OH SARKOZY!
07 02 2012
The damage done to France by Nicolas Sarkozy is difficult to repair
Nicolas Sarkozy, just like many other French politicians unsurprisingly played the Armenian trump in the face of approaching elections. What has Sarkozy thereby gained? What was his performance good for?
This law produced by Sarkozy will perhaps be the worst mark to be left by Sarkozy near the end of his political life. The French legislature has passed legislation making it a punishable offence to “deny the genocide of Armenians by Turks”.
Sarkozy is the side effect of globalisation in France. Sarkozy is the sad but natural outcome of neo-liberalism. For these reasons, Sarkozy is a politician due to whom many people count themselves lucky they are not French.
Sarkozy should not stop now. The elections, which he will lose, are fast approaching. He should chart his course for after the elections. Perhaps he should become the mayor of Yerevan. The remaining Dashnaks and ultranationalist politicians in Armenia like him enough. They might even give Sarkozy a pass for free entry to the genocide museum in Yerevan.
The French parliament which supposedly abides by “liberty, equality, fraternity” has recently taken a strange decision regarding history. Thanks to Sarkozy, the French assembly, which was at the heart of one of the most important revolutions in the history of the world, has produced a dogma. The French parliament which has produced this dogma supposedly represents the will of a people which has shown the greatest reaction against obscurantism and pressure on free thinking in the past.
In the 21st century, in the age of nanotechnology, at a time in which scientists are mapping genomes, the police, prosecutors and judges in France will have to run witch trials. Whoever should say “there was no genocide in 1915” in the classroom, on the street, on the bus or in out in his own garden will be prosecuted.
In France run by Sarkozy, the police should stop passersby and make them kiss the cross. There might be those among people in the street who are not Christians. According to Sarkozy the homogeneity of the French nation has become compromised. There are Gypsies, there are Muslims. Even such a measure should not be enough. The police should make people cross themselves, to see whether they are Catholic or not.
What will now happen in France? Will the French police arrest Turkish delegations at the airport? Perhaps those travelling to France will be given a form and asked “Was there an Armenian genocide. Tick yes or no”. I don’t know how many dungeons there are in France.
Let us assume that the assassination of the law or the full on assault on free thinking succeeds and the French police arrests all those who deny the events of 1915 amounts to genocide and takes them to court by the truck full. Let us also assume that the judge, charged with protecting the law, rights, the rightful and the standing of the court asked for a defence. This will probably be the case. When those on trial ask to see proof and evidence of the alleged genocide, what will happen then?
One wonders whether Monsieur le President is thinking about instituting mass detention, detention camps and deportation for Turks in his country. After all, now every Turk is a criminal. Perhaps the man who is enraptured by power could form militia groups out of the youth organisations of his party to help the police out with this task. Please do not say “it is impossible, Sarkozy would not do this.”
The great nation that raised Voltaire, Descartes, Rousseau, Comte and Durkheim among others may find a solution for Sarkozy. For while administrators are temporary, nations are permanent. However, one should honestly ask whether those French voters who re-elected Sarkozy in 2005, despite him calling the youth of the country “pests to be exterminated with pressurised water” expected any better?
Perhaps the anti-immigration politician with an immigrant background can pass other laws. While he is still in office and his days there are numbered, there must be some other laws he would want to pass. Perhaps legislation banning the mention of the Clearstream affair might be appropriate. Equally plausible is a ban on bringing up the subject of Liliane Bettencourt. Having come this far, making fun of short men might also be outlawed. And also... Never mind!