Another nail in democracy’s coffin

It is one thing for countries to acknowledge crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide but it’s quite another for states to punish individuals with fines and imprisonment simply for challenging accepted historical fact.

If someone wants to believe Stalin was a saint or the US is covering up alien abductions then that’s their prerogative. The beauty of democracy is that it permits individuals to formulate their own ideas of the future and to form their own perceptions of the past without hindrance from authorities.

That said, it appears French parliamentarians don’t agree. France has long been seen as a European bastion of democratic principles, yet France’s lower house has approved a bill leaving anyone accused of denying that the murder of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915 was ‘genocide’ liable to be sentenced to one year in prison and fined €45,000 (Dh215,481).

The bill, which still has to be debated in the French senate, naturally hasn’t gone down too well in Ankara which refutes the genocide tag.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is incensed. He has recalled Turkey’s ambassador to France, announced the cancellation of joint Turkish-French military exercises and refused to allow France’s warplanes and warships to use Turkish ports. He is also mulling banning France’s air force from Turkish airspace.

While variously accusing the bill’s supporters of racism, discrimination, xenophobia and Islamophobia, Erdogan says French President Nicolas Sarkozy is courting the Armenian vote in the run-up to next year’s election.

In a tit-for-tat jab, Erdogan has accused France of committing genocide in Algeria. “In Algeria from 1945, an estimated 15 per cent of the population was massacred by the French. This is genocide,” he said. “The Algerians were burned en masse in ovens. They were martyred mercilessly.”

While I sympathise with the Armenians, who almost 100 years ago were victims of massacres and deportations at the hands of the Ottomans, this current row over semantics is nonsensical. Why have French MPs gone out of their way to antagonise Turkey when they would have been well aware of Turkish sensibilities?

EU membership

It’s known that France’s Sarkozy-led government is averse to predominantly Muslim Turkey joining the European Union Christian club and a fallout between Ankara and a core EU member country like France would hobble any chance of Turkey’s entry.

If that’s the MPs’ motive, then Erdogan has fallen right into their trap by overreacting. Alternatively, he no longer cares to hammer at Brussels’ door when the European economy looks unhealthy, especially when compared to Turkey’s that has grown 8 per cent this year, surpassing China and India.

Apart from stirring up a diplomatic hornet’s nest for no obvious good reason, my main gripe with the French bill is its implications for academics as well as on the climate of free speech. This represents yet another nail in France’s democratic coffin following the hijab-ban in schools and the ban on the burqa and niqab in public places that has led to women being housebound or liable to be hauled off to court.

Affront to freedom

Irrespective of one’s view on Islamic head/face coverings worn in the West or the desirability of assimilation, robbing anyone of their right to dress in accordance with their faith is an affront to personal and religious freedom.

The fact that last year, the French government began tearing down Roma encampments while using intimidation and inducements to expel over 8,000 gypsies—many of whom were legally in the country—to Romania, symbolises France’s swing to the political right. If Sarkozy is toppled by the far-right head of the National Front Party, Marine Le Pen, minority freedoms in France are doomed.

Returning to the Armenian genocide bill, the final problem I have with this—and all those like it—rests in its selectivity. Many countries have been guilty of genocide. The Native American Indians didn’t all but disappear by magic. Australia’s Aboriginals didn’t just hand over their land and one million of their children to white settlers out of their free will.

And, yes, by some accounts the French were guilty of murdering a million or more Algerians, a number that roughly corresponds to the Armenian loss of life.

Like the Turks, the French have always denied committing genocide. What’s that about people in glass houses!

Isn’t it ridiculous that when people in France are free to analyse all kinds of massacres and genocides throughout history and to reach any conclusions they deem appropriate, they can be punished for questioning the existence of crimes upon which Nazis were convicted at Nuremberg and, if the new law is passed by the senate, will not be allowed to deny the ‘Armenian genocide’?

Why the cherry picking? If these kinds of laws are to exist they should be applicable to every act of genocide throughout history. Anything less leaves the motives of politicians open to question. Laws against incitement to racism or bigotry are essential in any society, but laws that bind people’s minds are more suited to Pyongyang than Paris, whose legendary free spirit and laissez-faire atmosphere are wearing dangerously thin.

Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.