Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Noted French Writer Calls French Court Ruling A 'Mistake'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Noted French Writer Calls French Court Ruling A 'Mistake'

    NOTED FRENCH WRITER CALLS FRENCH COURT RULING A 'MISTAKE'

    asbarez
    Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

    Bernard-Henri Levy

    Noted French writer, Bernard-Henri Levy, wrote in the Huffington Post
    Tuesday that the last week's French Constitutional Council decision
    to invalidate a measure to criminalize the denial of the Armenian
    Genocide a "mistake."

    Levy also hints that the decision was made under pressure from Turkish
    denialist agents determined to overturn an earlier decision by both
    house of the French Parliament. He also casts doubt on the impartiality
    of the members of the Constitutional Council.

    "A discredited Council, even if it is constitutional, is not the
    guardian of the Truth, and, fortunately, the decision it has just
    taken cannot judge in advance the outcome of a battle the historians
    of genocides have long since won," notes Levy.

    He adds that the law should be passed as a "law for humanity."

    "A just and eminently universal law we count on the next president,
    whoever he may be, to put back on the agenda," concluded Levy.

    Read the entire Bernard-Henri Levy piece in the Huffington Post.

    Armenian Genocide: The French Constitutional Council's Mistake Posted:
    03/ 6/2012 8:36 am

    Thus the Constitutional Council's invalidation of the law voted by the
    two Houses aiming to penalize the denial of genocides is, in the eyes
    of the law, and until the same two Houses reconsider it, the last word.

    Nonetheless.

    Respect for the constitutional State and its rules should not to
    blind its citizens to a certain number of facts -- case in point --
    that are rather disturbing.

    These include, for example, the pressure exerted by representatives
    of Turkey before submission of the case to the Council.

    And the busloads of nationalist demonstrators gathered beneath the
    windows of the French Senate, demanding the right to quite freely
    violate the memory of the dead and the honor of the survivors.

    The amazing letter of January 30th, signed by one of the magnates of
    the CAC40, named, for the occasion, "co-president of the scientific
    committee," of the main Franco-Turk pressure group, the Institut du
    Bosphore: in it, M. de Castries, who is also the boss of Axa insurance
    company, implored the legislators to resist the request of French
    citizens of Armenian origin.

    And the very composition of the Council, whose impartiality, wisdom,
    and distance, imperative when confronted with a deliberation of this
    nature, were seriously damaged by a series of stands opportunely
    recalled by the irreverent French weekly, Le Canard enchaîne.

    Such as former Senator Haenel, the "wise man" whose affiliation with
    the Institut du Bosphore has never been a secret and who, for this
    reason, was prevented from participating in the vote. Before that,
    however, he did have the time to produce a report deploring the fact
    that the first law, that of October 2001, recognizing the genocide,
    "undermined bilateral economic exchanges" between France and Turkey.

    Such as attorney Jacqueline de Guillenchmidt, prevented from voting
    as well due to her signature, in 2008, of the famous appeal of Blois
    "for the freedom of History" (whose love of freedom, by the by, does
    not go so far as to demand that Ankara release Ragip Zarakolu, the
    Turkish editor incarcerated for having published works by historians
    denouncing the systematic extermination of the Armenians).

    The ineffable Michel Charasse, former minister under Mitterrand,
    whose reputation for "wisdom" is not particularly well established,
    and whose hostility to the text was a matter of common knowledge at
    the time the negationist lobby began its campaign.

    The President of the Council and no less hilariously entertaining
    Jean-Louis Debre who, as Mayor of the city of Evreux in 2006, went
    so far as to have an inscription mentioning the victims of genocide
    sawn off a plaque honouring Franco-Armenian friendship.

    And I am not mentioning the conditions of the submission of the
    case which, in the opinion of several jurists, could amount to abuse
    of procedure.

    The point, I repeat, is not to call into question the principle of a
    decree that, like every decision of every republican body, is reputed
    to be authorless and transcending motifs, virtues, or, unfortunately,
    the absence of virtue of those who have inspired it.

    But the policy of spreading confusion in people's minds is such that it
    is by no means forbidden to recall that this high body of deliberation
    is not so very high as we are told and, in any case, not this Supreme
    Court a la francaise so highly spoken of here and there.

    We may remind ourselves that it has taken several liberties with
    Article 3 of the order of November 7, 1958, defining its operational
    rules and demanding that its members "swear" to "carry out their
    duties" with all "impartiality," to "keep its deliberations and votes
    secret," to "take no public position" and "to give no consultation
    concerning the questions relevant to the competence of the Council."

    And it is especially not forbidden to encourage those the ballet of
    interests and influence around this noble cause that is the truth
    has led to despair -- it is not forbidden to hope that the last word
    will not be that of the partisans of a free speech who have already
    given themselves away, in their haste, the day after the vote,
    to requalify the Armenian genocide as a "massacre" and request
    "historical commissions" (we've seen it all before) to establish
    the "reality of the facts." A discredited Council, even if it is
    constitutional, is not the guardian of the Truth, and, fortunately,
    the decision it has just taken cannot judge in advance the outcome
    of a battle the historians of genocides have long since won.

    Not, I've said it a hundred times, the battle for I don't know what
    "memorial laws," the spectre of which is brandished before us every
    time.

    But the battle for recognition of the radical singularity of
    occurrences of genocide, these events that are characteristic of
    modern times.

    A law for humanity.

    A law for the respect of these very rare truths, the transgression
    of which is a threat to each of us, because they aim at the heart of
    the human race.

    A just and eminently universal law we count on the next president,
    whoever he may be, to put back on the agenda.

Working...
X