Saturday, April 7, 2012

The Unconstitutional Bill

The public denial of the Holocaust is a criminal offense in France. The Armenian Genocide bill, however, which calls for a similar law on behalf of Armenians in France, was determined unconstitutional.

In both instances, public denial would be punishable with a €45,000 fine or one year in jail, or both. In French law, if the public denial of the Holocaust is considered constitutional, it’s illogical for similar denial of the Armenian Genocide to be considered unconstitutional.

Nicolas Sarkozy has long supported such a bill for the Genocide, and after pressure from many Armenians, including singer Charles Aznavour, he pushed for the passing of the bill. There have been experts who have analyzed why he would act on this bill at this specific moment of time, and many of claimed that his support for the bill is because of the potential electoral votes he would receive from the Armenian population during the elections.

Turkey has continuously threatened to cancel multi-billion dollar contracts with France and have declared that their relation with France will be destroyed in the event that the bill does pass. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has even made childish claims, stating that he would never visit France if the bill does indeed pass.

Nicolas Sarkozy has had a longstanding opposition for Turkey to join the EU. François Hollande, his rival in the presidential elections, also supports the Armenian Genocide bill and has claimed that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide will be important for Turkey’s membership to the EU. It’s therefore unlikely that either candidate would be willing to create such major conflict and potentially harm all relations with Turkey over the mere 100,000 votes they would potentially receive on behalf of the Armenian population.

The French Senate had previously approved the bill 127-86 in January before the Constitutional Council of France declared that such a law would be unconstitutional. Nicolas Sarkozy claimed he would revise and resubmit the bill, but progress has ceased because of the upcoming French elections. In some sense, supports of the bill can be optimistic for its future. Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande have both expressed their support for the passing of the bill. In fact, François Hollande even has plans on constructing an Armenian Genocide Museum in Paris by 2015 – the 100th commemoration of the tragic events.

The passing of the bill in France would stop Turkey from exporting its denial laws. The denial of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey is seen as an insult to “Turkishness” and is treated as a criminal offense under their penal code. The difference here, however, is that the Turkish government prevents its citizens from supporting the truth. In France, such a law would prevent citizens from denying an actual historic occurrence.

There have been a number of experts who have explained France’s decision to support the Holocaust instead of the Armenian Genocide. These experts believe that France has a law against denial of the Holocaust because they had a firsthand connection with the Holocaust and that they feel a sense of responsibility on their part. In either case, we need to protect both genocides, instead of providing an advantage to one or the other. If a law exists in France that claims the public denial of the Holocaust is within the boundaries of freedom of expression, then the same should apply for the Armenian Genocide.

There is no doubt that the tragic events that took place in 1915 were genocide. In fact, we don’t need a bill or law that criminalizes denial of the genocide or imposes a jail sentence and fine for those who express their opinion. The problem lies with favoring and France’s decision to call the Armenian Genocide bill unconstitutional, while having a similar law in place for another genocide.

4 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find the double standards for these laws quite unreasonable. I don't agree with the Holocaust law at all--I think people should be free to deny whatever event they want to deny. What happened to free speech? But since this holocaust law was passed, I don't see why it shouldn't be applied to the Armenian genocide. Perhaps the impact of the Armenian genocide is less powerful than the holocaust on the French people. And there are certainly lots of political byproducts of choosing to enact the Armenian genocide law. But either way, there should be consistency in laws like these. Furthermore, Turkey's refusal to accept and take responsibility for the Armenian genocide is disheartening and offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah this is very interesting but I'm not going to say I'm shocked. I have no hope for France as country but that's a story for another day. The point you make about France feeling a sense of responsibility for the Holocaust and therefore making denying it illegal is interesting, however, I don't think that's any kind of basis or excuse for denying any other genocide. Just because I don't have a connection with Armenia doesn't mean I'm going to deny the atrocities that took place there in 1915. Just kind of sounds like France needs to grow a pair (which is unlikely). I understand that they are trying to look out for their interests with Turkey, but hey, if they really care about human rights as they claim they do then why not put on the books that the Armenian genocide was indeed a genocide.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Honestly, the Armenian Genocide is an event that I am an not familiar with. However, any historical event where Genocide has been identified to any extent should be recognized by every country. Sensitive human rights issues like this are sure fire catalysts to conflict and disagreement. It seems if France is willing to call the denial of the Holocaust a crime and deem it unconstitutional, the exact same force of law should be given the Armenia Genocide. I do not believe that Genocide recognition warrants a double standard or even a debate. When a group of innocent people are massacred, the upmost sensitivity and acceptance must be taken to ensure that the effected groups are treated with the upmost dignity and respect.

    ReplyDelete