Tweet
MIGHT EUROPE BAN GENOCIDE DENIAL?
http://www.insideeurope.org/index.php?id= 514
Updated: March 2007
On February 15, the EU's 27 Justice Ministers met to revive draft
legislation that, if enacted, would make criminal offenses of such
acts as incitement to racial hatred, genocide denial and condoning
crimes against humanity. The Germany chairmanship of the EU, currently
leading the negotiations, hopes to have the text adopted in the spring-
possibly even in April 2007.
For Bashy Quraishy, chairman of ENAR, the European NGO network against
racism, "a third failed attempt to agree this instrument would send
a disastrous message to the victims of racism, as well as to the
perpetrators, and would have the potential to foster a growing sense
of impunity for racist hate in Europe". The draft legislation was
initially put forward by the European Commission in 2001, but Member
States have since failed to reach agreement.
Consensus was almost reached in 2005, but Italy, under Berlusconi,
vetoed it at the time. The country's new Prime Minister, Romano Prodi,
has now lifted its objection.
EU member states remain divided between the imperative of preserving
freedom of expression and the struggle against racism. They do not
all share the opinion of philosopher Karl Popper, as quoted by German
Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries: " in the name of tolerance, we
must claim the right to be in tolerant with the intolerant.".
Why European legislation against racism? In the first place, article
29 of the EU Treaty, the European institutions' Bible, mandates
the EU to act against racism. Furthermore, disparities between the
Member States' legislation make it increasingly difficult to prosecute
racists; the Internet has indeed made to that problem worse. Finally,
the EU has the legitimacy to act: 84% of Europeans are said to support
increased EU action against racism.
The German government regularly appeals to their country's "specific
historic responsibility" to press for the adoption of European
legislation on racism. For them, consistency self evidently demands
that genocide denial be made illegal at the same time as incitement
to racial hatred.
The initial 2001 proposal was quite clear on this subject, and proposed
to ban the denial and "public condoning with racist or xenophobic
intentions" of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
However, not all European governments share Germany's determination
on this topic. The British government, for instance, continues to
favour freedom of speech, to the point of even opposing sanctions
against denial of the Holocaust. Inevitably, when it comes to the
Armenian genocide, foreign-policy considerations add to Member States'
hesitations.
The compromise that will emerge from these differences may allow Member
States to abstain from implementing some of its provisions if they
wish. One of the ideas under discussion for instance is that Member
States should be allowed to require that genocide or crimes against
humanity be recognised by an international tribunal for their denial
to be illegal.
This clause would of course allow the states that are concerned not
to offend Turkey to exclude the Armenian genocide from the scope of
European legislation. It would also allow Turkey to join the European
Union without having to face the daunting task of banning genocide
denial on its own territory.
At the end of the day, whether or not the text is adopted remains
uncertain.
In matters of criminal co-oporation within the EU, unanimity is
required; this provides each member state with a veto. The European
Parliament will be consulted on the text, but it will not be able to
amend it.
And yet, while there is reason to fear that reasons of state
or disagreement on principle may, yet again, stand in the way of
clamping down on racism, there is also reason to be optimistic. The
struggle against racism is after all one of the priorities of 2007,
which has been declared "European Year of Equal Opportunities". So
member states will want to show results. Secondly, another failure
in the negotiations would be very embarrassing, in the face of past
declarations and commitments. Finally, the German presidency of the
EU seems to be moving ahead with determination.
The German Justice minister, Brigitte Zypries, thus declared after
the latest talks, that "the European continent must send a clear
signal that we wish to combat racism and xenophobia in Europe. It is
true to say that some countries have expressed reservations. But I
am convinced that we will find an agreement."
The same day as European ministers had met to discuss this proposed
law, another meeting was taking place in Brussels that underlined the
significance of the ministers' work. Just a few hundred metres away
the from the European Council's building, Turkish Prof. Dr. Yousouf
Halacoglou gave a (denialist) conference entitled "perspectives on
the so-called Armenian genocide" sponsored by the Turkish platform
in Brussels. Belgian authorities made no objection.
http://www.insideeurope.org/index.php?id= 514
Updated: March 2007
On February 15, the EU's 27 Justice Ministers met to revive draft
legislation that, if enacted, would make criminal offenses of such
acts as incitement to racial hatred, genocide denial and condoning
crimes against humanity. The Germany chairmanship of the EU, currently
leading the negotiations, hopes to have the text adopted in the spring-
possibly even in April 2007.
For Bashy Quraishy, chairman of ENAR, the European NGO network against
racism, "a third failed attempt to agree this instrument would send
a disastrous message to the victims of racism, as well as to the
perpetrators, and would have the potential to foster a growing sense
of impunity for racist hate in Europe". The draft legislation was
initially put forward by the European Commission in 2001, but Member
States have since failed to reach agreement.
Consensus was almost reached in 2005, but Italy, under Berlusconi,
vetoed it at the time. The country's new Prime Minister, Romano Prodi,
has now lifted its objection.
EU member states remain divided between the imperative of preserving
freedom of expression and the struggle against racism. They do not
all share the opinion of philosopher Karl Popper, as quoted by German
Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries: " in the name of tolerance, we
must claim the right to be in tolerant with the intolerant.".
Why European legislation against racism? In the first place, article
29 of the EU Treaty, the European institutions' Bible, mandates
the EU to act against racism. Furthermore, disparities between the
Member States' legislation make it increasingly difficult to prosecute
racists; the Internet has indeed made to that problem worse. Finally,
the EU has the legitimacy to act: 84% of Europeans are said to support
increased EU action against racism.
The German government regularly appeals to their country's "specific
historic responsibility" to press for the adoption of European
legislation on racism. For them, consistency self evidently demands
that genocide denial be made illegal at the same time as incitement
to racial hatred.
The initial 2001 proposal was quite clear on this subject, and proposed
to ban the denial and "public condoning with racist or xenophobic
intentions" of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
However, not all European governments share Germany's determination
on this topic. The British government, for instance, continues to
favour freedom of speech, to the point of even opposing sanctions
against denial of the Holocaust. Inevitably, when it comes to the
Armenian genocide, foreign-policy considerations add to Member States'
hesitations.
The compromise that will emerge from these differences may allow Member
States to abstain from implementing some of its provisions if they
wish. One of the ideas under discussion for instance is that Member
States should be allowed to require that genocide or crimes against
humanity be recognised by an international tribunal for their denial
to be illegal.
This clause would of course allow the states that are concerned not
to offend Turkey to exclude the Armenian genocide from the scope of
European legislation. It would also allow Turkey to join the European
Union without having to face the daunting task of banning genocide
denial on its own territory.
At the end of the day, whether or not the text is adopted remains
uncertain.
In matters of criminal co-oporation within the EU, unanimity is
required; this provides each member state with a veto. The European
Parliament will be consulted on the text, but it will not be able to
amend it.
And yet, while there is reason to fear that reasons of state
or disagreement on principle may, yet again, stand in the way of
clamping down on racism, there is also reason to be optimistic. The
struggle against racism is after all one of the priorities of 2007,
which has been declared "European Year of Equal Opportunities". So
member states will want to show results. Secondly, another failure
in the negotiations would be very embarrassing, in the face of past
declarations and commitments. Finally, the German presidency of the
EU seems to be moving ahead with determination.
The German Justice minister, Brigitte Zypries, thus declared after
the latest talks, that "the European continent must send a clear
signal that we wish to combat racism and xenophobia in Europe. It is
true to say that some countries have expressed reservations. But I
am convinced that we will find an agreement."
The same day as European ministers had met to discuss this proposed
law, another meeting was taking place in Brussels that underlined the
significance of the ministers' work. Just a few hundred metres away
the from the European Council's building, Turkish Prof. Dr. Yousouf
Halacoglou gave a (denialist) conference entitled "perspectives on
the so-called Armenian genocide" sponsored by the Turkish platform
in Brussels. Belgian authorities made no objection.