The fact that the Armenian Genocide has been left out shows a deliberate re-writing of history for political expediency: precisely the opposite of what this mealy-mouthed "law" purports to want to do. And Turkey isn't even in the EU yet! The evidence from Turkish archives of the 1919 trials in Constantinople (Istanbul) were sufficient to warrant a death sentence for the culprits for their crime. Raphael Lemkin is on record as saying that his conception for his newly-coined word "Genocide" included BOTH the Nazi Holocaust and the Genocide of the Armenians by the Turks. Who do European politicians think they will fool in 2007 by selecting what they will find condemnable and what they will find acceptable in the crime of Genocide? Genocide is either good or bad - regardless of who one needs to kneel to. It is common knowledge that of all EU states, the UK is the most frightened of offending Turkey. Does the EU have to succomb to Turkey's blackmail as well?

Atken Armenian, Yerevan, Armenia

Does this mean the EU will be jailing France for its role in Rwanda?

The idiotic, useless posturing spirals higher and higher . . .

ScottQ, Boise, USA

And still the "intellectuals" will support the EU.
Germany flexing its muscle ?

Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK

Such laws are senseless and open to abuse. Existing hate laws should surely be enough to cover such crimes.

However, now that the law has been passed:
1. The fact that the Armenian Genocide was not mentioned proves what we always knew: that the EU is not serious about Armenian Genocide recognition. The EU is free, of course, to welcome Turkey into its ranks even if Turkey does not recognise the Armenian Genocide; but it should cease playing the hypocrite on this issue, cease using the 'Armenian Genocide card' as a cover for its anti-Turkish racism, and come out clean with what it really thinks. Then again, I guess it has done just that with this law.
2. Why not mention all genocides? I understand that the Rwandan case is fresh in the minds of many, and that a Rwandan Genocide Denial Industry has recently begun to emerge, but its inclusion, and the lack of reference to other cases of genocide, seems arbitrary.

Armen Gakavian, Sydney, Australia

Can one be guilty of a "love" crime.? What is the difference if a straight guy is killed by his wife, and a gay guy is killed by his partner. Do we have 'love', hate;' hate', 'love'.? How about murder for each. Not PC enough I suppose.?

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Texas

Wow. Amazing indeed. In principle, this sounds great - who could object to making it illegal to trivialize genocide? But this is a terrible step for freedom of expression - and, of course, one implemented by the frighteningly undemocratic EU. Which other thought-crimes will now be criminalised? How long before "mocking the august men and women of the institutions of Brussels" is a crime?

Nick, Rotherham, UK

How typical that 70 years on, the Holocaust is itself denied by the EU. At least to the extent that Europe clearly remains so profoundly anti semitic that they refuse to acknowledge the greatest crime against humanity ever committed.

As the survivors and eye witnesses gradually die it will only be a matter of time before Le Pen's 'detail of history' is airbrushed away or (as the Islamic propagandists would have it) accepted as being a nasty zionist plot to gain sympathy. I despair.

Jay, London,

Truth is not determined by laws, nor should one's attitude to truth be subject to legality.

If it is true that we hate something, are we to be compelled to deny that truth to avoid punishment by totalitarian states or religious fanatics?

Is hate always and necessarily a bad thing?

Lee, London,