There is a lot wrong with Robert Fisk’s report on the destruction of the Armenian Genocide Martyrs’ Memorial Church

There is a lot wrong with Robert Fisk’s seven-week-late report that Jabhat al-Nusra blows up Armenian church in Deir el-Zour: A savage blow that echoes through Armenian history, including the date of the commemoration of the genocide and contradictions between his story this year and his story last year, grimly concerning his digging up of genocide victims’ bones (despite their delivery to the memorial church). Even the central point of the article – Jabhat al-Nusra’s responsibility – does not appear to be correct. I’m working on a complete report.

Ghislain Noyer studies the Gauin Affair: a false controversy; and unwitting reproduction of propaganda?

Update (8th February 2016): I had given up on ever getting to the bottom of this story. Prompted by an enquiry from a reader, I revisited this case and found
a post on le Monde, which had been published just after I had given up (30th April 2012). Au Fil du Bosphore makes the convincing case that ‘Maxime Gauin may very well have fabricated this false report himself [Maxime Gauin aurait très bien pu fabriquer ce faux rapport lui-même]’.

Armenian nationalist forgery of French intelligence in order to discredit French denier of Armenian Genocide?

Update (8th February 2016): I had given up on ever getting to the bottom of this story. Prompted by an enquiry from a reader, I revisited this case and found
a post on le Monde, which had been published just after I had given up (30th April 2012). Au Fil du Bosphore makes the convincing case that ‘Maxime Gauin may very well have fabricated this false report himself [Maxime Gauin aurait très bien pu fabriquer ce faux rapport lui-même]’.

French intelligence blacklists Turkish diaspora nationalist movements as Turkish state agents provocateurs?

According to a leaked report, French intelligence has blacklisted certain Turkish diaspora nationalist movements as Turkish state agents provocateurs.

Update (8th February 2016): I had given up on ever getting to the bottom of this story. Prompted by an enquiry from a reader, I revisited this case and found
a post on le Monde, which had been published just after I had given up (30th April 2012). Au Fil du Bosphore makes the convincing case that ‘Maxime Gauin may very well have fabricated this false report himself [Maxime Gauin aurait très bien pu fabriquer ce faux rapport lui-même]’.

France cancels ‘unconstitutional’ genocide denial ban; ignores identical existing law(s)

On 28th February 2012, the Constitutional Council of France cancelled the law against genocide denial; or, as Hürriyet Daily News (@HDNER) put it, the Constitutional Council cancelled the law against “‘genocide’ denial“. The Council ruled that the law was ‘contrary to the Constitution [contraire à la Constitution]’.

Malatya Municipality destroyed Armenian cemetery chapel because it had hut for guard against its destruction?

On 3rd February 2012, Malatya Municipality ‘damaged’ an Armenian cemetery. In fact, it ‘accidentally [yanlışlıkla]’ bulldozed the cemetery chapel. According to the head of the chapel’s funders (1), Hosrof Köletavitoğlu, the Municipality wrecked the chapel just when the builders were ‘about to finish it’.

Remarkably, Malatya Mayor Ahmet Çakır’s excuse was that the Municipality ‘only [sadece]’ wanted the earthmovers to demolish the guard hut (which was built to protect the chapel from damage or destruction).

basic misunderstandings in discussion of French genocide denial ban

I want to highlight the basic (accidental and deliberate) misunderstandings in discussion of the French ban on denial of crimes against humanity. I want to write a “readable” blog post, though (unlike its tl;dr predecessors), so there is a five-point correction of the basic misunderstandings, then a wince-inducingly-long demonstration of my claims.

After this, I am back to destruction and looting.

the politics and morality of the ban on Armenian Genocide denial in France

In this post, I want: to think about whether French laws against genocide denial are motivated by politics, economics, or morality; to analyse official French and Turkish rhetoric; to review a few examples of reaction in the British press; and to highlight one absurd instance of local implementation of a non-existent law.  Warning: it is tl;dr – more than 2,000 words.  (At the end, I have summarised the past decade of Franco-Turkish diplomatic dispute over history law/hate law.)

[Update: France has passed the law against denial of crimes against humanity.]

Crimes of expression in France and Turkey

In Turkey, it is illegal to recognise the Armenian Genocide; and, in France, it may soon be illegal to deny the Armenian Genocide. I believe it is possible, in law, to balance the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom from persecution.  I think the real difficulty, in politics, is successfully promoting both freedom from persecution in free countries and freedom of expression in unfree countries.

This blog post may be quite dull; but then the next one, on public reactions to denial, can be fun, laughing at idiots. [The follow-up post ended up as exasperatedly sighing at idiots discussing the politics and morality of the ban.]

Armenian Genocide archaeology at risk in Syrian Civil War

Ararat magazine recently reported on Syria and the Mass Graves of the Genocide, warning that the Syrian Civil War could endanger archaeological evidence of the Armenian Genocide.

http://twitter.com/#!/araratmag/status/147672035181608960

Obviously, the most important thing is the safety of the civilian population; but the safety of Syrian cultural heritage, including the negative heritage of the Armenian Genocide, is also important. This is especially true as damage to or destruction of mass graves from the genocide could constitute ethnic cleansing, and presage further, direct violence against the living.