20-01-2012
http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/01/20/actualidad/1327087993_441500.html
Knowledge on the Web, endangered
The French bill which aims to criminalize the denial of the Armenian genocide and initiatives against Internet piracy in the U.S. threaten freedom of expression
Timothy Garton Ash 20 ENE 2012 - 20:33 CET
On Monday, January 23, the French Senate will vote on a bill that seeks to criminalize denial of Armenian genocide of 1915, as well as other events characterized as genocide in French law. The law has already passed the National Assembly, lower house of French Parliament. The Senate should reject it on behalf of freedom of expression, freedom of historical research and article 11 of the pioneering French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen proclaimed in 1789 ("the free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious rights ...").
The issue here is not whether the atrocities committed against Armenians in the Ottoman Empire's last years were terrible, or whether they should be recognized in the Turkish and European memory. Were and should be. The question is: should it be a crime under French law or other countries doubt that those terrible events constitute genocide, a term used in international law? In the past, not to downplay the suffering of the Armenians, the famous specialist in the Ottoman Empire Bernard Lewis has refuted precisely that point. And is prepared and authorized to erect the French Parliament in court of world history and issue verdicts on the past behavior of other countries? The answer is no and no.
To complicate matters more, the law would criminalize not only the "denial" Armenian genocide, but his "scandalous minimization." As highlighted by Françoise Chandernagore, Freedom campaign in history, this hue introduces a vague concept to normal even in the laws of memory. If estimates of the number of Turkish Armenians are killed and some 500,000 Armenians around 1.5 million, what would be minimized? ¿547,000? And would that stop the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for that "minimization" in his upcoming official visit to France? (The draft law provides for a fine of 45,000 euros and a year in prison).
Are you authorized to erect the French Parliament in court of world history? Not
If we have a benevolent view of human nature in general, and French policy in particular, could say that it is a clumsy attempt to fulfill a noble purpose. But that would be naive. There is a striking correlation between the appearance of these proposals in the French Parliament and the proximity of national elections, in which about a half million Armenian voters play an important role. French law officially acknowledged that what happened to the Armenians was a genocide in December 2001, just before the presidential and parliamentary elections. In the House approved (the upper house rejected it) a bill similar to the current in 2006, just before the 2007 elections. What will be this year? Elections.
Not all party leaders Nicolas Sarkozy, the UMP, have supported the bill proposed by one of his own MPs. Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, is opposed. But that's because you are concerned about the impact on France's relations with Turkey. The Turkish government's reaction has been intense, as expected. Recalled its ambassador in protest, and Prime Minister Erdogan said that "approximately 15% of the population of Algeria suffered a massacre at the hands of the French in 1945. That is genocide. "
That is, a tragedy that should be the subject of a memorial and a historical debate would be released, which would be even more bizarre hypotheses to confront them with the evidence, is reduced to an instrument of political manipulation, hurtful words a politician. The body count is involved in yesterday's vote count tomorrow. If you accuse me of genocide, I also accuse you.
Meanwhile, Turkish intellectuals, including writer and Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk, have dared to say what they did to the Armenians was genocide, are at risk of prosecution in their country. What is an official truth in France is an official lie in Turkey.
A historic tragedy is reduced to a mere instrument of political manipulation
But these are symbolic acts, rather than actual. In a country like France, and, with many more difficulties, in Turkey, the Internet allows people to find those opinions nonetheless prohibited. Just push a couple of times the mouse.
In fact, this is just the latest example of a larger problem. What limits should have the freedom of expression in the Internet age? What rules should govern it in an interconnected world? Who should fix? These are some of the questions addressed in a project called Debate on Freedom of Expression, Free Speech Debate (www.freespeechdebate.com), just start at the University of Oxford. Among the 10 draft principles we propose for debate, criticism and review, there is one that has especially to do with the Armenian genocide controversy. It is the one that says "no taboos allow discussion and dissemination of knowledge."
It is evident that the laws of memory such as that proposed in France fail this test, but not the only case. In the UK, the science writer Simon Singh had to defend itself in a protracted lawsuit for libel in connection with his criticism of what they said the drivers of chiropractic. The Church of Scientology uses its proprietary rights in the immortal words of L. Ron Hubbard to prevent people from seeing the supreme secrets of the Thetan (if you're interested, look on the Internet Operation Clambake). On Wednesday, January 18, the English version of Wikipedia remained black for 24 hours to protest against the proposed law against piracy in the U.S., soup, that in the version that is now in Congress would have a disastrous cosecuencias the free dissemination of knowledge on the Internet.
There are other cases much more difficult. Late last year, the National Advisory Council on Science and Biosecurity United States asked the journals Science and Nature not to publish the details of a study on a form easily transmitted the virus H5N1, the bird flu, for fear that bioterrorists might use it.
What about those who deny the causes of AIDS? When South African President Thabo Mbeki spoke in support of this position, the result was fairly straightforward death of hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise could have received treatment due. It is difficult to uphold the principle of "no taboos allow" to such sensitive cases.
However, the opportunistic and ill-conceived bill of France there is nothing delicate case. Here, things are clear. The French Senate must show the U.S. Congress in defense of intellectual freedom.
(See Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia, in conversation with Timothy Garton Ash www.freespeechdebate.com).
Timothy Garton Ash is Professor of European Studies at Oxford University, research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His latest book is The facts are subversive: ideas and characters for a decade without a name.
Translated by Maria Luisa Rodriguez Tapia.
The issue here is not whether the atrocities committed against Armenians in the Ottoman Empire's last years were terrible, or whether they should be recognized in the Turkish and European memory. Were and should be. The question is: should it be a crime under French law or other countries doubt that those terrible events constitute genocide, a term used in international law? In the past, not to downplay the suffering of the Armenians, the famous specialist in the Ottoman Empire Bernard Lewis has refuted precisely that point. And is prepared and authorized to erect the French Parliament in court of world history and issue verdicts on the past behavior of other countries? The answer is no and no.
To complicate matters more, the law would criminalize not only the "denial" Armenian genocide, but his "scandalous minimization." As highlighted by Françoise Chandernagore, Freedom campaign in history, this hue introduces a vague concept to normal even in the laws of memory. If estimates of the number of Turkish Armenians are killed and some 500,000 Armenians around 1.5 million, what would be minimized? ¿547,000? And would that stop the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for that "minimization" in his upcoming official visit to France? (The draft law provides for a fine of 45,000 euros and a year in prison).
Are you authorized to erect the French Parliament in court of world history? Not
If we have a benevolent view of human nature in general, and French policy in particular, could say that it is a clumsy attempt to fulfill a noble purpose. But that would be naive. There is a striking correlation between the appearance of these proposals in the French Parliament and the proximity of national elections, in which about a half million Armenian voters play an important role. French law officially acknowledged that what happened to the Armenians was a genocide in December 2001, just before the presidential and parliamentary elections. In the House approved (the upper house rejected it) a bill similar to the current in 2006, just before the 2007 elections. What will be this year? Elections.
Not all party leaders Nicolas Sarkozy, the UMP, have supported the bill proposed by one of his own MPs. Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, is opposed. But that's because you are concerned about the impact on France's relations with Turkey. The Turkish government's reaction has been intense, as expected. Recalled its ambassador in protest, and Prime Minister Erdogan said that "approximately 15% of the population of Algeria suffered a massacre at the hands of the French in 1945. That is genocide. "
That is, a tragedy that should be the subject of a memorial and a historical debate would be released, which would be even more bizarre hypotheses to confront them with the evidence, is reduced to an instrument of political manipulation, hurtful words a politician. The body count is involved in yesterday's vote count tomorrow. If you accuse me of genocide, I also accuse you.
Meanwhile, Turkish intellectuals, including writer and Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk, have dared to say what they did to the Armenians was genocide, are at risk of prosecution in their country. What is an official truth in France is an official lie in Turkey.
A historic tragedy is reduced to a mere instrument of political manipulation
But these are symbolic acts, rather than actual. In a country like France, and, with many more difficulties, in Turkey, the Internet allows people to find those opinions nonetheless prohibited. Just push a couple of times the mouse.
In fact, this is just the latest example of a larger problem. What limits should have the freedom of expression in the Internet age? What rules should govern it in an interconnected world? Who should fix? These are some of the questions addressed in a project called Debate on Freedom of Expression, Free Speech Debate (www.freespeechdebate.com), just start at the University of Oxford. Among the 10 draft principles we propose for debate, criticism and review, there is one that has especially to do with the Armenian genocide controversy. It is the one that says "no taboos allow discussion and dissemination of knowledge."
It is evident that the laws of memory such as that proposed in France fail this test, but not the only case. In the UK, the science writer Simon Singh had to defend itself in a protracted lawsuit for libel in connection with his criticism of what they said the drivers of chiropractic. The Church of Scientology uses its proprietary rights in the immortal words of L. Ron Hubbard to prevent people from seeing the supreme secrets of the Thetan (if you're interested, look on the Internet Operation Clambake). On Wednesday, January 18, the English version of Wikipedia remained black for 24 hours to protest against the proposed law against piracy in the U.S., soup, that in the version that is now in Congress would have a disastrous cosecuencias the free dissemination of knowledge on the Internet.
There are other cases much more difficult. Late last year, the National Advisory Council on Science and Biosecurity United States asked the journals Science and Nature not to publish the details of a study on a form easily transmitted the virus H5N1, the bird flu, for fear that bioterrorists might use it.
What about those who deny the causes of AIDS? When South African President Thabo Mbeki spoke in support of this position, the result was fairly straightforward death of hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise could have received treatment due. It is difficult to uphold the principle of "no taboos allow" to such sensitive cases.
However, the opportunistic and ill-conceived bill of France there is nothing delicate case. Here, things are clear. The French Senate must show the U.S. Congress in defense of intellectual freedom.
(See Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia, in conversation with Timothy Garton Ash www.freespeechdebate.com).
Timothy Garton Ash is Professor of European Studies at Oxford University, research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His latest book is The facts are subversive: ideas and characters for a decade without a name.
Translated by Maria Luisa Rodriguez Tapia.
投稿
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿