Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: Balance Sheet After 'Boyer Act'

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

  • ANKARA: Balance Sheet After 'Boyer Act'

    BALANCE SHEET AFTER 'BOYER ACT'

    Today's Zaman
    http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-267022-balance-sheet--after-boyer-act.html
    Dec 28 2011
    Turkey

    Let us start with France. It is impossible that the recent legal
    moves in this country will result in the political and ethical goals
    they seek. The political outcomes of the draft bill proposed out
    of Sarkozy's concerns over re-election will be inconclusive as long
    as the bill is supported by all political parties and the Socialist
    candidate to the presidential elections, Francois Hollande.

    Targeting the votes of the French citizens of Armenian descent through
    legislative action assumes that these voters shape their preferences
    in reference to considerations and sensitivities shown by politicians
    toward Armenians. Alas for Mr. Sarkozy, the vast majority of French
    Armenians cast their votes out of social preferences rather than the
    sensitivities of their hypothetical community. There is no such thing
    as ethnic lobbies in Europe, contrary to the US, and it should be Mr.

    Sarkozy who knows this before anyone else.

    The third point concerns the double standards of the Sarkozy
    administration during the legislative process. The EU Framework
    Decision of Nov. 28, 2008, which constitutes the basis of the Boyer
    Act, is far more comprehensive. For instance, it covers the Tutsi
    genocide in Rwanda, which France fails to recognize. That the final
    version of the French bill is restricted to the denial of the Armenian
    genocide points to a double standard of the legislation and undermines
    its legitimacy and strength. Moreover, the bill will never stop the
    denial in France like the Gayssot Act, which penalizes the denial of
    the Shoah but never persuaded French deniers to stop challenging the
    very fact.

    Getting back to Turkey, the vote in the French National Assembly
    revealed some basic truths and realities. Above all, it became
    evident that a defensive approach that determines the stance of
    the state vis-a-vis the issue has never worked and that the entire
    strategy, which consists of 'lobbying, persuading and threatening,'
    has manifestly failed.

    Secondly, the official history that has been promoted by the state of
    what happened to Armenians and the other non-Muslim communities of
    these lands in the past should be revised and reconsidered. Former
    American envoy to Turkey Morton Abramowitz, who knows the country
    quite well, once told the Turkish deputies who were heading to the US
    to lobby against a draft bill in the House of Representatives that
    Turkey had lost the war over history in the US long ago, implying
    that criminalizing denial has no impact in the US or elsewhere.

    Thirdly, Turkish society has been experiencing a healthy process
    of remembering the past over the last decade. Cultural, academic,
    religious, public and individual memory and information on Armenians
    and Assyrians who were almost eliminated during the process of nation
    building, the Greeks who were exchanged for Balkan Muslims, the Kurds
    and Alevis who have been denied their fundamental rights, the Muslims
    whose presence in the public sphere has been made illegal, in short,
    almost the entire population of these lands is now being remembered.

    It is critical to promote these works and initiatives and to make
    sure that the process attains unhindered progress for the sake of
    the country and its democracy.

    Fourthly, neither the legislation in the French National Assembly
    nor the hyper-emotional reactions to it would facilitate the
    above-mentioned memory recall. Alongside the nationalistic rhetoric,
    dogmatic denial has resurfaced after the French vote. It is likely
    that the government's over-confidence will raise these reactions to
    a far more critical level. Additional measures that will be taken by
    the government if the draft bill is adopted in the French Senate in
    January should be read from this perspective.

    Finally, the freedom of expression and speech has been debilitated
    in both countries by the draft bill. The main objection in Turkey
    focused on freedom of expression. It was not convincing for Turkey,
    where freedom of expression has been grossly undermined, where
    thousands of citizens, including writers, politicians, lawyers,
    students, academics and journalists are in jail, to criticize France
    for failing to honor the freedom of expression. On the other hand,
    even though it is no longer a taboo to speak of genocide in regards to
    the fate of Anatolian Armenians, legally speaking, the idiom is still
    outlawed. In France, however, it is now becoming impossible to deny the
    genocide under the draft bill. Though it is possible to insult Islam,
    as evidenced constantly in cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad,
    and not get convicted.

    It is understandable from an ethical perspective to not include
    religious and spiritual symbols within the scope of the freedom of
    expression, but there should be no hierarchy of tragedies and beliefs.

    Because it means war otherwise...

Working...
X