France recognizes the Armenian genocide

[Steph]

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.

I want it to. For your information, my grand mother was born in Constantinople.
I don't agree with the law making it a crime to deny the genocide (a law recognizing this existance should be enough if we really want a law for this). However, Turkey with such laws as this article 301 is not in a very strong position to criticize our new law on the ground on freedom of speech.
And I'm also aware that Mr Erdogan made a proposal to assemble a team of historians (Turkish, Armenians and foreigner), under a UN tutelage, to study the case once and for all, and also claimed that Turkey would abide by the result of this study, whatever the result. It seems to me a reasonable solution, it it ever get accepted in all fairness by both sides.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Again, I do not think one single country on Earth has true freedom of speech. So you can argue that the limits that another country set are better/worse than yours, but I do not think you can reasonably say "we have more freedom of speech than them!", you have a different definition and that's it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_UK
Furthermore what's the difference between the Holocaust laws, and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006 ?
Excuse me if I don't see England as a beacon of free speech either.
I would love to hear your stance on the Terrorism act 2006.

I agree with much of what you say regarding different countries but our Terrorism Act stops people standing up and preaching “Kill the Infidel” or “Kill the Jews; the holocaust never happened”. It does not, however, stop you writing a book denying the holocaust. Can you not see the difference? Have another look at my sig and you will notice the phrase provided it does not intend to provoke violence. Therein lies the difference. Writing a book about holocaust denial no matter how ridiculous, absurd or even evil that would be does not, of itself, provoke violence.

I can just about understand (but still think it is wrong) why Germany has such a law (similarly Turkey regarding Armenia and France regarding Algeria if they wanted) but I do not understand at all why a country such as France should have them if the evil was carried out by another country (yes, even if it affected some of your own people).
I always thought that one day Germany would finally get over what happened in 39-45, repeal such a draconian law as this and move on. Maybe not in our life-times but say 100+ years after the event. But here is France threatening to bring in a law now on something that happened nearly 100 years ago. Utter Madness. What next – go to prison if you deny what Stalin, Mao Tsetung, Polpot or even Genghis Kahn did?

I don't think there is one country on Earth where free speech is absolute. Listen to any radio in the US, every curse word in the songs will be beeped. You will also get fined for showing explicit scenes on television.
I think it's a lot more stupid to fine people for showing a tit on TV than to fine people because they denied the Holocaust.

Once again Britain is somewhere between the two extremes of Europe and America. Somewhere between the Loony Left of Europe and the Righteous Right of America (talking Governments here ).
We allow someone to deny the holocaust (if they are sick enough to do so) and we also allow tits and bums on Telly.

 

[Kyriakos]

I



Once again Britain is somewhere between the two extremes of Europe and America. Somewhere between the Loony Left of Europe and the Righteous Right of America

Every country can appear to be in the middle of anything. Infact, by definition everything is in the middle of something. In other words it is not true that England has any special position here; you are just inclined to view it in such a way.

 

[Winner]

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"

Ah, I thought we were talking about the Algerian War of Independence in the years 1954 - 1962.

 

[Winner]

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.

Assume whatever you want, I simply can't answer everything at once.

So in your opinion, any action that, according to the UN, falls under this definition, cannot be disputed? And if it is, you get thrown in jail?

If there is a consensus among the majority of historians that the genocide happened, than yes.

 

[warpus]

If there is a consensus among the majority of historians that the genocide happened, than yes.

consensus

majority

These are subjective terms.

So, basically, you support jail time when somebody denies an arbitrarily defined event.

This is wrong.

 

[Winner]

consensus

majority

These are subjective terms.

So, basically, you support jail time when somebody denies an arbitrarily defined event.

This is wrong.

No, I support jail for people who deny a genocide. Don't try to extrapolate it ad absurdum.

 

[Steph]

Ah, I thought we were talking about the Algerian War of Independence in the years 1954 - 1962.

In this war, there were "only" between 350,000 (French estimate) and 1,000,000 (Algerian estimate, although initial estimate by FLN was 300,000) Algerian war-related deaths

 

[warpus]

No, I support jail for people who deny a genocide. Don't try to extrapolate it ad absurdum.

That wasn't even a reductio ad absurdum argument. Do you even know what the term means? Sounds to me like you're trying to dismiss my point by throwing out an impressive sounding term, even though it has nothing to do with I said. It won't work.

I don't understand how you can support such a thing, considering that the definition of genocide is a purely a subjective and arbitrary thing.

Say that a U.N. panel of historians sits down and decides that the American massacre of native Americans is genocide. A lot of people in the U.S. are opposed to this and get thrown in jail.

2 years later the U.N. panel of historians is slightly different - and it changes its mind. The American massacre of native Americans is no longer a genocide.

The reaction of the people who are still in jail? "WTH?"

 

[Winner]

In this war, there were "only" between 350,000 (French estimate) and 1,000,000 (Algerian estimate, although initial estimate by FLN was 300,000) Algerian war-related deaths

History is quite bloody, isn't it? I still don't think it was genocide.

How many people died in France during the 2nd world war as a result of German reprisals?

The point is to prove, that genocide is a very strong word and should be used only for real genocides. If we use it for every war where civilians died, we'll in fact make it worthless.

 

[Kyriakos]

The best thing which can come out of this law, in my view, is the re-examination of the holocaust analogous law as well.

Such laws serve no good at all. It would have been a lot better to just ask Turkey to accept the genocide of Armenians if it is to enter the EU, and not have a law that prevents discussion of it.

 

[warpus]

I still don't think it was genocide.

"I don't think."

Don't you see how arbitrary this is? You think this, I think that, that guy over there thinks something else.

Imagine that a law like this is passed in most western countries, and some historian discovers a document proving that something most people agreed was genocide actually wasn't. How does this historian present his case? He couldn't - he'd be thrown in jail.

 

[Winner]

That wasn't even a reductio ad absurdum argument. Do you even know what the term means? Sounds to me like you're trying to dismiss my point by throwing out an impressive sounding term, even though it has nothing to do with I said. It won't work.

I don't understand how you can support such a thing, considering that the definition of genocide is a purely a subjective and arbitrary thing.

No, there is nothing subjective or arbitrary about that. Please don't relativize that.

Either you have the evidence necessary to prove something was a genocide, or you don't. I used words like "majority" and "consensus", because there are always some people who will say something different. For example, 99.9% of people know, that 9/11 attacks did happen, but I am sure there are some wackos who say it is all just government conspiracy. The same applies to Holocaust, Armenian genocide or any other genocide.

As I said previously, the term genocide is well defined. Only thing you need is the evidence to review the criteria.

Say that a U.N. panel of historians sits down and decides that the American massacre of native Americans is genocide. A lot of people in the U.S. are opposed to this and get thrown in jail.

If this U.N. panel of historians is backed by the majority of historians and US government decides, that denial of this "Indian genocide" is dangerous for the future of US democracy, then it's OK.

2 years later the U.N. panel of historians is slightly different - and it changes its mind. The American massacre of native Americans is no longer a genocide.

This couldn't happen if there war a true consensus of the majority of historians

 

[Winner]

"I don't think."

Don't you see how arbitrary this is? You think this, I think that, that guy over there thinks something else.

Imagine that a law like this is passed in most western countries, and some historian discovers a document proving that something most people agreed was genocide actually wasn't. How does this historian present his case? He couldn't - he'd be thrown in jail.

I am not a historian and I am not a lawmaker, so I can think whatever I want, it has no real effect.

 

[jprc]

What an interesting thread!!! It is not in a Doom/GTA forum that we can have this kind of debate, with very very little street fights!
Wahooo I am impressed, and I am learning a lot from ALL of you.

My work is to be in pre or post war countries. I was in Rwanda, Chad/Sudan, Kosovo at their dark hours, and I saw and learned ugly things...

If France did right in standing for Armenians, it is also correct to say that they do too much, or not enough, as it would be certainly more urgent for each country in this World to clean first in their house before complaining about others' skeletons.
Americans with their Indian genocideS...
French and most former colonialist countries with their colonies...
German ...
Why not Israel with Palestinians,
Talibans with xxx
etc, etc, etc. and is not Slavery also a "genocide", because why do you want to make bad what is only referring to ethnics or cultural groups??

Discussing about this list, and defining the meaning of Free Speech, Genocide and other words is so huge that this thread is going to be 100 pages big, and it would be nice because THIS is Free Speech!

Doing something for avoiding repetition of (bad) history can not be wrong.
Unfortunately for the French, I am afraid this came with a LOT of hypocrisy, as they start to chase electors for the next presidential election.

From the start, whoever kills or suggests killing is wrong. 1 or 1000000.
Let us suppress all religions and believes and we will reduce this number by half!

 

[Bad Player]

Are you an UN soldier or something that you were in "Rwanda, Chad/Sudan, Kosovo at their dark hours"?

 

[jprc]

No soldier. Anti corruption. World Bank, USAID, UNDP, the EU etc grant/loan (officially or unofficially) huge amounts of money to those countries for stabilizing or cooling down things when the heat is on. Funny to say, but corrupting warlords (!) is the best way for getting a peace agreement quickly, and it always backfires. And money is easily transformed into dirty money in those places...
(Sorry, it is off topic)

 

[warpus]

For example, 99.9% of people know, that 9/11 attacks did happen, but I am sure there are some wackos who say it is all just government conspiracy. The same applies to Holocaust, Armenian genocide or any other genocide.

We have videos of planes crashing into the WTC. AFAIK we don't have videos of Turkish troops killing over a million Aremenians over a period of 2 years. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but there are certainly different ways to interpret what happened and to assign a degree of "badness" to it. If this wasn't the case The Turks and the Armenians would have already agreed what actually happened and wouldn't be arguing about it today.

As I said previously, the term genocide is well defined. Only thing you need is the evidence to review the criteria.

It might be defined, but then again every single term in the English language is defined - even if people disagree about its true meaning.

Who reviews the criteria? A robot with no bias? How much evidence is needed? Who decides that?

If this U.N. panel of historians is backed by the majority of historians and US government decides, that denial of this "Indian genocide" is dangerous for the future of US democracy, then it's OK.

I don't think that the government should be allowed to be given a monopoly on truth.

This couldn't happen if there war a true consensus of the majority of historians

But if you were, you would be denied an opportunity to present a case for what you thought was the truth, in my hypothetical example.

 

[Bad Player]

No soldier. Anti corruption. World Bank, USAID, UNDP, the EU etc grant/loan (officially or unofficially) huge amounts of money to those countries for stabilizing or cooling down things when the heat is on. Funny to say, but corrupting warlords (!) is the best way for getting a peace agreement quickly, and it always backfires. And money is easily transformed into dirty money in those places...
(Sorry, it is off topic)

I think this thread topic is over anyway...

Are you an accountant or a lawyer or other? Does it backfire because the money gets spent on more guns which then get used the next time around? Why do these organisations continue to do this? Does your anti-corruption mandate allow you to stop/speak out against this practice?

 

[Kyriakos]

I was in Rwanda, Chad/Sudan, Kosovo at their dark hours

"Pleased to meet you; i hope you've guessed my name"