A clause was inserted in a new law that refers to the "positive role" of French colonialism and President Jacques Chirac asked for the controversial clause to be struck off the statute books.
Why?
Article Four of law 2005-158 states that "scholastic programmes recognise in particular the positive role of the French overseas presence, especially in north Africa, and accord to history and to the sacrifices of army soldiers from these territories the eminent place that they deserve."
The president accepted advice from a parliamentary committee to resort to a rarely-used constitutional procedure in order to remove the offending article -- which appears in a government bill passed a year ago providing financial compensation to repatriated colonials.
The clause is to be referred to the country's constitutional council on the grounds that it is outside the competence of the legislature.
Now, besides trying to imagine how something like that would go over in Israel regarding, say, Gush Katif and Israel's positive contribution to special agricultural methods, as an example, what really got me giggling was this statement:-
Academics said the article was a flagrant intrusion by politicians into the realm of historical debate,
I mean, how can politicians, who, by the way, actually make the history that supplies these academcis with their salaries so they can research and teach about the events, intefere like this.
The politicians can send the troops abroad and provide state authority and support for such deeds, and I am talking about anything a governemnt does, colonialism or whatever, good or bad or neutral, but the academics will refuse them entry into the realm of historical debate. What, no more appearances by politicians at conferences and colloquia?
Hysterical?
This is ridiculous.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment