Naučna istraživanja

Istaknuti intelektualci, istraživači i aktivisti ljudskih prava i Sloboda liderske organizacije podržali Peticiju e-1837

Istaknuti intelektualci, istraživači i aktivisti ljudskih prava i Sloboda liderske organizacije podržali Peticiju e-1837 

 Hasan Nuhanović, survivor of the Srebrenica genocide who campaigns "For truth and justice" on behalf of other survivors and relatives of the victims
I was asked to comment on the ongoing debate in Canada on ‘freedom of speech vs. Srebrenica genocide denial as a violation that should be legally banned’. Perhaps, I should just simply ask: Why the denial of the Srebrenica genocide, or of any other case of genocide, should be treated differently from the Holocaust denial? But that question has been asked many times before and has caused controversies. Instead, here are a few other thoughts that I would like to share with the Canadian public. When just after the end of the World War Two, Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term ‘genocide’, spent years at the lobbies of the United Nations Head-Quarters building in New York, fighting the UN bureaucrats and trying to convince them to create international law on genocide prevention he had exactly that on his mind – a prevention. Thanks to Lemkin, a Polish Jew, to his tireless efforts, the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted in 1948 and entered into force on 12 January 1951. I cannot tell whether any genocide in the world was prevented since 1951 thanks to that Convention, and I believe that no one can. To my best knowledge the first case of genocide to which the Convention was applied, which resulted in binding judgements passed by two international courts, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), was that referred to as ‘the Srebrenica Genocide’. Even though the judgement refers to the name of a small Bosnian town of Srebrenica it also states that the genocide was perpetrated:’…against the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina’. So, yes the second part of the title of the Genocide Convention, the ‘Punishment’, was applied. However, many find that justice has not been served except for the fact that several high-ranking Bosnian Serb political and military leaders were convicted for their individual responsibility in the ‘Srebrenica genocide’. But, what about the first word in the title of the Genocide Convention, the ‘Prevention’? How can we even expect that genocide will be prevented in the future against the same ethnic group, or any other for that matter, if the international courts’ judgements on the Srebrenica genocide are not honored, and if the denial goes unpunished? The denial hurts and frustrates the survivors to the point that they fear for their future survival. But try to think about it not from the survivors’ perspective but from your own perspective - as Canadians, as citizens of the planet Earth, and ask yourself should you be at least as worried and aware about it as you are about the Global Warming problem, for example, or Canada’s concern about endangered species problem tackled by the Species at Risk Act (SARA). In order to protect the international law, in order to protect yourself, the future generations, we all have to tackle the problem of genocide denial. The ‘crime of all crimes’, as they also refer to genocide, cannot be a matter of a debate because what we talk here about is the essential legal tool that humanity needs to protect itself from evil.

 David Pettigrew, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy and Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Southern Connecticut State University, International Team of Experts, Institute for Research of Genocide Canada, Board Member, Bosnian American Genocide Institute and Education Center, Chicago, Member, Steering Committee, Yale University Genocide Studies Program
I would like to address the importance of the proposed legislation that would prohibit the denial of the Srebrenica genocide in Canada. Canada has passed laws against promoting or inciting hatred, as well as against advocating genocide. I think these laws provide an important context for the consideration of legislation prohibiting denial of the Srebrenica genocide in Canada. Further, I would like to point out that the Supreme Court of Canada approved the deportation of Mr. Léon Mugesera in 2005. Mr. Mugesera was, formerly, a senior official of the National Republican Movement for Development and Democracy and a leading representative of the extremist "Hutu Power" group in Rwanda. The Supreme Court assessed in 2005 that Mr. Mugesera had engaged in hate speech and the incitement of genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda as a crime against humanity, and thus, that he was thus not eligible for residence in Canada.  Mr. Mugesera was eventually deported to Rwanda in 2012, and was subsequently convicted in 2016 of “public incitement to commit genocide, persecution as crime against humanity, and inciting ethnic-affiliated hatred.” He was sentenced to life in prison in 2016.
This brief account of laws and proceedings in Canada provides the context for my suggestion that the denial of the Srebrenica genocide is a form of hate speech that can ultimately be understood as nothing less than an incitement to another genocide against Bosnian Muslims.
The atrocities that were committed in Srebrenica in 1995 were ruled to be genocide by two international courts. At least 8,372 human beings, primarily men and boys, were murdered in a matter of days and buried in mass graves. Eventually the perpetrators excavated and relocated the primary mass graves to secondary sites in order to conceal the evidence of the crimes that had been committed.  The human remains of the victims were disarticulated to such an extent that some victims have been found in five or six different secondary mass graves. Consequently, the process of exhumation and identification has been tragically slow. Victims of the July 1995 genocide are still being exhumed, identified, and buried to this day.
Surviving mothers of Srebrenica, like Saliha Osmanović and Hatidža Mehmedović, had their world destroyed as a result of this genocide. Their husbands and sons were murdered. Mothers Osmanović and Mehmedović had a pact. They agreed that whoever would die first, the other would continue to pray for their families. Mother Hatidža passed away in July 2018, and now Mother Saliha carries on the promise to pray and preserve the memory of their families.
For these survivors, and therefore for all survivors, the hateful denial of the Srebrenica genocide is acutely painful, if not psychological torture. Such denial demeans the victims as it betrays the memory of the crimes and the suffering. For Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, memory is intertwined with justice: "Justice without memory," he writes, "is incomplete justice, false and unjust. To forget would be an absolute injustice...To forget would be the perpetrators' final triumph."
Our urgent petition to ban the denial of the Srebrenica genocide is presented in the context of the denial of the Srebrenica genocide and the resurgence of hate speech and ultra-nationalism in the Balkans. It is important to note that the political leadership of Republika Srpska (the Serb-dominated entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina that was recognized by the Dayton Peace Accords), and of Serbia, both deny the Srebrenica genocide. Milorad Dodik, the Bosnian-Serb member of the Presidency of Bosnia has asserted that that the genocide at Srebrenica was the "biggest sham of the 20th century," and that he will not allow it to be taught in the schools of Republika Srpska.  In a recent Deutsche Welle television interview, the Prime Minister of Serbia, Ana Brnabić, refused to acknowledge the Srebrenica genocide.  The perpetrators who have been convicted of the Srebrenica genocide are glorified in Republika Srpska. In July 2018, a political functionary in Republika Srpska actually threatened that there would be another genocide. Genocide denial and glorification of the perpetrators are used as hate speech as part of an orchestrated effort in Republika Srpska to prevent Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) and other non-Serb refugees from returning to the homes from which they were forcibly expelled during the genocide.  In this context, I would respectfully suggest that the denial of the Srebrenica genocide constitutes hate speech, and, moreover, that it legitimizes the crimes that were committed, thereby authorizing the commission of a subsequent genocide.
The normalization of the denial of the Srebrenica genocide today is reminiscent of the tendency of diplomats, journalists, and even the United Nations, for example, to refer to the international aggression and genocide that was in progress in Bosnia and Herzegovina as "ethnic cleansing". A number of scholars, including Edina Bećirević, have stated that, with the phrase "ethnic cleansing," the international community had already denied the genocide from the beginning in 1992. It was a terminological choice that negatively affected international efforts to bring the aggression against Bosniak civilians to an end, and that has negatively affected efforts to build the peace in Bosnia in the past twenty-four years.
As part of these considerations, it is important to recognize that Motion M-416 passed in the House of Commons on October 19, 2010, recognizing July 11 as Srebrenica Remembrance Day in Canada. Further, Motion M-587 passed in the House of Commons on April 24, 2015, including the Srebrenica genocide, and Srebrenica Remembrance Day as part of “Genocide Remembrance, Condemnation and Awareness Month" every April in Canada.
Finally, in conclusion, it is crucial to reflect on the extent to which a law against the denial of the Srebrenica genocide would not be a denial of "free speech". There is no absolute right to free speech in the sense that societies circumscribe specific limitations on speech and expression in the interest of the protection of groups and individuals who have been or may be targeted for discrimination, oppression and elimination. For example, Canada has passed laws against hate speech. One could say that "even in the United States" there are legal limitations on speech and expression in the context of "hate crimes".  In a number of European countries, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust. One wonders if, given the importance of remembering the Holocaust for the sake of the victims and for the sake of prevention, why it would not be similarly imperative to prohibit the denial of the Srebrenica genocide.
Let us resolve to stand with Mother Saliha Osmanović and all other survivors of the Srebrenica genocide, as we support this proposed legislation against the denial of the Srebrenica genocide in Canada in order to preserve the memory of the victims of the genocide and to strive to prevent another genocide.  

Congress of North American Bosniaks
The Congress of North American Bosniaks as a national organization of American and Canadian Bosniaks, invites the Prime Minister of Canada and the Canadian ministers to seriously consider petition E-1837 that has been signed by all provinces and territories of Canada. The legal basis for the criminal sanctioning of Srebrenica genocide deniers in Canada would be a final verdict of the international tribunals in The Hague, a final resolution of more than 30 state parliaments in the world, and in particular two resolutions on Srebrenica genocide adopted by the Canadian Parliament.The moral basis for such a law are the permanent exhibit of the Srebrenica genocide at the Canadian Human Rights Museum, unveiling of first memorial feature in diaspora for the victims of the Srebrenica genocide in the Canadian city of Windsor, the decision of the Canadian Government to mark the May 31st the World Day of White Ribbon, the distribution of the Srebrenica Flower to all members of the Canadian Parliament, and the study of Srebrenica genocide at the Canadian schools. By passing a law banning the denial of genocide in Srebrenica, Canada would make a major contribution to the truth and justice and thus make a major step in punishing the deniers of Srebrenica genocide. It would also set an example that the punishment is the best prevention in the fight against genocide in the world.

Rusmir Mahmutćehajić, academic, author, former statesman from B&H, President of International Forum Bosnia
I am writing to express my support for the petition currently before the Canadian federal parliament to make denial of the genocide at Srebrenica illegal. I shall try to do so as succinctly as possible and, as you have requested, with reference to its impact on free speech.
Denial of the Srebrenica genocide is a major problem for several reasons.
Firstly, it is immoral in itself. This is not, however, sufficient reason for it to be illegal.
Secondly, it causes emotional hurt to the survivors and relatives of those killed in the genocide and is intended to do so. Generally speaking, the justifications for denial also involve arguments or untrue statements that amount to slander or libel of the victims, the survivors, and their ethnic fellows, in so far as they knowingly and maliciously misrepresent what happened (in terms of scale, scope, events and causes) and so attempt to place the responsibility for causing the train of events on the victims themselves or their ethnic fellows. Even when not explicitly made, such arguments are implied or logically entailed by the explicit statements made. They form part of a universe of discourse and more-or-less the only reason for denying the genocide in the first place.
The argument may, of course, be made that there is no need to make Srebrenica genocide denial illegal in this case, as those so inclined can prosecute under the existing libel and hate speech laws, including those that specifically make the denial of genocide (without specification) a form of hate speech if intended to cause harm.
This leads us to our third point. Unfortunately, genocide is the hardest of all crimes to prove and to make stick, especially insofar as it involves implication of a government apparatus and command structure. A verdict of genocide only really counts if passed by an International Criminal Tribunal or the International Court of Justice in the Hague. The burden of proof is extremely, even unrealistically high. Even when a verdict has been passed down, it has few consequences other than recognition of the nature of the crime in question. If that too is optional, then what does a verdict of genocide mean? It simply becomes a contested symbol that serves to ensure the continued division of the societies in question. Moreover, it loses all efficacy as a deterrent. Why should the threat of a genocide prosecution or conviction deter, when it is clear it can no longer be made to stick, in fact when it is clear such a verdict can itself become a contested symbol in the continuation of genocide after the fact through public discourse based upon hate speech aimed at reinforcing social polarisation?
As suggested above, the second and third points go together. In the case of Srebrenica, the crime of genocide has been proven. The Canadian parliament has voted a national day of commemoration for the genocide at Srebrenica. What is the point of having done so, if each individual case of Srebrenica genocide denial must be litigated afresh, at considerable expense and with insecure results? Recent examples related to Holocaust denial make clear the dilemma involved. By forcing a legal process on the merits in every case, one is playing directly into the hands of the deniers. They are not good faith questioners of the historical record and the evidence for it. They do not believe in their denial. They believe the genocide was justified and that it is precisely by denying it they can express their commitment to the goals for which it was carried out in the first place, the longer-term project of which it was a part. Their intention is therefore to instrumentalise their denial in an ongoing process of social polarisation and conflict. The very process of forcing debate and, if possible, a trial serves their goal. It gives them legitimacy, publicity, and victim status, and allows them to indulge in extended slander of their target community. Recognising a crime of Srebrenica genocide denial would, in a simple and effective way, prevent them from exploiting and instrumentalising hate speech by pretending it is free speech, without chilling their right to actual free speech. Let them admit the internationally recognised nature of the crimes at Srebrenica and then argue that they were justified, if they care to, in ways that are demonstrably not hate speech or intended to cause harm. After all, the nature of the crimes at Srebrenica has been established by an international tribunal and confirmed by the Canadian Federal Parliament. What legitimate reason can there be for denying it?
Our fourth point follows from this, namely that Srebrenica genocide denial is a deliberate political act, with clear and intended results. It is not merely a bad-faith denial of what happened at Srebrenica, but an inversion intended to blame the victims and their ethnic group for what happened, reinforcing divisions, promoting social fission, and entrenching the position of the perpetrators within their own communities, who are thereby recruited as accomplices after the fact. While a very few individuals with command responsibility have been convicted of genocide and a barely larger number found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the vast majority of those involved in either the culminating genocide at Srebrenica or the mass of war crimes and crimes against humanity that led up to it have faced no legal or social consequences. They have continued to live as respected and active members of their communities, who are aware of their actions. Moreover, even those accused of genocide, like Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić, have been sheltered and celebrated by those communities for decades, which fought their extradition for trial tooth and nail. Those tried and convicted of the most severe war crimes, like Biljana Plavšić, Momčilo Krajšnik, and Vojislav Šešelj, have, on release, been received as heroes and lionised by the political and cultural elites of the Republika Srpska and Serbia. They have consistently used coded language to “deny” the genocidal nature of the crimes, while at the same time justifying and claiming credit for them and inciting their followers to defend their legacy, even to the point of committing new crimes. Their statements are not good-faith expressions of opinion, however misguided, but conscious interventions in political and public life with malicious intent to harm. And they succeed in their intention, with terrible and long-lasting consequences. Not least amongst these consequences is that they make a mockery of the court that tried them and found them guilty. There is a concerted campaign, that goes back to the establishment of the court, to undermine its authority and to render it not merely toothless, but contemptible. They and their fellow-travellers are in the most literal sense in contempt of court and lead others into the same position.
As the above argument makes clear, the denial of a genocide is an integral part of the genocidal process itself. This has been true of the Srebrenica genocide from the beginning. It continues to be the case today. The genocide in Srebrenica was a major factor in ensuring the Dayton peace agreement. That peace was not based on the clear victory of any one side, however. It was a compromise. Moreover, it could not include recognition of the genocide at Srebrenica as genocide for the simple reason that the international courts had not yet ruled on the matter. The compromise at Dayton meant that the area where genocide was committed remained under the control of successor structures to those that committed the genocide. It does so to this day. Consequently, the complicit political elites in the Republika Srpska and their sponsors in Serbia continue to deny recognition of the rulings of the international courts and so of the scope, scale and genocidal nature of what happened at Srebrenica. Not merely do they deny the genocide in Srebrenica, they justify the actions taken against the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica by the armed forces of the Republika Srpska and their paramilitary helpers from Serbia on grounds of self-defence. This inverted narrative, whereby the victims of genocide are characterised as themselves genocidal criminals, is dominant in the media of the Republika Srpska and Serbia, in their public and political discourse, and even in their schools. This combination of denial and inversion of the truth has the effect those who promote it desire, namely continued polarisation of the populations of the region on the basis of contested symbolic representations of the past and responsibility for it. This is the mechanism that converts a crime against the people who were killed at Srebrenica more than twenty years ago into an ongoing crime. Denial is not just a refusal to recognise a terrible act. It is an instrumentalization of that act to ensure its continued efficacy and to foster the conditions under which either side may find itself carrying out renewed acts of inter-communal violence that rise to the level of genocide. Individual acts of Srebrenica genocide denial cannot be isolated from the divisive and genocidal political project of which they are a part. It is for the above reasons that I support making the denial of the Srebrenica genocide illegal in and of itself. Markers must be put down against the constant and deliberate muddying of the waters, the intentional presentation of false information, and the strategic deployment of hate speech under the cover of free speech. The dignity of genocide verdicts must be maintained, their truth defended, particularly given the extremely high bar for the issuing of such a verdict in the first place. Those who wish to contest them should be forced to find respectful ways to do so. People have a right to their opinions and to express them, so long as they are not wilfully harmful of others and contemptuous of truths established in court. No one has a right to continue the project of physical genocide by symbolic means in the hope of securing its goals and, in the worst cases, of actually reviving it.

Ajlina Karamehić Muratović, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at Saint Louis University

Genocide, such as that which took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995, is forgotten if denied, and genocide denial has consequences. Denial says to the grieving mothers, the orphans left behind, and families left without a whole generation, that their sacrifice and loss do not matter, and should, moreover, be silently forgotten. Denial provides history with a blessing to repeat itself. If denial is prohibited by law, it does not impinge on freedom of speech. Instead, it impinges on rights of victims to be heard, acknowledged, and assured that the systematic and deliberate extermination of their people will not repeat itself. And the right to be heard and acknowledged is a basic human right. Denying genocide in Bosnia and specifically Srebrenica is also a deliberately false assertion against a fact legally established by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. As such it is also an intentional breach of peaceful public debate.

Patrick McCarthy, Author, After the Fall: Srebrenica Survivors in St. Louis
The crime of genocide in Srebrenica has been factually and legally established by multiple rulings from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The denial of this genocide injures survivors, dishonors the memory of victims, and undermines principles of decency and respect. Willful denial of this genocide is hate speech intended to incite violent and harmful action. As such, it is not protected free speech.

Tanja Softić, Professor of Art, Department of Art and Art History, University of Richmond

“Freedom of speech laws exist so that politically unpopular opinions would not be suppressed.  Denial of Srebrenica Genocide is not an opinion, political or otherwise—it is a political stance that, without basis in facts, denies the findings of UN, International Court Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia and other international investigative and legislative bodies. That is why Holocaust deniers are not considered victims of the suppression of free speech when legal system moves to remove the speech platforms they use.   Just like denial of Holocaust, denial of Srebrenica Genocide amounts to hate speech by seeking to invalidate the claims of the victims and normalize mistreatment of particular ethnic group.”

Suzana Vukic, Member of the Governing Board and International Expert Team of the Institute for Research of Genocide, Canada
Ever since the Institute for Research of Genocide Canada (IGC) first launched Petition e-1837 (calling upon the Canadian government to enact legislation that would prohibit Srebrenica Genocide denial in Canada), the most radical and extremist members of Canada’s Serbian community have made efforts to counter this petition. Their sole argument against Petition e-1837 hinges on the claim that the prohibition of this type of hate speech could violate human rights – namely freedom of speech and thought.It is ironic that those who have committed the worst war crimes and human rights violations imaginable (or those who support and glorify such individuals) can be so brazen and mindless as to attempt to appeal to one’s sense of decency and humanity.

Miro Lazović, Predsjednik ratne Skupštine Republike BiH
Slažem se sa peticijom. ÄŒestitke za sve što radite za našu državu BiH.

Akademik prof. dr. Ferid Muhić, profesor Filozofije, Univerzitet,  Univerzitet “ Sv.Kiril i Metodij“ Skopje
Da je sloboda govora jedna od ključnih premisa  sistema ljudskih prava, u to ne može biti sumnje.Vrhovni sud većine demokratskih država u svijetu nije isključio ni jedan oblik govora iz prava na slobodu govora, pa tako ni “govor mržnje”. Drugim riječima, sloboda govora pravno se ne može zabraniti samo na osnovu mržnje kao sadržaja (content). MeÄ‘utim, kada mržnja kao sadržaj (content) govora, proizvodi direktno negativne posljedice za kategoriju ljudi na koje se odnosi, dakle kada njegov specifični kontekst (context), realno izaziva opravdan osjećaj straha, prijetnje, nesigurnosti, frustracije kod ljudi na koje je usmjeren, govor mržnje izlazi iz okvira slobode govora i prelazi u sferu objektivne prijetnje za sigurnost i ugrožavanja života, proizvodeći psihičke trauma kod ljudi koji su pretrpjeli realna stradanja zbog svoje pripadnosti, s pravom se tretira kao kažnjivo djelo. Upravo zbog toga, krivično sankcioniranje negatora genocida u Srebrenici, potvrÄ‘enog presudom najvišeg meÄ‘unarodnog suda, jeste opravdano i ne pretstavlja suzbijanje slobode govora. Negiranje genocida u Srebrenici spada  u kategoriju govora mržnje čiji kontekst direktno izlazi iz sfere slobode govora  jer pozlijeÄ‘uje kolektivna sjećanja Bošnjaka kao žrtava genocida, izaziva emocinalni stres, psihičke trauma i osjećaj realne ugroženosti, i zbog toga pretstavlhja kažnjivo djelo, na istim osnovama na kojima se sankcioniraju  i negatori holokausta Jevreja u cijeliom svijetu, odnosno negatori genocida nad Jermenima u Francuskoj i nekim drugim državama.

Akademik dr. Mustafa ef. Cerić,  reisu-l-ulema IZ BiH 1993 - 2012
Ovo je vrijeme naše slobode i odgovornosti - pojedinačne i kolektivne - nakon Genocida! Hvala Bogu, nisu nas mogli fizički uništiti genocidom. A imali su tu namjeru. To mi znamo izvan svake sumnje. Ali, Bogu hvala, tu činjenicu je utvrdio i pravosnažno osudio meÄ‘unardni sud pravde u Hagu izvan svake sumnje, takoÄ‘er. Dakle, ta činjenica je istina, koju svi priznaju osim onih koju su Genocid osmislili, nareÄ‘ivali, nadgledali i počinili. Ohrabreni ruskim vetom u Vijeću sigurnosti UN-a protiv britanske inicijative za osudu srpskog genocida u Srebrenici, negatori, i kao nalogodavci i kao počinitelji Genocida nad Bošnjacima/Bosancima, su se ovih dana snažno aktivirali. Oni ne samo da opstruiraju žrtve genocida da šire istinu o srpskom genocidu u domovini i svijetu, već organizirano i agresivno djeluju da nametnu svoju laž, kojom ih je njihov otac nacije Dobrica ÄŒosić zavjetovao kad im je u amanet ostavio ove riječi: "Mi (Srbi) lažemo da bismo obmanuli sebe, da utešimo drugoga; lažemo iz samilosti, lažemo iz stida, da ohrabrimo, da sakrijemo svoju bedu, lažemo zbog poštenja. Lažemo zbog slobode. Laž je vid srpskog patriotizma i potvrda naše uroÄ‘ene inteligencije. Lažemo stvaralački, maštovito, inventivno." Ovaj ÄŒosićev zavjet srpskom narodu da serbes laže kao izraz srpske "slobode", srpskog "patriotizma", srpske "intelegencije" i srpskog "stvaralašrva", svakim danom je sve glasniji, sve vidljiviji, sve napasniji i sve opasniji da se u svijetu bosanska istina o Genocidu nad Bošnjacima/Bosancima zamjeni za srpsku laž o srpskom negenocidu. Ovo ne treba da nas iznenaÄ‘uje, jer Jevrejska zajednica se suočava s istim problemom negacije Holokausta kao što se mi Bošnjaci/Bosanci suočavamo s negacijom Genocida. Jer, negacija (denial) je ta posljednja faza Holokausta, odnosno Genocida. Razlika je, meÄ‘utim, u tome štu su Jevreji u svijetu tu opasnost od negacije Holokausta na vrijeme shvatili i, shodno tome, bolje su se organizirali u borbi protiv toga. Imao sam priliko osobno sudjelovati 2009. god. u Parizu u formiranju "Aladdin Projekta" pri UNESCO-u radi borbe protiv negacije Holokausta iza kojeg je stala moćna jevrejska fondacija: the Foundation pour la Mémoire de la Shoah ("Fondacija za sjećanje na Šoah"). Šoah je drugo ime za Holokaust, kao masovno nacističko ubijenje Jevreja u periodu 1941-45. godine. Prihvatio sam ponudu predsjednice "Aladdin Projekta" Anne Marie Revcolevschi da budem član ovoga projekta borbe protiv negacije Holokausta, odnosno Genocida. Ono što danas rade srebreničke majke, žrtve genocida, slično je ovom jevrejskom projektu UNESCO-a osim što naše majke to rade dušom i srcem bez prave podršeke od moćnih domaćih i meÄ‘unarodnih fondacija i organizacija. To stanje ostavljenosti da se samo srebreničke majke bore protiv negacije srpskog genocida je nedopustivo i neizdržljivo. Zbog toga, moramo se svi kao nacija organizirati i zajedno se boriti protiv te pošasti. Imamo već inicijativu za to. Dolazi nam od hrabrog i neumornog Emira Ramića, porijeklom iz Prijedora i preživjelog srpskog logora, koji danas živi i djeluje u prijateljskoj Kanadi. Naime, Emir mi se obratio E-mailom ovom porukom: "Institut za istraživanje genocida Kanada je pokrenuo parlamentarnu peticiju - e-1837, kojom se od Vlade Kanade traži zakonsko krivično sankcionisanje negatora genocida u Srebrenici u Kanadi. Negatori genocida u Kanadi i čitavom svijetu, izgubivši bilo kakav agrument o opravdanosti krivičnog gonjenja negatora genocida, sada žele da iskoriste zakon o ugrožavanju slobode govora i mišljenja. Molimo vas da nam kratko odgovorite zašto krivično sankcionisanje negatora genocida u Srebrenici u Kanadi nije suzbijanje slobode govora i mišljenja. Zar negiranje genocida nad Jevrejima koje je počinila Njemačka u Drugom svijetskom ratu nije zakonski kažnjivo? Naravno ako se slažete sa ovim. Vaš odgovor čemo proslijediti sponzoru peticije, članu Kanadskog parlamenta Brian Masse". Dragi Emire. Naravno da se slažem i naravno da ovim putem urgentno apelujem na sve Bošnjake/Bosance i sve Bošnjakinje/Bosanke u domovini i svijetu da se odazovu tvom pozivu, jer srpska kampanja protiv ove inicijative je već počela. Pogledajte ove linkove (stefan-karganović.rtf) - (, pa da shvatimo o čemu se ovdje radi. Ovo treba da nas probudi i pobudi u nama volju da se suprostavimo negatorima Genocida nad našim narodom. Negatori Genocida su, dakako, vidno uznemireni, jer su gotovo bili sigurni da smo se mi umorili od njihove laži te da smo se opet predali ćoravoj sudbini, kao i dosada. Moramo im pokazati i dokazati da se nismo ni umorili, niti ćemo se ikad više predati slijepoj sudbini za njihov udruženi zločinački poduhvat. Tako nam Svevišnji Allah pomogao! Poziv negatora Genocida na pravo na "slobodu govora i mišljenja" u Kanadi nije ništa drugo nego poziv na njihovu uzurpaciju prava na laž na koju su se zavjetovali svom ocu nacije Dobrici ÄŒosiću. Prema tome, dragi moji Bošnjaci/Bosanci i Bošnjakinje/Bosanke ma gdje bili, ovo je urgentni apel vama u domovini i svijetu da uradite individualno i kolektivno što je u vašoj moći da zaustavimo negaciju Genocida nad našim narodom, Genocida koji se već dogodio, ali i onog koji se može dogoditi u budućnosti našoj djeci ako mi ne uradimo ono što nam je roditeljska i patriotska dužnost. Jer, oni koji negiraju dokazani i punopravno presuÄ‘eni Genocid, spremni su ponovo počiniti taj isti Genocid, jer je to njima moralno opravdani čin. Ali, i mi, Bošnjaci/Bosanci, ako prešućujemo njihovu negaciju genocida, sudjelujemo u toj njihovoj negaciji i odgovorni smo individualno i kolektivno za širenje njihove laži, kao njihove srpske lažne "slobode", njihovog srpskog lažnog "patriotizma", njihove srpske lažene "inteligenicije", ali i njihovog stvarnog srpskog bezobrazluka i njihove podmukle srpske subverzije. Uz punu podršku i pohvalu Emiru Ramiću za sve što je uradio i što radi u Kanadi protiv negacije srpskog Genocida nad našim narodom i uz zahvalnost kanadskoj vladi na svemu što je dosada uradila i što namjerava uraditi ubuduće za Bosnu i bosanski narod, pozivam sve Bošnjake/Bosance i Bošnjakinje/Bosanke da se jave Emiru Ramiću na ovaj E-mail: i pitaju ga kako mogu pomoći da kanadski parlament donese zakon o sankcioniranju negatora Genocida u Kanadi sličan onom koji sankcionira negaciju Holokausta nad Jevrejima. Taj kanadski presedan može biti dobar primjer ostalim zemljama na Balkanu, Europi i svijetu, uključujući i Bosnu, ako Bog da, da ga slijede. Dragi moji. Nemojte ostati gluhi na ovaj apel zbog obraza svog, svoje djece i cijelog čovječanstva!

Akademik prof. dr. Suad Kurtčehajić, profesor Fakulteta političkih nauka, Unoverzitet Sarajevo
A osnovno mi izgleda da sloboda govora i mišljenja ne može koristiti kao izgovor za negiranje genocida. Jer tu imamo zloupotrebu prava gdje je kao mozda najjasniju granicu zloupotrebe prava postavio profesor teorije drzave i prava Radomir Lukić kazavši da zloupotrebu prava imamo kada koristeci neko pravo veći štetu napravimo drugome nego što sebi pribavimo koristi. Mislim da se ovaj kriterij zloupotrebe prava jasno ogleda u korištenju prava na slobodu misli i govora jer šteta i bol koji se nanosi porodicama i narodu nad kojim je izvršen genocid u ovom slučaju Bošnjacima mnogo je veća od koristi koju ima osporavač genocida kroz slobodu misli i govora.

Prof. dr. Sanjin Kodrić, profesor Filozofskog fakulteta, Univerzitet Sarajevo
U cijelosti podržavam Peticiju e-1837. Sloboda izražavanja jeste jedna od tekovina demokratskih društava zagarantirana kako nacionalnim zakonodavstvom, tako i meÄ‘unarodni dokumentima, a prije svih Općom deklaracijom o ljudskim pravima iz 1948. godine i Evropskom konvencijom o ljudskim pravima i osnovnim slobodama, ali da, meÄ‘utim, sloboda izražavanja nije apsolutno pravo. Naime, odredbama ÄŒlana 19. MeÄ‘unarodnog pakta o graÄ‘anskim i političkim pravima te odredbama ÄŒlana 10. Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima utvrÄ‘eni su uvjeti pod kojim sloboda izražavanja može biti ograničena, i to prije svega pod uvjetom da se „poštuju prava i ugled drugih“. Dakle, riječ je o poštovanju činjenica i prava drugih, tj. žrtava genocida – mislim da na tome treba insistirati. ÄŒestitam još jednom i želim svaki uspjeh u ovom Vašem nastojanju i radu uopće.

Prof. dr. Sakib Softić, profesor Fakulteta kriminalističkih nauka, Univerziteta Sarajevo
Sloboda mišljenja i izražavanja misli, sloboda širenja i primanja informacija i ideja bez miješanja javnih vlasti predstavlja jedno od temeljnih ljudskih prava koje je zajamčeno ustavima svih demokratskih država. Prava i slobode jednog čovjeka ograničene su pravima i slobodama drugih ljudi. Stoga u sadržaj prava ulaze i dužnosti i odgovornosti. Ostvarivanje ovih prava podvrgnuto je ograničenjima pa i kaznama radi zaštite temeljnih vrijednosti demokratskog društva.  Pravo naroda na postojanje svakako predstavlja temeljnu vrijednost demokratskog društva a genocid negaciju takvog prava. MeÄ‘unarodne sudske instance su primjenjujući najviše pravne standarde utvrdile da je u Bosni i Hercegovini, na širem području Srebrenice počinjen genocid. Utvrdile su i da su to počinili vojska i policija republike srpske postupajući po javnim ovlastima. Stoga negiranje genocida ne spada u slobodu mišljenja i izražavanja. Negiranje genocida predstavlja fazu u izvršenju zločina genocida. Odnosno, dio je same radnje počinjenja zločina genocida u širem smislu. Pozivanje na slobodu mišljenja i izražavanja radi negiranja, opravdavanja ili prikrivanja zločine ne može ni u kom slučaju predstavljati konzumiranje prava na slobodu govora i mišljenja. Negiranje genocida je zločin. Koji treba biti kažnjen.

Prof. dr. Fikret Bečirović, direktor Instituta za istraživanje zločina protiv čovječnosti i međunarodnog prava Univerziteta Sarajevo
Na vaše pitanje, a za parlamentarnu peticiju, kojom se od Vlade Kanade traži krivično sankcionisanje  negiranja genocida u Srebrenici odgovaram:  Negiranje genocida po definiciji tog strašnog zlodjela je poslednja faza u njegovom opusu. Dakle, u ÄŒlanu 6  Statuta meÄ‘unarodnog kaznenog suda  riječ "genocid" znači bilo koje dole opisanih djela, počinjeno u namjeri da se u cijelosti ili djelomično uništi jedna nacionalna, etnička, rasna ili vjerska skupina kao što je: (a) ubijanje pripadnika skupine; (b) nanošenje teške ozljede ili duševne boli pripadnicima skupine; (c) namjerno podvrgavanje skupine životnim uvjetima kojima je cilj njezino potpuno ili djelomično fizičko uništenje; (d) nametanje mjera s namjerom sprečavanja raÄ‘anja unutar skupine; (e) prisilno premještanje djece iz jedne skupine u drugu. Imajući sve pomenuto u vidu negiranje genocida je faktički podržavanje i pravdanje svih gore navedenih radnji, što znaći podsticanje na ponovna zlodjela genocida nad odreÄ‘enom grupom, u našem slučaju ponovnim genocidom nad Bošnjacima. Negatori genocida u Republici Srpskoj i u Srbiji čak trijumfuju u svojim iskazima, pa se često od nekih političara može čuti sledeće: "Ako stalno govorite o genocidu i ako vam je toliko draga ta tema, mi ga možemo i ponoviti". Dakle negiranje genocida ne može se podvesti pod slobodu govora već pod govor mržnje i poslednju fazu tog strašnog zlodjela.

Prof. dr. Enis Omerović, ekspert za međunarodno pravo
Ukratko - Kanada, USA, to su zemlje u kojima je sloboda izražavanja svetinja i koje krivično sankcioniranje negiranja genocida i Holokausta gledaju kao na ugrožavanje slobode govora. Nasuprot europskim zemljama, koje imaju krivično sankcionisanje negiranja genocida i Holokausta. To su dva različita pristupa u svijetu.

 Adil Kulenović, predsjednik Asocijacije Krug99, asocijacije nezavisnih itelektualaca različitih etničkih pripadnosti i svjetonazora
U vezi sa inicijativom Instituta za istraživanje genocida Kanada, koji je pokrenuo parlamentarnu peticiju - e-1837, i kojom se od Vlade Kanade traži na zakonu osnovano  krivično sankcionisanje negatora genocida u Srebrenici u Kanadi, mi, nezavisni itelektualci različitih etničkih pripadnosti i svjetonazora, okupljeni već 25 godina u Asocijaciji Krug 99 – Sarajevo, izražavamo punu podršku ovoj inicijativi. Ne samo zbog toga što su  negatori genocida u Srebrenici i BiH sve agresivniji i motivisaniji političkim interesima ostvarivanja velikodržavnih ciljeva susjednih zemalja protiv mira u Bosni i Hercegovini, već i iz razloga čovječnosti i zalaganja da se demijurg genocida zaustavi i u ovom dijelu svijeta i u savremenoj civilizaciji. Naše uporište za ovakav stav jeste Povelja Ujedinjenih nacija i Konvencija Ujedinjenih nacija o sprečavanju i kažnjavanju zločina genocida od 9. decembra 1948. godine, koje su iznad svakog prava, pa i slobode govora i mišljenja, na koje se pozivaju akteri političke propagande i negacionizma internacionalnog prava i presuda internacionalnih sudova formiranih od strane Savjeta bezbjednosti UN-a. Posebno skrećemo pažnju na definisani standard internacionalne teorije o genocidu koja definiše da je negiranje izvršenog i na internacinalnom sudištu presuÄ‘enog genocida posljednja faza izvršenja genocida i istovremeno prijetnja novim. Zbog toga ne može sloboda govora i mišljenja imati supremaciju nad jasnim odredbama  Älana III. pod c. i e., i člana IV. i V pomenute Konvencije Ujedinjenih nacija. TakoÄ‘e ističemo da su i savremene civilizirane države, iz kojih su akteri ili žrtve genocida, u svom zakonodavstvu kodificirali kažnjivost neposrednog ili javnog podsticanja na genocid, kao i saučesništvo u njegovom izvršenju u svim fazama. Uvjereni smo da bi kanadsko, na zakonu definisano, krivično sankcionisanje negatora genocida u Srebrenici bilo doprinos suzbijanju genocida u bilo kojem dijelu savemenog čovječanstva, a ne nikako ugrožavanje slobode govora i mišljenja.

Magistar nauka Fatmir Alispahić, književnik

Demokratija nije anarhija, pa se ni sloboda govora ne može realizirati izvan granica na kojima su čuvaju etički i moralni stubovi društva. Neko ko propagira narkomaniju, ko propagira pedofiliju i druge po društvo štetne i razvratne pojave, ne može se braniti slobodom govora. Neko ko negira holokaust, ne radi to u ime slobode govora, već u ime veličanja ratnog zločina i nacizma. Isto ovo treba da važi za velikosrpske negatore genocida u Srebrenici, koji je nakon holokausta prvi pravno verfivirani genocid u Evropi, što znači da ima i pravnu i hostorijsku validnost. Negiranje genocida u Srebrenici je kriminalni čin, a ne sloboda govora. Podvoditi proslavu genocida pod slobodu govora, takoÄ‘e je kriminalni čin i saučesništvo u proslavi genocida.

Prof. dr. Ivo Komšić, ratni član Predsjedništva RBiH i bivši gradonačelnik Sarajeva
IznenaÄ‘en sam da u Kanadi negiranje genocida nije krivično djelo. Drugo je kod nas jer naš Parlament ne može donijeti takav zakon sve dok su nasljednici genocidne politike u njemu. Ali sam iznenaÄ‘en za Kanadu. Mislim, iako to nije moje područje, da u zemljama EU postoji zakonodavstvo koje sankcionira negiranje genocida. To bi trebalo provjeriti. Vi spravom tražite da se u Kanadi to uvede.

Prof. dr.Fahira Fejzić Čengić, redovni profesor komunikologije na Fakultetu političkih nauka Univerziteta Sarajevo
Tzv. govor mržnje predstavlja delikt širenja verbalne ili piktografske prakse isticanja opresije, diskriminacije ili omalovažovanja jedinki ili grupa u javnom prostoru i otuda je kao takvo ispoljavanje kažnjivo. U kontekstu političkog komentara kao žanra ili forme kojim se na neki način snažnije atakuje na politički eksponirane ili općenite javne ličnosti, za očelkibvati je viši prag osjetljivosti tj. otpornost na višak kritike, ironije, sarkazma i slično. Kad je u pitanju negiranje najtežih mogućih oblika uništavanja grupa, dijelova naroda, naroda ili nacija, kakav je genocid po definiciji onda se ne smije to civilizacijsko fašističko praktično djelovanje, djelatni rezultati njegovih ubistvenih posljedica i same količine ili kvantumi ubijenih, masakriranih, iskomadanih, razbacanih po kojekakvim rupama, jamama, šupljinama, planinskim dubovima i slično, čemu agresija iz 90-tih godina na priznatu državu BiH daje mnoštvo dokaza, nije sfera govora mržnje. Najprije zbog uzroka i posljedica. Potom, stoga što je negiranje zločina genocida sastavni dio projekta izvoÄ‘enja genocidnih radnji nad nekim narodom ili nekom teritorijalnom prostornošÄ‡u. Potom, govor mržnje je monološki govor, dok je negiranje genocida stav ili pseudomišljenje jer dolazi naknadno, sa značajne vremenske distance od barem dvadesetak godina, što mi svjedočimo u Bosni. Kvalifikativi genocida, namjera i realizacija tih učinaka tih anticivilizacijskih ratnih radnji mnogo ranije su utvrÄ‘eni od samog termina i njegove rasprosztanjenosti u meÄ‘unarodnom krivičnom pravu, od u - modernosti kakav je govor mržnje. Genocidi su nastajali u povijersti, u doba skromnog razvoja masovnih medija. Tek su štampa i rani radio bili u funkciji čovječanstva, Danas, sa enormnim razvojem TV i naročito digitalnih internetskih medija, učinci i zlo su ustostručeni. Time su posljedice djelatnih učinaka neusporedivo više razarajući. Sa usponom društvenih mreža, i brkanja pojmova društvena mreža i masovni medij, jedno je privatno drugo je profesionalno, jedno ne mora poštivati zakone o javnom diskursu (/još je u sferi privatnosti i tzv. deregulacije) a drugo ne može opstati bez etičkih kodeksa i primjene novinarske deontologije (morala) dolazi do svjesnih, mada bude i nesvjesnih, brkanja. Zasigurno je neophodno ograničiti i govor mržnje -  ali najprije sedmu fazu realizacije genocida nad Bošnjacima a to je - negiranje počinjenih zločina!!! Svaka čast za ideju, nadam se da će Vam ovo bar unekoliko koristiti.

Prof. dr. Džemal Najetović, profesor Pravnog fakulteta, Univerziteta, Zenica
Svaki govor mržnje i neistine je za osudu jer je prijetnja za sigurnost. Uprkos svemu što razdvaja ljude, svi smo pripadnici ljudske vrste-čovječanstva i zbog toga trebamo više uvažavati-respektovati jedni druge.

Magistar nauka Džebrail Bajramović, nosilac Zlatnog ljiljana Armije RBiH
Vrijeme i prilike  u kojim se današnje čovječanstvo nalazi je kompleksno i zahtjevno kako u demokratskim državama tako i u državama u kojima je demokratija samo deklarativna tj. svojim graÄ‘anima ne pruža osnovna ljudska prava i slobode! Mnoge rezolucije u vjeću sigurnosti OUN-a, su ostale prazno slovo na papiru i OUN nemaju instrument provoÄ‘enja istih ma kako to bilo pravno i civilizacijski opravdano! Danas smo taoci ”VELIKIH SILA” a koje svojim pravom VETA ugrožavaju meÄ‘unarodni poredak, a da ne govorimo o svojevoljnom djelovanju tih istih članica u raznim konfliktnim područjima gdje naizgled uspostavljaju mir i red, ali za svoj vlastiti dugoročni interes tj. interes finansijskih magnata i lobija. Samo pitanje slobode govora u kontekstu negiranja genocida, zločina pa i holokausta je široko pitanje i traži tj. postavlja i daje mnogo odgovora koji se prepliću i komplikuju u traženju rješenja za sankcionisanje negatora, kako pojedinaca tako i kako znamo država (Srbija negira genocid u Srebrenici) koje čak odvajaju ogromna sredstva budžetska za lobiranje i negiranje istine o genocidu! U samo tri države koliko znam je zabranjeno negiranje holokausta i kažnjivo je (Njemačka,Francuska, Austrija), meÄ‘utim, postavlja se pitanje, zašto u samo tri države! Zašto je recimo kažnjivo u Švedskoj i SAD da vrijeÄ‘aš homoseksualce i negiraš njihova prava! Zašto to pravo kažnjavanja negiranja genocida nije na istoj deredži i zašto mnoge pravosudne institucije kao odgovor obično se povlaće na pravo ”slobode govora”. Sloboda govora, tu je srž problema i tumačenja slobode govora i do koje granice ta sloboda govora može ići po pitanju negiranja genocida i žrtava istog. Moje mišljenje je, da treba veoma smišljeno ići na tekst rezolicije koja bi obuhvatala tekst prijedloga i opisa uzroka i posljedica negiranja genocida. Recimo i lično se slažem da samo negiranje genocida sa naučno historijske i argumentima potvrÄ‘ene dokumentovane i relevantne ekspertne grupe ili pojedinca, ne treba osporavati i treba se dati šansa za relevantnu reviziju prošlosti u područjima gdje meÄ‘unarodni sud nije dao svoje mišljenje i presudu, ali ta revizija mora ići kroz meÄ‘unarodne institucije pravde, a ne da to bude sud država optuženih za zločin! Problem sa negiranjem genocida u Srebrenici pa i holokausta bit će još dugo vidljiv uz opravdavanje ”slobode govora”, meÄ‘utim u večini zemalja je veoma kažnjiv govor mržnje i podsticanje konflikta po osnovu, rasne , etničke i vjerske pripadnosti. Tu je ključ peticije gdje se može kao argument navesti, da i samo negiranje utire put ka produženju agonije žrtava, ponovno podsticanje mladih generacijana na počinjenje zločina i genocida, a time i nemogućnost suživota i postizanja konačnog mira! Dobar primjer je Republika srpska, koja zajedno sa Srbijom negira genocid i da političari koji je predstavljaju još uvjek koriste ne donšenja zakona zabrani negiranja genocida da unose kako politički tako i demokratski nered u cijelom regionu a prvenstveno povratnicima na područja gdje je izvršen genocid nad Bošnjacima! Kanada je do sada pokazala volju i usvojila više rezolucija koje otvaraju put ka efikasnijem suzbijanju zločina pa čak i preventivno mogućih konflikata. Vrlo je vazno naglasiti rjec ”peventivno suzbijanje” jer takva vrsta rezolucije u startu daje osnovu za budućnost i kažnjavanje negatora kao i drugih vrsta protivzakonitih djelovanja grupa i pojedinaca! Dakle treba se držati slobodarske ideje govora ali uz naglasak da taj govor ili negiranje ne zadire u prava žrtava na istinu i eventualnu nadoknadu od strane počinioca. Mogućnost da se negatori genocida kazne bi trebala biti takoÄ‘er ozakonjena i definirana gore navedenim pravima i obavezama onih koji negiraju već presuÄ‘ene sporove po pitanju genocida u Srebrenici! Nonsens je da se po svaku cijenu želi doći do istine i pravde gdje sud u Hagu se finansira i od strane Kanadske vlade, a da ta ista vlada ne stane na stranu žrtve i prava na miran život i pomirenje shodno presudi tog istog suda. Nadam se da će prijedlog peticije-1837, biti prihvačen od strane Kanadskog parlamenta i da ce Kanada pokazati kao i do sada da je rijetka zemlja koja uistinu je demokratska i čiji graÄ‘ani vole rad, red i zakon koji parlamentarci donose. Hvala u moje ime i za g.Brian Masse istinskom borcu za ljudska prava i istinu.

Prof. dr. Senadin Lavić, Predsjednik Bošnjačke zajednice kulture, Preporod, Sarajevo, redovni profesor Fakulteta političkih nauka, Unoveziteta Sarajevo
Negiranje genocicda u Bosni nad Bošnjacima predstavlja novo civilizacijsko posrnuće i nastavak genocidnih aktinosti nad bošnjačkim narodom. Velikosrpski i velikosrbijanski revizionisti pokušavaju sakriti sve tragove svojih zločina u Bosni te nastaviti s daljnjom destrukcijom države Bosne protiv koje su se digli kao pobunjenička banda 1990-ih da bi stvarali “Veliku Srbiju” od drugih država. Srbijanski negatori genocida pokazuju da ne priznaju internacionali poredak i haške presude, da iz pevaziÄ‘enog organskog koncepta nacije razvijaju negaciju prema svima koji se ne uklapaju u “homogenu” etničku grupu. Oni sedanas služe svjetskim silnicama i pokušavaj use predstaviti u drugačijem svjetlu koje sakriva da su u Bosni počinili genocid i druge zločine protiv čovječnosti i ljudskih prava. pokušaji da se negira genocid nad Bošnjacima u Bosni samo će voditi novim konlfiktima i prekidima saradnje izmeÄ‘u nezavisnih država na Balkanu.

Ćamil Duraković, bivši gradonačelnik Srebrenice
Genocid u Srebrenici nije nikakav patriotski stav Bošnjaka, već je pravna činjenica utvrÄ‘ena u niz predmeta pred MeÄ‘unarodnim sudovima čiji je osnivač i sama Kanada kao članica UN-a. Uzimajući to u obzir, u svim normalnim demokratijama negiranje genocida, utvrÄ‘enog presudama MeÄ‘unarodnih sudova, je antidemokratski i anticivilizacijski čin. Jer sloboda govora i mišljenja nije kad govorite protiv jednog od temeljnih principa demokratije, a to je vladavina prava. Tako da zakonska regulativa, koja bi kažnjavala negatore genocida u Srebrenici, nije usmjerena protiv slobode govora i mišljenja, nego protiv anticivilizacijskog ponašanja negatora najgnusnijeg zločina protiv čovječnosti, zločina genocida.