PDA

View Full Version : Deny Armenian Holocaust, Get a Year in Prison



Bravo
10-13-2006, 07:52 PM
The French Parliament on thursday adopted a controversial law introducing imprisonment and monetary fines to anyone denying the genocide of Armenians by Ottomon Turks in the early 20th century. ...
Although it still needs to be examined by the Senate before being enforced, the law foresees prison terms of up to 1 year and fines of up to 45,000 Euro for the denial of the Armenian genocide.

http://www.bianet.org/2006/10/01_eng/news86492.htm

is it really logical to campaign for free speech, as france repeatedly does, and then pass a law that carries a year imprisonment for denying a disputed historical event?

whether or not the genocide occurred (it very well mightve been (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6045182.stm)), i just dont understand how some countries have laws that stifle discourse, but still claim to be a beacon for freedom.

what say you? are there certain historical events so sacred that any1 denying them deserves imprisonment?

LloydBrown
10-13-2006, 07:59 PM
That's not uncommon in Europe. In practically every European country denying the Holocaust gets you serious jail time.

blacbird
10-13-2006, 08:32 PM
In Turkey, you can get serious prison time for affirming the Armenian Holocaust. Since Turkey wants to join the EU, discussions between the Turks and the French ought to be pretty amusing.

caw.

bloemmarc
10-14-2006, 01:51 AM
Then are they condemning the words of the phycho from Iran.

Bravo
10-14-2006, 02:53 AM
In Turkey, you can get serious prison time for affirming the Armenian Holocaust. Since Turkey wants to join the EU, discussions between the Turks and the French ought to be pretty amusing.

caw.

good point and something they should fix.

but i dont recall turkey lecturing on free speech.

blacbird
10-14-2006, 03:17 AM
good point and something they should fix.

but i dont recall turkey lecturing on free speech.

For clarification, I had no intent of justifying the French.

caw.

BradyH1861
10-14-2006, 04:05 AM
I had no intent of justifying the French.

caw.

I too do not intend to justify the French.


Brady

Forbidden Snowflake
10-14-2006, 04:21 AM
I think it's as much a crime to say a horrible crime has never happened as actually committing the crime.

So, I agree with Europe about prosecuting Holocaust deniers.

But if the Armenian Holocaust is disputed (I didn't know it was), then that's wrong.

blacbird
10-14-2006, 08:13 AM
But if the Armenian Holocaust is disputed (I didn't know it was), then that's wrong.

Not really. Only in Turkey.

caw.

Bravo
10-14-2006, 08:17 AM
Not really. Only in Turkey.

caw.


i dont really even see why turkey is so adamant about it. it occurred before the nation was even born, during the last years of the ottomon empire.

they really shouldnt be blamed for the sins of a decaying government.

but i dont think its fair to act as if there is only one side to it either. the armenians w/in the ottomon empire sided w/ the russians at the height of WWI.

that is not the same thing as civilians massacred during WWII b/c they were jew, gypsie, or "undesirable".

SC Harrison
10-14-2006, 09:18 AM
but i dont think its fair to act as if there is only one side to it either. the armenians w/in the ottomon empire sided w/ the russians at the height of WWI.

that is not the same thing as civilians massacred during WWII b/c they were jew, gypsie, or "undesirable".

Regardless of acts committed during war (or peace, for that matter), when a group is targeted for forceful relocation and execution based on ethnicity, it is genocide, period. There are no possible mitigating factors in this equation, but we always try to figure out the why, even while innocents are dying.

Forbidden Snowflake
10-14-2006, 04:52 PM
Not really. Only in Turkey.

caw.

Well, that's what I thought.

Bravo
10-14-2006, 04:54 PM
I think it's as much a crime to say a horrible crime has never happened as actually committing the crime.


there's no way you actually believe that.

kikazaru
10-14-2006, 05:35 PM
The right of free speech is a cornerstone of civilized society, yet there is also such a thing as abusing the privilege. Genocides are an atrocity committed not only against one particular group of people, but against humanity. To deliberately spread lies, to deliberately ignore facts, is to deliberately spread hate. Society then has to weigh the right of one person's individual right to spread hate and perhaps cause social unrest, under the guise of free speech, against the rights of the rest of the population to live peacefully.

There are libel and slander laws in place and used against writers who tell verifiable falsehoods against individuals, I don't think that this is much different. By denying the holocaust, it not only is a slap in the face to those who lost relatives in it, it dehumanizes the dead, and then minimizes the importance of such event for all of humanity.

Forbidden Snowflake
10-14-2006, 06:19 PM
there's no way you actually believe that.

Oh, Bravo, you should be able to see in what way I mean it.

I will quote kikazaru:


There are libel and slander laws in place and used against writers who tell verifiable falsehoods against individuals, I don't think that this is much different. By denying the holocaust, it not only is a slap in the face to those who lost relatives in it, it dehumanizes the dead, and then minimizes the importance of such event for all of humanity.

I find that horrible. And in a certain way just as horrible as the crime itself. It lacks every respect, every bit of humanity, it takes away the last shred of dignity. And that is horrifying.

Of course the crime itself is worst. I hope you get what I mean.

Bravo
10-14-2006, 06:20 PM
Of course the crime itself is worst. I hope you get what I mean.

i do now.

thank you

SC Harrison
10-14-2006, 09:46 PM
If we allow ourselves to forget these horrors, we will be less likely to recognize future horrors when they happen.

From that perspective, someone who denies a past genocide could be facilitating a future one, so I don't see this as a straight-up freedom of speech issue.

English Dave
10-14-2006, 09:48 PM
I always think it is dangerous for Governments to decide what can and can't be spoken about.

However in the UK I think it is possibly as balanced as it could be under the circumstances.

For example we have no 'holocaust denial' law. But we do have laws against incitement to racial or religious hatred.

The key word is incitement. You can have any opinion you like and say it to who you like but if it appears that the circumstances are such that these views are designed to create hatred then you can be arrested.

Of course then there is the problem of who makes that decision. But that's another thread! :)

Bravo
10-14-2006, 10:28 PM
If we allow ourselves to forget these horrors, we will be less likely to recognize future horrors when they happen.

From that perspective, someone who denies a past genocide could be facilitating a future one, so I don't see this as a straight-up freedom of speech issue.

which might make sense idealistically, but it's really just grandstanding.

how many genocides have we let happen after the Nazis? how many times have we said since then: "never again".

it's really kind of pathetic, in all honesty, and its just this clever way of pretending as if we're somehow more enlightened and humane than the rest of the world. it helps us sleep at night knowing that we condemned those atrocities of yesteryear.

yeah, well what about sudan? what about congo? or chechnya?right here right now, what's being done about that?

what happened with rwanda or bosnia or guatamela?

and on and on and on.

and maybe 20 years from now, some enlightened western nation will show the world that it condemned those atrocities....while ignoring the genocide happening right then and there - not to mention actually arming and funding the aggressor.


:Shrug:

English Dave
10-15-2006, 12:43 AM
and maybe 20 years from now, some enlightened western nation will show the world that it condemned those atrocities....while ignoring the genocide happening right then and there - not to mention actually arming and funding the aggressor.


:Shrug:
Or an Arab nation?

C'mon Bravo.

Bravo
10-15-2006, 01:20 AM
Or an Arab nation?

C'mon Bravo.

huh?

i honestly dont see what youre getting at.

are you really comparing our standards of free speech and/or our position on human rights w/ the arab world?

youll have to clarify.

but im just tired of this patronizing notion where we should go teach the world how to become like us, while conveniently excusing the genocides we ourselves have commited.

only in france can they say brutally killing 1.5m algerians was just a "mistake" but then still claim to be a champion of human rights. :rolleyes:

English Dave
10-15-2006, 01:27 AM
No. I'm saying the repression of free speech is generally a bad thing. Because most Western democracies have the power of the vote. Something that depends on free speech. When anyone dictates free speech is what I say it is, that is no longer democracy.

Something that I personally think is somewhat lacking in much of the Arab world.

I'm not really for 'Vote for me or I'll kill you'

Bravo
10-15-2006, 01:39 AM
i was wrong.
france never even said it was a mistake (i thought i saw that before). how's this for hypocrisy, re: algeria:

However France has never accepted its responsibility in tortures and massacres in Algeria. Paris says that the past should be left to historians.
French President Jacques Chirac, upon harsh reactions to the law encouraging the good sides of the French colonial history, made the statement, "Writing history is the job of the historians, not of the laws." Writing history is the job of the historians" According to Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, "speaking about the past or writing history is not the job of the parliament."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusations_of_French_genocide_against_Algerians


No. I'm saying the repression of free speech is generally a bad thing. Because most Western democracies have the power of the vote. Something that depends on free speech. When anyone dictates free speech is what I say it is, that is no longer democracy.
Something that I personally think is somewhat lacking in much of the Arab world.
okay. and i agree w your earlier statement that there can be laws against incitement. i just dont see the relevance for bringing up arab nations here.
im talking specifically about 2 things:
1) freedom of speech w/ regards to history
2) and the west's patronizing tone to the 3rd world while denying it's own atrocities and it's role in the atrocities happening right here and now.


but hey. at least i can openly complain about these things.


we still got that, right? even w/ the patriot act...?

English Dave
10-15-2006, 01:49 AM
i
okay. and i agree w your earlier statement that there can be laws against incitement. i just dont see the relevance for bringing up arab nations here.
im talking specifically about 2 things:
1) freedom of speech w/ regards to history
2) and the west's patronizing tone to the 3rd world while denying it's own atrocities and it's role in the atrocities happening right here and now.
but hey. at least i can openly complain about these things.
we still got that, right? even w/ the patriot act...right?


Because Number 2 [he he he] you are confusing or deliberately obfuscating a conflict between The West and Islam. Something I've never seen you do to this point?

Bravo
10-15-2006, 03:16 AM
Because Number 2 [he he he] you are confusing or deliberately obfuscating a conflict between The West and Islam. Something I've never seen you do to this point?

nope. youre reading too much into this.

i never used to make fun of france, but every once in awhile, i cant help but laugh at their blatant hypocrisy.

as an englishman, im sure you understand where im coming from. :)

English Dave
10-15-2006, 03:47 AM
nope. youre reading too much into this.



Maybe. But I can't shake the feeling you're my mate who seduced my sister.

You have to prove yourself. I think in this thread you were far less clever than you usually are.

Subtext works. ;)

Bravo
10-15-2006, 04:37 AM
maybe its my avatar.

or youre lack of one.

billythrilly7th
10-15-2006, 04:59 AM
I'm just amazed by how some people pick and choose which genocides and mass murders they want to stop.

Stop Hussein in Iraq? = no!
Stop Darfur? = yea!

Luckily, when I take over, I will have the Titans to stop genocide and mass murder all over this planet without waiting for permission from the impotent United Nations who has sat by as millions of people are slaughtered across the globe.

Thank you.

Vote Thrilly/Clary in 2024
"We're putting the NO in geNOcide."



("GeNOcide" has been trademarked and is available for licensing by T-Shirt companies. Contact Thrilly Industries at billythrilly7@aol.com for more info. Thank you.)

SC Harrison
10-15-2006, 06:25 AM
which might make sense idealistically, but it's really just grandstanding.

how many genocides have we let happen after the Nazis? how many times have we said since then: "never again".

it's really kind of pathetic, in all honesty, and its just this clever way of pretending as if we're somehow more enlightened and humane than the rest of the world. it helps us sleep at night knowing that we condemned those atrocities of yesteryear.

yeah, well what about sudan? what about congo? or chechnya?right here right now, what's being done about that?

what happened with rwanda or bosnia or guatamela?

and on and on and on.

and maybe 20 years from now, some enlightened western nation will show the world that it condemned those atrocities....while ignoring the genocide happening right then and there - not to mention actually arming and funding the aggressor.


:Shrug:

Please read my post #11, which was in response to your inference that what happened to the Armenians was somehow less unjust (?) than the Holocaust because they sided with the Russians.

And my statement, ...we always try to figure out the why, even while innocents are dying.

I know you haven't ignored all of my previous posting, so you know how I feel about the way we've helped militarize the world, and how we're still doing it, which guarantees future oppression and attempted genocides.

In my opinion, we should take steps whenever any group of civilians become the target of armed oppression. And every time we have to do it without help from the U.N., we should give them less money to cover our costs. Maybe then they would step up and represent, right?

Bravo
10-15-2006, 06:50 AM
sc i read your previous post, & i actually completely agreed w it.

it really isnt whether it happened or not, that's not even a real issue for me. i understand why armenians would want some sort of justice for those crimes.

but's it's one thing to label it a genocide (which is already overstepping a government's bounds) and it's quite another to stifle any alternative views of the event.

so now, if any1 questions the number of armenians killed, would they be subject to prison terms? would it be illegal for some1 to show how many of them were combatants and how many of them were innocent civilians?

these kinds of laws are very suspect and are usually only politically motivated (in this case, there are many armenians w/in france who pushed for it and france is decidedly against turkey's EU aspirations).

and as i said, it's also very ironic for a nation like france to condemn any nation for an 80 year old act of genocide when it refuses to come to terms w it's own brutal colonial history and atrocities.

Bravo
10-15-2006, 06:52 AM
I'm just amazed by how some people pick and choose which genocides and mass murders they want to stop.

Stop Hussein in Iraq? = no!
Stop Darfur? = yea!



since i dont have the time or inclination to get into this w/ billy, can some1 please tell him that we werent stopping a genocide when we invaded.

billythrilly7th
10-15-2006, 07:18 AM
since i dont have the time or inclination to get into this w/ billy, can some1 please tell him that we werent stopping a genocide when we invaded.

no need to get into it...you're right...

https://www.protestwarrior.com/store/files/master/saddam.jpg

Bravo
10-15-2006, 07:24 AM
you can just tell me who he was massacaring when we came in and we'll call it a day.

thank you

SC Harrison
10-15-2006, 07:43 AM
these kinds of laws are very suspect and are usually only politically motivated (in this case, there are many armenians w/in france who pushed for it and france is decidedly against turkey's EU aspirations).



The Armenians pushing for it probably gave them the ideal excuse to pass the law, which will also please an unfortunately high number of French citizens who have allowed their racial phobias to paint pictures of droves of Turks sweeping into their country once membership is granted.

But...Turkey has more than just this issue working against it. Their treatment of over 20% of their population (the Kurds) is, in my book, much more important than their refusal to admit to human rights violations way back when.

billythrilly7th
10-15-2006, 07:47 AM
you can just tell me who he was massacaring when we came in and we'll call it a day.

thank you

his pyschopath son would torture the soccer team...that's enough for me to call in the Titans.

And just because he wasn't currently massacring people....

I quote Dr. Phil...

"The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."

People like you....

"Let's give him another chance."

People like me....

"Take him out. Take out every dictator, rebel leader, opressive murderous regime on planet earth that we can without causing a nuclear winter, 'because until we are all free, none of us are free.'**"

**William H. Thrilly 7th
1/22/25







ETA: Thank you and good night.

Bravo
10-15-2006, 07:48 AM
But...Turkey has more than just this issue working against it. Their treatment of over 20% of their population (the Kurds) is, in my book, much more important than their refusal to admit to human rights violations way back when.

agreed.

oswann
10-16-2006, 09:50 AM
The Armenians pushing for it probably gave them the ideal excuse to pass the law, which will also please an unfortunately high number of French citizens who have allowed their racial phobias to paint pictures of droves of Turks sweeping into their country once membership is granted.

But...Turkey has more than just this issue working against it. Their treatment of over 20% of their population (the Kurds) is, in my book, much more important than their refusal to admit to human rights violations way back when.

This is close, although I'm not sure the Armenians have much push. France is playing the lesson-giver again, this is a national pastime, and probably hoping the wave of anti-Turk feeling about coming into Europe will result in a few brownie points at election time (don't forget there are elections here in the spring). Phillipe Douste-Blazy flying into Lebanon to give the impression that he was going to solve the problems there was probably slightly more comical, but maybe that's just my sense of humor.


Os.

SC Harrison
10-16-2006, 05:50 PM
This is close, although I'm not sure the Armenians have much push. France is playing the lesson-giver again, this is a national pastime, and probably hoping the wave of anti-Turk feeling about coming into Europe will result in a few brownie points at election time (don't forget there are elections here in the spring). Phillipe Douste-Blazy flying into Lebanon to give the impression that he was going to solve the problems there was probably slightly more comical, but maybe that's just my sense of humor.


Os.

Dude, we're having an election in about three weeks, and I've never seen so much venom and history-revising. That's all right, though. The Senate and the House have great websites, and you can see who voted for what. :)