En enero de 2012, el Senado francés aprobó una ley que penaliza la negación de cualquier genocidio reconocido por el estado. Un caso de Clementine de Montjoye.
El 23 de enero de 2012, el senado francés aprobó una ley que penaliza la negación de cualquier genocidio reconocido por el estado, semejante a otra ley aprobada por este país en el año 1990 respecto del Holocausto. Sin embargo, la nueva ley se aplicaría también a lo acontecido en Armenia en 1915, episodio que fue reconocido oficialmente como genocidio por Francia recién en 2001. La nueva ley presenta dos enmiendas a la ley original sobre la negación del Holocausto. En primer lugar, contempla la protección del honor de las víctimas de genocidios, crímenes de guerra, crímenes de lesa humanidad o de colaboración con el enemigo. Además, no sólo penaliza el enaltecimiento de los crímenes cometidos, sino también el menosprecio y cuestionamiento sobre la veracidad de los mismos. En segundo lugar, la nueva ley permite que las asociaciones de víctimas puedan defender legalmente el honor de cualquier ciudadano víctima de un crimen de guerra o de un crimen de lesa humanidad, así como a víctimas directas de la resistencia y la deportación. La pena máxima que fija la ley es una multa de 45.000 € y hasta un año de prisión.
En diciembre de 2011 hubo un intento de eliminar este artículo en la Asamblea Nacional, pero el mismo fue rechazado. Quienes apoyan la ley argumentan que estas masacres, al estar reconocidas por el estado, constituyen verdades incontestables. Por lo tanto, no pueden quedar sujetas al debate de los historiadores, sino que deberían formar parte del ámbito político. Sin embargo, el 28 de febrero de 2012, el Tribunal Constitucional declaró la inconstitucionalidad de la ley, en una decisión que contó con el apoyo de setenta diputados de diferentes partidos políticos, incluyendo el propio UMP de Sarkozy. La ley fue considerada un ataque contra la libertad de expresión, y los diputados argumentaron que la verdad histórica no puede ser establecida por ley.
reply report Report comment
While its title is dominated by it, this law is not only controversial in its relation to the internationally disputed Armenian Genocide, but also because of the implicit principles by which it is set. As is always the case with law you must look beyond its immediate consequences and question what precedent it actually sets. In this case it is both nuanced and controversial. The law explicitly forbids the denial or minimization of any genocide recognized by the French government, and works in follow up to the Holocaust denial law that came in place as early as 1990. The logic behind it seems reasonable enough: the holocaust and other genocides are such atrocious and shameful acts that denying or undermining them is simply unacceptable. Not only is it historically inaccurate to deny them, it is disrespectful, offensive, and, quite frankly, despicable. However even though almost everyone would agree that this kind of act is morally reprehensible, it is still worthwhile to question whether it is lawfully preventable. The answer to that is much more complicated.
If the reason behind banning the practice is because it is disrespectful and ignorant, then this law is in violation of our idea of freedom of speech. Ignorance and disrespect is not and should not be illegal. If the reason is because it is directly offensive to a group of people who share sensitivities about the issue, then we must really question to what extent should offense and potential emotional harm be worthy of censorship. If the reason is because those who deny these events are usually themselves extremists, and seek to incite hatred and violence against a group of people and should therefor be contained anyway, then this law may hold some merit, but we must still ask whether this is really the most efficient way to legislate against these people.
The question becomes even more difficult when you enter upon the idea of a historical conscience, and inherited guilt within a nation such as Germany. Perhaps this curtailment of free speech is really just an attempt at atonement for the wrongs that they may have committed. Again the question is not whether it is morally permissible, but whether it is legally permissible. And if the precedent and consequences of this law are closely evaluated, then it appears that legislators have overstepped their bounds with this one.
reply report Report comment
I agree with Clementine de Montjoye: it’s no sense to try to impose an oficial truth by legal coaction. Serious historians agree on subjects as the armenian genocide after WW1 or the jews genocide during WW2. What’s the advantage of forbiding other opinions over those past facts?
reply report Report comment
You write in reply that we should try to «prevent history from repeating itself. » That reminds one of Santayana’s oft-quoted snippet of wisdom. There was never a more striking instance of a wise-sounding maxim deluding people. It is quite impossible to prevent history from repeating itself because people do not seek and acquire great power to help mankind or to work for everlasting peace: their sole concern is power and its exercise in their own interests.
Jack Dixon
reply report Report comment
The French government should butt out of other peoples’ affairs. They have too many of their own national scandals to justify their meddling in others’. To begin with, let us remember that France was the only government actively to collaborate with Hitler and the Nazi regime during the Second World War. Are they going to make it illegal to discuss that treachery to the Allied cause ?
reply report Report comment
Hi Jack,
I’m afraid this is not entirely accurate. Other governments collaborated with the Nazis, and in my opinion the debate about this law has nothing to do with placing blame for events that took place in the past. It is just a question of educating people about the past, however embarrassing and traumatic it may be, in order to avoid taboos and prevent history from repeating itself.
It undeniable that we need to speak up more for the injustices and genocides of this world, that have often been forgotten and ignored by the international community. However, it is a matter of educating rather than forcing people to respect these events.
Thank you for your comment though.