Tweet
GENOCIDE: NEVER AGAIN?
By Miriam Rabkin
Tolerance.ca
http://www.tolerance.ca/Artic le.aspx?ID=395&L=en
Aug 20 2007
Canada
More than a million people have been victims of genocide in the
past ten years, despite countless promises by world leaders and
international organizations that never again would such tragedies be
allowed to occur. Moreover, talk of genocide remains ever-present in
the news. Tolerance.ca ® decided to probe deeper into the question
and met with experts on the topic.
When World War II ended in Europe on May 8, 1945, the murder of
approximately two-thirds of European Jewry was revealed to the world.
The attempted annihilation of an entire people required a definition
to explain what had occurred in legal terms. The term genocide was
coined by Raphael Lempkin, a Polish-Jewish refugee in the United
States, who further lobbied for a binding legal document which would
make genocide punishable by international law. The Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the
United Nations in 1948, states that genocide is "any of the following
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group (...)" and goes on to list such
acts. The Holocaust also led to the first international tribunal
with the Nuremberg Trials, setting a precedent for the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, and
later the International Criminal Court, established in 1998 as an
independent, permanent court that tries people accused of genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes.
According to Frank Chalk, professor of history at Concordia University
and co-founder of the Montreal Institute for Human Rights and Genocide
Studies (MIGS), to many people genocide represents everything evil
that happens in the world, whether it's abuse of women and children,
human rights violations, or other crimes all the way up to the Rwandan
genocide and the Holocaust. "The basic concept is that genocide
is something evil and that most of the things we oppose represent
genocide." That's one reason Professor Chalk has increasingly begun to
emphasize the parallel importance of crimes against humanity. "That
relieves a lot of the frustration and tension in the discovery that
not everything is genocide but that crimes against humanity also
allow for prevention and intervention."
Francois Crepeau, Director of the Centre d'etudes et de recherches
internationales de l'Universite de Montreal (CERIUM), explains,
"Genocide is a crime of intent; it is the will to annihilate an entire
people. There could technically be genocide without one death.
And there could be a massacre of hundreds of thousands without it
being genocide."
The problem arises when the debate over whether genocide is occurring
becomes an excuse for doing nothing. "The main reason there has been
no international intervention in Darfur is political," explains Peter
Leuprecht, Director of the Institut des etudes internationales de
Montreal (IEIM) at l'Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQÀM). "The
argument of legal qualification of international crimes is futile.
It's not what matters. What's important is to realize that these are
crimes under international law."
According to Frank Chalk, the focus needs to be redirected to mass
atrocity crimes, which include genocide, crimes against humanity,
serious war crimes and gross violations of human rights. "They all
signify that a society is really in trouble." He adds, "At the end
of the day intervention doesn't just have to be intervention for
genocide. Nor does it have to be armed intervention."
The question remains: why can't we prevent genocides? Francois Crepeau
suggests that there is a refusal to intervene in the internal affairs
of a state in a preventive manner because it is seen as a potential
violation of territorial sovereignty. Peter Leuprecht adds that there
is no political will on the part of world leaders to act, such by
applying Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unless there is some interest
for them.
Yet this lack of political action is what frustrates today's youth.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment for young people concerns Darfur.
It's hard to get information on the current conflict and debate
continues as to whether it is really genocide. Nonetheless, it is clear
that people are being killed and the international community seems
to be sitting idle. Julie, an Education student at the Universite de
Montreal, sighs, "I feel completely powerless.
Traditional means by which people express themselves-rallies,
petitions-I've never seen proof that this works." She feels that
politicians could do something if they wanted to, but it remains a
matter of priorities. She thinks that Canada's philosophy and policy
of foreign aid have changed and are no longer in the right place.
Most exasperating for her remains the oft-repeated promise by
politicians that crimes against humanity and genocide will not
happen again.
Do the words "Never Again" still have meaning?
For Yvette, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide in her early twenties,
the words "Never Again" no longer have any meaning. "Genocides
continue to occur. Does the international community have more of a
conscience today? Yes, people are becoming aware, but are we actually
doing something to stop other genocides from happening? In my humble
opinion, the answer is no. Had the words 'Never Again' been heeded,
I wouldn't have lost my father twelve years ago", she adds.
"'Never Again' is a utopian statement," says David, a Master's student
at the Universite de Montreal. "Sure, it's filled with good intentions
not to repeat the horrors of the Holocaust. But human nature is,
in my opinion, barbaric, and so this assertion is wishful thinking
rather than a realistic goal."
Pauline, of Rwandan origin and a Master's graduate of UQÀM, sometimes
wonders if the words "Never Again" are nothing but rhetoric. "Yet
it is also an ideal that we want to attain and so we can't just
stop saying it. Still, as much as I want to believe in these words,
I sometimes just can't allow myself to believe in them anymore."
Julie adds that there is not enough talk about current massacres
or crimes against humanity. "Weirdly, we talk a lot about the past,
about the Armenian genocide and so forth. But we have to be conscious
that it's happening in the present. We keep saying 'Never Again'
but we never look at it through today's lens, always to the past."
How does she feel about France's decision of October 12, 2006, to
make denial of the Armenian genocide illegal? Julie feels that it
is ridiculous to legislate on such a topic. Freedom of expression is
important to her. Besides, she feels, those who harbour revisionist
thoughts will continue to do so. "That means we have to think of
other ways to limit, but not like this."
Francois Crepeau shares this opinion. "Freedom of expression comes
first. As long as denial remains an opinion, and not part of hate
speech, it doesn't bother me. There are people out there who believe
in lots of things, and genocide denial is often just another misguided
opinion. Incitement of hatred, on the other hand, is different. It
creates social problems, but that's hate speech and that belongs in
another tribunal, where measures have to be taken accordingly."
Chris, a 24-year old student at Concordia who volunteers as a docent at
the Montreal Holocaust Memorial Museum, thinks that France's decision
only does a disservice to the cause. "I think when you make anything
illegal, it just gives it more of a platform. The trial of David
Irving, a British Holocaust denier, gave him more popularity and
more opportunities to spread his thoughts. I'm a huge proponent of
free speech. The lack of logic behind denial means it will not come
through, no matter what. I think whenever you make things illegal
that's a recipe for disaster."
David believes that as long as denial remains a historic interpretation
and not the leitmotiv for a menacing political doctrine, it should
not be illegal. "I don't see any harm for it to remain in the realm
of intellectual debate. We just have to make sure that it doesn't
become a mainstream way of teaching official history."
"It's not just an issue of Germans against Jews, it's an issue of
people against people"
Chris explains that he became a volunteer docent at the Montreal
Holocaust Memorial Museum to teach about the Holocaust. "It isn't
just about passing on history," he explains, "it's that history has
shown us that it's not just an issue of Germans against Jews, it's
an issue of people against people."
For Chris, the universality of the Holocaust is crucial. "We are all
capable of what happened and we need to work to overcome that. If it
was just a history lesson and everyone had learned it, we wouldn't
have Cambodia, we wouldn't have Rwanda, we wouldn't have Yugoslavia
or Sudan right now."
For Joshua Greene, producer and director of the documentaries
Witness: Voices of the Holocaust and Hitler's Courts, there are
many parallels to make and much to learn from history. "It doesn't
mean that what's happening now is the same, but history can make us
reflect on today." For example, he views the present political talk
about national security with a sceptical eye, aware that those very
words have often been used, and not always with positive results.
Chris tries to teach about the Holocaust in terms of the present. One
example he sometimes brings forward in his tours is the U.S. poll
("America On Guard," TIME Magazine, October 8, 2001) that came out
after September 11, indicating that 31% of the US population did not
object to putting U.S. citizens of Arab descent in camps until it was
determined whether or not they had links to terrorist organizations.
"That's nearly a third of the population thinking this way!" exclaims
Chris, who is American. "That's something I want them to see and
think about, that people are still willing to send people to camps
because they're part of a group. This is something that is part of
our reality."
Julie, a future teacher, realizes the importance of education but
believes the focus should be less on genocide itself and more on how
it all began. "What was in people's minds, why did everything evolve
the way that it did? How can you educate people before it is too late?"
Frank Chalk thinks often about that question. He finds that the best
way would be to introduce more information in high school curricula so
that students could at least learn the basic concepts of human rights,
crimes against humanity and genocide. "I think there is a lot of
interest and a lot of scope, but I am very concerned that teachers who
teach about these matters should have good training before they do it."
Pauline adds that the educational system should integrate other
civilisations, other ways of living and other religions. "Because
people here aren't aware of the world beyond their scope, when they
hear that there's say, a genocide unfolding in Darfur, it doesn't
really affect them."
What place does genocide have in university curricula? Francois
Crepeau explains that while it has relatively weak importance on an
academic level, it is a subject that is taught at an undergraduate
level at Faculties of Law among others. Yet it is at a graduate level
that the concept of genocide is really expanded upon. Peter Leuprecht
adds that while studying on human rights or genocide is not mandatory
in universities, interest has certainly risen in recent years. "It
is essential to teach about these topics," he notes. "War and peace,
intolerance and tolerance: the root of genocides lies in the hearts
and spirits of men, so that is where we must build the basis of a
pacifist and tolerant society."
Leuprecht continues: "It is essential to have a memory and maintain
the memory because a society without memory may not have a future. I
think many young people know very little about history and I think
here it's worse than in Europe."
For her part, Pauline feels that education in Canada isn't about
critical thinking. "Nowadays people aren't taught to learn to think.
If you study, if you're in school, it's because you're going
somewhere. And we're constantly taught to push further in our
careers. So we're technically educated, but we're not taught to be
critical thinkers. There's more to life than a career."
She continues, "Sometimes we need to take a step back in our lives.
To ask ourselves why we are who we are, why we are going where we
are going. We study to do better, not to be better. And I find that
really sad."
Peter Leuprecht has similar views. "The most important thing today
is to be informed and to be alert. We must have a critical view of
power, of the State, of the law. What we need, what we really need,
are critical citizens."
To Learn More (books in English)
Marrus, Michael. The Holocaust in History. Toronto: Lester & Opran
Dennys, 1987.
Power, Samantha. A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of
Genocide. New York: Perennial, 2003.
Schabas, William A. Genocide in International Law. Crime of Crimes.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Books in French
Delacampagne, Christian. Une histoire du racisme. Des origines a nos
jours. Paris : Librairie generale francaise, 2000.
Marrus, Michael, L'Holocauste dans l'histoire. Paris : Flammarion,
1994.
Ternon, Yves. L'innocence des victimes au siècle des genocides. Paris :
Desclee de Brouwer, 2001.
This article is part of a series on the diversity of values and
religious beliefs in colleges and universities and is presented with
the financial support of:
--Boundary_(ID_U08SdUKyAgShDmLzkhLyAQ)--
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By Miriam Rabkin
Tolerance.ca
http://www.tolerance.ca/Artic le.aspx?ID=395&L=en
Aug 20 2007
Canada
More than a million people have been victims of genocide in the
past ten years, despite countless promises by world leaders and
international organizations that never again would such tragedies be
allowed to occur. Moreover, talk of genocide remains ever-present in
the news. Tolerance.ca ® decided to probe deeper into the question
and met with experts on the topic.
When World War II ended in Europe on May 8, 1945, the murder of
approximately two-thirds of European Jewry was revealed to the world.
The attempted annihilation of an entire people required a definition
to explain what had occurred in legal terms. The term genocide was
coined by Raphael Lempkin, a Polish-Jewish refugee in the United
States, who further lobbied for a binding legal document which would
make genocide punishable by international law. The Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the
United Nations in 1948, states that genocide is "any of the following
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group (...)" and goes on to list such
acts. The Holocaust also led to the first international tribunal
with the Nuremberg Trials, setting a precedent for the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, and
later the International Criminal Court, established in 1998 as an
independent, permanent court that tries people accused of genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes.
According to Frank Chalk, professor of history at Concordia University
and co-founder of the Montreal Institute for Human Rights and Genocide
Studies (MIGS), to many people genocide represents everything evil
that happens in the world, whether it's abuse of women and children,
human rights violations, or other crimes all the way up to the Rwandan
genocide and the Holocaust. "The basic concept is that genocide
is something evil and that most of the things we oppose represent
genocide." That's one reason Professor Chalk has increasingly begun to
emphasize the parallel importance of crimes against humanity. "That
relieves a lot of the frustration and tension in the discovery that
not everything is genocide but that crimes against humanity also
allow for prevention and intervention."
Francois Crepeau, Director of the Centre d'etudes et de recherches
internationales de l'Universite de Montreal (CERIUM), explains,
"Genocide is a crime of intent; it is the will to annihilate an entire
people. There could technically be genocide without one death.
And there could be a massacre of hundreds of thousands without it
being genocide."
The problem arises when the debate over whether genocide is occurring
becomes an excuse for doing nothing. "The main reason there has been
no international intervention in Darfur is political," explains Peter
Leuprecht, Director of the Institut des etudes internationales de
Montreal (IEIM) at l'Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQÀM). "The
argument of legal qualification of international crimes is futile.
It's not what matters. What's important is to realize that these are
crimes under international law."
According to Frank Chalk, the focus needs to be redirected to mass
atrocity crimes, which include genocide, crimes against humanity,
serious war crimes and gross violations of human rights. "They all
signify that a society is really in trouble." He adds, "At the end
of the day intervention doesn't just have to be intervention for
genocide. Nor does it have to be armed intervention."
The question remains: why can't we prevent genocides? Francois Crepeau
suggests that there is a refusal to intervene in the internal affairs
of a state in a preventive manner because it is seen as a potential
violation of territorial sovereignty. Peter Leuprecht adds that there
is no political will on the part of world leaders to act, such by
applying Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unless there is some interest
for them.
Yet this lack of political action is what frustrates today's youth.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment for young people concerns Darfur.
It's hard to get information on the current conflict and debate
continues as to whether it is really genocide. Nonetheless, it is clear
that people are being killed and the international community seems
to be sitting idle. Julie, an Education student at the Universite de
Montreal, sighs, "I feel completely powerless.
Traditional means by which people express themselves-rallies,
petitions-I've never seen proof that this works." She feels that
politicians could do something if they wanted to, but it remains a
matter of priorities. She thinks that Canada's philosophy and policy
of foreign aid have changed and are no longer in the right place.
Most exasperating for her remains the oft-repeated promise by
politicians that crimes against humanity and genocide will not
happen again.
Do the words "Never Again" still have meaning?
For Yvette, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide in her early twenties,
the words "Never Again" no longer have any meaning. "Genocides
continue to occur. Does the international community have more of a
conscience today? Yes, people are becoming aware, but are we actually
doing something to stop other genocides from happening? In my humble
opinion, the answer is no. Had the words 'Never Again' been heeded,
I wouldn't have lost my father twelve years ago", she adds.
"'Never Again' is a utopian statement," says David, a Master's student
at the Universite de Montreal. "Sure, it's filled with good intentions
not to repeat the horrors of the Holocaust. But human nature is,
in my opinion, barbaric, and so this assertion is wishful thinking
rather than a realistic goal."
Pauline, of Rwandan origin and a Master's graduate of UQÀM, sometimes
wonders if the words "Never Again" are nothing but rhetoric. "Yet
it is also an ideal that we want to attain and so we can't just
stop saying it. Still, as much as I want to believe in these words,
I sometimes just can't allow myself to believe in them anymore."
Julie adds that there is not enough talk about current massacres
or crimes against humanity. "Weirdly, we talk a lot about the past,
about the Armenian genocide and so forth. But we have to be conscious
that it's happening in the present. We keep saying 'Never Again'
but we never look at it through today's lens, always to the past."
How does she feel about France's decision of October 12, 2006, to
make denial of the Armenian genocide illegal? Julie feels that it
is ridiculous to legislate on such a topic. Freedom of expression is
important to her. Besides, she feels, those who harbour revisionist
thoughts will continue to do so. "That means we have to think of
other ways to limit, but not like this."
Francois Crepeau shares this opinion. "Freedom of expression comes
first. As long as denial remains an opinion, and not part of hate
speech, it doesn't bother me. There are people out there who believe
in lots of things, and genocide denial is often just another misguided
opinion. Incitement of hatred, on the other hand, is different. It
creates social problems, but that's hate speech and that belongs in
another tribunal, where measures have to be taken accordingly."
Chris, a 24-year old student at Concordia who volunteers as a docent at
the Montreal Holocaust Memorial Museum, thinks that France's decision
only does a disservice to the cause. "I think when you make anything
illegal, it just gives it more of a platform. The trial of David
Irving, a British Holocaust denier, gave him more popularity and
more opportunities to spread his thoughts. I'm a huge proponent of
free speech. The lack of logic behind denial means it will not come
through, no matter what. I think whenever you make things illegal
that's a recipe for disaster."
David believes that as long as denial remains a historic interpretation
and not the leitmotiv for a menacing political doctrine, it should
not be illegal. "I don't see any harm for it to remain in the realm
of intellectual debate. We just have to make sure that it doesn't
become a mainstream way of teaching official history."
"It's not just an issue of Germans against Jews, it's an issue of
people against people"
Chris explains that he became a volunteer docent at the Montreal
Holocaust Memorial Museum to teach about the Holocaust. "It isn't
just about passing on history," he explains, "it's that history has
shown us that it's not just an issue of Germans against Jews, it's
an issue of people against people."
For Chris, the universality of the Holocaust is crucial. "We are all
capable of what happened and we need to work to overcome that. If it
was just a history lesson and everyone had learned it, we wouldn't
have Cambodia, we wouldn't have Rwanda, we wouldn't have Yugoslavia
or Sudan right now."
For Joshua Greene, producer and director of the documentaries
Witness: Voices of the Holocaust and Hitler's Courts, there are
many parallels to make and much to learn from history. "It doesn't
mean that what's happening now is the same, but history can make us
reflect on today." For example, he views the present political talk
about national security with a sceptical eye, aware that those very
words have often been used, and not always with positive results.
Chris tries to teach about the Holocaust in terms of the present. One
example he sometimes brings forward in his tours is the U.S. poll
("America On Guard," TIME Magazine, October 8, 2001) that came out
after September 11, indicating that 31% of the US population did not
object to putting U.S. citizens of Arab descent in camps until it was
determined whether or not they had links to terrorist organizations.
"That's nearly a third of the population thinking this way!" exclaims
Chris, who is American. "That's something I want them to see and
think about, that people are still willing to send people to camps
because they're part of a group. This is something that is part of
our reality."
Julie, a future teacher, realizes the importance of education but
believes the focus should be less on genocide itself and more on how
it all began. "What was in people's minds, why did everything evolve
the way that it did? How can you educate people before it is too late?"
Frank Chalk thinks often about that question. He finds that the best
way would be to introduce more information in high school curricula so
that students could at least learn the basic concepts of human rights,
crimes against humanity and genocide. "I think there is a lot of
interest and a lot of scope, but I am very concerned that teachers who
teach about these matters should have good training before they do it."
Pauline adds that the educational system should integrate other
civilisations, other ways of living and other religions. "Because
people here aren't aware of the world beyond their scope, when they
hear that there's say, a genocide unfolding in Darfur, it doesn't
really affect them."
What place does genocide have in university curricula? Francois
Crepeau explains that while it has relatively weak importance on an
academic level, it is a subject that is taught at an undergraduate
level at Faculties of Law among others. Yet it is at a graduate level
that the concept of genocide is really expanded upon. Peter Leuprecht
adds that while studying on human rights or genocide is not mandatory
in universities, interest has certainly risen in recent years. "It
is essential to teach about these topics," he notes. "War and peace,
intolerance and tolerance: the root of genocides lies in the hearts
and spirits of men, so that is where we must build the basis of a
pacifist and tolerant society."
Leuprecht continues: "It is essential to have a memory and maintain
the memory because a society without memory may not have a future. I
think many young people know very little about history and I think
here it's worse than in Europe."
For her part, Pauline feels that education in Canada isn't about
critical thinking. "Nowadays people aren't taught to learn to think.
If you study, if you're in school, it's because you're going
somewhere. And we're constantly taught to push further in our
careers. So we're technically educated, but we're not taught to be
critical thinkers. There's more to life than a career."
She continues, "Sometimes we need to take a step back in our lives.
To ask ourselves why we are who we are, why we are going where we
are going. We study to do better, not to be better. And I find that
really sad."
Peter Leuprecht has similar views. "The most important thing today
is to be informed and to be alert. We must have a critical view of
power, of the State, of the law. What we need, what we really need,
are critical citizens."
To Learn More (books in English)
Marrus, Michael. The Holocaust in History. Toronto: Lester & Opran
Dennys, 1987.
Power, Samantha. A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of
Genocide. New York: Perennial, 2003.
Schabas, William A. Genocide in International Law. Crime of Crimes.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Books in French
Delacampagne, Christian. Une histoire du racisme. Des origines a nos
jours. Paris : Librairie generale francaise, 2000.
Marrus, Michael, L'Holocauste dans l'histoire. Paris : Flammarion,
1994.
Ternon, Yves. L'innocence des victimes au siècle des genocides. Paris :
Desclee de Brouwer, 2001.
This article is part of a series on the diversity of values and
religious beliefs in colleges and universities and is presented with
the financial support of:
--Boundary_(ID_U08SdUKyAgShDmLzkhLyAQ)--
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress