Clooney-loonies always yell at me when I try to figure out Amal Clooney’s leisurely work schedule, but seriously, I cannot figure out how she gets so much time off. This really isn’t how American lawyers (or American any-professionals) work. She must have “taken off” about seven months last year, and she spent the last month and a half on holiday with George Clooney in LA and Cabo. Well, now it’s back to work for Amal. She was spotted in Strasbourg, France where she’s part of the British legal team to… argue that free speech doesn’t exist when you’re denying the Armenian Genocide. Basically?
STRASBOURG, France (AP) — Lawyer Amal Clooney is going before Europe’s top human rights court to argue against a man convicted for denying the 1915 Armenian genocide.
Clooney is arguing on an appeal before the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in favor of the man, Dogu Perincek, in December 2013.
Perincek argued his right to free speech was violated when Swiss courts convicted him of denying the genocide in 2005.
Historians estimate up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I, an event widely viewed by genocide scholars as the first genocide of the 20th century. Turkey, however, denies the deaths constituted genocide, saying the toll has been inflated and that those killed were victims of civil war and unrest.
If you’d like more clarity on this issue, The Telegraph had a longer write-up here. My take? Denying the Armenian Genocide is like denying the Holocaust. It is a plain and simple fact that the Armenian Genocide happened. To be a “denier” makes you look stupid and likely racist. But! I do think many European countries get carried away with their hate speech laws. Is it stupid to deny the Armenian Genocide? For sure. Should you have to go on trial and face a hate-speech conviction for saying something stupid? Probably not.
PS… The book she’s carrying is Judgment at Istanbul: The Armenian Genocide Trials.
Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News.
It’s an european court, not a french court….
You could tell me it is a court on Mars, I still would have no clue. It’s amazing to me that people like me could tell you Kate Middleton’s entire biography but know very little about what the real life struggles of the World are.
And that is very sad.
I wonder, while she has the ability to take lengthy periods of time off is she perhaps working from “home”. I have a neighbor who is an attorney and he rarely goes into the office, works from home for the most part, unless in court or meetings.
Surely she is working from home. Attorneys spend very little time in court when it comes down to it and can work anywhere they have access to a phone and computer. There’s no way she’s prepared to be in court if she’s taking 7 months off.
Yea she can work anywhere and i’m sure she does. She also has a rather light workload compared to her peers at her firm. Which is pretty large and has teams. It’s not like it’s her only and she needs to sit in on meetings. She also doesn’t strike me as one to let down time dull her skills.
I think it also probable that she is working remotely.
I was thinking she may be “of counsel” or something, and not a full-time attorney that bills by the hour. She probably has her cases that she deals with when she needs to, she probably has an assistant or more who keeps things in order
Just from what went on with my divorce, a legal assistant did most of the grunt work for my attorney. So, probably, a legal assistant is doing most of the research.
I work in the legal profession, and a legal assistant DOES NOT do the research they assistant does all the horrible work of document production etc, the Paralegal does the research and grunt work and the attorney compiles the final submissions. Work like she does requires a lot of prep time, which she can do remotely – she doesn’t have to be sitting in her office to be doing it.
My theory is that the cases she works on are not cut and dry. They don’t have an end-point, necessarily. I mean, Julian Assange, for example, that will go on and on for years… she’s not in and out of court every other week.
the vast majority of what she does involves research, writing and closed door meetings. I find it unimaginable that she could bot do the majority of this work from anywhere as long as she had a laptop, phone and a secure internet connection.
I see she is sitting close to a senior colleague…just saying…
The senior counsel is Geoffrey Robertson QC (queens counsel) a QC is the highest type of barrister, he is Australian but lives in England. He is married to another Australian… very hmmmm well… annoying celeb/writer/author called Kathy Lette. She wrote an excellent book called Puberty Blues at 19 or so and since then has traded on a love of puns and double entendre (spelling wrong for sure sorry!) she loves celebrity and I have been thinking how much she will be reveling in having the Clooney’s over for work drinkies. That’s all I’ve got goss wise re her work situation.
She is not of counsel, she’s a barrister. In the UK, you aren’t an attorney… Rather, everyone goes to law school and then splits into two streams: solicitors, who are usually the first contact a client would have with the legal profession, whereas barristers specifically have speaking privileges in court. It is a bit murkier now because solicitors can also gain speaking privileges as advocates, but generally, solicitors will compile a case and refer it to a barrister to fight in court. If you’re a North American working as a lawyer (solicitor) in the UK like me, it’s a bit of a weird distinction to wrap your head around but it’s the system here.
Her work schedule can be explained as well by her being a barrister. Barristers are self-employed, but belong to a specific chamber; I believe Amal belongs to the Doughty Street Chambers in London, which, if I recall correctly, specialise in international/human rights law.
Barristers can have as much or as little work as they want, and considering her status as Mrs Clooney, I’m imagining money isn’t a problem and that’s probably the biggest incentive to work more hours and cases… And as far as career progression goes, I think she is in a nice position in that a) her marriage and media spotlight probably has been good for profile as a barrister as well as that of her chambers, and b) she’s able to take time to enjoy her new marriage, and will soon (like now) return back to her career.
Very well explained. Thank you. All I know about the British system is what I learned from watching Silk.
I am repeating my comments from yesterday on CDL
What exactly does Amal do as a lawyer? She comes off as the British barrister law firm version of a VIP hostess. She escorts the clients in front of the press. She is not a rainmaker for the firm. She is not first chair on any of her court cases. So what exactly does she do? What does everyone else think?
LOL “barrister law firm version of a VIP hostess!” My thoughts exactly…on another thread I said I found her “meh!” I wonder if the Clooney PR people really DO read these comments, because it seems like they’re finally presenting her as part of a team, not the be-all and end-all super lawyer extraordinaire. Hopefully these publicists will also back off from selling her as the greatest fashion icon since Jackie Onassis…
British law and American law has totally different set ups. She is not a “lawyer” in the American sense. In American law there is one kind of lawyer; the one you approach who is the person you deal with and he (or she) is the one who presents the case in front of the judge. In British law you would see your solicitor and tell him everything but the solicitor will be the one who contacts the barrister who specialises in the kind of law you need. You will not meet the barrister until you see him (or her) in court.
Barristers are self employed (usually. At Doughty Street definitely) A chamber is the name of a group of clerks who do all the paperwork for the barristers who are a member of that particular chamber. The barristers pay the wages for the clerks as a way of splitting costs.
Junior counsel is not like a junior partner in the US. When you see “call” and a date beside them it means when they have become a fully fledged barrister. A barrister will keep the title Junior Counsel until they either give up practicing law or decide to try for the title of Queens Council (QC or silk) To become a QC you have to apply after at least 15 years from call to the Judicial Appointments Commission. Many barristers don’t apply in their lifetime, many are turned down, a great deal of them don’t apply until they have been a Junior Counsel for over 20 years.
She was only called in 2010, which means less than 5 years at the bar. The way that barristers (and lawyers in general) build their advocacy skills is by getting as much court experience as possible. And the legal profession is very hierarchical, so you need to bust your ass to prove your worth. It is only with time and experience that a lawyer / barrister improves his or her skills and there is just no way that she is comparable to a lawyer with 10 years or 20 years of experience. There are few shortcuts and as she doesn’t appear to be running a full caseload, she is probably not even at the level of other colleagues who are the same year of call.
She has gotten a lot of media attention because of who she married, but in reality barristers with barely 5 years don’t get this attention. I am sure the QCs running her chambers love this attention because it will make them more money. I bet if you spoke to her colleagues of similar vintage, they would not be as impressed.
I watched the video of her submissions to the court. She was okay, and competent for someone with her experience, but not a superstar when compared to other lawyers with more experience.
As for what she was arguing, I don’t take issue with it at all. Once called to the bar, the first duty is to the client and to put forth the best case possible and in an ethical manner.
I also watched the video. Nic919, I agree with your assessment. Amal appeared nervous. She flubbed her lines a few times, and was overly reliant upon her notes. Indeed, she appeared to be reading directly from her notes towards the end of the proceeding.
I do not think that she is a natural oral advocate. That’s not a knock on her. As you indicated, Nic919, it takes years of experience before someone can become an effective orator and (more importantly) provide responsive information to jurists’ questions. It’s a lot easier to prepare and read / memorize a six-minute speech to a tribunal, without interruption, than to get 30 seconds into such a presentation before being interrupted by a barrage of jurist queries that have not been resolved by the written pleadings to the court. I found the latter skill hard to acquire in my own practice. The real test of Amal’s skills, I think, will come when she has to respond under those adverse circumstances.
I also found the focus of her presentation… interesting. Based upon my cursory review of the presentation, it was my understanding that Amal’s client argued, in part, that the intermediate appellate body below overturned the defendant’s conviction on a different legal ground than the Swiss trial court considered, without affording the country of Armenia an opportunity to provide adverse evidence and an opportunity to be heard on the substantive matter at hand — whether the defendant’s denial of the Armenian Genocide is protected speech under the European Convention of Human Rights, or is instead hate speech / incitement that is the proper subject of a criminal prosecution. I would imagine that any of the above-mentioned procedural errors, if sustained, would lead to the reversal of the adverse decision in question, and, ultimately, to the desired result for Amal’s client.
I found it hard to understand why Amal focused on the fact that the Armenian Genocide occurred, which the court did not appear to dispute, rather than on the errors that would justify reversal of the lower tribunals’ decisions. The jurists’ facial expressions during her presentation did not suggest that they found her presentation illuminating on that topic….or engaging. That strategic decision may not have been made by her, but I wonder how that advances the cause of her clients.
She reminds me of a young Joan Crawford!
This. It’s not like attorneys are hunched over their desks all day everyday. They can pretty much work anywhere if they have a cell phone and wifi.
Just to be clear: she’s a lawyer, her job is to argue a position. We have no idea what she actually thinks about the issue.
+100000000000000000000000000 thank you! attorneys rarely get to choose their clients and therefore, we argue on behalf of our clients. it has nothing to do with our personal opinions on the issue.
still makes it hard when you disagree with your client. I also found it hard to argue BS points to the judge I clerked for and the other judges in that court, but yeah, that’s just how it is. I moved into admin law, it’s so much less stressful
Then I could never be a lawyer. Being a CPA is much easier on my conscience.
Granted but you can’t make frivolous arguments in support of a client – at least not in US courts. My clients don’t tell me how to argue their cases or defend them. That’s on me to devise legitimate legal defenses and arguments sometimes based on facts or the lack thereof, sometimes just based on law. I certainly don’t base my cases on just anything my client wants.
Thank you, mia4s!
I agree Mia4S. Speaking as a solicitor I get exasperated by the assumptions made about Amal Clooney based on the work she carries out in her professional life.
Thank you for this! As an attorney, I am a hired gun and I advocate my client’s position, period. I don’t have to agree with it, in fact, many time I don’t.
Yes!
That’s why I didn’t go to law school. I would not be able to stay neutral even in corporate law.
I’m a lawyer in California. I am free to pick and choose my cases; much of it simply depends on how much money it is bringing in and whether I can argue something with a straight face. In Amal Clooney’s case, where money is no object, she is definitely picking and choosing. She’s not working for a firm whose basic principles she doesn’t believe in. She’s not a public defender who takes what she gets and does the best she can with it.
Barristers can’t pick and choose their cases.
She is not lead counsel on this case and so she wasn’t the one who took on this case. She did however choose to assist lead counsel with it. As RobN said, she must agree generally with the types of human rights cases the chambers takes on or else she would go somewhere else. That said, lawyers are trained to view cases a little less emotionally and look at the legal arguments that can be made. This one is basically whether or not free speech should be protected when the subject matter is distasteful. The US has protected free speech far more than in Europe, where many countries haven strong hate speech laws, and denying genocide is pretty hateful. But many interesting legal arguments can be made either way and if your area of practice is human rights, it would be an interesting case to be a part of. She may not even have a personal opinion about the Armenian genocide, and it doesn’t matter if she does. As a lawyer you are a hired gun to argue a case and your first priority is to your client and to argue their position the best way possible. Personal opinions are irrelevant to the court.
Judging by the “je suis charlie” pins that both Amal and George wore at the golden globes, I’d assume they’re both strongly in favor of free speech.
Just because she was arguing “against free speech” in court while REPRESENTING A CLIENT doesn’t meant those are her personal beliefs. As an advocate, it would be her ethical duty to her client to advance every legitimate argument in favor of their case, including some that would advance a view she may not personally hold.
As to picking and choosing cases, in England they have the taxi-cab / cab-rank rule for barristers. They’re not supposed to pick and choose, but accept cases as they come. It’s the same in Australia, where I went to law school, and which also has a segregated profession (solicitors and barristers vs. “lawyers” like in Canada and the US).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule
The freedom of speech laws are different in European countries. I know that speech in Germany is limited in re to prohibiting inciting hatred. I’m too lazy to look to confirm any differences to the US system. Here we would be permitted to utter whatever stupidity we like, barring some caveats, like screaming ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater.
As I said below, we have exceptions to freedom of speech protections, and false statements of fact are not protected. Another is speech inciting to violence. Don’t remember the others.
Well you can say false things, you won’t go to jail, but you might lose your pants in a civil trial. I guess maybe you are talking about perjury under oath? Calling in false threats and whatnot?
@ GoodNamesAllTaken
False statements of fact are not persecuted by US law. Just have a look at the gossip rags which claim that some actors/actresses were pregnant or alcoholics or sleeping with whoever or were communists/racists/liberalists/ …
Kiddo
Bingo!
OT
Whatever the rob is called she’s wearing is nice. With no offence intended it looked like a chic snuggie or a Dame Jolie sack inspired poncho.
In the US, it is a felony to make false statements to law enforcement when they are investigating a federal crime. Just learned that one today.
They can indeed vary widely. I remember when John Galliano got drunk and said all of those horribly anti-Semitic things, he was arrested because in France they have very strict laws against hate-speech.
Now, do I think that people should get arrested for saying racist / stupid / bigoted things? Not really, because I do believe in freedom of speech. Do I therefore agree with these racists / bigots? Hell to the no.
They have very strict laws against free speech, unless it is speech they approve of.
Yeah, once you’ve had a few land wars fought on your native soil and watched genocide in action, the whole “inciting hatred” thing seems a bit more serious. Here we deny…..denial, so every idiot with an opinion thinks he’s got a relevant, respectable viewpoint.
Exactly.
THIS. Go see a concentration camp and then tell me neo-nazis have a right to share their philosophy with whomever they want because of free speech.
In Europe genocide is a big deal because there are still generations who survived it or have grandparents who fell victim to it. The most recent one were the wars on the Balkans so of course we are more sensitive to it and know how much hate speach and denial of genocide can contribute to the rise of nationalism.
Yes, seems to me Amal is not trying to argue against free speech but instead is trying to prove that by European law, what this man said is not in fact free speech but more like hate-speech or racist-speech, which is punishable by law.
In that sense, the headline of this post is a bit unfair.
Yep. Headline is misleading but I think most CB posters are smart enough to read past the headline.
I don’t think the headline is misleading. The law she is advocating for narrows the definition of free speech.
Ms. Clooney must be working of counsel or otherwise part time for her firm. That does not make her any less smart or successful at her job, but there’s no way she can be working on these cases full time while still vacationing and making public appearances for months on end.
My understanding is that she is a barrister in the UK, so she takes the legal research, briefing, etc. done by others and her primary responsibility is to present those arguments in court. This would allow her to select a more limited work schedule.
Agree. It makes her look horrible in the headline, while what she doing is simply her job and not a bad thing. Denying something as horrifying as a genocide (it can’t get worse than that), is always done with very ill-intentions.
Agreed.
This case is about which law trumps which law – EU-wide law or Member State law. I suppose you could analogise to state v federal in US terms. We Brits LOVE to whine about EU-wide law. As others have said, it’s an EU court, not a French or Swiss court.
Post-Hebdo, France is moving to up the stakes for its hate speech laws – like the US equivalent of going from misdemeanor to felony.
Personally, I agree with Kaiser and would likely go further. No hate speech laws at all. Stick with incitement only.
I hate to sound like a know-it-all, but the Court is actually an institution of the Council of Europe, which is a different international organisation than the EU (Turkey is a member there, for instance, and so is Russia). But the Convention of 1950 has been incorporated into EU-Law, although most Member States were already a part of it.
Please don’t hate me…
Heehee. No hate. You’re right and I know: trying to simplify for a US audience. The whole thing is a bit labyrinthine if you don’t know anything about it.
Ah, yes! I should probably have thought about it from.that perspective. As for ” labyrinthine” – I couldn’t have found a better way to describe the web of treaties and organisations in Europe :p
I think she is basing this on Article 10 of European Convention of Human Rights
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
She would be. And thank you for writing all of that down!
There are a few things that aren’t covered by freedom of speech in Germany, like you said. But they’re rather limited. You cannot deny the Holocaust for example (I think other European countries might have laws similar to ours re the Holocaust).
It’s pretty easy to circumvent laws re hate speech but I think most Germans still think the laws themselves are a good idea. Some others I’m not sure about, there are laws banning certain books, movies, etc. They’re technically not banned but can only be sold as hardcopies to people over 18 and since you’re not allowed to advertise them, most people have no idea they even exist. Anyone who’s been on the internet for a minute knows this is a bit ridiculous, especially because once your book etc. has been put on the index, it stays there for 25 years.
I get carried away, I find our freedom of speech laws fascinating. 🙂
+1
You pretty much summed it up, Kiddo.
My god she is looking gaunt
Obviously I can’t speak to her vacation schedule but it is quite possible for her to work remotely. I know a lot of lawyers who are able to do that, especially if they’re part of a team of lawyers (so some work on site and others off site on the same case).
There are a few of dubious things about this woman (is she into the fame? Is she not? Etc), to me anyway, but her work ethic surprisingly isn’t one of them.
She looks so much happier in her own element. She looks like herself, I believe.
And when does the spells and horcruxes class start? (rube American here, who would have appreciated my activist lawyer parents way more if they had dressed like this)
I, too, think she looks happier to get back to work on her own turf.
This woman is awesome. She’s such a high flyer and people can’t cope with that. The comments under any article about her always try to find a way to put her down, but ultimately she’s fiercely intelligent, beautiful and happens to have George Clooney has a husband. She’s done with all of you.
No she’s not, hence the constant paparazzi pics.
I happen to think she’s pretty cool but…Just sayin.
SHE’S DONE WITH YOU, THE END.
Ha!
False statements of fact are not protected by freedom of speech, even in the US.
This. It’s considered a “veil of face”.
Lol, ok so I can’t read. I’m old! I need better glasses!
lol
I love it when you can’t read, it makes me laugh. 😘
Veil of face sounds so serious. Or like a Swedish pop band, and something is lost in translation.
actually they are. as a public figure, politican or celeb any can write anything about you. you can use them but then YOU must prove they lied and that they acted with actual malice. thats why celebs never sue, they cant win. how you you think Star and Enquirer get away with their constant libel, how do mags say Angelinas and Brads children are mentally handicapped? no european court would allow that and that is good.
Yeah, I remember David Beckham filing lawsuits in Germany and the US for the same story (think it was a story about him having an affair). He won in Germany, but didn’t meet the standards for defamation in the US.
OhDear: Yes, good example. Beckham had to prove he didnt have an affair (which would have been impossible if they hadnt printed a date on which it “happened”) but he couldnt prove they acted with actual malice. they just said “we were careless” that was enough. in Germany its not enough. the burden of proof obviously lies with the person making the claim. i mean how do you prove that you didnt cheat on your partner if they dont give a date where you can prove you were somewhere else? its not possible so its only fair that the person making the claim must prove it. not in the USA though.
the US judge even aknowledged that they made up the affair claim but still said its ok to print lies about a married man with kids.
thats the main reason celebs never sue.
‘Should you have to go on trial and face a hate-speech conviction for saying something stupid? Probably not’ Reading some of the comments on this people should be put on trial for cheating or slipping up in an interview
Because cheating is the same as denying a genocide? Saying something stupid is not the same as denying facts. You can argue the historical facts and once you’ve established the facts, whatever they might be, you can move on to the question of whether it should be illegal to deny them. But you can’t skip that second step. Or you just get rid of any law that limits speech at all. That would be … interesting.
Yes, you can skip the second step. In the U.S., you are allowed to hold any opinion on any issue you’d like, and that’s all that is going on here, somebody disagrees with the currently accepted version of these events, and that is regardless of the historical accuracy of the opinion. I can deny the holocaust, I can deny that the sky is blue. It doesn’t matter. Our system recognizes that more speech is better speech; you don’t convince people a genocide happened by refusing to let people disagree. You certainly don’t create a free society by telling people what version of an event they have to accept.
RobN, to German law, one of the main reasons is protecting the victims.
And then some morons will have the right to decide that their children will learn from a book that says that earth is flat, that women have less worth than a goat, et cetera, et cetera… I don’t think absolute free speech allows idiots to be seen as idiots but to remains idiots, multiply and prosper. And that it allows bully to keep on bullying.
Yes, I realised that sound offensive. Not PC at all.
In the US, this kind of work schedule could be set up if the person actually quits their job and then gets re-hired by their employer as a consultant for work on individual cases.
If she works from home, goes into the office/doesn’t go into the office or lives in a state of constant vacation, it is her call and her life. Regardless of who her husband is, a prestigious law firm will never put up with an attorney who disregards their work.
hey that man in the top picture looks nice.
i enjoy reading Amal’s courtly/lawyerly pursuit rather than her celebrity one.
Maybe George Clooney will marry him next. 😉
She looks much prettier here in her work-wardrobe.
She’s a barrister I think so that makes her self-employed. She’ll be attached to a chambers but it’s up to her what work she takes as long as she pays her fees.
Preparing a case in Cabo sounds perfect, what a job!
Yep, that’s how it works. And I’m sure George pays for the plane tickets, what a job indeed!
Does this mean she gets to choose which cases she takes on?
I would think so, but I’m not sure how that works when you are in training as a barrister (I do not know if Amal is, btw).
I’m Dutch and a lawyer in the Netherlands is – by law – independent. When you start out you promise (or swear) before a Judge not to take on any cases that you in good conscience cannot argue.
When you are in training you just take any case your direct boss (usually a partner higher up in the pecking order) gives you. It takes a couple of years before you actually achieve a certain amount of independence in practice.
A case like Amal’s I would have taken on any day!!
Not in theory, no. Barristers here have the “cab rank principle” which is meant to ensure people get representation no matter how unappealing they/their case may be: http://www.iclr.co.uk/the-cab-rank-rule-still-driving-the-bar/
Barristers are mostly self-employed though, yes. https://targetjobs.co.uk/career-sectors/law-barristers/291449-do-you-have-to-be-self-employed-to-work-as-a-barrister
I know her work schedule is a little lossy goosie, and she maybe a famewhore. But i still admire the hell out of her for at least doing something for human rights.
I do believe she’s very smart and in this time of age,it’s a rarity in our pop culture. I will always appreciate a intelligent person.
I’m impressed by her ability to go down those stairs like that!!! Look at her feet in the top picture. Is she floating??
that doesn´t look like stairs. I think it´s just a platform with frosted glas panels
Oh good. For a minute there I thought she was a ghost.
Well it’s the Europeen Laws : it’s a crime to deny a genocide….
Each culture has its own history.
For instance, as a Europeen, I don’t get why people get THAT angry when someone is using the N word or doing a “black face”. But my country has never experience esclavigism… So, while I don’t find it funny or smart, I don’t get mad, because I’m less sensitive about this subject…
But, when you live in Europe, you are more sensitive about genocide because it’s (sadly) part of our history…
I understand that, from an outside point of view, people feel that it’s against free speech to forbide someone to deny genocide…
But the truth is : due to our history we cannot let anyone deny a genocide. People need to know it did happenned and it could happen again…
I guess I have never seen it that way. However, people in the United States do not go to prison for using black face or saying the N word. Is hateful, ignorant, crumbles careers and makes the person an assh*le. But it does not merit prison and neither does denying a genocide. Just my thoughts though.
The truth is, i am someone who believes that freedom of speech shouldn’t extend to everything. I don’t think it is right to deny a genocide just as much as i think it is wrong to make a mockery out of someone else’s faith/religious beliefs. The way freedom of speech is held up as an ideal today is very spottily applied, though, which I think is hypocritical.
You either believe in freedom of speech or you don’t.
I take an opposite position vis a vis freedom of speech but I’m with you all the way on how selectively Europeans are applying it right now. If you’re on the “right” side, it’s courageous freedom of speech. If you’re on the “wrong” side, it’s hate speech. Can’t have it both ways.
FingerBinger: do you think its ok to shout “FIRE FIRE FIRE” in a crowded cinema when there is no fire?
Of course, i’m not going to assault someone who denies the Holocaust or draws obscene pictures of venerated religious figures because i disagree with them. They have every right to do so but i don’t support that because i don’t think it’s right. I’m not going to lobby for a change in laws, for example, but i’m not gonna blindly support such things for the sake of freedom of speech.
And Sixer, yes, i agree with you. Can’t have it both ways is absolutely right.
tifzlan: religions are organisations of power, so they MUST be ridiculed. making fun of islam is nothing else than poking fun at the Republicans or Putin. should you be able to make jokes about vegan hipsters? how would you protect it anyway? is a critic allowed to mock the new Star Wars? or can fans sue him? quite a few people write down “Jedi Knight” as their faith. where do you draw the line? is Scientology fair game but Buddhism isnt? why is Scientologies story with Xenu ridiculous but lots of people believie in angels and walking over water?
it comes down to truth. no one should be able to tell lies about you. no one should entice violence (or as in my example above not yell “fire” in a crowded place for giggles) and not call you names.
Maria – tifzlan is basically talking about a blasphemy exception. It’s not a position I share – incitement would be my only exception – but it’s a perfectly arguable one. Especially in Europe. If it has a genocide denial exception, why not a blasphemy exception? Even you think there should be a hazard exception.
Maria, i see your point. Like i said, people can say whatever they want but i’m not obligated to agree just to show that i am a staunch supporter of freedom of speech. I guess that is what i meant when i said that i don’t think freedom of speech should extend to everything but i didn’t express that very well.
Just also wanted to say that i still think freedom of speech isn’t consistently applied. I’m not expressing myself very well today but i don’t know how else to say it? It’s like there are different types of freedom of speech and like Sixer said, if you’re on the “right” said, it’s perfectly okay to say whatever you want and even people questioning that or criticizing that are labelled as backwards or not liberal enough or whatever (looking at you Bill Maher). I don’t know if this makes any sense but that’s why i think the way freedom of speech is touted today is kind of hypocritical.
You are all making wonderful points! What an interesting conversation.
Freedom of speech and its limits (if they should exist) is a hot topic in Europe, especially after CharlieHebdo. I personally wouldn’t support a blasphemy exception… But I also consider it a bit too much to convict a man for denying the Armenian genocide, especially when Turkey staunchly denies it too. Perhaps if the man were representing a public institution, I could see some sense to it…
Aha, now I know why she wears big sun glasses inside the building whenever she can! To hide those tired sunken eyes. She looks way worse in DM pics, just saying.
Junior Barristers mostly do paper work as in reading up, research, preparing the case to help the boss/senior partner, so she can do it at home on computer.
So much for “I am Charlie” badge she was carrying in support of free speech at GG but they are just lawyers who work to make money for the firm and themselves, (not on a UN mission as a volunteer humanitarian) so she is against it now. Oh well…hypocrisy.
Still never misses another “look at me” opportunity, does she? 😀
Free speech is always limited by local laws.
Hate speech and genocide denial are generally forbidden in european laws, her job is to argue about this very case.
She does not contradict herself.
I don’t think it’s hypocrisy at all, it’s her doing her job. Her personal opinion may be way different but a true professional can put aside their personal judgements and get the job done if they know how to properly compartmentalize their lives. Unless it’s something completely unethical or illegal, I have great respect for people who know how to do that. Those are the kind of lawyers you’d WANT to hire.
If she wasn’t intelligent , she won’t be in the position she is now. Representing cases like this. Give her kudos all the way. Her work , crlebrity or vacation schedule is non of my business
The laws on freedom of expression are different in each european country…the situation in France with Charlie Hebdo and their treatment of Islam ( and other religions) is one example of this.
I continue to ask myself why the majority of Amal’s cases concern ‘bad people’ doing ‘bad things’ versus victims of true persecution. I don’t think the argument of having to take cases holds, because she is not just operating in a British court, but outside of the country. I suspect it all gets down to money and probably notoriety.
Amal continues to lap up the media attention…
+10000
It is usually a certain US american country who consider slander and insult as being covered by the right to free speech.
Most likely this guy didn’t just deny the genocide in some private conversation but in a more public setting.
The denial of a genocide is problematic because it would lead to an incomplete reprocessing of these crimes which then in turn will be a breeding ground for similar crimes as well as discrimination and racism.
The denial of a genocide is problematic as it would result in denied compensation and denied restauration (for example of art works or of land and farms).
Thank you!
oh come on freedom of speech is not universal. freedoms end where other peoples freedoms are damaged and it needs to be weighed up whats more important. look at the american political campaigns, there you can see how freedom of speech is only used to smear the other candidate with lies.
Lies should never be protected, no matter what kind of person is the victim. in the USA gossip mags can write any and everything and then just say “hoops” because a celeb can not sue them with a realistic chance of winning.
the same people that are offended about no full free speech would be mad if someone could just tell neighbours they were child rapists. thats not free speech. its their to speak truth to power, not to smear people or deny genocides. Germany has banned the denial of the holocaust long ago and other countries should do that with their own genocides (which are unfortunately often and willingly swept under the carpet)
Exactly the point I was trying to make in a comment that apparently got lost.
Those laws are here to protect other people right not to be bullied or defamed. Or be put in danger by some homophobic, racist or revisionist hate speech.
Responsible Freedom means almost no revenge pron, far less bullying (In fact we do not even have a dedicated word for that). Plus you still can say what you want, as long as it’s the truth of course.
I don’t get why peoe side eye her work schedule. It’s not uncommon for lawyers to work remotely, or for lawyers to have flexible schedules if they’ve won a certain amount of cases & aren’t chasing more jobs. She’s taught at both NYU and Columbia law school…so she’s reached a certain level.
Her qualifications have been inflated, I assume by Clooney’s PR team and for what purpose I do not know. She went to NYU for a Master in Law not a J.D. and she lectured at UNC-Chapel Hill. She did not teach at NYU or Columbia. She also did not clerk for US Supreme Court justice Sotomayor but was a summer intern when she was in NY. She was an entry level lawyer working with an Enron consultant helping Enron get out of legal trouble, not the other way around.
She is a junior barrister which means in U.K. she helps present the case to the court either through research or sometimes she may present part of the case. I really don’t understand why they have inflated her resume. Even with her real accomplishments she is a respectable woman junior barrister, which is harder in the UK because it really is a boys club. Her schedule currently seems a bit suspect, because I know of very few barristers who work that little not at offices and move ahead in the ranks. Still, I guess we will just have to see what she works on in the future.
This is what bugs me, in order for her to be good enough for George who didn’t graduate college she must be lawyer human rights genius or at least presented that way.
Most holders of L.L.B degrees from countries practicing British/English law only need to get a L.L.M from an American university to be eligible to sit for the Bar. About 23 States allow this, New York being one of them. The British L.L.B is equivalent to an American Juris Doctor…especially one from Oxford.
Yes and she did pass the NY Bar from what I can see. A British LLB I don’t think I would say is equivalent in the US to JD although I am sure some Europeans wouldn’t agree with me. Still the state bars don’t either as they are requiring a masters at most. An LLB in Britain can be obtained with just four years of college, a J.D. requires a Bachelors – 4 years and then Law School three more. Granted she went to Oxford which has quite the reputation, just saying, but what about a JD from Harvard is that better? I know to be a law professor you need a JD though at most top schools.
“The British L.L.B is equivalent to an American Juris Doctor…”
It most certainly is not. It just seems like a real short cut for those of us who spent 7 years before we earned a JD.
I must say I was quite frankly very surprised Brits only needed an undergraduate degree.
It took me seven years (including a three year non-law undergraduate degree) to qualify as a solicitor. That is standard. It is six years for law undergraduates.
Barristers are “called to the bar” after completing a one year post-graduate qualification. They must then undertake a one year pupillage before they can practise on their own.
I think that may partly be because UK degrees specialise much more quickly. UK education is much more specialised than it is in the US right the way from age 14 upwards. UK bachelor graduates – in ANY subject – have a much narrower but much more in-depth set of skills.
@sixer – That is correct. Many International school systems don’t “waste” their time on “general education” or typical US bachelor degree requirements. Their high school students go directly either to law, medical or dentistry school after HS graduation.
@Katherine – What I meant by equivalent was that the British LLB (which one of my Ex’s completed at the University of Northumbria’s 3 year program) is the same type of specialized program as the American JD sans the American undergraduate requirement for American Bar Association JD programs. The British LLB degree (Legum Baccalaureous) is not the same as an American undergraduate bachelors requiring general eds and leveling courses. Yes, the ex did need one additional year of schooling for his solicitor (equivalent to US lawyer designation) level in Britan, but since he was planning on returning to the US and practicing here, he enrolled into a one year LLM specifically meant for international LLB holders (focusing soley on American Civil Law) and sat for the bar right after completing that program.
Not only did he save himself a crapload of money (I think around $90,000 back then?) between what would have been his undergrad BA and JD degrees, but also knee deep in his career while the rest of us were still trying to figure out what we would do after graduating from college with our B.A.s and saddled with student loans. Infuriating for the rest of us? Yes. Smart & inexpensive way to become a US lawyer? Yes. Lower quality of education? No. International education is top notch. Unfortunately, the American education system is broken all the way from pre-k to the collegiate levels.
Most European countries have a subdivision in high schools. Students choose an area of expertise: Human Sciences (Language,History, Law), Sciences (Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Economics), Sports and Arts at the age of 15… When I was in my 10th grade I chose Human Sciences because I wanted to be an English teacher, so I had Portuguese Lit, Translation, English. German, History.. In my 12th grade (17years old) I had what we called Superior English ( the whole British and North American History, Shakesperean Poetry and American Literature , all comprised in one single subject), When I got to university, I had already studied British and American History, so it was much easier and I felt better prepared to read and understand Old English texts, Pope, Byron you name it… It’s actually quite good, you become an expert at a certain area before entering university, and you get a better idea if that is what you actually want, in case you don’t like it, you can change areas in your 10th grade (studying at this age is for free) whereas at university you have to pay high fees…
Noway: Agreed. I don’t want to repeat my lengthy comments in a previous post, but I will say that the profiles of junior barristers on the same level as Amal at Doughty do not contain the same embellishments. For instance, a profile might explain that a junior barrister was co-counsel on a three-person trial team in a criminal matter, but not state that the junior barrister “represented” that particular defendant when other counsel were involved.
Also, re: the Fahmy case, the Guardian (?) reported that Amal made “international law contributions” to his brief on appeal with the Egyptian court. What does that mean? I assume (but do not know) that the reporter could have indicated that Amal co-wrote a part of the appellate brief, if that is what happened.
I’m not sure that the above-mentioned distinctions between solicitors and self-employed barristers explain Amal’s role in these cases or her work schedule, as she practices before different tribunals than most UK lawyers.
I don’t understand why these embellishments exist, either. I question whether GC really has the knowledge or the expertise to discern these embellishments on her legal resume. I keep thinking about another blogger’s description of her (via a personal assistant to her and GC) as “overwhelmingly anxious and controlling.” I would think that she would be more in control of the narrative in this milieu, and that GC may have been as bowled over by her as Howard Stern a few months back.
Aside from the resume inflation that could be as you said that GC was bowled over by her. Somehow I just doubt that. My problem is the incorrect presentation on what side she is arguing. First as a lawyer she should be able to argue for either side, and I find nothing wrong with her ethically arguing either side. Still GC’s people make it seem like she is always arguing the downtrodden or more “morally acceptable” side. In this case the freedom of speech side, which she isn’t. This is one of the few headlines that is closer to reality. If you believe in American style freedom of speech, she is arguing the other side.
She is a respectable barrister with an impressive resume for her age, why the white wash? As this whole coupling to me it just makes me scratch my head and go why all the added effort to present her a certain way?
As an outsider sometimes I don’t understand the US. Free speeech is a fundamental right but just watching the reactions to the Charlie Hebdo tragedy ( the rallies for free speech) and the Interview ( supporting it to defend free speech) indeed makes me ask where do you feel like there should limits to free speech? I’m genuinely asking as a European.
Why do you think hate speech shouldn’t be punished by the law? Does free speech allow you to say anything without consequences even if it involves a huge and heavy topic such as the Armenian genocide or the Holocaust? Where is the limit fo free speech? I just don’t see why it seems like a life or death issue for some. To be clear I don’t want to generalize US people, I make questions out of the observation of the reactions of some Americans.
As an American who doesn’t understand the European caveats on free speech I’ll try to explain. In the US you are free to speak, draw or express yourself pretty much however you want, even blatant falsehoods without Criminal prosecution. This does not mean you can’t have a civil case against you if you defamed someone or something. The slander and defamation civil laws are complex as they have exceptions for public figures and damages can be hard to prove as stated above. The only real exception really is the crying fire in a public place rule or similar actions as this is considered a criminal act that could cause imminent harm.
The reason for the basic free for all free speech for me as an American is how do you draw the line. Some Europeans draw the line on genocide as it is offensive and factually incorrect, but some Muslims were offended about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and would say they are factually incorrect. I think as a society you kind of pit people against each other, and it is just more fair to say you are free from criminal prosecution to say what you want. If you let everything out there including the blatant lies, people can still see the truth and hopefully the truth will out. I believe that the crazy people who deny are eventually seen by the majority as crazy people who deny.
+1, noway. The US philosophy is that the answer to bad speech is more speech. We fear the “slippery slope,” in which criminalizing the profane ravings of a lunatic or a bigot leads to criminalizing speech the powers that be find annoying or personally threatening.
As to the Charlie Hebdo horror, I believe that the offensiveness of the cover was not the reason for the slaughter, merely the excuse for it.. The nihilists who did it want to see the whole world bleeding, weeping, enslaved or dead, and will use any event as a pretext for it, so long as it sounds vaguely Muslim. True Muslims, like true believers of every faith, are wounded by profanity but don’t kill over it.
+1. Whenever I see a “Let’s criminalize Hate Speech” thread, my initial reaction is always “this isn’t going to work like you assume it will”. Political discourse is still going to be as offensive as it is, with the one caveat being questioning Christianity, Israel or authority would land you in jail. There is no way in h*ll that the U.S. would criminalize hate speech directed towards minorities and other religions.
Ok, here’s what I don’t get about the US, you’re always fighting for the Politically Correct, certain words can not be used and if you actually say them you’re viewed as a racist, bigot etc, but there can be no limits to free speech?
Shouldn’t there be limits to free speech when it comes to offense?
Freedom of speech only protects Americans against government intrusion of their rights; it does not allow us to go buck wild in any medium available. Just clarifying that because I find a lot of people don’t understand the intrinsic nature of that right.
As for her case, the headline is a little misleading. Frankly, I’m not entirely adverse to the argument. There is always a price to speech, even if you’re “free” to say it. In this case, their right to deny the genocide serves to deceive others as to the reality of the country’s history, as well as further the oppression of a minority by erasing their history and undercutting the government’s responsibility to them.
I thought that was Megan Fox in the header pic on the main page.
Denying genocide is problematic because Turkey has a long history of doing it, repercussions that still are affecting todays diminished population. For example, they call all Armenians “the enemies” in textbooks, it is common to even use the word ‘Armenian’ in a derogatory way, the Turkish govt confiscated Armenian land and many people, if not the current govt across the board, still threaten to confiscate more land, Armenian cultural contributions are destroyed and/or desecrated (ie former churches are used as barns or left to ruins, tomb stones are used to make fountains, grave yards are turned into public squares (taksim square is an example of this) Armenians were subjected to a 232% tax while Muslim citizens were taxed at 4% during the 1940s. The numerous contributions of Armenians…from Ataturk’s signature to the composition of the national anthem, to the Turkish alphabet, the greatest architectural families, even the food contributions….All of this is hidden to the Turkish public. Genocide is not just about the initial killings, it is about the continued “killing” and erasing of an ethnicity from a land.
This a 100,000,000 times!!!! We still see the effects of it today!!! It’s horrendous what the Turks have gotten away with for a 100 years now!! I can’t believe we are still arguing if it happened or not!
thank you for your post
M, and this post should be your response to anybody that questions whether the genocide occurred. What is problematic, though, is that you can’t have that conversation if nobody is allowed to speak. How do you educate the ignorant when they can’t ask the question? Keeping people quiet doesn’t teach them anything. One of the risks, though, is that you can’t educate everybody, some will still disagree. The fact that you clamp down and refuse to let them speak just hides the actual problem.
Excellent comment M. I agree that Turkey’s continued denial of the Armenian genocide is problematic, and frankly, offensive. My own Greek grandfather barely escaped the Turkish army slaughter of the Greeks, Armenians and Jews in Smyrna in 1922. His wife and children were burned to death. And many others were raped, shot, hacked, etc. A horrible act of genocide and the destruction of a supposedly beautiful cosmopolitan city. Many Turks deny this episode as well. Or they say the Greeks and Armenians and Jews were the ones who did it. Yeah, they burned their own businesses and homes and slaughtered their own. I read a book about this by an English historian called “Paradise Lost – Smyrna 1922” and if you look this up on Amazon, you will see several 1 star reviews by Turks saying the book is false, etc. There were Americans and lots of Europeans there at the time, including a lot of press that actually photographed and documented what happened there. This being said, I don’t want to sound like I’m prejudiced against Turks because I’m not, and one of my oldest and best friends is from Turkey, my Dad also had a long time Turkish friend.
You are confusing the term ‘genocide’ with the failed Armenian nationalistic movement. The massacres were not government sponsored or sanctioned. Not one single document pertaining an order or decision like this has been found in the past century.
A highly misguided move to compare the 1915 massacres to the Holocaust.
Jewish people and gays were killed for being who they are. It was ethnic-cleansing. Armenian people were eliminated because they sided with the Russians during WW I for some ill-advised independence attempt, which was a miscalculated move since the Russian forces abandoned them fairly quickly. The Turkish forces were provoked, and Armenians had an army of 150K strong which conducted much damage to Turkish civilians btw. Jewish people did not have that army. They did not instigate a civil war.
They were lethally victimized.
Shortly after Russians made their exit, the British abandoned the Greeks to their destiny who realized they would not be able to keep the newly-invaded Izmir. That invasion had cost the lives of hundreds of thousands Turkish people including many children and women.
Massacring entire villages were a common practice – 100 years ago Armenians, Turks, Greeks all did this unfortunately. I should know – it is a part of my own family history. The Ottoman army did not forgive betrayal when the country was at its most vulnerable and in the middle of a civil war, which was directed against a very incompetent and weakened government. The civil war was a byproduct of WW I and the Turks making the mistake of aligning themselves with the Germans instead of the British.
I know reading these will leave a bitter taste in the mouth for many since it represents the unpopular opinion. However, saving the land keeping the country intact continue to be a source for great pride for many Turkish people today. And these people are not Muslim extremists: they are secular Kemalists. This was not some blood-thirsty barbarianism. This was a fight of a proud nation for its survival.
And contrary to what you may choose to believe, millions of Turks still mourn and honor their Armenian neighbors and brethren who indeed died miserably.
Dogu Perincek has the reputation for being an unmitigated moron. But he should be prosecuted for exercising freedom of expression. I fiercely defend the rights of anyone in the matters of freedom of expression, including people who state this genocide DID indeed occur. Turkey has a disgraceful history in regards to freedom of speech. We look at Europe for hope and guidance in these matters.
And what I see here is nothing short of mortifying.
I don’t think people really understand how important this trial really is and what a pivotal role Amal is playing in it, given her recent celebrity.
There are laws in place that do not allow the denial of the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, of course Turkey denies it! (BIG DUH!!) they committed the atrocious act!! And this person (who is Turkish) is on trial denied it in France and therefore was thrown in jail, then he pleads freedom of speech as his excuse!! Let me ask how Jewish people or Sudanese people or any others who have seen Genocide would feel if their history was denied??? What if German nationals were still denying the Holocaust and murder of 6 million Jews? How would the rest of the world feel? Would we just say well they have the freedom of speech to say whatever they want? Of course not…everyone would be up in arms as they should!
Yesterday there was a highly emotional coverage of 70th anniversary of Auschwitz liberation and to see the look on these poor people’s faces who are clearly still haunted by what they witnessed during the Holocaust was very hard to watch. But thankfully the world has clearly accepted and punished those who were responsible for the Holocaust, but the same cannot be said for 1.5 million Armenian men women and children who were starved, murdered, bludgeoned, babies cut out of their mother’s wombs, children killed before their parents, father’s who had their heads cut off in front of their families…there are pictures, videos, thousands of testimonials and land stolen from Armenians, but Turkey still denies it??? How is this possible??
I hope Amal and her colleagues fight hard to right this wrong…the 100th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is coming up this year on April 24th and Turkey still won’t admit what they did was Genocide…even Hitler said “who, after all, speaks today of the annihiliation of the Armenians?” in his speech in 1939…
Great comment thanks.
The Turkish government may easily accept the accusations today, if they were to deem these accusations valid. We are no longer the Ottoman Empire. We are a republic. Different government, a secular democracy, a different capital… a new everything.
Just because Hitler may have idolized the Turkish nationalistic movement for independence and the construction of the new country, it doesn’t make an entire nation a bunch of Nazis in the muslim garb. Nothing is that black-and-white and ‘paint by the numbers’.
All politicians, leaders and heads of states collectively admired Ataturk at the time, including Hitler’s lifelong enemies. Ataturk remains a righteous icon in the entire world history. He brought the idea and ideals of secularism to the Muslim world.
Jewish people did not move to ignite a civil war. The Nazis attempted to get the German nation ‘ethnically cleansed’. Jewish people did not provoke the government by siding with the invading outside forces.
If you do not know watch Rumpole of the Bailey
She is not arguing against free speech, she is arguing against a denial of facts, which is akin to Holocaust denial.
jasmine – To answer your hypothetical about Germans denying the holocaust. I am a United States citizen and some people in the United States actually do dispute the holocaust ever happened. I think they are racist idiots. Such statements are not any more or less offensive to me if a German national says the same thing. A few make such claims as click-bait or to sell books. But I wholly support our courts that continue to rule that hate speech and stupid-speech must be protected, not just speech that is truthful or currently politically correct.
Our English emigrant history undoubtedly is the predominate influence in how we define and protect freedom of speech and also religion today. English Immigrants fleeing religious persecution by the Church of England in the 1600’s settled in New England. Their descendants in-filled virtually all of New England as there was very little immigration between 1700 and about 1850.
MinnFinn,
I am a proud U.S. citizen as well, ethnically Armenian however, and I am very well aware that we do have people in our great nation that will deny both, we still have people who deny the moon landing ever took place! So i completely agree that we will never do away with idiocy or racism completely, but the general public has to be made aware that if a Genocide of this size and importance took place and is still not recognized, what does that say about our current state of mind? What does that say about what people choose to believe, what people agree to deny or forget and tolerate?? I loved how everyone around the world came together for the Hebdo situation and how everyone payed their respects yesterday for those who died in Auschwitz, I just want the same respect payed to those 1.5 million innocent people who died and their children, grand children, and great-grandchildren, one of them being my wonderful husband. His mother’s parents were both orphaned after their parents were murdered in Turkey…and countless other…
We also have people who believe in green monsters, fairy tales and all sort of other things. Still in the US you can deny all sort of things including genocides and not go to jail, but others can and readily do state the facts. Freedom of speech allows the ignorant to be shown for what they are, not just go underground and spew their ignorant and racist crap. I think I would rather have them out in the open and shot down. Just because one person goes out and speaks ignorantly on a topic doesn’t make it true. It is up to people to discern who they are going to believe and not believe. Even if you throw someone in jail doesn’t mean a portion of the population isn’t going to believe inaccurate history or facts.
I can understand the reasoning that some of the European models have that limit it, I just am very American and believe it is a person’s right to say whatever stupid thing they want and my right to say they are crazy without either of us going to jail. Maybe the founding fathers realized Americans are just too boisterous that we wouldn’t have enough jails to hold all the people for the stupid things we would say. (Just Kidding)
You would think that someone who claims to be proud of her Armenian heritage, Kim Kardashian would advocate or raise awareness of this cause, but of course not…all she talks about is her baby’s potty training and her vapid existence while others like Amal, who are not even Armenian dedicate their time to a human rights crisis
You know Amal is being paid, right? And that she’s arguing against the human right to free speech.
Kim Kardashian has actually spoken about the Armenian genocide and has spoken out about Turkey’s denial of it. However, I think that her obsession with herself has superseded any awareness of issues outside of herself. Plus, I don’t believe that she is would be the best spokesperson, she likely would hinder rather than help the cause…
My grandparents were Armenians in Turkey during the genocide. I support the rights of morons and scumbags to deny reality. Free speech means supporting the right of people to have and express unpopular opinions. And it means supporting the right of everyone to hear all opinions, right and wrong, insulting and inspiring, in the court of public opinion.
I agree, with a heavy heart. Denial of historical facts is not as uncommon as one might think, but in the end it’s about being able to even do that as part of the right of free speech- in order to discuss the concrete matter publicly. If we make this ‘illegal’- those opinions will not disappear, but will boil up within our societies, and will not be discussed openly. On the other hand, this is about a politician making statements, not a private person…Whatever the outcome, it’s a highly important issue to be solved.
She’s arguing to uphold the law. That’s what lawyers do.
Her taking leave? Perhaps it was a sabbatical. Regardless, if a person is highly respected in their line of work, it isn’t unusual for them to be granted leave.
Europe has had stricter hate speech laws than the US for very good reason. I don’t think this means Amal Clooney or anyone who argues against hate speech is against free speech. I’m not even sure I would classify holocaust denying of any kind “hate” speech, it’s just plain wrong. Some things are not a matter of opinion.