WHAT IS THE WEST MOVING AWAY FROM?
Ali Bulac
March 3 2009
The Zaman daily’s Paris correspondent Ali Ä°hsan Aydın recently
reported an interesting piece of news from Paris: Aymeric Chauprade,
an academic, was fired because his interpretation of the Sept. 11
attacks diverged from the generally accepted account of what happened.
As you may know, a variety of opinions still exists on what happened
during the terrorist attack on the twin towers in New York City on
Sept. 11. In his book, the French academic implied that the Sept. 11
incident might be a conspiracy plotted and sponsored by Israel and
the US; because of this, he was fired from the French Joint Defense
College (Collège interarmées de défense), where he had been working
for years.
Chauprade, who was working at the Joint Defense College as an
expert on geopolitics, evaluated counterarguments suggesting that
the Sept. 11 attacks might have been plotted by the Israeli and
American authorities rather than the al-Qaeda terrorist organization
in his book "Chronique du choc des civilisations" (Chronicle of the
Clash of Civilizations). Before the publication of the book, French
Defense Minister Hervé Morin asked for Chauprade’s removal from
his job at the Joint Defense College. Saying the author was trying
to present Sept. 11 as an Israeli-American conspiracy and that this
was unacceptable, Morin added that Chauprade was not allowed to set
foot on the college’s campus. Even though the French academic said he
was not defending the counterarguments but only presenting them, he
further noted: "I certainly have doubts. They are based on what I have
heard from the French intelligence service." (Zaman, March 1, 2008).
It is only unusual that something like this happened in France. The
French academic was making an analysis. Based on what he heard and what
he found while conducting research, he simply stressed that there may
be other factors behind the Sept. 11 attacks. These doubts may or may
not be justified. What matters is being able to express these views,
not whether they are right or wrong. Freedom of expression is a sine
qua non in democracies. Where there isn’t freedom of expression,
it is impossible to speak of democracy.
It has extensively been discussed what views and opinions cannot be
expressed. Insults, degrading statements, inciting hatred, racism,
violence and war are out of the sphere of freedom of expression. Some
even argue that these sorts of views cannot be restricted as long as
there is no imminent threat associated with such views or opinions.
We are actually pretty familiar with what I have just said. However,
something unusual is taking place in Europe. It is as if the West
is moving away from freedom of expression and gradually embracing a
totalitarian style. This is obviously not good.
Anti-Semitism is outlawed in almost all European countries. And, of
course, this is understandable as long as there is hatred and enmity
against Jews. But where anti-Semitism starts and where it ends is
not clear. For instance, the argument that the Nazis burned 6 million
Jews in furnaces is a belief held with certainty by Jews. This is also
the universally accepted standard and opinion. If someone argues that
the actual number was smaller than this, he or she may be prevented
from exercising further "freedom of expression." For instance, if an
academic argues that 5 million instead of 6 million were murdered
and that this is also a crime of genocide, he is assumed to have
committed the crime of anti-Semitism. Because he raised a scientific
doubt with respect to this, French philosopher Roger Garaudy was
prosecuted and convicted.
Likewise, some countries define denial of the "Armenian genocide"
as a crime and initiate investigations into those who express a
different view on the matter. However, this is a controversial
issue. Turkey holds counterarguments. If someone is prosecuted
simply because he denies Armenian genocide claims considering the
Turkish theses, this cannot be properly described as freedom of
expression. Again, criticizing the sexual orientation of gays is
regarded as a crime. However, being critical of the choices of
individuals should be under protection just as these preferences are.
Even though these examples look innocent, freedom of expression
is restricted at every stage — and the West is moving toward
totalitarianism.