The Constitution of the Humans is neither a figment of imagination nor is it an abstract idea. It corresponds to an evaluative reality since it does not risk to get scared by the questions set by principles. Its position is clear and it exists for defending humans and not for serving as a pretext to defend laws. The question of penalizing the negation of genocides demonstrates not only the cowardice and unmanliness of some, who were evident because of the existence of the societies of oblivion, but it also demonstrates the willingness of some to restrict to a legal framework what it is placed above humans and their rights. Some individuals act as if they were above human laws, which they are supposed to represent and protect. By means of motions of censure and amendments we have managed to take a note of the number of individuals who do not care about the fundamental human rights of any origin. Not only is this stance inadmissible in a democratic framework, but it is also unaffordable in the human one. Without accusing anyone of having been influenced or even bribed, we want to clearly declare our indignation as human rights’ advocates. The bill on penalizing negation is not illegal. But rather it has to do with a process already existing in countries of Europe like Switcher land and Slovakia, as well as of South America as in Argentina and Uruguay. Consequently, it is not about a model, literally talking. And in the case of Switcher land particularly, we know that it happened at the moment of condemnation and of the efficacy of the latter, since the official negation has been completely disappeared in this country. Moreover, considering this law as a big risk for a conflict between France and Turkey simply constitutes a repetition of arguments of the Turkish system which has to pose in this way a threat in order to justify its whole diplomacy regarding its foreign affairs. Thus, this is all about a trick working under the pretext of constitutionality and under the influence of the Turkish propaganda doctrine. Nobody is beguiled by these false arguments, as it was shown by the recent resolution of the Council of Europe about the necessity for Turkey to recognize the multiple genocide committed at the dispense of the Armenians, the Assyro-Chaldeans and the Pontiacs. We see that in this domain the climate is overturned, since more and more countries consider it inadmissible for Turkey not to recognize the facts of the past. More specifically, this country should withdraw and accept the historic facts. Otherwise it risks to be accused of actively negating Shoah. In fact, no one accuses contemporary Turkey neither of having committed nor of committing genocide. Yet, if Turkey is nowadays continuing influencing Senators and Members of the Parliament of other countries to indirectly promote negation, then she is broadly risking to be accused of committing genocide of memory. As regards her supporters of all parts, they risk to be deemed not only as executioners of memory, but at least as collaborators in a crime against the memory of the Humanity.