This is one of the best article I've read on this subject in quite a while. The issue with those laws isn't whether or not the events of 1915 constituted genocide, it's that governments don't have any business deciding upon these matters... And, not only that, but by these laws, governments want to tell people what to <em>think</em>.

<em>Disagreeing</em> - one can disagree on this issue while one knows <em>a lot</em> about it; many experts disagree with the Swiss government for instance - is illegal. The old adage, that the clash of two different opinions results in the truth, seems to have been thrown overboard.

Historical events should be left to historians to decide upon. And more frequently than not, they will <em>never</em> reach a consensus.

As for the comment about psychological effects; that's the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever heard. We could also turn it around; from a Turkish perspective it's incredibly 'stressful' to hear one's ancestors and one's country held responsible for a genocide that (according to most Turks) never happened. Not only that, but Armenians tried to ethnically cleansed the lands themselves; no one ever speaks about that. If you want to talk about 'psychological' stress, etc., you should take this all into account as well. Once you do, it never stops. Making opinions that people find difficult to hear illegal isn't a good solution.

The history of mankind should have taught us that by now.

This is one of the best articles I've read on this subject in quite a while. The issue with those laws isn't whether or not the events of 1915 constituted genocide, it's that governments don't have any business deciding upon these matters... And, not only that, but by these laws, governments want to tell people what to <em>think</em>.

<em>Disagreeing</em> - one can disagree on this issue while one knows <em>a lot</em> about it; many experts disagree with the Swiss government for instance - is illegal. The old adage, that the clash of two different opinions results in the truth, seems to have been thrown overboard.

Historical events should be left to historians to decide upon. And more frequently than not, they will <em>never</em> reach a consensus.

As for the comment about psychological effects; that's the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever heard. We could also turn it around; from a Turkish perspective it's incredibly 'stressful' to hear one's ancestors and one's country held responsible for a genocide that (according to most Turks) never happened. Not only that, but Armenians tried to ethnically cleansed the lands themselves; no one ever speaks about that. If you want to talk about 'psychological' stress, etc., you should take this all into account as well. Once you do, it never stops. Making opinions that people find difficult to hear illegal isn't a good solution.

The history of mankind should have taught us that by now.

An interesting article.

However I have a question - what if one's right to free speech impinges on another's right to life, liberty, freedom or whatever?

I know there are no absolutes here (for example that was the very rationale Thatcher used to deny free speech to the IRA) but what about those whose speech is designed to inflame and physically hurt others, or to organise groups politically to do so. The Nazis seem a good example.

It seems to me that some deniers are not about historical debate or enquiry but about political activity to repeat previous outrages or continue old battles.

Nationalist Greeks, Armenians and ultra religious Christians are wielding a strong effort to put down Turks in media and parliaments worldwide. Unproven Armenian allegations are being used to further the anti-Turkish bias. It has become difficult for children of Turkish heritage to proudly attend school with a majority of Armenian children and for the educated adults to keep their jobs in face of racial bigotry. Turks have become the ‘Jews’ of Europe.

I think the correct action would be to curtail bias against Turkish people in general. But, instead; this bias took a more dangerous form and judges started to bend this artificially created social model. I can’t single out the Swiss judges with the excuse that they could be trying to clear out their guilty conscience at the Turks expense. (Reminder: Switzerland obtained its riches through innocent Jewish victims’ gold?)

The existing international laws of racial discrimination seem to ignore the Turks’ rights to free speech and their protection against genocide. No one stops to think for a minute what happened to the Turks who owned the land registry of most Balkan countries? Over 80% of Bulgarian land was registered to Turkish citizens of the Ottoman Empire. The majority of Balkan population was Turkish before the same World War I years that ended up with less Armenians in Eastern Anatolia. We must be prepared to apply the same standard in recognizing Turkish losses as well.

Also, the newly created position of ‘genocide scholars’ have to accept Armenian allegations hook line and sinker. Otherwise, they could lose their title. Have you heard about how Dr. Dennis Papazian of umich.edu wrote to everyone to tape what Hilmar Keiser says in his conferences and report to him. All of this because historian Hilmar Keiser thinks the Armenian relocation was self defense of Ottoman Empire.

An excellent article.

The quotation from JS Mill, however, is selective.

Mill said (at 340),"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

The fact is that "history" which,for example, denies the Destruction of European Jewry or The Armenian Genocide is harmful to others, in particular to the victims of such historical events.

How many times does it have to be said?

The fact that someone may become emotionally upset by the mere expression of an OPINION about an HISTORICAL EVENT does not mean that they have been "harmed". No one in a truly democratic society has a moral "right" to NOT be offended. They only have a right to be protected from physical attack or direct and specific threats to their physical safety. There are people who will become offended at the drop of a hat. If someone wears green hair, rings through their eyebrows, bones through their nose, and I call them "ugly", does that mean the state has a right to prevent me from expressing an opinion about that individual because I may cause that hyper-sensitive soul emotional "harm"?