Tweet
DOUBLE STANDARD STAINS LA TIMES' STANCE ON TRUTH
BY ARA KHACHATOURIAN
asbarez
Thursday, January 19th, 2012
During the last month, the Los Angeles Times first through an editorial
and on Thursday via an op-piece authored by Timothy Garton Ash argues
that a bill criminalizing the denial of the Armenian Genocide, which
will be taken up by the French Senate on Monday, violates basic rights
of free speech and expression.
In both instances, the LA Times states that the massacre of 1.5
million Armenians in 1915 is undeniably Genocide. And, in both
cases the authors cite international declarations and myriad other
examples to illustrate their point of view that the French bill is
counterproductive, at best.
What both fail to do, however, is address a historical fact that the
bill in question is not precedent-setting at all in France, since that
fellow democracy adheres to a 1990 law known as the Gayssot Law, which,
in short, criminalizes the denial of the Holocaust. In fact, there are
several European countries that have very strict anti-Holocaust denial
laws-a concept that may be foreign to American socio-political norms.
But is it? Here in the United States there are quite a few laws
that characterize hate speech and while late in the making, they are
currently being used as basis for punishment of those that carry out
racist or discriminatory acts. The French law simply calls the denial
of the Genocide an act of discrimination and sets punitive damages for
individuals violating it. Does the LA Times mind the laws that punish
those who use the "N" word when referring to African-Americans? I
highly doubt it!
Immediately after the law was passed in the France's Lower House,
the LA Times, in a December 21 editorial went as far as to call the
law censorship.
"Some would say that it's presumptuous for Americans to lecture
the people of a fellow democracy about the rights they accord their
citizens. But robust freedom of expression isn't some American fetish.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers,'" illustrated the editorial.
The irony-absurdity-of the LA Times editorial in invoking the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is that Turkey's daily attempts (and the
US's aggressive and assertive complicity) in denying the Genocide is
a violation of every single article of that very declaration.
In his op-ed piece, Timothy Garton Ash cites what he calls the
"pathbreaking 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen ('The
free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious
rights....')" as a reason for the French Senate to reject the law and
says while the events of 1915 were "terrible" they should be subject to
"free historical debate."
Furthermore, in Thursday's op-ed, the author suggests that the law
is being debated now as a cheap political trick by French President
Nicolas Sarkozy, who is counting on French-Armenian votes in upcoming
elections. Can anyone say Barack Obama?
Our venerable president also made promises that the US would stop
violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the active denial
of the Genocide) and, once and for all, will recognize the Armenian
Genocide. Or, was it not House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who in 2000,
despite his own opposition to the Congressional Genocide bill, vowed
to bring the measure to a vote at a press conference in Glendale
alongside his Republican ally Rep. Jim Rogan who was fighting for
his seat in Congress and aimed to appease Armenian voters by making
the memory of 1.5 million victims an electioneering tool? Where was
the author's outrage then?
The LA Times decision to highlight-and vociferously oppose-a piece
of legislation in France is a double standard because based on the
arguments presented in both instances, the Gayssot Law should have
been fervently opposed. The LA Times should apply the same standards,
if it chooses to take a position on the way things are done in France,
or else its stated commitment to the truth becomes stained.
BY ARA KHACHATOURIAN
asbarez
Thursday, January 19th, 2012
During the last month, the Los Angeles Times first through an editorial
and on Thursday via an op-piece authored by Timothy Garton Ash argues
that a bill criminalizing the denial of the Armenian Genocide, which
will be taken up by the French Senate on Monday, violates basic rights
of free speech and expression.
In both instances, the LA Times states that the massacre of 1.5
million Armenians in 1915 is undeniably Genocide. And, in both
cases the authors cite international declarations and myriad other
examples to illustrate their point of view that the French bill is
counterproductive, at best.
What both fail to do, however, is address a historical fact that the
bill in question is not precedent-setting at all in France, since that
fellow democracy adheres to a 1990 law known as the Gayssot Law, which,
in short, criminalizes the denial of the Holocaust. In fact, there are
several European countries that have very strict anti-Holocaust denial
laws-a concept that may be foreign to American socio-political norms.
But is it? Here in the United States there are quite a few laws
that characterize hate speech and while late in the making, they are
currently being used as basis for punishment of those that carry out
racist or discriminatory acts. The French law simply calls the denial
of the Genocide an act of discrimination and sets punitive damages for
individuals violating it. Does the LA Times mind the laws that punish
those who use the "N" word when referring to African-Americans? I
highly doubt it!
Immediately after the law was passed in the France's Lower House,
the LA Times, in a December 21 editorial went as far as to call the
law censorship.
"Some would say that it's presumptuous for Americans to lecture
the people of a fellow democracy about the rights they accord their
citizens. But robust freedom of expression isn't some American fetish.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers,'" illustrated the editorial.
The irony-absurdity-of the LA Times editorial in invoking the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is that Turkey's daily attempts (and the
US's aggressive and assertive complicity) in denying the Genocide is
a violation of every single article of that very declaration.
In his op-ed piece, Timothy Garton Ash cites what he calls the
"pathbreaking 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen ('The
free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious
rights....')" as a reason for the French Senate to reject the law and
says while the events of 1915 were "terrible" they should be subject to
"free historical debate."
Furthermore, in Thursday's op-ed, the author suggests that the law
is being debated now as a cheap political trick by French President
Nicolas Sarkozy, who is counting on French-Armenian votes in upcoming
elections. Can anyone say Barack Obama?
Our venerable president also made promises that the US would stop
violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the active denial
of the Genocide) and, once and for all, will recognize the Armenian
Genocide. Or, was it not House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who in 2000,
despite his own opposition to the Congressional Genocide bill, vowed
to bring the measure to a vote at a press conference in Glendale
alongside his Republican ally Rep. Jim Rogan who was fighting for
his seat in Congress and aimed to appease Armenian voters by making
the memory of 1.5 million victims an electioneering tool? Where was
the author's outrage then?
The LA Times decision to highlight-and vociferously oppose-a piece
of legislation in France is a double standard because based on the
arguments presented in both instances, the Gayssot Law should have
been fervently opposed. The LA Times should apply the same standards,
if it chooses to take a position on the way things are done in France,
or else its stated commitment to the truth becomes stained.