Law & Society Blog

The French parliament has passed a law, making it a criminal offense to deny the Armenian Genocide of 1915-17, as the BBC reports:

The bill, which provides for a year in jail and a heavy fine, still needs approval from the Senate and president.

Turkey called the decision a “serious blow” to relations with France. It has already threatened economic sanctions.

Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915 - a claim strongly denied by Turkey.

The European Commission has said that the bill, if passed into law, will “prohibit dialogue which is necessary for reconciliation” between Turkey and Armenia on the issue.

There are several countries who have penalized holocaust denial, including Germany and Israel. The German statute does not address the so-called Auschwitz lie directly, but German courts have long considered denying the holocaust as an act of inciting ethnic hatred. And in the context of German history and society, this makes sense. How is the denial of the Armenian genocide in France comparable? Is it a way of enciting hatred against Armenians living in France? The law comes on the day that Orhan Pamuk receives the Nobel Prize for literature, to mixed reactions at home and abroad. Pamuk not long ago sparked a heated debate by referring to the killing of a million Armenians by the Turkish. As a result, there were calls for Pamuk’s indictment under Turkish law:

Mehmet Üçok, an attorney, filed charges at the Kayseri public prosecutor’s office. Another charge was filed by Kayseri Bar Association attorney Orhan Pekmezci: ‘Pamuk has made groundless claims against the Turkish identity, the Turkish military and Turkey as a whole. He should be punished for violating Articles 159 and 312 of the Turkish penal code. He made a statement provoking the people to hatred and animosity through the media, which is defined as a crime in Article 312.’

I am sure the French bill comes against this background; but this doesn’t make the law right or sensible. Will France make it an offence to deny British oppression of the Irish next? All limits on the substance of free speech should be as narrow as possible. Limits are justified only when speech devolves entirely into insult and hatred (not mostly; entirely). Taking the position in France that the deaths of Armenians during World War I were not intended by the Ottoman Empire may be historically indefensible and a self-serving position for the Turkish government to take—but is it nothing but an insult to Armenians living in France and an expression of ethnic hatred?

License

This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 License.