|
Négationnisme: false allegations or limitation of freedom of expression?
|
|
|
By:
|
five123
|
|
Mood:
|
Musical
|
|
Date:
|
02/21/2012 18:03:30
|
|
Music:
|
None
|
|
|
http://www.karenmillendressesmall.comThe French parliament has just penalize the denial of genocide officially recognized by France, which is the case of the genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. And there are voices, particularly in Turkey, to denounce the damages brought to the principles of democratic societies, since the Act affects, or even limit, the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
It underlines the fact that the Turkish positions do not constitute a denial of the reality of genocide, but rather an expression of opinion, an explanation of the facts. This argument is based in particular on the repeated request of Turkey to establish a historical commission, charged to clarify the events.
Yet, regardless of whether the alleged lack of historical clarity is itself a central element of revisionist thinking, as historians have long provided evidence of the genocide, the legal point of view goes beyond the question the historical factuality of the genocide. Considering the question of the legitimacy of the French decision regarding the standard of freedom of expression, it is to check whether there is also a protection of public opinion where it refers to freedom of opinion . The main problem lies in the fact that there is precisely no such protection of the public. Because on the one hand, the denial that the deportation and extermination of Armenians from 1915 to 1916 were a deliberate policy of the Young Turk regime is a policy objective of the Turkish Republic-reaching consequences, including legal, because the persistence of the historical facticity of genocide can lead to criminal prosecution. On the other hand, for European states arises the need to act as the Turkish Republic has succeeded over the last hundred years,karen millen to consider any statement following a European state as an insult to Turkey and an interference its internal affairs.
The French decision to penalize the denial of the Armenian genocide is not used to see a historical fact, but protects the historical knowledge on the evidence of genocide. He does not judge the story, but protects a historical reality. Such thinking is not foreign to German law, if we consider for example the legal basis for the criminalization of Holocaust denial in Germany (Section 130 paragraph 3 of the Penal Code).
Thus, the German Constitutional Court was particularly interested in the issue of violation of fundamental right of freedom of expression. The Court distinguished between opinions and factual assertions, considering that the latter can not be protected if they allow the formation of an opinion. The Court held that a democracy has in principle no interest in protecting erroneous factual assertions, because they do not contribute to the formation of opinion within society. The Constitutional Court thus held in its judgment of 13 April 1994 that the criminalization of Holocaust denial does not violate freedom of expression as a statement as far from the truth is not an opinion within the meaning of the Constitution.
Yet even if this is addressed differently than does the German Constitutional Court, the question about the constitutional justification for an attack on freedom of expression remains. One must weigh the pros and cons, that is to say one side the alleged infringement of a fundamental right and the other violation or even denial, of human rights victims. Again, it may be useful to consider the German law on the criminalization of Holocaust. The focus of the legislation is the protection of victims against defamation and insult to the memory of the deceased and their descendants (paragraph 189 of the Penal Code).
We must therefore think about how to defend themselves against such use of the freedoms that denies or threatens the fundamental European values. The denial of the most serious crimes, like crimes against humanity, penalized by international law, and the insult of victims, are undeniably party. This corresponds to Article 1, paragraph 1c of the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on the fight against certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, which encourages the criminalization of "condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide".
The decision to penalize Holocaust denial is not a precept limiting historians and sanctioning research. The argument that such a law would undermine the freedom of research is incorrect. A free inquiry into the crimes of genocide and work on implementation structures is possible only when recognition and release of the issue of "yes" and "no" was held and there or a negation represents more obstacle in order to concentrate entirely on research. Thus, detailed research on the Holocaust was made possible only because the reality of this event as a crime against humanity and genocide has never been questioned. The denial of genocide, especially when it comes from a state for political-strategic reasons and when imposed abroad, prevents research and argumentation leads to simplifications, karen millen dressesin part because a misunderstanding of the facts. This shows clearly in the case of the massacre of Armenians denied for over 95 years by the perpetrators and subsequent generations.
A law like that which was adopted in France and opened a legal space to protect the historical knowledge of the crime of genocide, to allow a thorough search of the crime, and to avoid continuation of such a policy. For, beyond the challenge of history, the denial of genocide means not wanting to abstention as a political force in the present and future. Turkish denial is not simply the denial of the dark pages of history. It is forming a political strategy for almost a hundred years the basis of a policy: it is an integral part of the formative process of a Turkish national identity.
In this context, repression of the memory work on his own past makes possible a particularly repressive policies towards minorities and a violation of human rights in Turkey. But this is not only in Turkey that denial is the basis of a policy - it is also a founding element of historical consciousness and the political orientation of many French and European citizens of Turkish origin, whose positions policies violate the rights of the descendants of the survivors, who have found refuge in France. MPs and senators were aware, as shown in prior debates, that the denial of genocide can not be considered mere expression of opinion, but such denials, accompanied by false claims, are political in nature Strategic and open or perpetuate political options for action. MPs knew they were going to give a political response to a political strategy of denial.
Consistently, they exceeded the specific law existed for some years on the criminalization of Holocaust denial, to pass a general law, in which the denial of crimes against humanity beyond the particular cases is punishable. With regard to discussions on the French decision, it is important to remember that without a clear position against the active negation of serious crimes against humanity, there is a risk of prejudicing the fundamental European values. The fight against Holocaust denial is now a scientifically and humanly important task, and it also constitutes a central aspect in considering the development of preventive strategies. Because genocide is a crime that is not primarily done to create a reality for generation of authors, so many more for future generations and their future.
This is why we need to integrate the companies responsible heirs of both the work on memory in the social and political responsibility.karen millen sale The famous philosopher of German law Bernhard Schlink has highlighted, in terms of legal history, that anyone belonging to a solidarity with the writers who maintains this affiliation after the crime is guilty, and by denying the act he tries to free himself of his guilt. In this sense, the French decision must be considered to indicate.
|
|
