Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T03:52:22.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

"Genocide Denial" Laws as Secular Heresy: A Critical Analysis with Reference to Bosnia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Robert M. Hayden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

“Heresy” is developed here as an analytical term for the criminalization of speech questioning the basic tenets of a belief system, such as internal criticisms of state socialism or denial of the applicability of the term genocide to some mass crimes in a European Union that purports to make central the protection of human rights. European legislation to criminalize “genocide denial” is critiqued through a close analysis of international legal decisions dealing with whether “genocide” took place in the Bosnian war of 1992-95. Although granting both the facts as these courts found them and the serious criminality of the actions involved, Robert M. Hayden argues that calling them “genocide” broadens the definition of that term to the extent of losing the possibility of uniform application. Criminalizing “genocide denial” is thus not only contrary to principles of free speech and intellectual inquiry but manifests the same problem that Amnesty International identified in its reports in the 1980s on the vagueness of the “verbal crimes” provisions of the criminal laws of the formerly socialist countries. Hayden concludes that the punishment of heresy is a manifestation of power by a political elite that holds its values and assumptions to be immune from challenge.

Type
Discussion
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 67 , Issue 2 , Summer 2008 , pp. 384 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I am grateful for the comments of Jennifer Cash, Bill Chase, Noam Chomsky, Ilya Prizel, Mark Steinberg, and especially for those of several anonymous reviewers for Slavic Review.

1. “EU Plans Far-Reaching ‘Genocide Denial’ Law,” Daily Telegraph, 2 February 2007.

2. Ottawa Citizen, 2 February 2007.

3. Daily Telegraph, 2 February 2007.

4. Amnesty International, Yugoslavia: Prisoners of Conscience (London, 1985), 9-10.Google Scholar

5. The blog of Deborah Lipstadt, “History on Trial,” covered the issue: see entries for 29 May 2007 (“EU Legislation on Genocide Denial: Still in Flux“) and 23 April 2007 (“EU Law to Outlaw Genocide Denial Defeated“), though the latter pronouncement was, as Lipstadt admitted on 29 May 2007, premature. See lipstadt.blogspot.com (last consulted 22 February 2008).

6. “Turkish Politician Fined over Genocide Denial,” 9 March 2007, at www.swissinfo. org/eng (last consulted 22 February 2008).

7. Council of the European Union, 2794th Council meeting, Justice and Home Affairs, Luxembourg, 19-20 April 2007, “Council Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia,” Council of the European Union Press Release 8364/07 (Presse 77) (EN). Emphasis added. Amnesty International, Yugoslavia, 10.

8. Webster's Twentieth-Century Dictionary, unabridged, 2d ed.

9. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).Google Scholar

10. Burke, Kenneth, A Grammar of Motives (1945; Berkeley, 1969).Google Scholar

11. See generally Levy, Leonard W., Blasphemy: Verbal Offense against the Sacred, From Moses to Salman Rushdie (New York, 1993).Google Scholar

12. Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 9th ed. (London, 1783), bk. 4, chap. 4, p. 44.Google Scholar

13. Levy, Blasphemy, 413.

14. Ibid., 486-87.

15. Quoted in Amnesty International, Yugoslavia, 34.

16. Ibid., 27-28.

17. Council of Europe, “Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the Criminalisation of Acts of a Racist and Xenophobic Nature Committed through Computer Systems,” 28January 2003 at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/ (last consulted 22 February 2008).

18. Ibid.

19. Amnesty International, Public Statement: “France: Amnesty International Urges France to Protect Freedom of Expression,” AI Index: EUR 21/009/2006 (Public), 18 October 2006.

20. “Turkish Politician Fined over Genocide Denial,” 9 March 2007.

21. Amnesty International EU Office Press Release, “Racism and Discrimination— Europe's Key Human Rights Problem,” AI Index: IOR 61/010/2007 (Public), 21 March 2007.

22. Human Rights Watch, “Genocide Denial: Incitement or Hate Speech?” World Report 2007 at www.hrw.org/wr2k7/essays/shrinking/4.htm (last consulted 22 February 2008).

23. web.amnesty.org/en/international-justice (last consulted 22 February 2008).

24. Case ofLehideux and horni v. France, European Court of Human Rights, Judgment, 23 September 1998 (55/1997/839/1045), para. 47.

25. Council of Europe, “Additional Protocol.“

26. Galanter, Marc, “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” Law and Society Review 9, no. 1 (Autumn 1974): 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Todorov, Tzvetan, Hope and Memory: Lessons from the Twentieth Century, trans. David Bellos (Princeton, 2003), 123 Google Scholar; see also Todorov, Tzvetan, “Fictions and Truths,” Morals and History (Minneapolis, 1995).Google Scholar

28. Transcripts of hearings of the CSCE may be accessed at www.csce.gov (last consulted 22 February 2008), where they are organized by issue and by country, then listed chronologically within each category.

29. On U.S. Public Broadcasting System, The Charlie Rose Show, 23 November 2005.Google Scholar

30. Bill Marsh, “The Civilian Toll of War,” New York Times, 18 December 2005 Google Scholar.

31. These studies are summarized and evaluated by Ewa Tabeau and Jakub Bijak, “War Related Deaths in the 1992-95 Armed Conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Critique of Previous Estimates and Recent Results,” European Journal of Population 21, nos. 2 -3 (2005): 187-215.

32. Ibid.

33. Oslobodjenje, 9 December 2004.

34. Report carried on Justwatch listserv, 10 December 2004. Also available at www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=1985 (last consulted 22 February 2008).

35. BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 17 December 2005; carried on Justwatch listserv, 17 December 2005. See also Emir Suljagic, interview with Mirsad Tokača, “Genocide Is Not a Matter of Numbers,” Bosnian Institute News and Analysis, 19 January 2006, at www.bosnia.org.uk/news.news-body.cfm?newsid=2139 (last consulted 22 February 2008).

36. Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, ICTYTrial Chamber IJudgment, 2 August 2001 (hereafter Krstić trial judgment), para. 1.

37. All figures are from Brunborg, Helge, Lyngstad, Torkild Hovde, and Urdal, Henrik, “Accounting for Genocide: How Many Were Killed in Srebrenica?” European Journal of Population 19, no. 3 (2003): 229-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. The ICTY has two levels, or chambers. The Trial Chamber hears cases and makes the initial decision; these decisions may be appealed to the Appeals Chamber, which makes a final judgment.

39. Krstić trial judgment, para. 540. Although the Krstić court uses the definition found in the ICTYs founding statute, this is drawn directly from the relevant United Nations treaty definitions.

40. Ibid., para. 544.

41. Ibid., para. 552.

42. Ibid., para. 560.

43. Idid., para. 590.

44. Ibid., para. 595.

45. Ibid., para. 595.

46. Schabas, William A., “Was Genocide Committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina? First Judgments of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia,” Fordham International Law Journal 25, no. 1 (November 2001): 45–47.Google Scholar

47. Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, ICTY Appeals Chamber Judgment, 19 April 2004 (hereafter Krstić appeal), para. 12.

48. Ibid., para. 15. The depiction of the conflict as one between a Bosnian Muslim state and a Serb state was empirically accurate (though it ignored the Croatian state in Herzegovina) but contradictory to the premise that the recognized Bosnian government represented all of Bosnia's peoples.

49. Ibid., para. 16.

50. Ibid., para. 36.

51. Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, ICTYTrial Chamber II Judgment, 31 July 2003.

52. Dulić, Tomislav, “Utopias of Nation: Local Mass Killing in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1941-42” (PhD diss., Uppsala University, 2005), 18–19.Google Scholar

53. See, e.g., Brass, P., “The Partition of India and Retributive Genocide in the Punjab, 1946-47: Means, Methodsand Purposes,” Journal of Genocide Research 5, no. 1 (March 2003): 71–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik, Consolidated amended Indictment, 7 March 2002.

55. Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik, ICTY Trial Chamber I Judgment, 27 September 2006, para. 21.

56. Ibid., paras. 867-69.

57. Krstić appeal, paras. 135-44.

58. International Court of Justice, Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007.

59. Ibid., paras. 296, 297.

60. Ibid., para. 413.

61. Schabas, William A., “The ‘Odious Scourge': Evolving Interpretations of the Crime of Genocide,” Genocide Studies and Prevention 1, no. 2 (September 2006): 93–106.Google Scholar

62. A classic statement is Levi, Edward H., An Introduction to Legal Reasoning (Chicago, 1949).Google Scholar

63. William A. Schabas, “The ‘Odious Scourge': Evolving Interpretations of the Crime of Genocide” (paper presented at the conference, “Ultimate Crime, Ultimate Challenge, Human Rights and Genocide,” Yerevan, Armenia, 20-21 April 2005).

64. Brass, “The Partition of India,” 71-101.

65. Data from Glassheim, Eagle, “National Mythologies and Ethnic Cleansing: The Expulsion of Czechoslovak Germans in 1945,” Central European History 33, no. 4 (2000): 463-86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66. Human Rights Watch, “Genocide Denial.“

67. Todorov, , Hope and Memory, 143.Google Scholar

68. See Hayden, Robert, “Mass Killings and Images of Genocide in Bosnia, 1941-45 and 1992-95,” in Stone, Dan, ed., The Historiography of Genocide (New York, 2008).Google Scholar

69. Hayden, Robert, “Recounting the Dead: The Rediscovery and Redefinition of Wartime Massacres in Late- and Post-Communist Yugoslavia,” in Watson, Rubie S., ed., Memory, History and Opposition under State Socialism (Santa Fe, N.M., 1994)Google Scholar; see also Denich, Bette, “Dismembering Yugoslavia: Nationalist Ideologies and the Symbolic Revival of Genocide,” American Ethnologist 21, no. 2 (1994): 367-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70. See, generally, Verdery, Katherine, The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and Postsocialist Change (New York, 1999).Google Scholar

71. Wohl, Michael J. A. and Branscombe, Nyla R., “Importance of Social Categorization for Forgiveness and Collective Guilt Assignment for the Holocaust,” in Branscombe, Nyla R. and Doosje, Bertjan, eds., Collective Guilt: International Perspectives (Cambridge, Eng., 2004), 294-98.Google Scholar

72. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, “Declaration of Obligations of State Organs of the Republic of Serbia in Their Fulfillment of the Decision of the International Court of Justice” (draft), Helsinki Bulletin no. 10, March 2007.

73. E.g., Amnesty International, Yugoslavia, 27-28.

74. Ibid., 9-10.

75. See Haliczer, Steven, Inquisition and Society in the Kingdom of Valencia, 1478-1834 (Berkeley, 1990), 66–67.Google Scholar