Tweet
FRENCH ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL: A WASTE OF TIME POSING AS MORALITY
International Business Times
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/286744/20120124/french-armenian-genocide-bill-waste-time-posing.htm
Jan 24 2012
UK
By William Dove: Subscribe to William's RSS feed
Now that the French Parliament has passed a bill that will make denying
the Armenian genocide a crime punishable by a one year prison sentence
and a five figure fine, what other historical events is the nation
of liberty, equality and fraternity going to outlaw denying?
Will those who publicly doubt the moon landings have to watch what
they say in future? Will Charlie Sheen be required to be more discreet
about his views on 9/11 and should we abandon altogether the debate
on who discovered America first?
It's lucky that there is such a thing as diplomatic immunity, as
presumably the first person to be arrested under this law would be the
Turkish ambassador to France, given that he represents a government
that refuses to accept that "genocide" is an appropriate description
of what happened to Armenians in the early 20th century.
Indeed one wonders what the point of this law is if it is not to
annoy Turkey. Is France currently being overrun by wild revisionist
historians? Is Marine le Pen making rabid anti-Armenian speeches? Not
noticeably in either instance
No it seems the only prominent organisation to deny or at least
downplay the Armenian genocide is the Turkish government itself, which
at present does not have to take orders, but is free to take offense
from, the French Parliament. So again what is the point of the law,
other than to make some vain politicians feel smug about their own
goodness, if it is not to wind up Turkey?
Rather than using the law to penalise cranks, some of them sinister,
why not bring the power of truth crashing down on those who would
attempt to resist it?
Britain's very own Nick Griffin is a case in point. The leader of the
British National Party for a long period appeared to be a denier of
the Holocaust, he now tries to avoid the subject while occasionally
trying to downplay the numbers (which incidentally is what the Turkish
government does with the Armenians).
Although he once claimed that the reason he does not talk about his
views on the Holocaust is that European law forbids him to do so,
more likely the real reason is that he knows if he did air David
Irving type views he would be treated with even more contempt than
he already is, as most people accept the Holocaust happened.
Why is that? Is it because people are legally required to believe in
the Holocaust? No, quite obviously it is because the evidence is so
overwhelming that to deny it would be to fly in the face of reason.
If then the French Parliament feels so strongly about the Armenian
genocide instead of trying to ban dissenting viewpoints why don't
they push to get this particular episode of history, the details of
which are not particularly well-known in much of Europe, more widely
taught in French schools? This would surely lead to a reduction in
the apparently serious problem of Armenian genocide denial.
That would certainly be better than passing laws against denying
historical atrocities, which could be a time consuming process. After
all why don't they go the full hog and ban denial of the Mai
Lai massacre, Stalin's Purges, the French Revolutionary Terror,
transatlantic slavery, the Roman occupation of Gaul and the slaughter
of the Amalekites? Come to think of it why not outlaw claims that
Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the first telephone?
Surely French politicians have something better to do? Perhaps one
thing they could do is work on re-building the Franco-Turkish alliance
which so scandalised Christian Europe in the 16th century. But then
their recent behaviour would suggest they would rather forget about
that connection even if they would not dream of denying it.
International Business Times
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/286744/20120124/french-armenian-genocide-bill-waste-time-posing.htm
Jan 24 2012
UK
By William Dove: Subscribe to William's RSS feed
Now that the French Parliament has passed a bill that will make denying
the Armenian genocide a crime punishable by a one year prison sentence
and a five figure fine, what other historical events is the nation
of liberty, equality and fraternity going to outlaw denying?
Will those who publicly doubt the moon landings have to watch what
they say in future? Will Charlie Sheen be required to be more discreet
about his views on 9/11 and should we abandon altogether the debate
on who discovered America first?
It's lucky that there is such a thing as diplomatic immunity, as
presumably the first person to be arrested under this law would be the
Turkish ambassador to France, given that he represents a government
that refuses to accept that "genocide" is an appropriate description
of what happened to Armenians in the early 20th century.
Indeed one wonders what the point of this law is if it is not to
annoy Turkey. Is France currently being overrun by wild revisionist
historians? Is Marine le Pen making rabid anti-Armenian speeches? Not
noticeably in either instance
No it seems the only prominent organisation to deny or at least
downplay the Armenian genocide is the Turkish government itself, which
at present does not have to take orders, but is free to take offense
from, the French Parliament. So again what is the point of the law,
other than to make some vain politicians feel smug about their own
goodness, if it is not to wind up Turkey?
Rather than using the law to penalise cranks, some of them sinister,
why not bring the power of truth crashing down on those who would
attempt to resist it?
Britain's very own Nick Griffin is a case in point. The leader of the
British National Party for a long period appeared to be a denier of
the Holocaust, he now tries to avoid the subject while occasionally
trying to downplay the numbers (which incidentally is what the Turkish
government does with the Armenians).
Although he once claimed that the reason he does not talk about his
views on the Holocaust is that European law forbids him to do so,
more likely the real reason is that he knows if he did air David
Irving type views he would be treated with even more contempt than
he already is, as most people accept the Holocaust happened.
Why is that? Is it because people are legally required to believe in
the Holocaust? No, quite obviously it is because the evidence is so
overwhelming that to deny it would be to fly in the face of reason.
If then the French Parliament feels so strongly about the Armenian
genocide instead of trying to ban dissenting viewpoints why don't
they push to get this particular episode of history, the details of
which are not particularly well-known in much of Europe, more widely
taught in French schools? This would surely lead to a reduction in
the apparently serious problem of Armenian genocide denial.
That would certainly be better than passing laws against denying
historical atrocities, which could be a time consuming process. After
all why don't they go the full hog and ban denial of the Mai
Lai massacre, Stalin's Purges, the French Revolutionary Terror,
transatlantic slavery, the Roman occupation of Gaul and the slaughter
of the Amalekites? Come to think of it why not outlaw claims that
Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the first telephone?
Surely French politicians have something better to do? Perhaps one
thing they could do is work on re-building the Franco-Turkish alliance
which so scandalised Christian Europe in the 16th century. But then
their recent behaviour would suggest they would rather forget about
that connection even if they would not dream of denying it.