Ha’aretz, Israel
Oct 13 2006

Taking sides on genocide

By Jonas Attenhofer

On an official visit to Turkey, Swiss justice minister Christoph
Blocher expressed sympathy for his hosts’ anger at Switzerland’s
prosecution of two Turkish men who publicly denied the Armenian
Genocide. The two, a historian and a politician, are being prosecuted
under a Swiss anti-racism law.

Blocher, leader of the right-wing People’s Party, also mentioned
during his visit that the Department of Justice he heads was working
toward a revision of the law, which he said caused him pain as well.
These remarks caused an uproar in Swiss political and academic
circles, which broadly support the law that withstood a referendum in
1994. Aside from racism in general, the law explicitly prohibits the
public denial, grave belittlement, or attempted justification of
genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Upon his return to Switzerland, Blocher stated his intention of
working to exclude from the anti-racism law the section that
prohibits denial of a genocide. He was quoted as saying that this
particular passage could impair freedom of expression, as well as
Switzerland’s relations with other states. Regarding freedom of
expression, the question is whether a law that prohibits the
racially, ethnically or religiously motivated violation of the human
dignity of particular individuals, represents a serious limitation of
individual freedom.

The president of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, Giusep
Nay, sees the law as a necessary limitation to freedom of expression.
He sees no threat to this freedom as expressed in the Swiss
Constitution and the United Nations Charter. A state’s interest in
limiting this basic right was explained by the Armenian Republic’s
ambassador to Switzerland, who observed that by allowing the denial
of past genocides, the perpetrators remain unpunished by public
opinion, and the prevention of future genocides is undermined.

The Swiss law covers only public statements. In a case in which a
group of Swiss soldiers gave the Nazi salute and expressed racist
sentiments while serving in the army, a military court recently
applied the term "public" to expressions made during military
training. If the anti-racism law were rescinded, it would become
easier to dismiss historic facts surrounding a genocide – effectively
favoring freedom of expression over the moral integrity of minority
groups. Equally controversial is the surrender of their moral
integrity by dropping the law in favor of good relations with states
that might disagree with it.

In the case of Switzerland and Turkey, Blocher’s call to weaken the
law has not earned much support among fellow cabinet members, whose
scheduled visits to Turkey have been cancelled by the host country
over frictions about the question of the Armenian Genocide. The Swiss
National Council had previously recognized the Armenian Genocide, and
this may be seen as the official Swiss position.

Blocher was sharply criticized by his colleagues in the seven-member
cabinet for disagreeing with a Swiss law while in a foreign country,
for not aligning his statements with the official positions of the
joint cabinet and for not fully coordinating his activities abroad
with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

As minister of justice, Blocher was not involved in any official
negotiations, but merely accepted an invitation by his Turkish
counterpart on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the
establishment of Turkish civil law, which is modeled on the Swiss
Civil Code (ZGB). At the ceremony, the dean of the faculty of law of
Ankara University mentioned the constructive role Western European
law codes played in the shift from an Islamic society to a modern,
secular one.

Should neutral Switzerland engage in Armenian-Turkish mediation in
the future, recognition of the Armenian Genocide will unlikely be
subject to negotiations. Upholding its humanitarian tradition,
Switzerland can be expected to maintain a firm stance on the issue.
This also seems to be the intention of France’s Jacques Chirac and
Germany’s Angela Merkel, who want to make the issue a precondition
for Turkey to enter the European Union. France is presently
discussing implementation of a law that explicitly prohibits denial
of the Armenian Genocide.

The situation could have significance for the Middle East. The
European Union will eventually share a border with Iran. When a
Western European country considers weakening its stance against
public denial of the Holocaust, how is the message perceived in the
Middle East?

The writer is a law student at the universities of Zurich and Berne.