Comments (5)

Google अनुवाद द्वारा स्वचालित मशीन अनुवाद प्रदान किया जाता हैं. यह आपको बताता है की योगदानकर्ता क्या कहना चाहता हैं, लेकिन इसका एक सटीक, सूक्ष्म अनुवाद की तरह भरोसा न करें.

1. Jonas_Ssr February 8, 2015 at 4:23 pm
   replyLog in to 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.
2. balstrode May 21, 2014 at 2:48 pm
   replyLog in to 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?
3. Jack December 10, 2012 at 5:13 am
   replyLog in to 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
4. Jack July 13, 2012 at 6:39 pm
   replyLog in to 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 ?
   • clementinedemontjoye December 4, 2012 at 7:20 pm
     replyLog in to 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.