The timing for today’s blog is not what I would have wished. Today is Holocaust Memorial Day, a day earmarked for remembrance of the Nazis’ mass killings of Jews, Roma, and other unwanted groups, and of other state-sponsored genocides in modern history.
The reason I’m writing about genocide today is different. It’s a response to the French Senate’s vote earlier this week to criminalize denial of officially recognized genocides.
As RFE’s Charles Recknagel pointed out, the bill – which President Sarkozy says he will soon sign into law – is not specifically about the Armenian genocide, although that’s how most media have reported it. The law makes it a crime for French citizens to deny an act officially recognized by the French state as a genocide.
My first thought is to wonder how one legally defines “denial.” My second thought is, no state should have the right to create truth by decree: “Officially, X occurred. X was a terrible thing. Therefore, denial of X should be a crime.” This is intellectual Stalinism, with the best of intentions of course. I think this law is uncivilized and unworthy of the French tradition of rationalism. Whether it will ease or exacerbate relations between Turkey and Armenia, I don’t know, and although I have a good deal of sympathy with the Armenian point of view, I still think the law should be scotched.
This is where I start to get uncomfortable, because the same line of argument must lead me to support dismantling of all laws against genocide denial, including the Nazi Holocaust. Unlike the Armenian case, the Jewish Holocaust touches me personally, since my father’s family were Hungarian Jews who came to America in the early 20th century. I don’t know of any family members who died in the Holocaust, but I’ve been told that a distant relative lived through World War II in Budapest.
A number of European countries have laws criminalizing denial of the Nazi Holocaust or other genocides. The professional Holocaust denier David Irving is a despicable writer. I felt hardly a pang of sympathy when an Austrian court sent him to jail, yet at the same time I could not bring myself to feel that justice had been done.
There is a legal exit to this conundrum of what do when freedom of expression laws seemingly permit speech meant to damage another person’s or group’s dignity. It’s to punish speech when it demonstrably contributes to violence or discrimination. The EU does this in its law on racism and xenophobia. The 2007 decision makes certain kinds of “intentional conduct” punishable in all EU member states (although there is a partial opt-out).
This conduct may include: “Publicly inciting to violence or hatred, even by dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.” (My italics.)
Regrettably, the law also punishes “Publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising” acts recognized as genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes by the International Criminal Court and the Nuremberg Tribunal. Surely the first clause is more than sufficiently robust to punish the most atrocious genocide deniers, by linking speech to concrete, intentional acts? There is no need to open a legal can of worms by banning public expression of opinion, which is what the second clause does.
The photo shows an old view of Sivas, a city in Turkey whose Armenian inhabitants were expelled in 1915. Source: www.houshamadyan.org
November 22nd, 2012
7 Comments at "The Right to Think Stupid Thoughts"
A state sponsored denial of genocide, (Turkey), is counter-matched by a state sponsored punishment of that denial (France). On the surface we can debate whether this act of France infringes freedom of expression. But let’s be serious, this French law is not for individuals who out of ignorance disagree with the reality of the Armenian Genocide. This law prohibits the well-oiled Turkish government infiltration of academia (as we see clearly in the US) and professional outfits who’s main existence is there to professionally deny the Armenian Genocide.
You, being of Jewish heritage, must know the existence of the Gayssot Law in France (Loi Gayssot, enacted on July 13, 1990) which makes it an offence in France to question the reality of the Holocaust. Did you, at the time write about, or hear others talk vociferously about the right of others to stupid thoughts. If you did, then hurray for your consistency. However, if you did not then…you don’t need me to spell out the word Hypocrisy.
I agree one hundred percent,to tell people how they should think or to take the right to their opinion is a slow road back to the oppression under the Nazi’s, anyone with half a brain knows through plenty of proof the Holocaust happened, the law about not inciting hatred and violence is perfectly just,but to make it against the law to be stupid ? lets just say there is not enough prison space.
There’s nothing more disgusting than a conniving article of a jewish denialist. fortunately most JEWISH GENOCIDE SCHOLARS are screaming their lungs out how immoral and despicable is the state of israel’s behavior regarding the armenian genocide. forget the turks, they’ve committed this horrendous crime and obviously they’ll stop at nothing, since they don’t want to return the legitimate armenian real estate or pay back the loot. however there’s a type of jewish intellectual, an aipac, adl and so forth member that’ll also push the envelope all the way to the point of lobbying the us congress for denying the armenian genocide. i bet this author prescribes to the same line of thought of blah blah “real politics”. now sir, would you voice the same opinion against the denial of holocaust? of course not. human beings are really despicable and btw so are the palestinin delegates in knesset who threatened to vote against any measure commemorating the armenian genocide just because they feel erdogan is their “friend”. it’s really laughable sir, call those palestinin delegates and go have a beer with them i guess you two finally found some sort of a common ground. you both together now can deny the armenian genocide. hurrah!!!…mother of all shames is what it is!
Armenian ‘genocide’ should not even be on this board since there has been no kind of court decision about what the Armenians call a ‘genocide’ nor has the Armenians ever applied to any court. Why are they afraid of simply applying to the International Court of Justice instead of spending huge amounts of money to make the propaganda of their thesis?
Why are they afraid of discussing their thesis in historical joint commissions?
Why did they not open their archives up till now, while the Turkish archives are open?
Why it is ok to have a verdict without a court decision? isnt that against the law? what happened to “innocent until provenm guilty?” since when parliments decide the issues of historians and international courts!
Good points. I would never patronize a business, enroll in a class, or cast a vote if I knew that the relevant vendor, academic, or politician was a bigot. Well-intended but naive “truth by diktat” laws make it impossible to make such calls because it hones haters’ skills at self-censorship. As best as I can tell, the rationale is that freedom to express ugly attitudes risks exposing their true (presumably high) popularity. We urgently need to know if bigots, religious fanatics, Holocaust deniers, etc. really are a silent majority. If so, such laws can only engender resentment, a martyr complex, and an inevitable backlash. If the only lesson haters have learned from civil rights struggles is that legal persecution and living in silence are future history’s greatest badges of honor, then their freedom to vent is the only way to identify and marginalize them now.
Dear Ky Krauthamer, I’ll make it simple for you…..you have a right to think stupid thoughts as long as you don’t impose your way of life on others. In other words, the turks must be deprived of the right to export and impose their way of life on others. The people in turkey are arrested, tortured, and/or killed for speaking about the Armenian Genocide. They even attack and harass foreigners who speak about the Armenian Genocide. In short, the turks use western values to advance their own interests. They don’t care about free speech or about your right to think stupid thoughts.
This whole business with Armenian/Jewish holocausts is hypocritical in its essence. For example – during WW2, there were more Poles killed per capita than Jews. And that’s a fact. How come nobody talks about the Polish holocaust? What about the Gipsies? The Kurds? The Palestinians? The Iraqis? I could go on and on. Why the “selective holocausts”? I’ll tell you – because the assorted Armenian/Jewish holocausts are political tools and, at the same time, industries. Lots of people make their living off them. Various denial laws are designed to perpetuate the status quo. Thus, to debate the pros and cons of such laws is waste of thought, be they stupid or not.
Comment Now!