Among the attacks that are getting freedom in Europe, one of the less obvious is the legislation of memory. More and more countries have laws that say you must remember and describe this or that historical event in a certain way, sometimes on pain of prosecution if you give the wrong answer. What is wrong with the answer depends on where you are. In Switzerland, you can be prosecuted for saying that the atrocities suffered by the Armenians in the last years of the Ottoman Empire did not constitute genocide, in Turkey it would process by saying it was. What is true prescribed by the State in the Alps is a falsehood imposed by the state in Anatolia.
Recently a group of historians and writers, including me, rejected this dangerous nonsense. In what has been called the "Appel de Blois", published in Le Monde last October 10, we hold that in a free country "not a matter of no political authority to define historical truth or restrict the free the historian by penal sanctions. " And we argue against the accumulation of what has been called "laws memory. " Among the first firms are historians like Eric Hobsbawm, Jacques Le Goff and Heinrich August Winkler.
is no coincidence that this appeal originated in France, which has the most intense and tortuous recent experience regarding the laws and prosecutions related to memory. Started without controversy, 1990 , when denying the Holocaust committed by the Nazis, along with other crimes against humanity defined by the Nuremberg tribunal in 1945 - was turned into a crime in France, as well as it is in several countries Europeans. In 1995, historian Bernard Lewis was convicted in a French court for arguing that, with the available evidence, what happened to the Armenians can not be correctly described as genocide according to the definition of international law.
A subsequent law of 2001 , says the French Republic recognizes slavery as a crime against humanity, and should be given, therefore, place deserves in the teaching and research. A group representing some overseas French citizens sued the author of a study on the African slave trade, Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau, for "denying a crime against humanity." Meanwhile, from a very different perspective, another law was passed mandating that school curricula recognize "the positive role" that took the French presence overseas, "especially in North Africa."
Fortunately, at this point a wave of indignation gave birth to a movement called Liberty for History (lph-asso.fr), led by the French historian Pierre Nora, who is also behind Appel de Blois.
The case against Pétré-Grenouilleau was dismissed and abolished the clause in the "positive role". But it remains incredible that such a proposal has reached the statute book in one of the largest democracies and one of the greatest historical scholarship in the world.
This nonsense is even more dangerous when they come disguised as virtue. A perfect example is the recent attempt to impose limits on interpretación de la historia en toda la Unión Europea con la excusa de “combatir el racismo y la xenofobia”. Una propuesta de “decisión estructural” del Consejo para la Justicia y los Asuntos Internos de la Unión Europea, iniciada por la ministra de justicia alemana Brigitte Zypries, sugiere que en todos los Estados miembros “excusar de manera pública, negar o trivializar burdamente los crímenes de genocidio, crímenes de lesa humanidad y crímenes de guerra” debe ser “punible con penas criminales de hasta, por lo menos, entre uno y tres años de prisión”.
Who will decide what historical events count as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and what constitutes "grossly trivializing?
international humanitarian law indicates some criteria, but exactly what events qualify is a matter of heated dispute. The only way to truly ensure that there is uniformity of treatment would be for all EU members to agree on a list-let's call-list to classify Zypries horrors. Can you imagine negotiating in Brussels. (Polish official to French counterpart: "OK, we give the Armenian genocide, if you give us the Ukrainian famine.") Pure Gogol.
Since some countries with strong traditions of freedom of expression, including Britain, objected to the initial draft of Zypries, the current proposal added that "Member States may choose to punish only conduct which is carried out in a manner that may disturb the public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting. " Thus, in practice, countries continue doing things his way.
Despite its many flaws, this framework decision was approved by Parliament in November 2007 , but has not been taken to Justice and Home Affairs Council Internal for final approval. I wrote to the current representative of the French presidency in the European Union to ask why, and just received this cryptic but encouraging reply: "The law of 'racism and xenophobia' is not yet ready for adoption, as it is suspended by some parliamentary reservations pending. " Merci, madame liberté : this will serve until the end of this year. Then let the Czech presidency of the European Union, which covers the first half of next year, the lie forever, with a dose of common sense the Good Soldier Svejk history.
Let me be clear. I think it's very important that nations, states, individuals and other groups (not to mention individuals) face, solemnly and publicly, the bad acts committed by them or on their behalf. The West German leader Willy Brandt, silently kneeling before the memorial to the victims and heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto is, for me, one of the noblest images of postwar European history. For people to face these things, you must first know: These issues should be taught in schools as well as publicly commemorated. But before being taught, should be investigated. Must uncover evidence, examined and sifted, and must assess the possible interpretations.
The process of historical research and debate -subject requires total freedom only strict laws on libel and slander, designed to protect living persons but not governments, states or national pride (as in the famous article 301 Turkish Penal Code) -. The equivalent for the historian of a scientific experiment natural one is to collate the evidence for all possible scenarios, no matter how extreme they are, and then submit the interpretation that seems most compelling criticisms of their colleagues and the public debate. So we get as close as possible to the truth about the past.
How, for example, to refute the absurd conspiracy theory that apparently still has some validity in the Arab world, saying that "the Jews" were behind the terrorist attacks of September November 2001 in New York? "Banning it is said that on pain of imprisonment? No. It refutes refuting, ie gathering all available evidence and subjecting it to a free and open debate. This is not just the best way to get at the facts, it is also, finally, the best way to combat racism and xenophobia. So join us, please, to dismiss the State Police nanny and memory.
0 comments:
Post a Comment