Now it is a crime in France to deny the armenian genocide, and a Turkish writer.....

[VetLegion]

Yep, we had Ancyrean explain the Turkish viewpoint on this forum before.

Basically, there are no preserved government records that order killing all Armenians, and intent is very important in the legal definition of genocide.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Yep, we had Ancyrean explain the Turkish viewpoint on this forum before.

Basically, there are no preserved government records that order killing all Armenians, and intent is very important in the legal definition of genocide.

Exactly. That's the answer, BeBro. It doesn't excuse a very nasty bit of business, but calling it genocide mischaracterizes what happens and diminishes through dilution the category, "genocide."

[BeBMan]

I'm no expert on Turkish history, but from what I've read some of those responsible have made the intent rather clear. Also IIRC it wasn't just the deportation, the were several direct massacres on Armenians during the time

[Sava]

Is it against the law to deny that Armenians exist?

[Kuciwalker]

What about Mongols?

[Sava]

They are allowed to deny the existence of Armenians.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Unpopular speech is exactly the type which needs protecting since no one opposes popular speech.

Agreed.

Also the best way to combat lies is by continually telling the truth not to outlaw lying.

If you mean that the best way to combat lies is through open debate, drawing on the principles of reason, due process and even scientific method, then I agree. If you mean that one side of the argument should be continually restated whilst refusing to engage the arguments of the other, then I disagree.

[Cort Haus]

The touble is with 'Genoicide Denial' laws is that before you know it everyone is queuing up to have their genocide made 'official'.

This results in a morbid scramble up a pile of corpses to gain the high ground and recognition, leading to an inevitable incentive to bump up numbers and exaggerate crimes.

[Sava]

If people are still around to have their genocide made "official" then technically speaking, the genocide didn't happen. It was only an attempted genocide. So genocide-deniers would be correct in denying that a genocide never occurred because there are still people around from that particular group.

[BeBMan]

That's nonsense, because the genocide definition includes total and partial extermination.

[Pekka]

I can see how this would be idiotic or bad taste but a crime?

Woaaah.. that's crazy

[Sava]

Originally posted by BeBro
That's nonsense, because the genocide definition includes total and partial extermination.

"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." -Dictionary.com

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." -American Heritage

"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" -Merriam Webster

"systematic killing of a racial or cultural group" -WordNet

link

One definition specifically states "entire" extremination.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Sava


"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." -Dictionary.com

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." -American Heritage

"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" -Merriam Webster

"systematic killing of a racial or cultural group" -WordNet

link

We had this several times here. Dictionary defs aren't used in internat. politics. Look up some real defintions, eg. in law, and they mostly use the same def as the UN convention which refers to destruction of a group "in whole or in part".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

(esp. under point 2)

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The issue isn't entire versus partial.

The issue is "systematic" -- which appears in all the definitions -- and its corollary, planned, which apprears in some.

The Armenian genocide was neither. The forced removal was planned, to be sure. But there's simply no evidence that there was a plan to round up the Armenians and kill them. Certainly they were treated so brutally during the forced removal that a large number died; certainly that's criminal, and the fault of some Turks (as opposed to "the Turks"). But systematic, planned genocide? No.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The issue isn't entire versus partial.

That was just re Sava's post to show that genocide can also be if it's "only" partial.

The Armenian genocide was neither. The forced removal was planned, to be sure. But there's simply no evidence that there was a plan to round up the Armenians and kill them. Certainly they were treated so brutally during the forced removal that a large number died; certainly that's criminal, and the fault of some Turks (as opposed to "the Turks"). But systematic, planned genocide? No.

Well, as said, I don't feel I know enough to make a final judgement, but it strikes me that the term was esp. coined in light of - also - the Armenian events (if the wiki thing is correct here), and also that the large majority of scholars seems to accept the label "genocide". Sure, that in itself is no proof, but it's not something which should be dismissed easily either.