Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: Criminalizing Debate: France Abandons Modernity

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

  • ANKARA: Criminalizing Debate: France Abandons Modernity

    CRIMINALIZING DEBATE: FRANCE ABANDONS MODERNITY
    by Hilal Elver And Richard Falk

    Zaman, Turkey
    Nov 2 2006

    There is a sense of absurdity surrounding the vote in October at the
    French Assembly to criminalize a denial of Armenian genocide that
    supposedly took place during the final stage of Ottoman rule in 1915.

    The absurdity does not arise from a description of these events,
    but from the idea that a correct view of history can be legislated,
    and dissenter punished as criminals. True only 106 of 577 deputies in
    the Assembly voted in favor of the bill, 19 opposed, and 4 abstained,
    while 448 did not vote at all. No one expects this bill to become
    law. The French Senate has sent signals that it will never consider
    the proposed law, and the President Chirac has expressed his personal
    opposition. The idea behind the bill was to impose a fine of up to
    45,000 Euros and send the denier to jail for as long as a year.

    But why would the 448 deputies refuse to oppose formally such a
    piece of legislation? We will never know their motives, but it seems
    reasonable to suspect that they recognized the absurdity of such
    a legislative move, but at the same time did not want to offend the
    500,000 Armenians living in France whose leaders had strongly supported
    the law. Also, it allows these French politicians an indirect means
    of signaling their opposition to any future move to invite Turkey to
    become a member of the European Union.

    To punish deniers of the Armenian experience seems in one sense a
    logical sequel to punishing Holocaust deniers, which can actually
    happen in at least 12 European countries. Apparently, at this time the
    historian, David Irving, is serving prison time in Austria for a speech
    made 17 years before he was indicted that was held in a court to deny
    the Holocaust. Two distinct issues are raised: Is it acceptable to make
    it a crime to deny the Holocaust? Should Armenian grievances be treated
    any less seriously than Jewish grievances when it comes to denial?

    The rationale for punishing Holocaust deniers relates to some
    legitimate European concerns. There are claims made that the denial
    of the Holocaust risks giving rise to a new wave of anti-semitism.

    The evidence that there exists any link between asserting denial
    and practicing anti-semitism seems far too weak at this point to
    justify criminalization even in European countries with their shameful
    history of persecuting Jews. Vigilance is understandable given the
    existence of scary neo-Nazi movements that have emerged in several
    European countries. Instead of criminalizing denial, to discourage
    anti-semitism it would be far more effective for the governments in
    these countries to press hard for a just solution to the ordeal of
    the Palestinian people.

    On the historical argument in favor of 'denial' there is significantly
    less clarity about the genocidal character of the Armenian claims as
    compared to the factual reality of the Holocaust.

    There is remains a widely shared refusal on the part of the majority of
    Turks to categorize the events of 1915 as 'genocide.' This Turkish
    outlook has enjoyed some support among prominent non-Turkish
    historians, most notably Bernard Lewis. At the same time, the
    overwhelming weight of international historical scholarship does
    endorse the main thrust of Armenian claims. Additionally, Lewis'
    assessment is somewhat undermined by his close relationship with
    the Turkish government while revising his influential history of
    modern Turkey. It is a matter of social reality that informed opinion
    outside of Turkey does support the Armenian position about the events
    in 1915, but that hardly makes the case for the punishment of those
    who disagree.

    The Turkish relationship to the denial of history has similarities to
    this French approach, yet it is significantly different. Turkey, in a
    sense anticipated the tactic of the French Assembly, by enacting its
    notorious '301' law that punishes statements that insult Turkishness,
    which covers a potentially wide range of viewpoints that could be
    regarded as anti-Turkish by ultra-nationalist state prosecutors.

    Recent high profile prosecutions of famous writers Orhan Pamuk and
    Elif Shafak, while dismissed, have led to widespread international [and
    national] criticism of such interferences with freedom of expression. A
    hopeful development is that Turkey's highest officials have let it
    be known that they did not approve of these 301 prosecutions, and
    even made public their sympathy with the prominent targets of these
    indictments, Although dangers persist, and some disturbing prosecutions
    of journalists and public figures continue to occur, and have even
    led to imprisonment, Turkish public opinion seems to be moving
    gradually against such restrictions of freedom of expression. This
    display of greater Turkish self-confidence is more accepting of
    viewpoints that might formerly have been treated as hostile to
    Turkish nationalism. Turkey is a relatively young country that is
    still in the midst of making its own very distinctive transition to
    modernity. Perhaps as much as any country Turkey is struggling to
    gain the benefits of modernity without sacrificing the achievements,
    memories, and glories of its past.

    But what is becoming of France, formerly the greatest inspiration
    throughout the world for equality of rights and universal democratic
    culture associated with modernity. It was the French Revolution in
    1789 that remains the decisive moment for an emancipatory alternative
    to oppressive and autocratic government. In this French revolutionary
    moment nothing was more central than the idea that human progress and
    prosperity depended on freedom of thought and expression. The pride
    of the French nation linked this openness to a variety of opinions on
    the controversial issues of the day, and there was no anxiety that a
    tension existed between a robust French nationalism and the affirmation
    of unrestricted cultural freedom. So how should we interpret this
    seeming French retreat from its own proudest contributions to modern
    social and political life?

    Of course, it would be a mistake to exaggerate this act of the
    French Assembly, which is really more a gesture than a rupture. At
    the same time, it does reflect the regressive side of French political
    identity. In the background of such anti-democratic impulses, we think,
    are the current threats to French public order that conservative
    opinion blames on immigrant minorities. There are disturbing signs
    that racist attitudes are gaining the upper hand in French society. In
    such a setting, the Armenian issue becomes a vehicle for anti-Islamic
    and anti-Turkish sentiments. Of course, there is also an obvious
    opportunistic dimension that relates to French electoral politics, but
    challenging Turkish refusal to acknowledge crimes against the Armenians
    is also useful as a way of indirectly raising doubts about whether
    Turkey will ever deserve to be a member of the European Union. It
    is against this background that the peculiarity of non-voting by the
    majority of the French Assembly needs to be primarily understood. In
    effect, the punishment of deniers of Armenian genocide is too crude
    an assault on freedom of thought to be an acceptable tactic even by
    those who oppose Turkish EU membership, yet to vote against this bill
    might seem to exempt Turkey from censure for its refusal to admit
    that the 1915 massacres were, in fact, genocide, and would anger the
    well-organized Armenian pressure groups that have so enthusiastically
    backed this initiative.

    Two main conclusions arise from these controversies: the futility
    of legislating historical reality; and the importance of coming
    to terms with historic injustices that give rise to pain, anger,
    and ethnic tensions. How should Turkey now address the grievances
    of the Armenians relating to the events of 1915? Is it important
    to construct a new Turkish approach to this tormented past by
    launching an independent inquiry that is freed from nationalistic
    bias? It may be that the efforts of Pamuk and Shafak are hesitant
    moves in this direction, aimed at helping the people of Turkey to
    think more objectively about this contested part of their past for
    the sake of Turkish national interests, so that the country can move
    on. Under the best of circumstances it will be certainly impossible
    to reach an accommodation with the most embittered among the Armenian
    diaspora or to persuade extreme Turkish nationalists to reexamine the
    Armenian grievances in an objective spirit. A serious Turkish effort
    to explore the issue, aimed at achieving closure in good faith, is
    likely to improve the overall international atmosphere with respect
    to Turkey. It would also be a convincing demonstration that Turkey
    is prepared to accept internal debate and controversy. Such moves
    would be further evidence of the deepening of Turkish democracy. A
    process of inquiry and reflection on such an inflamed subject will
    not be easy, as extremists on both sides will do all in their power
    to avoid a reasonable historical reckoning. But it will also not be
    easy to go on pretending that there is no unfinished business arising
    from this bloody Armenian encounter. Why not seize upon this French
    abandonment of modernity to risk this Turkish affirmation of the
    moral and political energies of change?
Working...
X