Tweet
PROF. DR. GUY CARCASSONNE: THIS BILL GOES AGAINST FRANCE'S PRINCIPLE OF INDEPENDENCE
Sabah
Feb 2 2012
Turkey
Commenting on the Armenian bill accepted by the French Senate, famous
legal professor Dr. Guy Carcassonne, "There are three principles that
make France the nation it is: Equality, independence and fraternity.
This sort of bill does not comply with independence. There is obscurity
present in the bill's text, which is unacceptable when dealing with
criminal law."
France's famous constitutional law professor Guy Carcassonne
contributed to the text of appeal presented to the Constitutional
Council for the cancellation of the bill which intends to criminalize
the denial of Armenian allegations.
Prof. Dr. Guy Carcassonne (61), who is on the faculty for
Paris-Nanterre University and also teaches law at a number of the
world's most prestigious universities, is also a constitutional
advisor. Carcassonne discussed the text submitted to the Constitutional
Council with Sabah and expressed that the bill does not comply with
France's principle of independence. "I underlined two elements in
the text. The first being freedom of speech and the second being the
elusiveness present in the text. Obscurity is unacceptable when it
comes to issues involving criminal law," states Carcassonne.
Is the draft bill being debated in the French Assembly just?
"I have no doubt that genocide transpired. However historical truths
are not the business of legislation. Not in France, nor in any other
country. There are three principles that make France the nation it
is: Equality, independence and fraternity. This sort of bill does not
comply with independence. Once the bill was passed certain senators
and ministers reacted and then took action. In light of the historical
camaraderie with Turkey, a significant majority want to ensure that
such legislation is at the very least respectful of the principles
in our constitution. It's a good thing there was a majority."
Which main subject titles were brought up in the text submitted to
the Constitutional Council?
"My theses are based on two fundamental elements. The first being
freedom of speech. This protects the freedom of speech even if
expressions and ideas are hurtful to others. If the person on the
other side does not agree with their opinions, they must absolutely
accept their right to express them. The French Constitution draws a
single line here: ideas or expression must not in any way harm another
individual or public order. This is a violation of constitutional
rights. However, this is not a situation that pertains to this. In
addition, there are significant differences between events such as the
Jewish genocide. The Jewish genocide was ruled as such in accordance
to an international agreement (Nuremberg, 1946). There is not a single
characteristic of the Jewish genocide that could be compared to the
Armenian genocide.
My second argument in my thesis is this: The assembly establishes a
punishment for a crime. The Constitution then applies that punishment
if the crime was 'clearly' and 'definitely' committed. First
of all it is completely unnecessary to punish the denial of an
incident that did not transpire in France. Secondly, the bill not
only intends to criminalize denial, but it also includes the term
'extreme belittling.' However, such terminology is obscure and its
meaning unclear. Thirdly, the bill refers to the denial or extreme
belittling of incidents recognized as genocide by France. Although
this is a reference to the French legislation established in 2001
labeling Armenian allegations as so-called genocide, there also exists
legislation referring to genocides in Ruanda and former Yugoslavia.
Nobody knows if this bill intends to include these genocides. Such
obscurity is unacceptable when it comes to debating criminal code."
How would such a bill affect relations between two nations?
"The Council will make a decision within one month. When I think
rationally, I can say that I am optimistic of the results. That the
bill will endanger Turkey-France relations is definite. It is extremely
unnecessary to be put into such a situation. For hundreds of years
now, Turkey and France have had amicable relations. This friendship
will survive this rocky period and will continue for years to come
and I am very pleased about this."
Sabah
Feb 2 2012
Turkey
Commenting on the Armenian bill accepted by the French Senate, famous
legal professor Dr. Guy Carcassonne, "There are three principles that
make France the nation it is: Equality, independence and fraternity.
This sort of bill does not comply with independence. There is obscurity
present in the bill's text, which is unacceptable when dealing with
criminal law."
France's famous constitutional law professor Guy Carcassonne
contributed to the text of appeal presented to the Constitutional
Council for the cancellation of the bill which intends to criminalize
the denial of Armenian allegations.
Prof. Dr. Guy Carcassonne (61), who is on the faculty for
Paris-Nanterre University and also teaches law at a number of the
world's most prestigious universities, is also a constitutional
advisor. Carcassonne discussed the text submitted to the Constitutional
Council with Sabah and expressed that the bill does not comply with
France's principle of independence. "I underlined two elements in
the text. The first being freedom of speech and the second being the
elusiveness present in the text. Obscurity is unacceptable when it
comes to issues involving criminal law," states Carcassonne.
Is the draft bill being debated in the French Assembly just?
"I have no doubt that genocide transpired. However historical truths
are not the business of legislation. Not in France, nor in any other
country. There are three principles that make France the nation it
is: Equality, independence and fraternity. This sort of bill does not
comply with independence. Once the bill was passed certain senators
and ministers reacted and then took action. In light of the historical
camaraderie with Turkey, a significant majority want to ensure that
such legislation is at the very least respectful of the principles
in our constitution. It's a good thing there was a majority."
Which main subject titles were brought up in the text submitted to
the Constitutional Council?
"My theses are based on two fundamental elements. The first being
freedom of speech. This protects the freedom of speech even if
expressions and ideas are hurtful to others. If the person on the
other side does not agree with their opinions, they must absolutely
accept their right to express them. The French Constitution draws a
single line here: ideas or expression must not in any way harm another
individual or public order. This is a violation of constitutional
rights. However, this is not a situation that pertains to this. In
addition, there are significant differences between events such as the
Jewish genocide. The Jewish genocide was ruled as such in accordance
to an international agreement (Nuremberg, 1946). There is not a single
characteristic of the Jewish genocide that could be compared to the
Armenian genocide.
My second argument in my thesis is this: The assembly establishes a
punishment for a crime. The Constitution then applies that punishment
if the crime was 'clearly' and 'definitely' committed. First
of all it is completely unnecessary to punish the denial of an
incident that did not transpire in France. Secondly, the bill not
only intends to criminalize denial, but it also includes the term
'extreme belittling.' However, such terminology is obscure and its
meaning unclear. Thirdly, the bill refers to the denial or extreme
belittling of incidents recognized as genocide by France. Although
this is a reference to the French legislation established in 2001
labeling Armenian allegations as so-called genocide, there also exists
legislation referring to genocides in Ruanda and former Yugoslavia.
Nobody knows if this bill intends to include these genocides. Such
obscurity is unacceptable when it comes to debating criminal code."
How would such a bill affect relations between two nations?
"The Council will make a decision within one month. When I think
rationally, I can say that I am optimistic of the results. That the
bill will endanger Turkey-France relations is definite. It is extremely
unnecessary to be put into such a situation. For hundreds of years
now, Turkey and France have had amicable relations. This friendship
will survive this rocky period and will continue for years to come
and I am very pleased about this."