Shut Up, He Explained
The French lower house has passed a bill making it a crime there to deny the Armenian Genocide of 1915, committed by the Ottoman Turks. The bill now goes to the upper house. France can do that, because France doesn’t recognize freedom of speech the way we do. Or the way we once did. Anyway, Turkey’s Islamic government is having none of it:
Turkish attempts to stop this bill going to parliament were charged as “interference in France’s internal affairs” by Valerie Boyer, the bills author. While Foreign Minister Alain Juppé called on Turkey not to overreact, Turkey has responded in the strongest possible terms. Ankara has threatened military and political sanctions against France, and has cancelled all economic, political and military meetings within the NATO framework, while also cancelling permission for French military planes and ships to use Turkey’s ports or airfields. If the bill is adopted, France will lose access to sectors of the Turkish economy such as transport and arms, which could cost French business around $40-50 billion.
When do we get to stop pretending Turkey is a reliable partner?
“When do we get to stop pretending Turkey is a reliable partner?”
The Federal government can’t do that. It would be an implicit admission that you can’t buy friendship and loyalty with mountains of aid payments. And where would the foreign policy be without that? (Hint: same place as Egypt and Iran).
Actually, after the recent debates I’ve had with some other conservatives on foreign policy, I guess I have to point out the sarcasm in my reference to Iran and Egypt – we dumped billions and billions on them and wound up with religious extremists in charge anyway (and ones that blame us, all too correctly, for the corrupt and oppressive regimes that existed before the religious extremists took over).
This is one of those moments where I just want to see both sides in a cage match, and watch them pummel the sh*t out of each other.
On the one hand, we have an authoritarian government imposing its will on the rights of its citizens, and on the other …
Wait, which side is which again?
Oh mean, you’ve got me flashing back to the days of Usenet and Serdar Argic.
Idiotic law, as is the law against holocaust denial — and, being a Jew, believe me I have nothing but utter contempt for both of those deniers. But to give the government the power to decide what contemptible opinions are illegal is a bad idea.
What this usually means is that, very quickly, the government bans, not only contemptible opinions, but simply decides that any *unpopular* opinion (re: “hate speech” accusations for saying things about Islam or abortion or homosexuality that signal anything less than 100% agreement with them); and then any *critical* opinion (re: Obama’s “attack watch” web site).
Americans rightly thank God for their Constitution. Without it, those who created “attack watch” could put people in jail for “lying about Obama”, and they would have.
“France can do that, because France doesn’t recognize freedom of speech the way we do.”
The right of free speech is not granted by any government or constitution. The French, Iranians and North Koreans have the right to free speech, as they are human beings, the problem is that they have, to widely varying, governments that will use force to shut down disfavored speech. Marxism, in whatever flavor, is truly despicable, ascribing the granting of rights to the government.
And, BTW, it really is time to rethink NATO. I’d kick Turkey and Greece (I haven’t forgotten the Greek betrayal during the Balkans issues) out. For starters.
I didn’t use the word “grant,” I used the word “recognize.” As in, the French constitution doesn’t recognize am inherent human right. I did not say the right doesn’t exist, I didn’t even imply such a thing. In fact, I said quite the opposite.