Armenian Genocide: The French Constitutional Council's Mistake
YEREVAN, MARCH 7, ARMENPRESS: The Constitutional Council's invalidation of the law voted by the two Houses aiming to penalize the denial of genocides is, in the eyes of the law, and until the same two Houses reconsider it, the last word, reports Armenpress citing The Huffington Post.
Respect for the constitutional State and its rules should not to blind its citizens to a certain number of facts -- case in point -- that are rather disturbing.These include, for example, the pressure exerted by representatives of Turkey before submission of the case to the Council. And the busloads of nationalist demonstrators gathered beneath the windows of the French Senate, demanding the right to quite freely violate the memory of the dead and the honor of the survivors.
The policy of spreading confusion in people's minds is such that it is by no means forbidden to recall that this high body of deliberation is not so very high as we are told and, in any case, not this Supreme Court à la française so highly spoken of here and there. We may remind ourselves that it has taken several liberties with Article 3 of the order of November 7, 1958, defining its operational rules and demanding that its members "swear" to "carry out their duties" with all "impartiality," to "keep its deliberations and votes secret," to "take no public position" and "to give no consultation concerning the questions relevant to the competence of the Council."
And it is especially not forbidden to encourage those the ballet of interests and influence around this noble cause that is the truth has led to despair -- it is not forbidden to hope that the last word will not be that of the partisans of a free speech who have already given themselves away, in their haste, the day after the vote, to requalify the Armenian genocide as a "massacre" and request "historical commissions" (we've seen it all before) to establish the "reality of the facts." A discredited Council, even if it is constitutional, is not the guardian of the Truth, and, fortunately, the decision it has just taken cannot judge in advance the outcome of a battle the historians of genocides have long since won.
Not, I've said it a hundred times, the battle for I don't know what "memorial laws," the spectre of which is brandished before us every time.
But the battle for recognition of the radical singularity of occurrences of genocide, these events that are characteristic of modern times.
A law for humanity.
A law for the respect of these very rare truths, the transgression of which is a threat to each of us, because they aim at the heart of the human race.
A just and eminently universal law we count on the next president, whoever he may be, to put back on the agenda.