# Criminalization of freedom of expression in France



## spakh

Criminalization of denial of the alleged Armenian genocide. This is recently on agenda with Orhan Pamuk's getting the Nobel prize in Turkey. Coincidence of these two arouses many suspicions in minds.
When I heard Pamuk won the prize, I became extremely happy. As he is first Turk to get Nobel.
I will not discuss whether there had been a genocide or not.(this is a subject to be discussed by historians)
Rather what will happen if it becomes a law. A person thinking there has never become an Armenian genocide and expressing his/her thought will end up in jail? Where is the justice of Europe? Whither does Europe go? Is it a so-called justice? Are we seeing the real face of France? I won't accuse all Europe because of 106 men hunting for votes.
And I wonder what do you think about subject? Won't we be able to express our thoughts any more in France? 

Thanks.


----------



## Namakemono

I think genocide denial should be legal. Otherwise, there is no freedom of speech. I think it shouldn't be banned on the grounds that it's offensive. There are millions of legal offensive acts.


----------



## cuchuflete

Spakh raises an interesting question:  Should it be illegal to
take one side of an argument about history?  Now it seems both France and Turkey agree that there is only one permissible side to that particular topic...they just don't agree about which side it is.

Pitiful restraint of freedom in both cases.


----------



## ElaineG

Holocaust denial is a crime in Austria, so the French approach is not exactly novel.  While I understand the historical reasons for the Austrian law, I don't think that speech -- no matter how vile -- should be criminalized in this way.

I understand that the French bill is unlikely to become law for a variety of reasons.  I hope that it does not, as you cannot legislate the truth, merely hope that will it prevail over time.

That said, as Cuchu notes, the Turkish government has initiated a number of prosecutions against writers and intellectuals for acknowledging the existence of the Armenian genocide, which is seen as "denigrating" the Turkish state and therefore a crime under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.  A resume of some of the prosecutions can be found here:  http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGEUR440352005.

So what you have in France is the potential for a law, but what you have in Turkey is an actual law that is used to put people in jail and stifle crucial knowledge about a critical period in history.  I am stunned (although I shouldn't be) that Turkey is now protesting the French law, given their own record on the issue.  It's a huge case of the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## geve

spakh said:


> Won't we be able to express our thoughts any more in France?


 
Restrictions to freedom of speech are not a new thing in France. 
There are certain things that are illegal to say. 
It's not specific to France, either.

See for instance the Loi Gayssot, and the additional protocol to the Council of Europe convention on cybercrime (article 6).


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

Which "alleged" Armenian genocide? What's "alleged" about it? It's tremendously well documented.
But you have a point, there shouldn't be a penalisation for people who chose to blatantly revise history for their own political benefits.



> Won't we be able to express our thoughts any more in France?


Quite a dramatic conclusion you draw. I think, that it is possible to write and talk in France about the massacres in Algeria by the French, for example, without being prosecuted.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## mytwolangs

Is that what this link is about?
Someone hacked into a french website [au sujet de patricia Kaas] and put this nice little chant... I did ask about it in another part of the forum, speak of the devil... 
I hope whatever they are singing is not offensive, i cannot make anything of it except "They're gonna mess it up..." in the chanting.Song sounds cool, mind you I know not what they say... Except the akward English phrase...

http://xgokayx.250free.com/gok-ay.jpg

But the original concept reminds me of America's Patriot Act. Is this type of "Patriot Act" becoming a worldwide thing? Except every country has their own version of it?


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Frank06 said:


> I think, for example,that it is possible to write and talk in France about the massacres in Algeria by the French, for example, without being prosecuted.


This is a really good point, Frank. But we are able to admit them and speak about them quite recently.
To go back to the question, I understand this law can make people see France as lecturing Turkey about this issue. But in the other hand, if this law can make people in EC and in Turkey (part of EC someday, too?) think about this issue, it wouldn't be useless to speak about it.


----------



## Alxmrphi

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> This is a really good point, Frank. But we are able to admit them and speak about them quite recently.
> To go back to the question, I understand this law can make people see France as lecturing Turkey about this issue. But in the other hand, if this law can make people in EC and in Turkey (part of EC someday, too?) think about this issue, it wouldn't be useless to speak about it.


 
Ok I might not be thinking straight but what is the EC? European Commision?


----------



## cuchuflete

Try European Community.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Thanks cuchu, I was under the impression that Turkey had already joined the EU/EC, that's why I was confused as to what was being refered to.


----------



## cuchuflete

Turkey applied, formally, in 2005 I believe.  Early admittance is not expected.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I've just read a news site about it, I understand now, I just remember last year, seeing stuff on the news about "TURKEY, EU MEMBERSHIP", but it musnt've been complete.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

If a fact is well known, it's well documented and it's easy to defend it against revisionists. It won't need this kind of legal support (AKA censorship). This case may not interfere with History, but it may be a dangerous precedent to censor other no so clear cases...



ElaineG said:


> Holocaust denial is a crime in Austria, so the French approach is not exactly novel.



Furthermore:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries: Austria (article 3h Verbotsgesetz 1947), Belgium (Belgian Negationism Law), the Czech Republic under section 261, France (Loi Gayssot), Germany (§ 130 (3) of the penal code) also the Auschwitzlüge law section 185, Lithuania, The Netherlands under articles 137c and 137e, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland (article 261bis of the Penal Code). In addition, under Law 5710-1950 it is also illegal in Israel.


----------



## Brioche

spakh said:


> Criminalization of denial of the alleged Armenian genocide. This is recently on agenda with Orhan Pamuk's getting the Nobel prize in Turkey. Coincidence of these two arouses many suspicions in minds.
> When I heard Pamuk won the prize, I became extremely happy. As he is first Turk to get Nobel.
> I will not discuss whether there had been a genocide or not.(this is a subject to be discussed by historians)
> Rather what will happen if it becomes a law. A person thinking there has never become an Armenian genocide and expressing his/her thought will end up in jail? Where is the justice of Europe? Whither does Europe go? Is it a so-called justice? Won't we be able to express our thoughts any more in France?
> 
> Thanks.


 
In most civilised countries of the world there are laws about slander and libel. There is not conflict between such laws and the notion of freedom of speech.

It is also a crime to give false evidence, or to withold the truth, in court cases. I don't see why telling lies should be a protected behaviour.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Brioche said:


> In most civilised countries of the world there are laws about slander and libel. There is not conflict between such laws and the notion of freedom of speech.
> 
> It is also a crime to give false evidence, or to withold the truth, in court cases. I don't see why telling lies should be a protected behaviour.



Then there's no need for ad hoc laws.


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:


> It is also a crime to give false evidence, or to withold the truth, in court cases. I don't see why telling lies should be a protected behaviour.



Then should Qwer T'yuiop, the well-known President of the Flat Earth Faith Society be prosecuted when he finally finds a publisher willing to print his manuscript "An Oblate Spheroid? Don't Make Me Laugh!"


----------



## geve

maxiogee said:


> Then should Qwer T'yuiop, the well-known President of the Flat Earth Faith Society be prosecuted when he finally finds a publisher willing to print his manuscript "An Oblate Spheroid? Don't Make Me Laugh!"


What??? Well, surely it isn't illegal to print humorous writings?

But seriously - these anti-negationism laws are often found within broader texts against discrimination based on race, religion etc. It seems to me that saying that the Earth is flat  doesn't harm anyone specifically.


----------



## übermönch

geve said:


> What??? Well, surely it isn't illegal to print humorous writings?


They very well can be serious. There was some weird Soviet mathematician who tried to proove that all history prior to the 19th century was invented, thus effectively denying quite some crimes against humanity. I believe his writings are called "new chronology". Is that bad enough to be persecuted?

In my opinion, genocide denial should only be persecuted if it denies the suffering of a certain persona. For instance if someone tells no Armenian was hanged in Instandbul for being Armenian during the first world war, the person should only be persecuted if it directly denies the suffering of a relative or of a close friend of a person who would actually sue the one who told this.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

We have an old saying in Dutch: "if everybody cleans the pavement in front of their house, then the whole street would be clean".
It's so hardwarming to find people who want to defend freedom of speech in another country. Let's hope they spend the same amount of energy defending freedom of speech in their own.
Oh ja, I added a link to the 301 article, and another one, and another one. And on, and on.

I wish all the people who object to France's decision a lot of strength in their cause against a similar curtailing of free speech in their own country.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Chazzwozzer

The Constitution said:
			
		

> MADDE 301.
> (4) Eleştiri amacıyla yapılan düşünce açıklamaları suç oluşturmaz.


* "(4) Statements of expressions for the purpose of criticism is not criminal."

*It's what 4th aricle of 301 in Turkish Penal Code says. Now please go and check out France's latest decision and compare.


----------



## Namakemono

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410150&in_page_id=1770
Another proof that freedom of speech is in danger and that political correctness is going too far.


----------



## cuchuflete

Moderator Note:  This thread is *not* about what happened nearly one hundred years ago.


----------



## cuchuflete

Not wearing a moderator hat, I am thinking about the many posts just deleted from this conversation.  They were, broadly speaking, two passionately argued sides of a debate about history.  They were removed because they didn't address the thread topic.  However, if I understand the French law correctly, one or more of those in the debate would have been called a criminal for entering into the debate. 

That's appalling!  

For those who like to reference the UN  Universal Declaration of Human Rights...



> _"*Article 9*._
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."







> Article 19.
> 
> Everyone has the right to *freedom of opinion and expression*; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.





> Article 30.
> 
> Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


----------



## badgrammar

I am dissapointed not to have read the deleted posts, as they might have enlightened me a great deal...  Could they be put in another thread? 

As an American, I have always defended freedom of speech tooth and nail.  I was amazed to learn that here in France, freedom of speech is indeed curtailed when it concerns negationism or anything that might incite people to commit a hate crime.  French people see that as normal, and since I am obviously not involved in any such activities, the French laws have never bothered me.

On one side of the coin, I don't think it is France's place to enact this law if it is in an attempt to meddle in another country's (old) affairs.  On the other, I don't understand why the Turkish government (and perhaps the people as well?) doesn't just recognize what happened (it is too well-documented to deny), face up to reparation, and get on with things...

It's like when you, personally, did something wrong and you spend the rest of your life trying to deny it happened/cover it up  to family, friends and associates.  All that gets you is grief, and it makes you look bad to others who are aware of your error and your ongoing denial.

BUT I would like to hear what Chazz and others have to say about the issue, perhaps I could get a broader view of the stakes that are at play in this situation...


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:


> What??? Well, surely it isn't illegal to print humorous writings?


You misinterpret me.
My question was, if it becomes illegal to deny facts, then who draws the line? Which facts become sacred truths which can never be disputed, and what happens if subsequent research proves that the facts weren't true - but only partly true, or even totally false?

We all know that history is written by the winners - what happens when the US looks at the French law and decides that it ought to be illegal to deny that Saddam had WMD?


----------



## karuna

I can understand why some countries criminalize Holocaust deniers because they suffered from it too greatly. But how France has suffered from the Armenian genocide? It is the problem that Turkish people has to come in terms with. Recently a writer in Turkey got acquitted for supporting that genocide had indeed happened. Although we may rightly ask why he had to be brought to the court in the first place but it also shows that things are slowly moving in the right direction. But even if Turkey is wrong in their practices silencing critics, how does it justify France limiting freedom of speech?


----------



## LV4-26

Anyone should be allowed to freely say any absurdity. It is our duty to let them speak as it is our duty to prove them wrong. Sending them to jail would leave a huge doubt.

Imposing truth by force is extremely detrimental to truth, IMO.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

First, this is only a _project _of law in the process of becoming a law. So nothing is done yet. I've heard this morning there is a story with a phone call between Chirac and Erdogan, so all this is to be continued...
Secondly, I agree with the "where is the limit" and "who draw it" questions. This can't be solved saying on one hand (west hand?) there is the Good, and on the other hand (east hand?) the Evil. 
Also, it's important to know that the Armenian community is important in France... That's true we are only listening to their side in France regarding this issue, not much on the Turkish side, and that's a pity. It would be a great opportunity that this comes into the public place once for all and a real debate would be organized. I think the debate should precede any law (if any needed) not the contrary.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> Also, it's important to know that the Armenian community is important in France... *That's true we are only listening to their side in France regarding this issue, not much on the Turkish side, and that's a pity.* It would be a great opportunity that this comes into the public place once for all and a real debate would be organized. I think the debate should precede any law (if any needed) not the contrary.


Good point.  Like I said and provided links in my _deleted _post, Turkey once already suggested Armenia to debate and make both of the countries' archives available for anyone. Armenia, however, refused the suggestion but Turkey moved its official archive, consisting of tons of documents, correspondences, mails etc., to the Internet, unfortunately they have only been translated into Turkish so far. It's an extremely huge archive: http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/kitap/

It's the reason why we can't stand France's decision!

Please also see this and this.


----------



## Qcumber

Censorship exists everywhere, including this forum. So why blame the French?


----------



## Namakemono

Because forums and nations have different rules. The moderators can't arrest us. I think arresting the girl in the article I posted earlier is borderline fascist.


----------



## geve

maxiogee said:


> You misinterpret me.
> My question was, if it becomes illegal to deny facts, then who draws the line? Which facts become sacred truths which can never be disputed, and what happens if subsequent research proves that the facts weren't true - but only partly true, or even totally false?
> 
> We all know that history is written by the winners - what happens when the US looks at the French law and decides that it ought to be illegal to deny that Saddam had WMD?


For the moment what is illegal is discrimination founded on the membership or non-membership to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a religion; and to question crimes against humanity.

I agree that it creates an inauspicious precedent. It is frightening to imagine where it can go when a country starts legislating opinions.
That being said, I must confess that I'm glad when people shouting that homosexuals aren't human beings, or Jews are animals, or anything alike, get convicted. Even though they were simply because they voiced an opinion. There are opinions that I can't help finding reprehensible... This is not an easy subject.


Chazzwozzer said:


> * "(4) Statements of expressions for the purpose of criticism is not criminal."*
> 
> It's what 4th aricle of 301 in Turkish Penal Code says. Now please go and check out France's latest decision and compare.


But there are certain statements that can be found reprehensible... Or else how would it be possible that things like those described in the link posted by Elaine in post 4 could happen?


----------



## Chazzwozzer

geve said:


> But there are certain statements that can be found reprehensible... Or else how would it be possible that things like those described in the link posted by Elaine in post 4 could happen?


Not that I'm defending 301, nor I think it's a great code, even I think it's a weird one.

301 is all about insulting on Turkishness, the republic, parliament etc. It never says anything about Armenians. In fact, I remember Istanbul Bilgi University held a conference on this genocide issiue. Here. There'll be no problem if you just don't insult Turkish values. It was why Orhan Pamuk was arrested. Nobody has ever jailed though.

Don't ask me more of that. Like I said, I don't defend it and although it officially says it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, in practice, I believe it somehow may have indirectly.

A lttile correction here 


> That said, as Cuchu notes, the Turkish government has initiated a number of prosecutions against writers and intellectuals for acknowledging the existence of the Armenian genocide insulting Turkishness, which is seen as "denigrating" the Turkish state and therefore a crime under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. A resume of some of the prosecutions can be found here: http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/docum...NGEUR440352005.


----------



## cuchuflete

Since I have now been misquoted twice in the same thread, here is what I DID say:



> Now it seems both France and Turkey agree that there is only one permissible side to that particular topic...they just don't agree about which side it is.


----------



## ElaineG

This is what Pamuk said:



> In the interview, Orhan Pamuk stated, “30,000 Kurds and a million Armenians were murdered. Hardly anyone dares mention it, so I do. And that’s why I’m hated”.


 
Denigrating Turkishness?  If you say so, but I'd call that a biiiiiiiig stretch.

That he was acquitted is of little moment from a freedom of speech perspective; in American First Amendment jurisprudence, we speak of the "chilling effects" of actions upon speech, and prosecution, even if it results in eventual acquittal or a suspended sentence, has a chilling effect.

As Amnesty International said,



> That such prosecutions rarely end in imprisonment and more often in fines or acquittal or the dropping of charges is small consolation. The initiation of these legal proceedings is a way of trying to silence opposition voices and should be addressed immediately.


----------



## cuchuflete

Would someone care to open a new thread, in which those who have something to share can define "Turkishness"?


----------



## Agnès E.

I am pretty amazed by all this fuss--dare I say "much ado about nothing"? 

See Karine's post #29 who already pointed it out:


> First, this is only a _project _of law in the process of becoming a law. So nothing is done yet.


May I recall you that this is still not a law; it is just a proposal made by a group of politicians, and that has still to be:
- discussed by the government
- approved as a valid proposal of law
- voted
There are hundreds of such proposals every year, that are never approved by the vote.

We are veeeeeeeeeeeeery far from the last step... I wouldn't feel so concerned about it.
And I still don't understand why Jacques Chirac felt so urged to apologize for something that is still not agreed and enforced. He is not responsible for all the strange ideas popping into every French politicians' heads (I voluntarily din't use _brains_).
See how politically correctness can be harmful.


----------



## distille

there's little chance that this law will ever pass. And it's better that way, i find this law pretty stupid. France has already officially recognized the armenian genocide, which is ok with me, but it should stop at that.

We're in a strange period...MPs tend to think they can tell history and punish people for their interpretation. The last scandal was about the benefits of colonization...they had to cancel the chapter since it was so idiotic and offensive.

I can understand the law that prohibits negation of the holocauste. It happened here, with the collaboration of the french government. For the rest, let's people think and tell what they want, even if they're wrong, as long as we keep the right to contradict them.


----------

