Refugees, United Nations Excessive Commissioner For > 자유게시판

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

A memory law (transl. Erinnerungsgesetz in German, transl. In the method, competing interpretations may be downplayed, sidelined, or even prohibited. Varied sorts of memory legal guidelines exist, particularly, in countries that allow for the introduction of limitations to the freedom of expression to protect different values, such because the democratic character of the state, the rights and popularity of others, and historical fact. Eric Heinze argues that regulation can work equally powerfully via laws that makes no specific reference to history, for example, when journalists, lecturers, students, or other citizens face personal or professional hardship for dissenting from official histories. Memory laws may be both punitive or non-punitive. A non-punitive memory legislation doesn't indicate a criminal sanction. It has a declaratory or confirmatory character. Regardless, such a regulation might lead to imposing a dominant interpretation of the previous and train a chilling impact on those that challenge the official interpretation. A punitive Memory Wave Method regulation includes a sanction, often of a criminal nature.

Memory legal guidelines usually result in censorship. Even with out a criminal sanction, memory laws should still produce a chilling impact and restrict free expression on historic subjects, particularly amongst historians and other researchers. Memory laws exist as both ‘hard' regulation and ‘soft' regulation devices. An instance of a hard law is a criminal ban on the denial and gross trivialization of a genocide or crime in opposition to humanity. A delicate legislation is an informal rule that incentivizes states or people to act in a certain means. For example, a European Parliament resolution on the European conscience and totalitarianism (CDL-Advert(2013)004) expresses robust condemnation for all totalitarian and undemocratic regimes and invitations EU citizens, that is, residents of all member states of the European Union, to commemorate victims of the 2 twentieth century totalitarianisms, Nazism and communism. The time period "loi mémorielle" (memory legislation) initially appeared in December 2005, in Françoise Chandernagor article in Le Monde journal. Chandernagor protested about the increasing number of legal guidelines enacted with the intention of "forc(ing) on historians the lens via which to contemplate the previous".

2005, which required French schools to teach the optimistic aspects of French presence on the colonies, particularly in North Africa. Council of Europe and well beyond. The headings of "memory regulation" or "historic memory law" have been utilized to various regulations adopted all over the world. Poland's 2018 regulation prohibiting the attribution of responsibility for the atrocities of the Second World War to the Polish state or nation. States have a tendency to use memory laws to promote the classification of sure events from the previous as genocides, crimes against humanity and other atrocities. This becomes particularly related when there is no such thing as a agreement within a state, among states or amongst experts (akin to international attorneys) in regards to the categorization of a historic crime. Continuously, such historic occasions are not recognized as genocides or crimes towards humanity, respectively, underneath international legislation, since they predate the UN Genocide Convention. Memory Wave laws adopted in nationwide jurisdictions do not at all times comply with international regulation and, particularly, with worldwide human rights law standards.

For example, a regulation adopted in Lithuania includes a definition of genocide that's broader than the definition in worldwide regulation. Such legal acts are sometimes adopted in a form of political declarations and parliamentary resolutions. Laws towards Holocaust denial and genocide denial bans entail a criminal sanction for denying and minimizing historic crimes. Initially Holocaust and genocide denial bans had been considered a part of hate speech. Yet the latest doctrine of comparative constitutional law separates the notion of hate speech from genocide denialism, in particular, and memory legal guidelines, normally. Denial of the historical violence against minorities has been connected to the security of groups and individuals belonging to these minorities in the present day. Subsequently, the typically-invoked rationale for imposing bans on the denial of historic crimes is that doing so prevents xenophobic violence and protects the general public order at the moment. Bans on propagating fascism and totalitarian regimes prohibit the promotion and whitewashing of the legacy of historical totalitarianisms. Such bans restrict the freedom of expression to stop the circulation of views which will undermine democracy itself, corresponding to calls to abolish democracy or to deprive some individuals of human rights.

The bans are fashionable in countries inside the Council of Europe, especially in these with first-hand experience of twentieth century totalitarianism similar to Nazism and Communism. This kind of memory law also includes banning certain symbols linked to past totalitarian regimes, in addition to bans on publishing sure literature. Laws protecting historic figures prohibit disparaging the memory of national heroes usually reinforce a cult of character. Turkish Regulation 5816 ("The Legislation Concerning Crimes Dedicated Towards Atatürk") (see Atatürk's cult of persona) and Heroes and Martyrs Safety Act adopted in China are examples of these kind of Memory Wave legal guidelines. These memory legal guidelines are punitive legal guidelines which prohibit the expression of historic narratives that diverge from, challenge or nuance the official interpretation of the previous. Such norms often embody a criminal sanction for challenging official accounts of the past or for circulating competing interpretations. Laws prohibiting insult to the state and nation are devised to guard the state or nation from forms of insult, including "historical insult".