Tweet
POLITICIANS IN UNTENABLE SITUATIONS
by Semih Idiz
Hurriyet Daily News
March 2 2012
Turkey
The decision by France's highest legal authority, which declared
that the law aiming to penalize denial of the Armenian genocide was
unconstitutional, is not a "victory for Turkey." If anything, there
are important lessons to be drawn from this decision, pertaining to
how the separation of powers works in an advanced democracy. With a
judiciary that looks increasingly like it is serving the political
authority, this is a very timely lesson for Turkey.
The decision of the French Constitutional Council is a victory for
the freedom of expression and the principles that guide Europe. To
criticize Turkey over the freedom of expression while trying to
violate this principle at home for the sake of political gain is
an inconsistency that the highest legal authority in France did
not permit.
Of course, President Sarkozy immediately asked his government to
pen a new version of the law, which will somehow circumvent the
Constitutional Council's ruling. A statement from his office, on
the other hand, said "The President of the Republic considers that
(genocide) denial is intolerable and must therefore be punished."
These are remarks which many former subjects of French colonization
are also no doubt happy to hear.
Meanwhile, Socialist leader Francois Hollande, a presidential contender
in the upcoming elections, also promised to reintroduce the law if
elected. Many say that he too is eyeing the Armenian-French vote,
even if this is what he accuses Sarkozy of doing.
Both men have thus landed in an untenable position, because once we
machete through the verbiage a simple truth emerges. As politicians
they have to find a way to violate their constitution if the new
law is to have the same weight as the one annulled. At this stage,
their battle is no longer with Turkey and Turks - which both clearly
feel antipathy towards - but with the law of their own land.
Meanwhile both have to go against the grain of the strong opinions
declared on this score by major Western papers, thinkers, politicians
and watchdog groups that are concerned with freedoms. All have said
the French law punishing the denial of the Armenian genocide was a
violation of the inviolable principle of freedom of expression.
Hollande may be "playing the field" of course when he says he will
reintroduce the law if elected, but it is clear Sarkozy is faced
with a political fiasco such as he has not known before, and which
his political opponents in France are already using against him.
What makes it worse for him is the unexpectedly large number of
French deputies of the French Parliament, including members from his
own party, who took the law to the constitutional court to have it
annulled. He has thus landed in the position of a president who is
not aware of the limitations the Constitution of his country imposes
on crass politicking.
If he was aware of these limitations, why would he have painted
himself into such a corner at such a politically sensitive time?
Sarkozy is now trying to recoup his losses by using scare tactics
and claiming that a door has been opened which will also undermine
the law that penalizes Holocaust denial.
But even deputies from his party say these are separate issues, since
there is an international legal ruling on the Holocaust, enabling the
law in France, while there is no such ruling concerning the events
of 1915.
After the statements of Sarkozy and Hollande, Ankara is not prepared
to drop its guard against France just yet. But before we have a new
bout of debilitating acrimony between the two countries, it looks
like whoever brings this denial law to the agenda again will have to
overcome obstacles at home first. Hopefully, sense will prevail in
the intervening period.
From: Baghdasarian
by Semih Idiz
Hurriyet Daily News
March 2 2012
Turkey
The decision by France's highest legal authority, which declared
that the law aiming to penalize denial of the Armenian genocide was
unconstitutional, is not a "victory for Turkey." If anything, there
are important lessons to be drawn from this decision, pertaining to
how the separation of powers works in an advanced democracy. With a
judiciary that looks increasingly like it is serving the political
authority, this is a very timely lesson for Turkey.
The decision of the French Constitutional Council is a victory for
the freedom of expression and the principles that guide Europe. To
criticize Turkey over the freedom of expression while trying to
violate this principle at home for the sake of political gain is
an inconsistency that the highest legal authority in France did
not permit.
Of course, President Sarkozy immediately asked his government to
pen a new version of the law, which will somehow circumvent the
Constitutional Council's ruling. A statement from his office, on
the other hand, said "The President of the Republic considers that
(genocide) denial is intolerable and must therefore be punished."
These are remarks which many former subjects of French colonization
are also no doubt happy to hear.
Meanwhile, Socialist leader Francois Hollande, a presidential contender
in the upcoming elections, also promised to reintroduce the law if
elected. Many say that he too is eyeing the Armenian-French vote,
even if this is what he accuses Sarkozy of doing.
Both men have thus landed in an untenable position, because once we
machete through the verbiage a simple truth emerges. As politicians
they have to find a way to violate their constitution if the new
law is to have the same weight as the one annulled. At this stage,
their battle is no longer with Turkey and Turks - which both clearly
feel antipathy towards - but with the law of their own land.
Meanwhile both have to go against the grain of the strong opinions
declared on this score by major Western papers, thinkers, politicians
and watchdog groups that are concerned with freedoms. All have said
the French law punishing the denial of the Armenian genocide was a
violation of the inviolable principle of freedom of expression.
Hollande may be "playing the field" of course when he says he will
reintroduce the law if elected, but it is clear Sarkozy is faced
with a political fiasco such as he has not known before, and which
his political opponents in France are already using against him.
What makes it worse for him is the unexpectedly large number of
French deputies of the French Parliament, including members from his
own party, who took the law to the constitutional court to have it
annulled. He has thus landed in the position of a president who is
not aware of the limitations the Constitution of his country imposes
on crass politicking.
If he was aware of these limitations, why would he have painted
himself into such a corner at such a politically sensitive time?
Sarkozy is now trying to recoup his losses by using scare tactics
and claiming that a door has been opened which will also undermine
the law that penalizes Holocaust denial.
But even deputies from his party say these are separate issues, since
there is an international legal ruling on the Holocaust, enabling the
law in France, while there is no such ruling concerning the events
of 1915.
After the statements of Sarkozy and Hollande, Ankara is not prepared
to drop its guard against France just yet. But before we have a new
bout of debilitating acrimony between the two countries, it looks
like whoever brings this denial law to the agenda again will have to
overcome obstacles at home first. Hopefully, sense will prevail in
the intervening period.
From: Baghdasarian