jean Daniel to the
conservative YvanRioufol, who are hostile to the draft, against the
statements of prominent French historians including Pierre Nora, and
also against the hostility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs Alain
Juppé and `discontentment' of the Minister of Interior Claude Guéant.
As too often, Mr. Sarkozy acted without reflection and did not fear
self-contradiction. And as usual for the Armenian bill, only fifty
deputies attended the vote'not even ten percent of the total.
The Poisoned Gift
Actually, Ms. Boyer's text is totally counter-productive, even in a
strictly Armenian nationalist perspective. Indeed, it criminalizes the
`denial' of the `genocides recognized by the [French] law.' Only one
is `recognized''the so-called `Armenian genocide.' Georges Vedel, one
of the greatest French jurists of the twentieth century and member of
the Constitutional Council from 1980 to 1989, devoted his last paper
to demonstrate that the `law' of `recognition' (2001) has all the
aspects of an unconstitutional bill. The bill further strays from
constitutional principles in that it is purely a statement and devoid
of any legal basis. In addition, the `recognition' violates the
constitutional principles of non-retroactivity of laws and even more
obviously the principle of separation of powers: in calling an event
`genocide,' the Parliament acts like a tribunal for events concerning
foreign, deceased people, which is forbidden. Robert Badinter,
President of the Constitutional Council from 1986 to 1995, then
Senator until September 2011, reiterated the point three times (the
last one this December 22, 2011). Other important jurists did the
same.
As a result, if the Boyer bill is fully adopted'which is hardly
probable'the single concrete and direct consequence, for the Armenian
activists, would be the cancellation of both the Boyer bill and the
`recognition' bill by the Constitutional Council. Indeed, since 2008,
there is an aspect of French law called the Question prioritaire de
constitutionnalité (priority question of constitutionality). If you
are sued in the name of a law, you can ask for the conformity of this
law with the Constitution to be checked. There is not even a shadow of
a doubt that such obviously unconstitutional texts would be censored.
Turkey, or Turkish groups, could also sue France in the European Court
of Human Rights.
Anything to Please the Terrorists' Fan Club
The Wall Street Journal called the adoption of an Armenian
nationalist-backed resolution in the U.S. Congress, in 1984, `ASALA's
day.' This label is also deserved for this vote. One of the staunchest
supporters of the Boyer bill, Patrick Devedjian, was an advocate of
ASALA from 1981 to 1984, and vehemently supported its terrorist acts.
Jean-Marc `Ara' Toranian, co-chairman of the Coordination Council of
France's Armenian Associations (CCAF), was the spokesman of ASALA in
France from 1976 to 1983, and the other co-chairman, Mourad Papazian,
wrote several inflammatory articles in the 1980s to support another
Armenian terrorist group, the JCAG/ARA'i.e. the group which
assassinated the Turkish diplomat Yılmaz �olpan in Paris on December
22, 1979. Mr. Toranian and other CCAF leaders call Turkey, if not the
Turkish people, `the hangman.' The CCAF itself strongly supports the
PKK, at least with words.
The speeches supporting the Boyer bill were a remarkable collection of
absurdities, logical fallacies and half-truths. Many MPs, and the
representative of the government, denied that the bill targets a
country or even a specific `genocide,' which is denied even by the
text of the bill itself, and by other interventions, making clear that
only the Armenian-Turkish conflict is concerned. They added insult to
injury in believing that any Turk, or any French historian, could
believe such self-refuting justifications.
Michel Diefenbacher, President of the Franco-Turkish Friendship Group,
saved the honor of the Assembly with a good speech, recalling that the
bill is unconstitutional and is not improving, quite the contrary,
Turko-Armenian relations. Deputy Jacques Myard denounced it as a
`crime against thought.'
This dark event took place only for electoral reasons: Mr. Sarkozy
wrongly believes that such a bill will significantly improve the
number of his votes, and most of the opposition does not dare
challenge this bill, fearing the loss of Armenian votes.
What Next?
The Turkish authorities threatened economic reprisals'respecting the
international law' and warned of bad consequences for the French
culture and language. What else could they do? In 2001, the economic
crisis had prevented the Turkish government from taking really
dissuasive retaliation measures, and as a result it opened the way to
the `recognition' by other parliaments; in 2006-2007, the promises
that the bill would not be voted on by the Senate limited the
harshness of the Turkish reply. Now, this is the very first time that
such an anti-Turkish, liberticidal and unconstitutional initiative
takes place through the sole decision of the President. Every rational
person must hope to avoid a clash, but studying dissuasive reactions
is a must for Ankara.
There are already some interesting, albeit insufficient, signs of fear
from the French government's side. Bernard Accoyer, President of the
National Assembly and already an opponent to the bill, said that this
text will probably not be adopted until the legislative elections
(June 2012), at least because the government did not use the urgent
procedure. It is not a secret that several senators are already
preparing a new rejection motion for reasons of unconstitutionality.
This lamentable affair at least had the positive result of showing for
the first time the importance of the Turkish population in France,
including those who have the French citizenship. Between three to five
thousand Turks demonstrated in front of the National Assembly;
thousands of others were prevented from participating in the
demonstration by the police.The recently created Coordination
Committee of Franco-Turkish Associations published an open letter to
the deputies in Le Monde, as a full-page paid advertisement.
It is now the duty of every person concerned for fundamental liberties
in France to contribute to the defeat of several promoters of this
Orwellian bill in June 2012, and to finally inform the rest of the
French politicians. Enough is enough.
*Maxime Gauin is a French historian and a researcher at the
International Strategic Research Organization (USAK-ISRO).