Criminalising speech

I believe it is counter-productive and contrary to basic human rights to seek to criminalise any form of speech, or at least any form of speech that does not directly incite violence against others. So I approach the decision of the French parliament to criminalise denial of the Turkish genocide against the Armenians with more than a little trepidation. Although I have no doubts that a genocide took place, I simply don't see how society benefits by forcing everyone to express just that one accepted viewpoint and no other.

For a start, using the law as a gag acts as an effective barrier to research by anyone seeking to clarify the circumstances and numbers involved or to ascertain for themselves the veracity of any claims made. It may stop people saying things, but it won't stop people thinking them. Indeed, it may have opposite effect to that intended.

The really worrying implication of this law is that it sets a precedent where any claim can be imbued with the status of 'fact', considered incontrovertible and beyond question - by the simple waving of a legislative wand.

Of course this may be a simple ruse to delay the entry of Turkey into the EU – but there are simpler ways of making opposition known – without compromising the right to free speech. For the record, I count myself amongst those who believe that Turkey does not belong in the EU – mainly because as a state they have some pretty ugly bedfellows amongst their allies.