“The toughest tyranny is the one that hides under the shadow of law and justice”
Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu
On December 22 the lower house of the French Parliament passed the bill to criminalize any public denial of genocide approved by the country’s legislation. The French Senate voted to pass the bill, later approved by the president, to condemn any denial of the so called “deliberate Armenian genocide” and to punish by a year imprisonment and a fine of 45.000 euros, said historian Jafarli Mamed in his article.
I would like to share with my readers some of my viewpoints on the bill, which, I reckon, contradicts the historical past and the intellectual heritage of France.
Right and Freedom.
The legislation approved by the French National Assembly to condemn the denial of “Armenian genocide” of 1915, violates the norms and principles of International law, related to human rights, particularly, to the core principle like Freedom of Speech and Expression.
Furthermore, the given principle constitutes the fundamental basis of all the bills on the issue of human rights. Moreover, for the 1st time the principle was highlighted in articles 10 and 11 of the “Declaration of people’s and citizens’ rights” dated to 1789 and adopted namely by France. The articles highlight that “Freedom of Expression is one of the most valuable human rights; as every human is free to express, write and publish”, “no one ought to be condemned for his viewpoints”. The most upsetting and surprising fact is that France which is considered to be the cradle of democracy due to the given Declaration, approved the legislation criminalizing the denial of “Armenian genocide” and thus putting Freedom of Expression at stake. Freedom of Expression is also reflected in basic human rights bills of current period, including the preamble of Universal Declaration on human rights (UNO, 1948), in articles 19 and 20 of International pact on civil and political rights dated to 1966. In article 10 of European Convention on human rights protection, which is also considered as the constitution of European States on human rights issues, it is noted that every human is free to express his standpoint. This right provides the freedom to self express, get and disseminate information and ideas without any interference on part of the government authorities and irrespective of state borders.
In this respect the decision adopted by the lower house of French Parliament being juridically groundless is opposed to International bill on human rights. Thus, the groundless allegation of “genocide” by Armenians was reflected neither in international law nor in historical factors. To declare judgement on a serious allegation of crime such as “genocide” it is vital to be based on the historical and scientific data.
To investigate the historical source of these allegations Turkish Republic has been trying to organize joint commission by attracting historians in order to study the archives of Ottoman Empire. But Armenia not believing in false genocide on the one hand and “genocide historians” acting as “diaspora ideologists” in different countries of the world on the other hand, try to prevent the realization of the project in every way possible.
It is mandatory to note that the first accusation in committing killings and crimes against humankind was put forward in the process of Nuremberg judgment accusing people who took part in massacre of the Jewish during World War II.
It was on the basis of resolution approved by International Nuremberg judgment that those crimes were recognized as genocide and some countries were criminalized for denying the genocide, the same standard applied to Holocaust denial in France dated to 1960.
However, referring to the historical events of 1915, there is no international bill supporting the so called “Armenian genocide”. Furthermore, Armenian party is reluctant to all the incentives to determine the facts reflecting the given historical events.
The bill passed by the French National Assembly slows down the investigation process in this field and violates the principles of international law and justice. Due to the bill, people with opposite viewpoints or different approach on the issue of “Armenian genocide”, including the scientific research activity, even initiatives are to become the targets of French legislation.
Moreover, the above-mentioned bill may trigger dangerous results in other countries threatening Freedom of Speech and Expression, because every country for the sake of private interest, using definite events for political purposes, will recognize these acts as genocide and will establish the subjective legislative foundation for criminalization of their denial.
Moral Right
Sensibility of French people, their high intellectual level, and their role in the history of mankind are undeniable. But one should agree that the common attitude toward the people of the country is not as easy as it may seem.
Having been formed for centuries, the relations are mainly based on imperialistic and arrogant expression of their caprice in the period of the development of French State. France is a country with imperial and colonial history. The ambiguous attitude towards the past of these countries and their people is clear and explicable. Nevertheless, the imperial past of France, which marked the history with certain “rights basis”, doesn’t give France the moral right to judge other nations and declare a judgment on a serious allegation of crime such as “genocide”. The imperial position of French State was shown towards the neighboring states within and beyond Europe. For instance, at present France together with Germany is trying to save European Union from financial crisis. But during World War II France “revenged” severely the German people. According to testimonial evidence at USA Senate dated to July 17, 1945 when French troops occupied the German city Stuttgart, they drove German women into the underground construction and raped more than 2000 of them. The number of women raped in Stuttgart within a week was greater than the number of French women raped by German militants within four years.
Furthermore, it is common knowledge that France has colonial ambitions in Algeria, taking into account the fact that France has the status of permanent member of UN Security Council, established after World War II to prevent the similar tragedies and secure peace and safety in the world. In post war period from 1954 up to 1962 in the course of Liberty Movement in Algeria, during “colonial intervention” French militants massacred more than a million of Algerians.
A new imperialistic attitude of France not capable of getting rid of the ideology “divide and conquer” emerged in the 90s of the last century in Ruanda. “Peace intervention” of French Army into the country to prevent mass massacre caused the deaths of millions of people. Due to testimonial evidence French “peacemakers” took an active part in inciting hostility between the parties of the conflict and supplying them with weapons.
By citing these facts we have no intention of accusing today’s France for crimes committed by previous generations. France should review its history before approving the similar bill and recognizing the so called “genocide” without having any historical or legal background.
In this respect I would like to cite a passage from the article adopted by the National Assembly of France on the last bill published in the newspaper of Armenian lobby in Turkey AGOS issued on December 23, 2011. “The present bill targeting at preserving the historical truth and not allowing the repetition of the genocide in the future is aimed at the providing of justice and human rights. However, in this reduction one of the democratic principles which sounds as “all that is not solved is to be banned” damages the Freedom of Expression. The real democratic culture doesn’t blame any opinion. On the other hand it develops only in the way of exchange of opinions.
If France is really going to put an end to the denials of the events taking place in 1915, it ought to distinguish discrimination and critics on part of Armenian people and their claims for Freedom of Expression. And this cannot be reached by people’s punishment. If France is eager to make its contribution into the fair dissemination of information primarily it should unveil the attitude of France to Ottoman territories at the beginning of XX century.
Christianity and Great French Revolution
German philosopher Hegel assumed Great French Revolution as the incarnation of the idea of free honest society shown in Christianity, great thinker’s idea could be considered from two perspectives – Christian religion and Great French Revolution.
According to Hegel” the idea of freedom “reached its perfect state exactly in Christianity, as this religion first became phenomenon in providing universal equality in the presence of God on the bases of spiritual choice and beliefs. Mentioning Christianity in this article deliberately makes France, the society in which religious values are too strong, the object of our consideration.
I assume that French parliamentarians prohibiting people to express their opinion freely do not have the concept of religious requirements of the religion they possess. In fact, the small benefits they expected to derive deprived their consideration with the perspective of sacramental and universal values.
The level of personality is the result of his/her activities. I think the readers will not blame me in enmity in case I state that 38 members of the French National Assembly could not pass “the probation of personality” in the presence of their electorate, but also religion they possess.
The next step is about Hegel’s evaluation of Great French Revolution.
This revolution laid the foundation of advancement of thinking based on liberal values not only in France, but also all over the world. Other governments and nations passed the period of bourgeois revolution before French revolution could not globalize this phenomenon.
Despite of Hegel’s consideration p of French revolution as the development of ideas of freedom and equality promoted by Christianity, defining reasons of fulfillment of historical events especially in France, not in any Christian society is an interesting theme for historical analysis.
On the eve of revolution the intellectual image of French society formed views by Rousseau, Walter, Montesquieu propagating the ideas of free society with liberal values. Devoting their abilities and lives to the struggling for the primacy of values such as quality, free expression, these great personalities were the leaders of ideas from which democracy evolved and France is considered to be the symbol of .
Nevertheless, the appropriate decisions made by the parliament of this country directed exactly against those values. If Montesquieu were alive, even in XVIII century he stated,” the toughest tyranny is the one which hides under the shadow of law and justice, it is not difficult to imagine what he thought of the present government and the French Senate issued its subjective interests in the shape of legislation for “ citizens of democratic government”.
Personality?!
On the stage of History the status of each nation is defined by intellectual and moral levels of personalities emerged from that nation.
Germans, Turks, English, Russians, and other nations who wrote their names in the world civilization forever, with their status in History must appreciate not just only tangible and transient values, but also intellectual talents of their personalities. Not achieved progress in scientific – technical innovations, but first and foremost talents reached the eminence – such personalities as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk , Conrad Adenauer, Isaac Newton, Sultan Mehmet Fateh, Winston Churchill, Johann Sebastian Bach, Leo Tolstoy will live in minds of people forever.
No doubts in different periods of the history of French people who gifted the world science, culture with the legacy of socio - political consciousness of great people, took their honorary place in the world.
Expectations from French people who spread the liberal bourgeois values in Europe, put forward the idea of political and organizational unity for living in peace and prosperous atmosphere, played the role of pioneer in the realization of these ideas.
This factor relates to governmental and political figures of France.
The natives of this nation are famous for their perennial activities directed to the solving of global and regional problems not only in France, but also in senior positions of international organizations. For this reason, various representatives of the state authorities of France were considered as the models of political intelligence and farsightedness, political culture and etiquette. Each and every taken step and uttered word by them were treated not just an act of an individual, but primarily through the prism of French people they represented. To continue and develop splendid traditions of the past generation, to transmit them to the next generation a political leader is demanded to be more responsible, sensible and liberal.
Not going into the details, I would like to touch upon the status of personality of Nicolas Sarkozy through the prism of the French Revolution.
There are political leaders whose personalities are not easy to assess, the reason is that even if the decisions they make are negative in respect of other countries and nations and with regards to national interests of their countries are fully understandable and reasonable. That is to say such political leaders tend to change the balance between national and international audiences in the favor of the firsts. The case is explained as “each and every leader is the representative of his/her nation and reports to their nation”.
The tragedy of a political leader starts then when he does not make any choice between national and international sides, but does make choice between particular layers and groups represented in the society. The tragedy of a political leader starts then when made decisions serve not to consolidate, but to separate the society they represent. Finally, the tragedy of a political leader starts then when he/she loses his/her moral rights to represent their society.
We are not able to state what French people think of the matter, what decision they will make in the presidential election, but the reality is that Sarkozy just acts like the head of government, not the president of French people. When in 2001 French Senate adopted the act of recognition of “the Armenian genocide “ the former president Jacques Chirac showed great farseeing and courage to state that the legislative initiative is not the attitude of France, only expresses the views of voters. Not to call into confrontation between national- ethnic groups of society and not to deteriorate relations with Turkey that is the south- northern stand of NATO, Jacques Chirac differed in the ability to feel sensitively the harshness of political rhetoric without reference to his subjective opinion.
Leaders such as Charles de Gaulle, Francois Mitterand, Jacques Chirac, who left a mark in History have also been criticized and judged for made decision, that is natural. However, political culture, intelligence and ability of strategic thinking of those figures never caused any doubt.
To summarize the reflection on the theme “personality “, I hope Nicolas Sarkozy is the exception for Hans Morgenthau who stated “ each and every nation deserves own political leader ”. Let us not forget that everything is different in real life, even the wise sayings.
In conclusion I would like to cite from the book by French attorney – historian Georges de Maleva “Armenian tragedy 1915” who was against the participation of members of Senate in defining historical events.
If the competence of European Parliament includes the punishment of those who are guilty in annihilation and beating in History, so why European Parliament will not reject England, Madame Thatcher to enter “the common market”, for outrage committed by France, Louis XIV?
In fact, the evidence of all has been preserved since then. The scope of activities of such” shufflers of History“can be unlimited. For instance; France might be punished for extortion made by Napoleon in Spain, Spain for vandalism done by Philipp II in the Netherlands, Denmark for excesses in Sweden etc.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
