France recognizes the Armenian genocide

[C~G]

We learn about Armenian sufferings, they learn about ours, and hopefully, somewhere down the road we resolve collectively never to let it happen again.

That's the kind of a debate we should start having, and that's the kind of process that the French law exactly sabotages.

How this law exactly prevents this discussion?

I wouldn't call it debate since it would sound someone is disputing the fact that these acts happened.

All Turkey has to do is acknowledge such things have happened and then ask Armenia to accept they have conducted violence towards turkish people as well.

 

[Winner]

The heart of the matter is that in Turkey there is a folk memory of Armenian atrocities on Turks just like Armenians have theirs about Turkish atrocities. What's so unbelievable about that?

A Debate means people on different parts of a disagreement start learning about the view of the other side. We learn about Armenian sufferings, they learn about ours, and hopefully, somewhere down the road we resolve collectively never to let it happen again.

That's the kind of a debate we should start having, and that's the kind of process that the French law exactly sabotages.

How can you debate a fact? For us, the case is closed, there is nothing to discuss.

It's like when president Ahmadinejad wants to discuss Holocaust with us. There is nothing to talk about.

 

[Winner]

The heart of the matter is that in Turkey there is a folk memory of Armenian atrocities on Turks just like Armenians have theirs about Turkish atrocities. What's so unbelievable about that?

A Debate means people on different parts of a disagreement start learning about the view of the other side. We learn about Armenian sufferings, they learn about ours, and hopefully, somewhere down the road we resolve collectively never to let it happen again.

That's the kind of a debate we should start having, and that's the kind of process that the French law exactly sabotages.

Well, the problem is that we don't want any discussion, we've already made the decision. Now you either accept it, or you don't, it's your call and your future.

 

[Ancyrean]

How many times am I supposed to repeat that?

The slaughter of Armenians was a genocide because it was planned and systematic. That can't be said about French actions in Algeria.

There's ample evidence about Armenian sufferings, but none proving the prior intent, nor any orders for the execution of such a plan.

If the case was so clear cut as you would like to take to your heart, I don't think many European officials and media would criticise the French law as they did, but would rather applaud the advance of a triumph against "rejectionism of established facts."


One footnote about the French law: It's still not in effect, as it has to be approved by both the parliament and the president. Not that I expect them to strike it down, given their proven subservience to the Armenian lobby.

 

[Ancyrean]

How this law exactly prevents this discussion?

I wouldn't call it debate since it would sound someone is disputing the fact that these acts happened.

All Turkey has to do is acknowledge such things have happened and then ask Armenia to accept they have conducted violence towards turkish people as well.

Turkey already acknowledges this! Turkey already asked Armenia to participate in a joint historical commission to look into each other's documents. Their answer: Actually it's like Winner speaking: It's an established fact so we don't need to see nor refute your documents, nor try to see the absurdity of your ways through the soundness of our evidence.

 

[Ancyrean]

Well, the problem is that we don't want any discussion, we've already made the decision. Now you either accept it, or you don't, it's your call and your future.

The EU alraedy made it clear many many times, including after the recent French debacle: No such "acceptance" is a precondition for Turkey's membership, acknowledging the ongoing debate on the issue.

 

[Azkonus]

That can't be said about French actions in Algeria.

Algeria - History from http://www.arab.de/arabinfo/algehis.htm
Algeria´s first inhabitants were Berbers, who still represent a significant minority. Algeria has been occupied many times during its history by - Phoenicians and Romans among others -
but the Arab invasions of the 8th and 11th centuries A.D. had the greatest cultural impact.

In 1492 Moors and Jews expelled from Spain settled in Algeria. Between 1518 and 1830 Algeria was an integral part of the Ottoman Empire.

In 1830 Algeria became a French territory and in 1848 was made a département attached to France. During this period political and economic power were held mainly by the minority of white settlers, and the indigenous Moslem minority did not have equal rights.

Moslems were killed before independence was declared on July 5, 1962.


Now important ponts: 8th and 11th centuries Arabs came to algeria and made everyone Arab. (~300 yrs)

1518 and 1830 Turks touched nothing everyone stayed as they are. (~300 yrs)

1830 and 1962 French came made everyone French. People started to talk french want to go to Paris bla bla bla... (~130 yrs)

see know if algerian did a bad thing they are either french or an Arab not a Turk though. They want to go to Paris or Arabia looking for a job.

Assimilation that you voted advocated for. (remember the thread of yours)

Says Turkey, a country very vocal against M. cartoons, Pope's speech etc. What's the word... yeah, hypocrisy, that's it.

God! are not you the one who says free speech free speech when M. cartoons were in effect and now you don't want free speech.

Look at some people here they were on free speech side when that happened and still on the free speech side with this issue. They don't change sides as wind blows from different side.

You are just anti-immigration that's it, but keep in mind when you advocate assimilation, then you should call the Indian friend who speaks german dreams german and feels like german as german because it is the way you support.

If you say no you are actually indian then nobody will take you seriously.

 

[Gelion]

]God! are not you the one who says free speech free speech when M. cartoons were in effect and now you don't want free speech.

Look at some people here they were on free speech side when that happened and still on the free speech side with this issue. They don't change sides as wind blows from different side.

I think this is a very important point overall. Its been a pleasure to follow debate in this thread. I wonder how Winner will explain/debate this.....

 

[Kyriakos]

In my view what is stranger than the actual law (with which in principle i do not agree, for the same reasons i do not like the holocaust denial law; but am happy that at least now there are two of this kind for the reason i mentioned in my other post) is Turkey's apparent ottomanic attitude infront of the EU. It looks like the EU is begging Turkey to be accepted to the EU, and now Turkey can act as if it is the judge, when in reality Turkey is the one which is begging for acceptance. On account of this state, its attitude is rather bizzare.

The existence of the referendums (although i doubt that it will reach to that) appears to negate even more any real possibility that Turkey will ever be part of the EU, but as things stand this is creating a negative effect by itself possibly in turkish society, since it appears to be giving some people there the impression that they somehow have to be accepted to the EU so that they can start to behave in civilised ways. This should not be the message sent to them though.

Personally i would be supportive of Turkey entering the EU, but not as it is today, and not with its current borders either. Perhaps if it was only Western Turkey it would be easier, but i do not see that happening either. As things are it seems more likely that it will not enter.

A fast list of the absurd state of Turkey, as a nation that seeks to enter the EU:

-Only nation that refuses to open its borders/trade to an existing EU member (Cyprus)

-Only nation that has an active Cassus Belli against an existing EU member (Greece)

I could go on about the state of the military and its role in politics, and/or the kudish issue, but i think that the surreal state of Tukey as a nation that claims to be part of the EU is already apparent.

By this, of course, i do not mean that all of the turkish public is unworthy of being part of the EU. But Turkey as a nation, as it is now, does not at all seem helpful as part of the EU, and will instead most probably guarantee the death of the EU idea alltogether.

 

[Winner]

The EU alraedy made it clear many many times, including after the recent French debacle: No such "acceptance" is a precondition for Turkey's membership, acknowledging the ongoing debate on the issue.

That's right... for now. But don't think we won't bring it up in the future.

 

[Winner]

God! are not you the one who says free speech free speech when M. cartoons were in effect and now you don't want free speech.

I'd advocated the criminalization of Holocaust denial prior the Muhammad cartoons row. So no, you can't blame me of hypocrisy.

Look at some people here they were on free speech side when that happened and still on the free speech side with this issue. They don't change sides as wind blows from different side.

You're crying on a wrong grave. As I said many times in this thread, every country has its traditions and experiences. We have bad experience with genocide, so we outlawed anything, that could lead to it, including denial. On the other hand, caricatures have a long tradition in the Western civilization, even Romans made fun of their leaders and gods.

Of course, caricatures can hardly cause anything close to the horrors of genocide, so there is no reason to regulate them.

You are just anti-immigration that's it, but keep in mind when you advocate assimilation, then you should call the Indian friend who speaks german dreams german and feels like german as german because it is the way you support.

If you say no you are actually indian then nobody will take you seriously.

I fail to see the relevance of this analogy for this topic.

 

[Gelion]

Cartoons created considerable harm in the heads of many people around the world. If you regulate opinions then not causing harm should be one of the first priorities with regards to controlling free speech.

 

[Winner]

Cartoons created considerable harm in the heads of many people around the world. If you regulate opinions then not causing harm should be one of the first priorities with regards to controlling free speech.

That's a very weak argument. It is natural that certain opinions offend and cause mental harm to some people. The difference is they don't lead to physical harm.

BTW, I have to agree with the opinion of ECHR on this issue:

In the past, adversaries of the law have argued that this law restricts the freedom of expression, which is a basic human right. In a decision of 24 June 2003, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) stated that "denying or minimising the Holocaust must be seen as one of the acutest forms of racial slandering and incentives to hatred towards the Jews. The negation or the revision of historical facts of this type call into question the values which found the fight against racism and anti-semitism and is likely to seriously disturb law and order. Attacks against the rights of others of this kind are incompatible with democracy and human rights and their authors incontestably have aims that are prohibited by article 17 of the Convention." The court conludes that in application of article 17 of the ECHR, the plaintiff can't appeal to the protection of article 10 ECHR, insofar that he wants to use the freedom of expression to dispute crimes against humanity.[3]

 

[Gelion]

That's a very weak argument. It is natural that certain opinions offend and cause mental harm to some people. The difference is they don't lead to physical harm.

I dont think this is a weak argument. Every insult (especially predicted insult) increases the chance of violence of Muslims against "defenders of free speech". We've been through this argument before... in any case the disadvantages of negating responsibilities in your freedom of speech must be adressed. If not then the principles become very..... double-standartised.

BTW, I have to agree with the opinion of ECHR on this issue:

Good stuff. I'm still waiting for admission of the Slavic (Russian, Ukranian and Byalorussian) genocide by the Germans.

 

[Steph]

This is cheap! What about Algerian genocide really. They would be happy to know they have been only massed killed, and not genocided.

Did I say anything denying past action in Algeria or anywhere else? We are not speaking of Algeria. We are speaking of Armenia and Turkey. Turkey has a law forbidding its citizens to speak about the Armenian genocide. Fance doesn't have a law forbidding French citizens to speak about Algerian genocide

Last word: It is the France who shot herself from the leg, just to please some voters you restrict freedom of speech. cool

a) The socalist group at the Assemblee proposed this law
b) The Assemblee voted it
c) The government has said they do not suppor it, and have not yet put it in the "to do" list of the senate.
d) The senate may not vote it
e) The constitutional concil mayrepel it
f) The president may not enact it.

For the moment, has gone only through step a and b, let's see if it is stopped somewhere before going to step f.

Personnally, I think a law recognizing officially the existence of a genocide is enough, we don't have to go further and make it a crime for citizens to contest it, as long as they don't accompany it with hate speech.

If someone says "I don't think the Armenian genocide happened", well, he can have his own opinion.
But I would not agree if someone says "There were no genocide, and these Armenian **** deserved it anyway!" or "There should have been one!" or whatever

 

[Azkonus]

Did I say anything denying past action in Algeria or anywhere else? We are not speaking of Algeria. We are speaking of Armenia and Turkey. Turkey has a law forbidding its citizens to speak about the Armenian genocide. Fance doesn't have a law forbidding French citizens to speak about Algerian genocide

You are wrong exactly here my friend. Turkey is not France you can freely discuss if it is "genocide" or not. Ancyrean already replied to this issue, so I quoted him.

There is no law enacted in Turkey outlawing acceptance of genocide per se. There is a law against insulting "Turkishness", a vague term that can be and was used by nationalist lawyers to try to correlate with the Armenian issue.

Orhan Pamuk, our recent Nobel laurate, was sued on grounds of "insulting Turkishness" through that law by such lawyers, when he said Ottoman empire might have killed upto 1 million Armenians. The courts heard the case and dismissed them, thereby rejecting extension of the interpretation of that law into this issue.

You can seperately debate the stupidity of such a law about "Turkishness" or whatever, which I would be inclined to agree with. But it's another thing to blame Turkey for having laws jailing people when they say "it was genocide".

By the way insulting "Turkishness" which is 301 is also included in Italy and Germany but nobody asks them to remove it. What i think thogh is that 301 should be changed.

 

[Steph]

The slaughter of Armenians was a genocide because it was planned and systematic. That can't be said about French actions in Algeria.

Yes it was. Although we didn't killed the whole people, only enough to subdue them. In 1830, there were 3 millions Algerians. In 1866, French official census put it to 2,652,072 and in 1872, 2,125,051

Read this interesting article to see how nice we were
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k103772b/f299.table

Read page 260...

Translation by me
"It cannot be denied that compared to Europeans, Arabs and Berbers are certainly inferior races, and above all degeneratin races... It cannot be debated than the Arab people tends to disappear quickly and regularly"

 

[Steph]

You are wrong exactly here my friend. Turkey is not France you can freely discuss if it is "genocide" or not. Ancyrean already replied to this issue, so I quoted him.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...ces_trial_in_turkey/?rss_id=Boston.com+/+News

OK. You don't have a law called "Let's trial anyone who say Armenian genocide happened". You have a law called "let's trial anyone who insult "Turkishness", and use it to trial someone who write a book saying Armenian genocide happened.

We won't go into a debate to see is the notion of criminilazing "insulting Turkishness" as a restriction to the freedom of speech here, even if the claims of the Turkish government against the new French law is exactly based on restriction of freedom of speech.

We won't call our low "Armenian genocide denial". Let's call the law article 210174. (a bit like calling your law article 301).
And we won't make it to specific. It won't be called Armenian genocide denial... Hmm what about "insulting Armenianness?"

Ok, here is the deal.
Under article 210174, insulting Armenianness is a crime. We don't write in the law it's about Armenian genocide. We will just use it afterward to trial people who denied Armenian genocide. But don't be offended, it's not because they denied Armenian genocide, it is only because they insulted Armenianness.

And with this important concession, you stop criticizing it.

Deal?

 

[Azkonus]

And with this important concession, you stop criticizing it.

Deal?

Deal, but for your information, nobody goes to jail in Turkey for such actions because judges know that they re ultra-nationalist lawyers who want attention brings this kind of cases to court, so they don't charge any fine or jail time.

On the contrary, you are gonna put a historian or a person into jail who says "-they got armed with russian weapons and attacked Turkish villages and more importantly there is a Kars agreement that is signed between two sides. I say it is a war during the times of World War I."

Last words, I want to see good relations between France and Turkey. We are a highly dynamic country with a big market and France is good at certain industries it can be win-win for both sides if you play your cards correctly actually.

 

[warpus]

Winner, since you have not yet answered my question, I am going to have to assume that you do not have a good answer for it, and that you forfeit the debate.