'Recognition' of genocide and penalization of genocide denial
By Tessa Hofmann/Sarkis Bezelgues
Abstract: The political, legal and human rights background and the impact of the motion of the German Bundestag of June 16, 2006, "Remembering and commemorating the expulsions and massacres of the Armenians in 1915 - Germany must make a contribution to reconciliation between Turks and Armenians".
The 'recognition' of genocides committed in the first half of the 20th century and be-fore the UN Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of Genocide (1948) causes particular legal, political and moral problems. Communities of survivors and their descendents fight for the public and official recognition of such crimes, and, be-ing rejected by the States responsible for the crimes, they address to the international community with the request to acknowledge formally, by parliamentary resolutions and similar official statements, the crime as a historic fact. The most prominent ex-ample of genocide 'recognized' by an increasing number of parliaments and yet 'de-nied' by the legislative and government of the Turkish Republic is the case of the an-nihilation of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire during 1915/16.
This article is a critical assessment of the motion, issued unanimously by the German Bundestag on June 16, 2005 (Printed Paper 15/5689). The authors discuss the motifs and legal implication of this implicit German version of genocide recognition, which avoids the term genocide, but is explicit in admitting Germany's co-respon-sibility for the 'annihilation' of the Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire.
Beside genocide recognition, the penalization of genocide denial is yet another main concern of communities of genocide survivors and their descendants. Here, the authors explain the meaning of genocide denial and explore the surprisingly poor 'equipment' of the German penal law situation, which has no other tools to counter qualified genocide denial than §§ 130 (3) and 185 (German Penal Code), which prosecute denial of the NS genocide crimes as insult, or protect the memory of de-ceased persons from insult (§ 189). The authors also analyse whether the penalization of qualified genocide denial under the German penal law infringes the basic and human rights of free opinion, as stated in the German constitution (Grundgesetz article 5 [1]).
In conclusion, the authors compare the German situation with the legal state of af-fairs in other EU member states such as Spain and France. Quoting the contradicting governmental opinion of Turkey and of dissident Turkish human rights defenders, as articulated at the occasion of a debate in the French National Assembly (May 18, 2006) about a bill on the legal prosecution of genocide denial, the authors predict in-tensified differences between the liberty of speech and opinion and the protection against genocide denial as the 'second killing' (Elie Wiesel).
Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.
Abstract: The political, legal and human rights background and the impact of the motion of the German Bundestag of June 16, 2006, "Remembering and commemorating the expulsions and massacres of the Armenians in 1915 - Germany must make a contribution to reconciliation between Turks and Armenians".
The 'recognition' of genocides committed in the first half of the 20th century and be-fore the UN Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of Genocide (1948) causes particular legal, political and moral problems. Communities of survivors and their descendents fight for the public and official recognition of such crimes, and, be-ing rejected by the States responsible for the crimes, they address to the international community with the request to acknowledge formally, by parliamentary resolutions and similar official statements, the crime as a historic fact. The most prominent ex-ample of genocide 'recognized' by an increasing number of parliaments and yet 'de-nied' by the legislative and government of the Turkish Republic is the case of the an-nihilation of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire during 1915/16.
This article is a critical assessment of the motion, issued unanimously by the German Bundestag on June 16, 2005 (Printed Paper 15/5689). The authors discuss the motifs and legal implication of this implicit German version of genocide recognition, which avoids the term genocide, but is explicit in admitting Germany's co-respon-sibility for the 'annihilation' of the Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire.
Beside genocide recognition, the penalization of genocide denial is yet another main concern of communities of genocide survivors and their descendants. Here, the authors explain the meaning of genocide denial and explore the surprisingly poor 'equipment' of the German penal law situation, which has no other tools to counter qualified genocide denial than §§ 130 (3) and 185 (German Penal Code), which prosecute denial of the NS genocide crimes as insult, or protect the memory of de-ceased persons from insult (§ 189). The authors also analyse whether the penalization of qualified genocide denial under the German penal law infringes the basic and human rights of free opinion, as stated in the German constitution (Grundgesetz article 5 [1]).
In conclusion, the authors compare the German situation with the legal state of af-fairs in other EU member states such as Spain and France. Quoting the contradicting governmental opinion of Turkey and of dissident Turkish human rights defenders, as articulated at the occasion of a debate in the French National Assembly (May 18, 2006) about a bill on the legal prosecution of genocide denial, the authors predict in-tensified differences between the liberty of speech and opinion and the protection against genocide denial as the 'second killing' (Elie Wiesel).
Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.
Labels: Genocide Denial Law, Genocide Recognition
posted by Vahe Balabanian at 12:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home