Civitas Blog

He is right, of course, that this is a French issue. But let’s be honest, does France really give a monkey’s about the issue of the Armenian genocide? Doubtful as they are only discussing such a law now. They are trying to force a showdown with Turkey, who insists upon its denial. Now challenging this inflexible perception within Turkey is important – free discussion is a vital foundation of European culture. But as Joost Langedijk, Dutch MEP, pointed out “

If we ask Turkey to ensure the freedom of expression we cannot have a situation where at the same time, people could end up jailed for their views in Europe. Freedom of speech is at stake here.

” And it is. Freedom of speech includes allowing people the right to express their views, however unpalatable, as long as it is not to incite harm or public disturbance (some people would even disagree with the latter). It is why Islamic protesters can stand outside Westminster Abbey holding placards threatening the life of the Pope. It is in fact why Danish newspapers can publish satirical images both of the prophet Mohammed and of the Holocaust. It is why we campaign for people to be able to march for gay pride and why we campaign for people to be able to protest against these marches.

A French centre-right MEP, Patrick Gaubert, attacked Mr. Langedijk’s comments saying

“This gentleman should start to read history books. Everybody knows and nobody doubts that this was a genocide.”

Well I have to admit that I don’t know anything about the Armenian genocide, to my shame. But I have studied history to a relatively high level and I know one thing: that there is very little in history that ‘everybody knows and nobody doubts’. History is built upon debate and discourse, the same as science. Opinions have a right to exist, and they have a right to be ridiculed, but they cannot be repressed. I have read enough books written in the aftermath of the American Civil War that make the simplistic argument that slavery was the sole cause of that conflict, to know that history evolves and changes. Did Richard III murder the princes in the tower – previously there was no argument but recently debate has been rekindled. Was Oliver Cromwell saviour of Britain or he was simply the replacement of one dictator with another?

I was lucky enough when writing my undergraduate thesis to be investigating the impact of the naval battle of Hampton Roads on the British plans to intervene in the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. In this battle, made famous in film, the ironclads ‘Monitor’ and ‘Merrimack’ hammered away at each other in Hampton Roads, Virginia, and failed to sink or even really damage either ship. Common perception, which ‘everybody knows and nobody doubts’ is that Britain was spooked by this and chose not to intervene because they could not rival the strength of the US ironclad armour. However I came across a parliamentary report from the time detailing a test held in the aftermath of the battle where the Royal Navy simulated the battle in Shoeburyness and discovered that in fact the armour was not the key, it was the weakness of the rifled cannon that the American ironclads were using. British smoothbore cannon could happily pierce the armour, the Navy could fight on a level playing field and they knew it. Sadly, at last reading of the literature, it appears that only the handful of bored academics that had the misfortune to be lumbered with my thesis are aware of this. So the myth continues. Everybody knows that the power of the US ironclads contributed to Britain holding back from intervening and nobody doubts that Hampton Roads marked the beginning of the end for British naval supremacy.

There are questions resounding across history. I have opinions on a lot of them and for my part I also believe from my limited knowledge that there probably was an Armenian genocide. However people have a right to disagree with me and they have a right to gather evidence to support their opinions, as I have. Does this mean that Holocaust denial shouldn’t be a crime? No of course it shouldn’t, unless it is used to incite racial hatred as is sadly often the case. It should be the butt of jokes and academic scorn, but it should not be a crime or are we to create our own version of the Turkish Article 301, by which people are prosecuted for ‘insulting Turkishness’. Let Turkey in or don’t let Turkey in but let us avoid criminalising opinion to make a political point. If we stoop to that we have to ask what it is that we’re worried about in the first place. Samuel Butler once wrote:

“God cannot alter the past, though historians can.”

It’s a warning worth heeding when making laws.