Tweet
ARMENIA. LAW AGAINST GENOCIDE
By Bernard Henry Levi, "Le Monde"
AZG Armenian Daily
04/04/2007
Denial is the uttermost point of genocide. This is true both for the
Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.
The legislation must prevent the reality from being faded from memory.
One might say, "The law is not to make history". This is absurd, as
the history is already written down. The fact that the Armenians were
victims of genocide, i.e. of an attempt of systematic eradication of
their nation, was stated by Churchill and Jores. Few people know that
already in 1918 Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had confessed that the Turkish
authorities committed a genocide against the Armenians. Military
tribunals were established, which sentenced to death hundreds of
people. Nothing to say of scientists and historians like Yad Vashem,
Jehuda Bauer, Raul Hilberg and others, for who (except Bernard Lewis)
the Genocide was never dubitable.
Thus, the matter is not about stating the facts. It has been already
done. The matter is about preventing their denial. The matter of
discussion at the US Congress will somewhat mess up those who deny the
Genocide. In France laws exist against defamation and slander. Will
not it be reasonable to have also a law providing for criminal
responsibility from defaming the memory of the genocide victims?
Many agree with this but say that the legislation must not interfere
the discovery of the truth, which is the business of historians. But,
on the contrary, the denial of the Genocide impedes the historians. The
deniers are who are confusing the facts and the traces of history. Did
ever the laws punishing the denial of the Holocaust hinder the
historians?
Those are a law that prevents Le Pain and Golnisch from trespassing
the confines of reason, which limits the statements of Forrison. Those
are laws that let us avoid repetition of the comical court trial of
David Irving. Due to lack of legislation seven years ago the judges
and the reporters were to take the place of historians and try to
spread light on the history.
Moreover those laws helped the historians to avoid the pressure of
the deniers. It would be reasonable if similar laws are applied to
the matter of the Armenian Genocide.
There are sarcastic suggestions to adopt laws also against colonialism
and prophet Mohammed cartoons.
This is another trap. The matter is not about putting everything
in legislation frames. The matter is only about genocides, which
count only 4 or 5 in the world history, including Rwanda, Cambodia
and Darfur.
Therefore, application of such laws can never restrict the freedom
of speech or thought.
Let us be serious. We are no against unofficial opinions, we are
against denial of historical events.
Denial is not simply a specific point of view on Hitler or Turkey
and their victories. Denial is stating that certain things merely
did not happen. Let us not vainly speak of the "Box of Pandora",
unleashing global Inquisition. Punishing anti-Armenian policy of
denial will by no means require revisal of politically correct laws.
There is also opinion that the Holocaust is not to be confused with
the Armenian Genocide and therefore diminished. Here one thing is
certain. The two crimes were committed in different times and in
different ways, and the number of victims is different. Gas chambers
were not invented yet at the time of the Armenian Genocide. If the
Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust are not similar, they at least
have much in common.
The first person to realize this was the renowned Adolf Hitler, who
was rather encouraged than thrilled with the Genocide. The Armenian
Genocide was the first by all means. It was experimental and global and
it was observed as a laboratory by the Nazis. When being involved in
study of literature denying the Armenian Genocide it became quite clear
that it is quite similar with the literature aimed at extermination of
the Jews. The same eloquence, the same arguments, the same explanations
(massacres are just a part of war, nothing more), efforts to change
the roles (in the same manner as Seline claimed that the Jews were
guilty in unleashing the war, Turk deniers claim that Armenians were
in secret alliance with Russia and suffered as they deserved).
One thing can be said to those who play the "war of memories". That
is the position Jan Patozka, and that is the position of the founders
of Israel, who found their fate similar to the fate of the expelled
Armenians. There can be no diversity in the war against denial. Giving
preference to one would mean offence to the other.
The last argument of some is that the truth is strong enough to
defend itself and make the deniers remain silent. No it is not, as
unlike the denial of the Holocaust, the denial policy of the Armenian
Genocide is implemented on governmental level and has the support of
strong statehood.
Imagine, what would do the survivors of the Holocaust in case
Germany denied the history after the war? What would the Jews do if
Germany threatened its partners in case of recognizing the massacre
of men, women and children as genocide? That is the case of the
Armenians. Enmity against them has no match in this world and even
the truth in its nude grace is helpless.
In 1942 Himler created a special troop, "Commando-1005", which was
ordered to exhume the bodies and burn them. Everything was done to
avoid publicity and to conceal the reality.
Ideal crime is the traceless crime, and terminating the traces is part
of the crime itself. Therefore, the deniers of genocides are advocates
of crime, deeming themselves free-minded advocates of criticism. They
are finishing the work of death.
It is necessary to have a law against denial, for, as it was said,
deniel is the uttermost point of genocide.
By Bernard Henry Levi, "Le Monde"
AZG Armenian Daily
04/04/2007
Denial is the uttermost point of genocide. This is true both for the
Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.
The legislation must prevent the reality from being faded from memory.
One might say, "The law is not to make history". This is absurd, as
the history is already written down. The fact that the Armenians were
victims of genocide, i.e. of an attempt of systematic eradication of
their nation, was stated by Churchill and Jores. Few people know that
already in 1918 Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had confessed that the Turkish
authorities committed a genocide against the Armenians. Military
tribunals were established, which sentenced to death hundreds of
people. Nothing to say of scientists and historians like Yad Vashem,
Jehuda Bauer, Raul Hilberg and others, for who (except Bernard Lewis)
the Genocide was never dubitable.
Thus, the matter is not about stating the facts. It has been already
done. The matter is about preventing their denial. The matter of
discussion at the US Congress will somewhat mess up those who deny the
Genocide. In France laws exist against defamation and slander. Will
not it be reasonable to have also a law providing for criminal
responsibility from defaming the memory of the genocide victims?
Many agree with this but say that the legislation must not interfere
the discovery of the truth, which is the business of historians. But,
on the contrary, the denial of the Genocide impedes the historians. The
deniers are who are confusing the facts and the traces of history. Did
ever the laws punishing the denial of the Holocaust hinder the
historians?
Those are a law that prevents Le Pain and Golnisch from trespassing
the confines of reason, which limits the statements of Forrison. Those
are laws that let us avoid repetition of the comical court trial of
David Irving. Due to lack of legislation seven years ago the judges
and the reporters were to take the place of historians and try to
spread light on the history.
Moreover those laws helped the historians to avoid the pressure of
the deniers. It would be reasonable if similar laws are applied to
the matter of the Armenian Genocide.
There are sarcastic suggestions to adopt laws also against colonialism
and prophet Mohammed cartoons.
This is another trap. The matter is not about putting everything
in legislation frames. The matter is only about genocides, which
count only 4 or 5 in the world history, including Rwanda, Cambodia
and Darfur.
Therefore, application of such laws can never restrict the freedom
of speech or thought.
Let us be serious. We are no against unofficial opinions, we are
against denial of historical events.
Denial is not simply a specific point of view on Hitler or Turkey
and their victories. Denial is stating that certain things merely
did not happen. Let us not vainly speak of the "Box of Pandora",
unleashing global Inquisition. Punishing anti-Armenian policy of
denial will by no means require revisal of politically correct laws.
There is also opinion that the Holocaust is not to be confused with
the Armenian Genocide and therefore diminished. Here one thing is
certain. The two crimes were committed in different times and in
different ways, and the number of victims is different. Gas chambers
were not invented yet at the time of the Armenian Genocide. If the
Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust are not similar, they at least
have much in common.
The first person to realize this was the renowned Adolf Hitler, who
was rather encouraged than thrilled with the Genocide. The Armenian
Genocide was the first by all means. It was experimental and global and
it was observed as a laboratory by the Nazis. When being involved in
study of literature denying the Armenian Genocide it became quite clear
that it is quite similar with the literature aimed at extermination of
the Jews. The same eloquence, the same arguments, the same explanations
(massacres are just a part of war, nothing more), efforts to change
the roles (in the same manner as Seline claimed that the Jews were
guilty in unleashing the war, Turk deniers claim that Armenians were
in secret alliance with Russia and suffered as they deserved).
One thing can be said to those who play the "war of memories". That
is the position Jan Patozka, and that is the position of the founders
of Israel, who found their fate similar to the fate of the expelled
Armenians. There can be no diversity in the war against denial. Giving
preference to one would mean offence to the other.
The last argument of some is that the truth is strong enough to
defend itself and make the deniers remain silent. No it is not, as
unlike the denial of the Holocaust, the denial policy of the Armenian
Genocide is implemented on governmental level and has the support of
strong statehood.
Imagine, what would do the survivors of the Holocaust in case
Germany denied the history after the war? What would the Jews do if
Germany threatened its partners in case of recognizing the massacre
of men, women and children as genocide? That is the case of the
Armenians. Enmity against them has no match in this world and even
the truth in its nude grace is helpless.
In 1942 Himler created a special troop, "Commando-1005", which was
ordered to exhume the bodies and burn them. Everything was done to
avoid publicity and to conceal the reality.
Ideal crime is the traceless crime, and terminating the traces is part
of the crime itself. Therefore, the deniers of genocides are advocates
of crime, deeming themselves free-minded advocates of criticism. They
are finishing the work of death.
It is necessary to have a law against denial, for, as it was said,
deniel is the uttermost point of genocide.