Tweet
Cape Argus (South Africa)
January 21, 2012 Saturday
E1 Edition
Denialism laws hide poisonous strains infesting body politic
In 1915, Turkish authorities killed half a million Armenians in what
most scholars - but unsurprisingly, not the Turks - agree was
genocide. Next week the French senate is poised to pass a law that
makes it a criminal offence to deny this was a genocide, punishable
with a maximum fine of e45 000.
Cynics will attribute the proposed French law less to concern over the
death of half a million Armenians a century ago and a continent away,
than to concern about the votes of half a million Armenians living in
France today and voting in this year's presidential election.
Those more generous might attribute the legislation to guilt, given
that so many French - contrary to the mythology of every citizen being
a doughty Resistance fighter - collaborated enthusiastically with the
Germans in sending Jews, Gypsies and assorted other "undesirables" to
be exterminated.
There is irony, too, in the French government wanting to criminalise
the denial of a genocide in which it has absolutely no historical
involvement, while vociferously denying the involvement of its own
politicians and officials in the Rwandan genocide, in which more than
800 000 were murdered.
For there is ample evidence that not only were the French guilty of
not acting on their fore-knowledge of the impending killings, but of
actually providing materiel and other active military support to the
Hutu extremists during the massacres.
Certainly the legislation cannot be attributed to the example of
successful existing laws criminalising odious beliefs.
The French bill is similar in intent to laws already existing in
several European countries, including Germany and France, that make it
a criminal offence to deny the 1940s Holocaust, in which six million
Jews were murdered.
The ineffectiveness of such laws can be gauged by the fewer than two
dozen successful criminal convictions attained over more than 60
years. This despite Holocaust denial remaining perniciously persistent
in much of Europe.
All that has happened is that the denialists have gone underground.
They circulate anonymously their twisted "truth", accusing their
governments of fearing the open debates that democracies claim to
guarantee.
If genocide could simply be legislated against, its bloody stain would
long since have been eradicated from humanity's tunic.
In any case, because of their after-the-act nature, denialism laws are
not actually meant to forestall|genocide, defined by UN Convention of
1948 as the intentional destruction in whole or in part, of a
national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
One cannot usefully legislate against an attitude or a belief, but one
can legislate against actions that might result from an action or a
belief.
Strong human rights protections in constitutions and laws against hate
speech are far more credible mechanisms to contain extremist
tendencies than martyring someone for his or her political delusions.
It is the duty of governments to protect their citizens from harm. It
is not the government's task to protect its citizens' sensitivities,
however justifiable and acute, from|peacefully expressed views,
however bizarre.
This is not only a matter of the right to freedom of expression. To
censor thought or opinion is to limit our understanding of the world.
If one cannot look critically at certain historical events, the past
remains frozen at an officially sanctioned moment in time.
Laws against denialism are cynical attempts to hide from public view
the poisonous strains infesting the body politic.
It is seductive to use a law to try to attempt to draw a veil over
rank- smelling matters, rather than engage honestly with the lunatic
fringe and expose them to the withering effect of reason and ridicule.
Also appears in
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/williamsaundersonmeyer/2012/01/21/a-sudden-suspect-french-antipathy-to-denialism%E2%80%A8/
From: Baghdasarian
January 21, 2012 Saturday
E1 Edition
Denialism laws hide poisonous strains infesting body politic
In 1915, Turkish authorities killed half a million Armenians in what
most scholars - but unsurprisingly, not the Turks - agree was
genocide. Next week the French senate is poised to pass a law that
makes it a criminal offence to deny this was a genocide, punishable
with a maximum fine of e45 000.
Cynics will attribute the proposed French law less to concern over the
death of half a million Armenians a century ago and a continent away,
than to concern about the votes of half a million Armenians living in
France today and voting in this year's presidential election.
Those more generous might attribute the legislation to guilt, given
that so many French - contrary to the mythology of every citizen being
a doughty Resistance fighter - collaborated enthusiastically with the
Germans in sending Jews, Gypsies and assorted other "undesirables" to
be exterminated.
There is irony, too, in the French government wanting to criminalise
the denial of a genocide in which it has absolutely no historical
involvement, while vociferously denying the involvement of its own
politicians and officials in the Rwandan genocide, in which more than
800 000 were murdered.
For there is ample evidence that not only were the French guilty of
not acting on their fore-knowledge of the impending killings, but of
actually providing materiel and other active military support to the
Hutu extremists during the massacres.
Certainly the legislation cannot be attributed to the example of
successful existing laws criminalising odious beliefs.
The French bill is similar in intent to laws already existing in
several European countries, including Germany and France, that make it
a criminal offence to deny the 1940s Holocaust, in which six million
Jews were murdered.
The ineffectiveness of such laws can be gauged by the fewer than two
dozen successful criminal convictions attained over more than 60
years. This despite Holocaust denial remaining perniciously persistent
in much of Europe.
All that has happened is that the denialists have gone underground.
They circulate anonymously their twisted "truth", accusing their
governments of fearing the open debates that democracies claim to
guarantee.
If genocide could simply be legislated against, its bloody stain would
long since have been eradicated from humanity's tunic.
In any case, because of their after-the-act nature, denialism laws are
not actually meant to forestall|genocide, defined by UN Convention of
1948 as the intentional destruction in whole or in part, of a
national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
One cannot usefully legislate against an attitude or a belief, but one
can legislate against actions that might result from an action or a
belief.
Strong human rights protections in constitutions and laws against hate
speech are far more credible mechanisms to contain extremist
tendencies than martyring someone for his or her political delusions.
It is the duty of governments to protect their citizens from harm. It
is not the government's task to protect its citizens' sensitivities,
however justifiable and acute, from|peacefully expressed views,
however bizarre.
This is not only a matter of the right to freedom of expression. To
censor thought or opinion is to limit our understanding of the world.
If one cannot look critically at certain historical events, the past
remains frozen at an officially sanctioned moment in time.
Laws against denialism are cynical attempts to hide from public view
the poisonous strains infesting the body politic.
It is seductive to use a law to try to attempt to draw a veil over
rank- smelling matters, rather than engage honestly with the lunatic
fringe and expose them to the withering effect of reason and ridicule.
Also appears in
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/williamsaundersonmeyer/2012/01/21/a-sudden-suspect-french-antipathy-to-denialism%E2%80%A8/
From: Baghdasarian