French MPs Adopt Armenia Genocide Bill

[Flagg]

FRENCH MPS VOTE TO ADOPT ARMENIA GENOCIDE BILL
Received Thursday, 12 October 2006 09:48:00 GMT

PARIS, Oct 12, 2006 (AFP) - French MPs on Thursday adopted a bill that would make it a crime to deny that the 1915-1917 massacres of Armenians by the Ottomans was genocide.
The draft law -- which has provoked the fury of Turkey, the modern state that emerged from the Ottoman empire -- will now be sent from the National Assembly, or lower house of parliament, to the upper house Senate for another reading.

http://www.ttc.org/200610120948.k9c9mcm13085.htm

[Flagg]

1. GREECE SLAMS TURKISH 'THREATS' TO FRANCE OVER ARMENIA BILL

GREECE SLAMS TURKISH 'THREATS' TO FRANCE OVER ARMENIA BILL

Received Thursday, 12 October 2006 10:58:00 GMT
ATHENS, Oct 12, 2006 (AFP) - Greece on Thursday criticised Turkish "threats" to France over a French draft law that would make it a crime to deny that the 1915-1917 massacre of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was genocide.
"Threats or insinuations, and the virulent tone of public statements do not befit a country on the road to joining the European Union," foreign ministry spokesman George Koumoutsakos told a news briefing.

http://www.ttc.org/200610121058.k9caw1i27011.htm

[Greeby]

2. Hope Jabba the Hastert isn't planning any junkets in Paris

[Almost_there]

3. Am I alone in being worried about this bill?

Maybe I haven't studied this one carefully enough, and I KNOW this is a very serious & sensitive topic, but, am I alone in thinking that France seems to be regulating free speach here? It seems quite Orwellian in its approach. I don't like the Holocaust denying bill, I don't like this one. As atrocious as the acts themselves were, as hideous as the genocide after WW1 was by the Turks against the Armenians, how can they put a bill into place saying it is a crime to challenge the assumptions? We look back at history, and so often we see that history is simply written by the victor, and the slant is so obvious and so painfully skewed. There are two sides here, and by silencing one side, no matter how wrong they are, is still silencing a voice, and I can't abide by that. Are the thought police so far in the future with bills like this one coming around?

[Igel]

4. No, you're not alone.

But I'm hamstrung: Typically a nationalist group in wanting to assert its better qualities will also deny the things done wrong in the past, with this denial serving a pernicious political end. This may only be resisting movement to greater human rights--if there's never been a problem, what's the matter with the status quo?

I tend to go for freedom of speech, but not necessarily in this case. This will give France grounds for excluding Turkey, and I think I'm currently in favor of that. Turkey has 'anti-anti-Turkey' laws on the books: Assert the Armenian genocide in Turkey and you get arrested. Turkey also takes pains to make sure that the Armenian genocide narrative is discounted in other countries, and that their "we were wronged, and disease ensued" narrative is pushed.

I've seen this go to the point that a history department offered an endowed chair in Armenian history was pressured to turn it down because the professor that would occupy the chair would almost certainly say there was an Armenian genocide. The dept. had a Turkish/Ottoman specialist, who routinely mentioned the Turkish version of events in his class in a non-committal way but otherwise said nothing about the Armenian genocide. I was in a meeting with faculty in which he said he was told in no uncertain terms that if the dept. approved the chair he and his students would have no access to Turkish archives, Turkish specialists, or even access to Turkish soil. Moreover, the significant funding he and his students got from various Turkish groups--ultimately from the Turkish government--would vanish. The chair was dutifully turned down, better a plump, if rancid, bird in the hands than a puny, moral bird in the bush. Privately, the Ottoman specialist said he was convinced that there *was* an Armenian genocide, but believed if he said that the Turks would be pissed, and he'd at the very least lose funding. I'm in favor of free expression, but this was completely ridiculous.

[Strawman]

5. that is an interesting post

My immediate reaction was that restrictions on free expression are bad, but you raise a vital point: how free is expression now when Turkey uses its muscle to repress discussion of the Armenian genocide?

I still have to wonder, wouldn't it be a better remedy to outlaw those kind of pressure tactics that supress discussion of the Armenian genocide than to outlaw the expression of the conflicting (Turkish) narrative? I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how you would do it, but why not somehow define that kind of intimidation that you've mentioned in law and prohibit it.

[Igel]

8. We're in agreement.

Outlawing the pressure tactics would be good, but hard. And certainly imperfect--but I've long since stopped expecting perfection from anything human. I find it makes life a lot easier.

In the end, even though I constantly toy with limitations on freedom of speech, I invariably default to supporting something close to absolute freedom of speech. Anything that doesn't fairly directly lead to independently provable and verifiable injury should be ok, however pernicious the speech.

[barb162]

6. It doesn't bother me.

Historical facts are there. Besides there are a lot of Armenians in France who probably pushed for this bill as they are entitled to do. Challenging facts is what scares me.

[Sapphocrat]

7. This is quite possibly THE most ridiculous law I have EVER heard of.

Of course it was genocide. No denying that here. But to make it a bloody CRIME to say whatever the hell one wants about it...?!

I'd no more support denying the KKK the right to say the Holocaust never happened.

That it did is not the point.

What happened to the "Liberté" in "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité"?!

As a staunch defender of the French (without them, I wouldn't be in the U.S.A., writing this right now), I say France has lost its collective mind.

Or will France now make it a crime to say that?

This makes Britain's hate-speech law look almost reasonable.

(Just finished watching a piece on this idiocy on BBC News, btw -- with jaw in lap.)

[Cronquist]

9. France does things differently

They ban nazi stuff.