Tweet
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: DANGEROUS PITY
Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-badinter/armenian-genocide-dangero_b_1231888.html
Jan 26 2012
BY Robert Badinter.Ancien senateur et Garde des sceaux
The law punishing the denial or outrageous minimization of the Armenian
genocide of 1915 has been adopted by the French parliament.
In this pre-electoral period, the Senate has decided to reconsider
its earlier rejection of a text whose purpose was identical. Let us
hope that the passage of this law by the French parliament will soothe
the moral wounds that the Turkish authorities' obstinate refusal to
recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 has caused the victims. I
know, from my own personal experience, how cruel negationism is for
the descendants of the victims of a genocide. But apart from this
therapeutic function, I believe this law will bring only difficulties,
including those that will afflict the Armenian community itself.
Let us suppose, for example, that a Turkish high official or specialist
of public law questioned, in France, about the Armenian genocide
should offer the official Turkish version of events. The Armenian
associations will file suit in the French courts. The individual
prosecuted will not fail to point out that the law is unconstitutional
as it conflicts with his liberty of opinion and expression, as based
upon the QPC (Priority Question of Constitutionality). In the debate,
the Constitutional Council will necessarily be obliged to consider
the question of the constitutionality of the memorial law of 2001
recognizing the Armenian genocide, as it has never been compelled
to do so before. If, as a number of jurists, particularly the doyen
Vedel, who expressed his viewpoint in 2002, believe this law of
2001 is tainted with unconstitutionality, both the memorial law of
2001 and the current repressive law will disappear from our legal
statutes at the same time. This judicial boomerang will turn against
its authors. Law will prevail and take vengeance on politics.
II.
Parliament does not have the competence to dictate history, as was
excellently expressed by Pierre Nora and the members of the Liberte
pour l'histoire association. Only totalitarian regimes accept
an official line of history, determined by the powers that be and
imposed by the judge. French justice offers others means of condemning
those who would forge history, who fail in their scientific duty to
intellectual honesty, rigor, and objectivity in their work. But it
is not up to French legislators to put themselves in the place of
historians and judges by proclaiming, in a French law, that a crime
of genocide was committed in Asia Minor a century ago.
Judicial authority is the only one competent to declare if a crime
has been committed and who its perpetrators are. Thus the Jewish
genocide by the Nazis was established by the International Military
Tribunal at Nuremberg. This tribunal, in which French magistrates
participated, was the result of the London Accords, signed by France
in 1944. The judgments of Nuremberg were considered res judicata,
hence authoritative, in France. The same is true of crimes against
humanity that occurred in ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda and were judged by
international criminal courts. No such thing exists for the Armenian
genocide of 1915, committed before the international community became
conscious of the moral imperative that butchers of humanity should
not go unpunished. But this mission is the duty of international
jurisdictions, first of all the International Criminal Court. The
French parliament has no competence whatsoever in this respect and
cannot set itself up as a universal judge, capable of proclaiming
by French law the existence of crimes that, since they are historic,
are in no way within the realm of their competence.
III.
This hubris on the part of the French parliament shall not fail to
inspire reactions against France. First of all, in the international
domain. The Turks are a great people who play a great role,
particularly in the Middle East. They are proud of their history,
even though it bears the stains of crimes and exactions of all kinds,
just like that of all conquering peoples. We can call upon the Turkish
authorities to go back over their history, as other European states
have done. But to condemn (for that is the implicit meaning of the
law of 2001) the Ottoman predecessors of a Turkish state that is
our friend, to register this condemnation in our laws, this measure
intended to soothe the pain of one will inevitably cause the furor of
others. Since we're talking especially about Franco-Turk cooperation
that currently flourishes in university and cultural spheres, we are
bound to feel the weight of Turkish resentment against this legislative
intrusion into an already long ago past.
I do not know if the Turkish constitution allows the parliament to
vote on laws concerning history, including that of foreign nations. If
such is the case, we should prepare ourselves for a rejoinder on
the part of Turkish nationalist legislators proclaiming that France
is the author of crimes against humanity committed in its former
colonies, especially in Algeria during the war of independence. Will
we protest that these tragic events do not concern Turkey? But what
did the French parliament do with regard to her yesterday? Our long
and tragic history should place us today on the side of international
justice. It does not qualify us to appoint ourselves the judge of
universal history and the moral conscience of the world.
Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-badinter/armenian-genocide-dangero_b_1231888.html
Jan 26 2012
BY Robert Badinter.Ancien senateur et Garde des sceaux
The law punishing the denial or outrageous minimization of the Armenian
genocide of 1915 has been adopted by the French parliament.
In this pre-electoral period, the Senate has decided to reconsider
its earlier rejection of a text whose purpose was identical. Let us
hope that the passage of this law by the French parliament will soothe
the moral wounds that the Turkish authorities' obstinate refusal to
recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 has caused the victims. I
know, from my own personal experience, how cruel negationism is for
the descendants of the victims of a genocide. But apart from this
therapeutic function, I believe this law will bring only difficulties,
including those that will afflict the Armenian community itself.
Let us suppose, for example, that a Turkish high official or specialist
of public law questioned, in France, about the Armenian genocide
should offer the official Turkish version of events. The Armenian
associations will file suit in the French courts. The individual
prosecuted will not fail to point out that the law is unconstitutional
as it conflicts with his liberty of opinion and expression, as based
upon the QPC (Priority Question of Constitutionality). In the debate,
the Constitutional Council will necessarily be obliged to consider
the question of the constitutionality of the memorial law of 2001
recognizing the Armenian genocide, as it has never been compelled
to do so before. If, as a number of jurists, particularly the doyen
Vedel, who expressed his viewpoint in 2002, believe this law of
2001 is tainted with unconstitutionality, both the memorial law of
2001 and the current repressive law will disappear from our legal
statutes at the same time. This judicial boomerang will turn against
its authors. Law will prevail and take vengeance on politics.
II.
Parliament does not have the competence to dictate history, as was
excellently expressed by Pierre Nora and the members of the Liberte
pour l'histoire association. Only totalitarian regimes accept
an official line of history, determined by the powers that be and
imposed by the judge. French justice offers others means of condemning
those who would forge history, who fail in their scientific duty to
intellectual honesty, rigor, and objectivity in their work. But it
is not up to French legislators to put themselves in the place of
historians and judges by proclaiming, in a French law, that a crime
of genocide was committed in Asia Minor a century ago.
Judicial authority is the only one competent to declare if a crime
has been committed and who its perpetrators are. Thus the Jewish
genocide by the Nazis was established by the International Military
Tribunal at Nuremberg. This tribunal, in which French magistrates
participated, was the result of the London Accords, signed by France
in 1944. The judgments of Nuremberg were considered res judicata,
hence authoritative, in France. The same is true of crimes against
humanity that occurred in ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda and were judged by
international criminal courts. No such thing exists for the Armenian
genocide of 1915, committed before the international community became
conscious of the moral imperative that butchers of humanity should
not go unpunished. But this mission is the duty of international
jurisdictions, first of all the International Criminal Court. The
French parliament has no competence whatsoever in this respect and
cannot set itself up as a universal judge, capable of proclaiming
by French law the existence of crimes that, since they are historic,
are in no way within the realm of their competence.
III.
This hubris on the part of the French parliament shall not fail to
inspire reactions against France. First of all, in the international
domain. The Turks are a great people who play a great role,
particularly in the Middle East. They are proud of their history,
even though it bears the stains of crimes and exactions of all kinds,
just like that of all conquering peoples. We can call upon the Turkish
authorities to go back over their history, as other European states
have done. But to condemn (for that is the implicit meaning of the
law of 2001) the Ottoman predecessors of a Turkish state that is
our friend, to register this condemnation in our laws, this measure
intended to soothe the pain of one will inevitably cause the furor of
others. Since we're talking especially about Franco-Turk cooperation
that currently flourishes in university and cultural spheres, we are
bound to feel the weight of Turkish resentment against this legislative
intrusion into an already long ago past.
I do not know if the Turkish constitution allows the parliament to
vote on laws concerning history, including that of foreign nations. If
such is the case, we should prepare ourselves for a rejoinder on
the part of Turkish nationalist legislators proclaiming that France
is the author of crimes against humanity committed in its former
colonies, especially in Algeria during the war of independence. Will
we protest that these tragic events do not concern Turkey? But what
did the French parliament do with regard to her yesterday? Our long
and tragic history should place us today on the side of international
justice. It does not qualify us to appoint ourselves the judge of
universal history and the moral conscience of the world.