FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

France's decision for the Armenian genocide

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion
 


billys
Yesterday I was talking with a friend of mine and we reached a dead end in our conversation, so I need the help of all of you guys!

Our conversation was about the Armenian genocide and France's decision about
[quote from http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/05/france-parliament-puts-off-debate-on.php ]

making it a crime to deny that the 1915 mass killings of Armenians [ATI backgrounder] in Turkey was genocide.

[end of quote].

Also, I heard on the T.V. that France may sentece someone up to a year for denying that there was an Armenian genocide.

Ok, my question was, not if there was a genocide or not, but if it is right to sentence someone for a year because he didn't believe there was a genocide? Here is my opinion.

I believe that everyone has the right to say his opinion in public. Whatever his opinion is about. And he will be ctitisized from eveyone, these will be the concequences he will have.

My friend (which is not anymore.. just joking) told me that in an ideal society this is the case because only then with the society being educated and mature their can critisize it. Also, if someone doesn't accept something of this matter then he surves political expediencies. Because, as only Turkey and one other country, I think, are the only one's that deny the genocide then he surves their purpoces.

I disagreed with him saying that we don't know if it he is surving anything or not. I told him that let's say that if the International Law says that if it is in a country's action to kill people only because they belong in a group and have a organized plan to vanish the members of the group then there is a genocide.
But, if someone comes up tommorow and says that he believes that not only a country must have the intention to do so, but it must also vanish 30% of the number of the group because then he believes it is a genocide because ( he adds his arguments over here). Thus, the genocide of the Armenians for him isn't a genocide then he has the right to do so.

Then, my friend disagreed telling me that that person didn't have the right to do so because it is a Law not an ethical argument.

But, then I told him that we must have the right to ctitisize the Law.

He told me yes, we have the right to do so. But, the Law is created for the harmony of the people, telling me that many people would steal if the Law didn't punish them for doing so. And that if someone didn't accept there was a genocide then he was dangerous for the society because he accepts the actions that were taken back then. Also, he added that Hitler himself went into power with democratic proceedures.

I responded claiming that yes, it is true but we must give the right to everyone to express themselves.

He agreed with me, telling that anyone can believe what they believe, but in some cases they don't have the right to express themselves in puplic because it would be like proselytism and they would be dangerous for the puplic safety.

Once, again I disagreed with him telling that I believe that everyone must express their opinions in public freely without having the danger of being jailed. Becsuse, only then can we become fully educated and can the society leap forward. Because society advances from the rebelious ideas. And here is were the conversations reached its dead end becuase we are once back from were we started from.

I am eager to listen to your own ideas and if anyone feels offended by this article please say so. Lastly, please help us free from this vicious cicle!!
Billy Hill
France the Word Police Rolling Eyes
Indi
Billy Hill wrote:
France the Word Police Rolling Eyes

It's that simple. France - and a number of other countries - have different basic conceptions of the law. Virtually all free countries agree on the basic, fundamental rights that should be allowed under the law. But not all countries prioritize them in the same way.

Essentially, the fundamental human rights are the right to live, the right to think and act freely according to your own desires, and the right to not suffer unduly. The right to live is not really an issue in this case, but the other two are.

The Armenian massacre is an incontavertible fact. No rational person can deny it - there's simply too much evidence of it. By and large the international academic community agrees that it was a genocide, with only a handful of exceptions who argue that it was not so much a genocide as it was just really bad internal fighting.

Now, France has determined that denying that it was a genocide is something that only historical revisionists who are determined to cover up Turkey's crimes, or those who don't think they count as crimes at all, are doing. They have decided that the evidence that it was a genocide is so clear that no one with honest intentions would claim that it wasn't. Furthermore, they have have determined that the only ones who are actually doing the denying are - at the same time - speaking out against the victims. In other words, they have determined that denying the genocide is hate speech.

Hate speech causes suffering. People who are victims of sanctioned hate speech live in fear, and are far more likely to be victims of violence and denied proper justice. History also suggests that when hate speech is allowed to spread unchecked, it can be suborned by unscrupulous politicians and used to rally the majority against those being spoken against. This has led in the past to segregation laws and... genocides.

So France has determined that denying the genocide is harmful, both actively - by creating an environment of hate and fear - and potentially - by creating an environment from which active segregatory policies can be born.

Now we get to the key problem. Denying the genocide is harmful, and by one of the fundamental rights, people have a right not to be harmed unduly. But saying that it was not a genocide is a choice that people can make, and people have a right to think and act freely. The two rights are in opposition.

How do you decide what to do? You have to prioritize one of the rights. Which right to prioritize? That varies by country.

America has decided that the right to think and act freely has priority. Provided that the suffering caused does not hamper the other person's right to think and act freely, it can be tolerated. Yeah, it sucks to hear people say that the genocide that wiped out your family never happened, but you can go on living despite their opinion.

Other countries, like France, have decided that the right to not suffer has priority. Your right to think and act freely must be limited when it causes others to suffer unduly. Yeah, it sucks to have to censor your opinion if you really believe the genocide was a hoax, but you can't be allowed to cause other people to suffer.

It's not a perfect world, so compromises must be made. Which way is right? America's or France's? Is it better to allow Jack Chick's and Pat Robertson's to walk around spouting hate or is it better to put limits on what can be said in public? On this very forum we have a thread about Christian radicals saying that Amish girls deserved to die... which is better, allowing that kind of thinking to be accepted in the media, or forbidding publication of that kind of ignorant hate?

The answer to all of those questions is "neither". There is no way that's "right", there are merely different ways to not be wrong.

Ironically, Billy Hill, your objection is self-defeating. i would assume from your comment that you believe that people should have the right to say what they want, when they want, how they want. billys said as much in his post. Fine, good. But if that's the case, then shouldn't people also have the right to create a government that suppresses some forms of speech? France is a democratically elected government, remember. The people choose the government and their laws. This is what the people of France want, and if they didn't want it, it wouldn't pass. Aren't you being a little hypocritical to suggest that they shouldn't make their own laws the way they want to? If France makes a law that says you can't say the genocide didn't happen, and then you tell France they can't do that... aren't you part of the "vicious [circle]"?

(Incidently, this law is hardly novel, or specific to France. Lots of countries have similar laws, on a number of topics. Holocaust denial is a common one. France has laws against Holocaust denial, along with dozens of other countries, and they have had them for decades. In practice, France and European countries with similar laws do not use them to prosecute actual scholarly debate on the topics. In other words, if you deny the genocide, but do so in a scholarly, peer-reviewed paper, with evidence to back you up, you're in no danger. On the other hand, if you simply publish a book or tract full of "evidence" that has already been scholarly debunked, you could be in trouble. To answer billys: "my question was... if it is right to sentence someone for a year because he didn't believe there was a genocide?" No. But that's not what the law does. Believe it if you want. Research it if you want. Publish your findings in peer-reviewed academic publications if you want. But don't stand up on a podium (or write a book) and preach it (at least, not without academic sanctioning of your evidence).)
palavra
Indi wrote:
[The Armenian massacre is an incontavertible fact. No rational person can deny it - there's simply too much evidence of it. By and large the international academic community agrees that it was a genocide, with only a handful of exceptions who argue that it was not so much a genocide as it was just really bad internal fighting.



if you visit eastern part of turkiye , you can find barely a home that didn't lose a member of the family in the 1915 events.
in that time we were fighting with russians
some armenian supported the russian army
they started to kill turkish civil people violently.
because they wanted turkish people immigrate to west part of anotolia and east should be saved for them.
then ottoman government exiled them to arab regions.
in this internal fighting some armenian killed
but number of turkish people who killed by armenians is more than the number of armenian who killed by turkish people.
if it is a genocide
all the armenians that live in
france
usa
arab countries
armenia
where did they come from?


http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/

and
this is not only about genocide
armenian people tell every time
we-turks- killed them because we are a wild race(they are fascist actually)
we came to anotolia in 1000-we conquered all anotolia in 1100
why did we wait to genocide armenian 800 years(1915).
and today
because they only hate us.
they attacked to azerbeyjan and forced more than million azeri to immigrate.
http://www.khojaly.org/?id=3009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_Massacre

did you even heard some thousands of jews immigrate to germany?
there are more than 100,000 armeni who immigrated to turkiye from armenia in order to find a better job and a secure place
between 1990-2006.
Bondings
Billy Hill wrote:
France the Word Police Rolling Eyes

Isn't that law only valid in France? I don't understand your reasoning.

Indi wrote:
Holocaust denial is a common one.

Yes, but that's a different case. The people who are denying the holocaust are mostly neonazis who want a Hitler-like regime to come back - which is a severe threat to society.

In the case of the Armenian genocide there is no threat to society that I know of. People advocating that are doing so for nationalistic/proud reasons and not because they want a new genocide or hate Armenians. Making this a criminal fact is scary.
KernEnergie
I'm French so I'm directly concerned. I heard this news. I'm quite confused actually, we already had a law that said that France recognized the Armenian Holocaust, why a new one?
A lot of politics in France are also confused by this law. I think things are going to change within a few months.
Indi
Bondings wrote:
Indi wrote:
Holocaust denial is a common one.

Yes, but that's a different case. The people who are denying the holocaust are mostly neonazis who want a Hitler-like regime to come back - which is a severe threat to society.

In the case of the Armenian genocide there is no threat to society that I know of. People advocating that are doing so for nationalistic/proud reasons and not because they want a new genocide or hate Armenians. Making this a criminal fact is scary.

Whether or not denial represents a threat and what kind of threat it represents is for France to decide. France's internal struggles and politics are completely different from its international affairs. It has a fairly large Armenian population and lots of internal religious strife. It may be a gunpowder issue there.

While it may be true that there is a nationalist motivation for the denials, i have to point out three caveats. First, there was a national motivation for the holocaust as well. The Nazis wanted to eradicate Jews because they considered them to be second class citizens in Germany, and considered them to be liars and thieves by nature, so they were seen as a blight on Germany, pulling it down. Second, there is a strong motivation in the international community to paint the massacre as a genocide and not as an unfortunate accident, as Turkey claims. This is because there is strong evidence that although Turkey (mostly) didn't line them up and shoot them, it did create and maintain conditions that caused deaths of hundreds of thousands by starvation and disease. It was laissez-faire genocide, and it sets a dangerous precedent. It would mean that anyone who wanted to extinguish a subsection of their population could simply claim that they are evacuating them "for their protection", then herd them up, starve them, and say "oops, poor organization on the evacuation". That kind of precedent cannot be allowed. Third, i read the post above yours and question your assertion that hate is not a prominent factor.
Soulfire
I don't think that it is the politicians/government who should write history.
shamil
KernEnergie wrote:
I'm French so I'm directly concerned. I heard this news. I'm quite confused actually, we already had a law that said that France recognized the Armenian Holocaust, why a new one?
A lot of politics in France are also confused by this law. I think things are going to change within a few months.

Because there are lots of armenian politics in ur country. Ofcourse they did their best to achieve this illogical decision as they always did. By now I don't beleive armenish France will accept fair decisions in its life.
It is up to historians not politics to research history. I don't know why France pokes its nose into Turkey Armenian problem and accept this rude decision. France is Armenia i think. And be ready to hear any sort of decision from liar armenians..
Every one has right to beleive and everyone has right not to beleive. Who deprives humans out of this right rudely breaches the human rights. What to do for who beleive in ALLAH France? Please discuss it and accept another bill in a moment.
You(France) will not talk about Human Rights by now even the bill is not accepted.
rano
One and a half million Armenians were violently killed, out of a total of two million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. This was an orginzied act committed with intent to eliminate Armenians. No rational reasoning can deny it. There are too many facts and evidences for it (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide).

But there is a lot of debates and speculations of facts on this subject, but it is normal, these are all politics. So every part is raising the facts which are going to support their own interests and politics.

Generally there are very few politicians and governments who support the truth just for the sake of the truth, especially when it is going to harm their own reputation or their own politics, it is a rare situation in politics... And it seems that France is demonstrating this rare thing, and I appreciate it a lot...
palavra
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20061115&hn=38297 wrote:
Though first in line when it comes to demanding that Turkey face up to its dark history, namely claims of a 1915 Armenian genocide, it seems that Paris is content to take a ‘let’s leave history to the historians’ approach when faced with its own colonial era trauma in Algeria.

French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has been on an official visit to France’s former colony Algeria. On Monday Sarkozy placed a wreath at a monument for Algerians killed in their war for independence and on Tuesday he visited a monastery in Tibhirine where seven French monks where killed in 1996.


In only eight years, 1.5 million Algerians died during their country’s fight for independence between 1954 and 1962. Torture was widespread.

The Algerian government has urged France to apologize for the killings and suffering during 130 years of colonial rule.


While the Algerian government has called on the French to recognize “the number of victims and the looting of riches” and “the deletion of national identity,” Sarkozy preferred to talk about the “dark moments” of the colonial era and suffering on both sides.


Sarkozy, a leading candidate for the French center-right political world to run for president next year, has strongly supported France’s recent notorious bill criminalizing the denial of an Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks during World War I.



During his trip Sarkozy preferred to focus on an initiative to lift visa restrictions for Algerians traveling to Europe. Both the French interior minister and the Algerian leadership avoided talking too much on the two topics cooling relations between the two countries: Algeria’s call for an apology and the postponement of a 2005 bilateral friendship treaty.


The treaty was pushed aside after France passed a law last year requiring textbooks to talk about the “positive side” of French colonialism. An embarrassed Chirac quashed the law but relations have suffered.


Instead, both sides preferred to talk about Sarkozy’s trip in terms of a “necessary” friendship between the two countries “condemned” to a mutual future, said Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika

i think this is the problem of france
they think they can solve every problem by passing a law.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.