Turkey gets in a huff over Genocide Bill

BlaasForRafa

The turks have got in high dudgeon about France passing a bill criminalising the denial of the Armenian genocide during the first world war. They have withdrawn their ambassador from Paris and applied various other diplomatic restrictions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16306376

Now, I realise that criminalising holocaust denial is a divisive subject and there are free speech implications etc but in my opinion its about bloody time, the Turks did commit genocide during the first world war and their refusal to come to terms with that, deal with it in an open and honest way and apologise for it is part of the reason why Turkey will have a hard time getting into the EU (if they still want to that is)

The turks are well able to dish out criticism to other countries but react in a disproportionate way when they are criticised.

I have heard it said that Sarkozy is just trying to appeal to french-armenian voters coming up to the french election but whatever the reason I think its still welcome. Should Ireland adopt a similar bill regarding the Armenian Genocide?

archer22

The French are not squeaky clean in that regard either.Also perhaps all genocides should be recognised such as the genocide of the native Americans and the genocide of millions of Germans after world war two.Indeed the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians which France is condoning and ironically Turkey is objecting to.

Nodin

I've never understood why they still have such a spasm over this. There was a similar bout of foot stamping when some US congress panel recognised the event a while back.

jam_mac_jam

Why is this France's business what they call it. They should have a look back at their own contribution to genocide and worry about Algeria and the Jews before they go pointing fingers.

Nodin

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Why is this France's business what they call it. They should have a look back at their own contribution to genocide and worry about Algeria and the Jews before they go pointing fingers.

Given the fact that "no-one is innocent" does that mean the whole world has to stay quiet on any and every event?

archer22

Nodin wrote: »

Given the fact that "no-one is innocent" does that mean the whole world has to stay quiet on any and every event?

No but there should not be cherry picking of genocides either..usually for political reasons.

jam_mac_jam

Nodin wrote: »

Given the fact that "no-one is innocent" does that mean the whole world has to stay quiet on any and every event?

Nope, It means that maybe France should address their own crimes before worrying about hundred year old ones. There are plenty of countries that are innocent of genocide. If this was coming from Germany you could perhaps say they have addressed their own history and said sorry but not in the case of France.

It means that we should have free speech to say something is genocide or not genocide and there are plenty of other ones for France to worry about, why this one?

Nodin

archer22 wrote: »

No but there should not be cherry picking of genocides either..usually for political reasons.

If everybody held off till there was universal recognition of all wrong doing, it'd be a long long wait.

Nodin

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Nope, It means that maybe France should address their own crimes before worrying about hundred year old ones. There are plenty of countries that are innocent of genocide. If this was coming from Germany you could perhaps say they have addressed their own history and said sorry but not in the case of France.

It means that we should have free speech to say something is genocide or not genocide and there are plenty of other ones for France to worry about, why this one?

Why not?

wes

It seems like a political move on the part of France, as it seem to be about votes. Also, not the biggest fan of denial laws, as I believe people have every right to be delusional idiots if they so choose.

Having said that Turkey, should accept what the Ottoman empire did, as its pretty well established by some of its own historians.

Cardinal Richelieu

wes wrote: »

It seems like a political move on the part of France, as it seem to be about votes. Also, not the biggest fan of denial laws, as I believe people have every right to be delusional idiots if they so choose.

Having said that Turkey, should accept what the Ottoman empire did, as its pretty well established by some of its own historians.

I understand that it was passed by a half empty house.

Turkey recently did hold its hand up for the Dersim massacre of the Alevi largely due to comments made by Assad.

Wiki

On 23 November 2011, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan apologised on behalf of the state for the Dersim massacre during a televised meeting of his party in Ankara. His comments were pointedly directed at opposition leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu (himself an Alevi). Erdogan reminded his audience that Kılıçdaroğlu's party, the CHP, had been in power at the time of the massacre, then the only political party in Turkey.[1] He described the massacre as "one of the most tragic events of our near history" saying that, whilst some sought to justify it as a legitimate response to events on the ground, it was in reality "an operation which was planned step by step".[13]
There was speculation in the Turkish press that Erdoğan's apology might be a prelude to apologies for other events in Turkish history, and that his comments may have been intended to defend against allegations of hypocrisy in his criticism of human rights abuses by Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.[14]

the_antagonist

Some of the posters on this thread seem confused. This issue isn't about official recognition of the Armenian Genocide, which would also have rubbed Turkey the wrong way as I believe happened when the Americans did so, it is about the criminalisation of denial of the genocide. Completely different things.

In essence this is criminalising the act of having a different point of view to what the government decides. Whether or not that view is right, wrong or plain stupid is not the point. The point is that this is an attack on free speech and moreover it's politics having the potential to effect academics.

Right now in France it is illegal to deny the holocaust and, following this announcement, the Armenian genocide. The vast majority of people would never even think of doing any such thing and in the case of the two examples above this is not an issue for 95+% of people.

But what this has done is open the door to allow the government to curtail views which they, or the majority of a country, don't agree with. The problem with this is just because the majority take one view does not mean that view is correct.

Take the blasphemy laws in Pakistan for example. The majority (seem to) agree that any criticism of Islam should be illegal.

Voltaire is credited with saying; "Je ne suis pas d'accord avec un mot de ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour votre droit de le dire" - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Once you start silencing voices you put all voices in danger. Once you take away the right of anyone to speak, no matter how plainly wrong they are, you endanger your own right to speak.

Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it's freedom for all.

Einhard

the_antagonist wrote: »

Some of the posters on this thread seem confused. This issue isn't about official recognition of the Armenian Genocide, which would also have rubbed Turkey the wrong way as I believe happened when the Americans did so, it is about the criminalisation of denial of the genocide. Completely different things.

In essence this is criminalising the act of having a different point of view to what the government decides. Whether or not that view is right, wrong or plain stupid is not the point. The point is that this is an attack on free speech and moreover it's politics having the potential to effect academics.

Right now in France it is illegal to deny the holocaust and, following this announcement, the Armenian genocide. The vast majority of people would never even think of doing any such thing and in the case of the two examples above this is not an issue for 95+% of people.

But what this has done is open the door to allow the government to curtail views which they, or the majority of a country, don't agree with. The problem with this is just because the majority take one view does not mean that view is correct.

Take the blasphemy laws in Pakistan for example. The majority (seem to) agree that any criticism of Islam should be illegal.

Voltaire is credited with saying; "Je ne suis pas d'accord avec un mot de ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour votre droit de le dire" - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Once you start silencing voices you put all voices in danger. Once you take away the right of anyone to speak, no matter how plainly wrong they are, you endanger your own right to speak.

Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it's freedom for all.

Excellent post. It's easy to support freedom of speech when one agrees with what's being said. I think it's ironic that the likes of France and Germany seek to curtail the potential popularity of fascists by invoking laws which are, in themselves, fascistic. Freedom of speech should apply to everyone, not just fellow ideological travellers.

Manach

So if it is now criminal to deny genocide, I'm sure the French Republic next Bastille day celebration might have a mention of the Vendee revolt.

RichieC

they must have feck all to do in the french parliment...

Cardinal Richelieu

RichieC wrote: »

they must have feck all to do in the french parliment...

Well there parliament is open while ours is on holidays.:D I suspect the individually that set the bill comes from a constituency with a substantial Armenian community.

Killer Pigeon

The Israelis give out all the time when they come under firing about conducting ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

smurgen

the_antagonist wrote: »

Some of the posters on this thread seem confused. This issue isn't about official recognition of the Armenian Genocide, which would also have rubbed Turkey the wrong way as I believe happened when the Americans did so, it is about the criminalisation of denial of the genocide. Completely different things.

In essence this is criminalising the act of having a different point of view to what the government decides. Whether or not that view is right, wrong or plain stupid is not the point. The point is that this is an attack on free speech and moreover it's politics having the potential to effect academics.

Right now in France it is illegal to deny the holocaust and, following this announcement, the Armenian genocide. The vast majority of people would never even think of doing any such thing and in the case of the two examples above this is not an issue for 95+% of people.

But what this has done is open the door to allow the government to curtail views which they, or the majority of a country, don't agree with. The problem with this is just because the majority take one view does not mean that view is correct.

Take the blasphemy laws in Pakistan for example. The majority (seem to) agree that any criticism of Islam should be illegal.

Voltaire is credited with saying; "Je ne suis pas d'accord avec un mot de ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour votre droit de le dire" - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Once you start silencing voices you put all voices in danger. Once you take away the right of anyone to speak, no matter how plainly wrong they are, you endanger your own right to speak.

Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it's freedom for all.

one of the posts of the year in my opinion. The Turks did commit genocide and that should be recognised imo, however I do think the criminalistation of its denial would be a step in the wrong direction.

RandomName2

the_antagonist wrote: »

Some of the posters on this thread seem confused. This issue isn't about official recognition of the Armenian Genocide, which would also have rubbed Turkey the wrong way as I believe happened when the Americans did so, it is about the criminalisation of denial of the genocide. Completely different things.

I don't think it should be illegal to say that either the holocaust or armenian genoicide did or did not happen: but I wonder at Turkey still being so prickly about the whole subject. In a time when they are making enemies of their neighbours (like Syria, Israel and Iraq) it is interesting that they don't have any qualms about recalling their ambassadors from western countries over minor (historical) issues such as this!

SamHarris

the_antagonist wrote: »

Some of the posters on this thread seem confused. This issue isn't about official recognition of the Armenian Genocide, which would also have rubbed Turkey the wrong way as I believe happened when the Americans did so, it is about the criminalisation of denial of the genocide. Completely different things.

In essence this is criminalising the act of having a different point of view to what the government decides. Whether or not that view is right, wrong or plain stupid is not the point. The point is that this is an attack on free speech and moreover it's politics having the potential to effect academics.

Right now in France it is illegal to deny the holocaust and, following this announcement, the Armenian genocide. The vast majority of people would never even think of doing any such thing and in the case of the two examples above this is not an issue for 95+% of people.

But what this has done is open the door to allow the government to curtail views which they, or the majority of a country, don't agree with. The problem with this is just because the majority take one view does not mean that view is correct.

Take the blasphemy laws in Pakistan for example. The majority (seem to) agree that any criticism of Islam should be illegal.

Voltaire is credited with saying; "Je ne suis pas d'accord avec un mot de ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour votre droit de le dire" - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Once you start silencing voices you put all voices in danger. Once you take away the right of anyone to speak, no matter how plainly wrong they are, you endanger your own right to speak.

Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it's freedom for all.

I can assure you that is not why the Turks are upset. That may be an important issue, but with regard to Turkeys reaction is a complete red herring. Their reaction can and should be discussed without the state of French freedom of speech becoming the issue. If you wish to begin a thread about that, then you should.

It is very easy to seperate both discussions, and why should they not be seperate? This thread concerns Turkeys continued intransgience when confronted with it's own imperial past. You honestly can't see how French freedoms can be discussed as a seperate issue?

If this was a junior cert question - "Discuss turkey's reaction to the new French law" and a 12 year old began writing about French freedoms, or lack thereof in this regard - even to that low standard - the student would be pulled up for not addressing the question.

SamHarris

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The Israelis give out all the time when they come under firing about conducting ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

Wow. Really? Well then!

Sunnyisland

Turkey gets in a huff over Genocide Bill


I thought just for a sec this had something to do with christmas turkeys :o:pac:

BlaasForRafa

realies wrote: »

Turkey gets in a huff over Genocide Bill


I thought just for a sec this had something to do with christmas turkeys :o:pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU

the_antagonist

SamHarris wrote: »

I can assure you that is not why the Turks are upset. That may be an important issue, but with regard to Turkeys reaction is a complete red herring. Their reaction can and should be discussed without the state of French freedom of speech becoming the issue. If you wish to begin a thread about that, then you should.

I realise now how badly I phrased that. I meant that the issue we should be discussing, in my opinion, is the question of freedom of speech.

I said that the posters here seemed confused because the first few posts apart from the OP spoke about recognition of the genocide which is very different from making a law against denial of that genocide.

It is very easy to seperate both discussions, and why should they not be seperate? This thread concerns Turkeys continued intransgience when confronted with it's own imperial past. You honestly can't see how French freedoms can be discussed as a seperate issue?

I can of course, but I don't see why they should be seperated. Turkey getting annoyed at this is secondary to the effect this bill has on freedom of speech from my perspective and that's the most important part of the article to me and I believe to others.

If this was a junior cert question - "Discuss turkey's reaction to the new French law" and a 12 year old began writing about French freedoms, or lack thereof in this regard - even to that low standard - the student would be pulled up for not addressing the question.

Of course. But the thread title says no such thing. The title of the thread states "Turkey gets in a huff over Genocide Bill" and I am also 'in a huff' over the genocide bill, just not for the same reasons the Turks are.