In France, president Sarkozy and his government introduced a law proposal which will make to illegally deny the mass murder genocide of Armenians in 1915 was the genocide. The proposal has been not unexpected at all and caused some commotion, annoyance, angry both in Turkey and among the French people of Turkish origin.
Turkey has called back its ambassador in Paris and cancelled all the military cooperation with France. Taking into account that both countries are the members of NATO, the proposal given by France can have far-reaching consequences.
Considering the whole matter it seems strange that not many non-Turks in France have been allowed to take part in the discussions. It is a restriction on freedom of expression and as in fact it makes everyone go on strike.
It is completely possible not to feel sympathy and Turks anger for which is based on careless to French freedom of speech, because categorical reluctance is coming from confess of possibility French ancestors have made some genocide. However it is just not to prevent the appearance of familiar dislike before this overtramp.
Ten years ago, the Parliament of France voted that it was just genocide. The same thing happened in Sweden last spring when the unanimous opposition drove over the government. At that point the politics has already got too big freedoms.
Of course It is possible to discuss which role a state should play in a society and how big this role should be in a reasonable way, but there are things which the absolute majority are ready to stand by. The roll of a state and in this meaning of the politics should not be the enemy to science.
The accident happened in 1915 was the genocide or not must not be a political problem. It must be a historical to some extent and in some meaning a juridical problem. These questions must be decided by historians, lawyers and academicians who search for increasing understanding of the world by strong scientific methods, not by politicians who want to maximize their voter groups.
When politicians cross the border and use government’s power for telling which interpretation would have precedence, they have taken apart from the open society’s desire of knowledge, attainment and true. Next logical step becomes from what Sarkozy has just made now: forbid other interpretations, make them unlawful, block and shut the dissidents.
The land where a researcher can make a law crime by telling only his/her own decisions is not a land with modern democracy.
But it is really so dangerous when someone often changes his/her position. In spite of everything, we do not have the total freedom of speech. It is true. Restrictions have been made, for example, it is not permitted to defame anyone or to pit ethnic groups against each other.
The difference is in the role of the state to adjust a society‘s power together. The first function of a state is to look after that we can live together. The fact that nobody may take the right on himself/herself over others without any reasonable ground is a condition and a prerequisite for the societies we have built. Even the role to prevent people to put into violence and common contempt.
The freedom of speech is a prerequisite for the legitimacy of our society. It assures us about that nevertheless the state is much more for us than we are for the state. That is, a power relationship must exist.
When the freedom of speech is restricted not to protect people from encroachment, it is considered to be the political proper and correct one that means encroachment in that society and the politicians abuse the authority. Science brings benefits to the societies and its citizens, but politics does not do such one.
LEDARE DANIEL PERSSON
25 december 2011 kl 09:16
DANIEL PERSSON Medarbetare på ledarredaktionen.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
