Tweet
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.
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.