A dangerous law. It will soon be more difficult, even in this column, to defend the freedom of expression in Europe. If the French parliament pursues (there is still the vote in the Senate) the approval of the bill right to the end, making it a crime “to deny that Armenians were the victims of genocide”, it will become impossible to protest against attacks on the freedom of expression. What argument do we all use, in effect, when considering threats, insults, violence in the road in three recent cases, as inadmissible? I am referring to the “Danish cartoon” affair, the speech of the Pope quoting the opinion of a former father of the church speaking against the principle of a “holy war” and the article by a professor of a French university criticising the Muslim religion. Our argument was on each occasion the same: what was drawn, said or written does not interest us, we can even disapprove of it totally, but we affirm the freedom of anyone to express their opinions here in Europe.
What is banned in all Member States, in terms that are pretty similar, is incitement to violence, racial hatred or other examples of this genre. Even in these cases, it will be up to the courts to assess infringements. Europe cannot allow religious authorities, citizens' organisations, or a citizen in a personal capacity (whether they have the citizenship of a Member State or a third country) to impose their views by violence, attack and destroy property, even to the point of committing assassinations, to protest against words that have been said or written but which they find upsetting. How can this principle be defended if a Member State itself now considers the expression of this or that opinion as an offence?
Historical truth is not being questioned. The historical reality of the Armenian genocide is not being questioned. Several European countries and most historians now consider, with subtle differences expressed as to the cause, that this genocide was a reality. In 2001 France even approved a law which “publicly recognises that the Armenian genocide took place”. At a political level, “negationists” in the Netherlands have been excluded from electoral lists: in Germany, negationist demonstrations have been banned: in Belgium, during the recent council elections, political forces that included negationists ran into problems. But one step that should not be taken is to impose prison sentences, as the draft French bill does to “those who deny…the existence of the Armenian genocide of 1915”.
Have those who support this provision thought about the dangers it contains? Any historical fact could be “banned from debate” in the future, because freedom of expressing an opinion has never definitely been acquired, temptations to control are countless and a majority can always be found, momentarily, to limit this right. With the Danish cartoons we saw the delight with which a number of religious authorities from a number of religions threw themselves into the breach in coming out in favour of a general ban on any lack of respect expressed for religious beliefs or religious leaders. How many times would Voltaire have been found guilty under a law of this kind? And how many other writers, philosophers and thinkers would have been found guilty too? In the past a certain Pope wanted to burn Dante Alighieri, or at least burn his books after his death.
Welcome reactions. Fortunately, the seriousness of the affair has been widely understood at the European Parliament and many messages (from Mr Duff, Mr Cohn-Bendit etc) have been sent to Paris so that the Socialists withdraw support for this kind of bill. It has been demonstrated, in my opinion, through impeccable arguments, that the Armenians themselves have everything to lose with such a law. It is through freedom of debate that serious ideas and historical truths are asserted and it is in a non-conflictual context that Armenia and Turkey can re-establish their relations and built their collaboration.
The new Nobel prize-winner for literature, Orhan Pamuk has worthily defended the honour of the intellectual world. In his book he recognised the Armenian genocide and in so doing risked going to prison in Turkey. However, he describes the French law as “liberticidal” and incompatible with the traditions of France. Other intellectuals have proved to what point the law is absurd. Freedom of expression is measured by the facility for supporting aberrant positions: it is too easy to authorise opinions that conform to the view of the majority or government. Even in relation to the holocaust of the Jews, it would be more useful to ridicule the negationists and prove that they are stupid and liars than put them in prison. Benedict the Sixteenth was not the aggressor but rather the victim of an aggression: if the Pope does not even have the right to express himself on a point of his religious doctrine, what then? (FR)