Brigitte Bardot incites hatred against Muslims

[Sky]

Those that incite racial and ethnic strife deserve the highest possible punishment provided in the criminal code. Sixty years after the defeat of the fascist bloc racist and extremist ideas have been thoroughly discredited. The vast majority of Europeans have adapted to the fact that their nations are now home to a diverse population. Those lunatic elements that try to sabotage and subvert society with their racist venom deserve nothing less than to be apprehended and undergo thorough re-education to erase their insane ideas.

Those that play the "freedom of speech" card are dishonest and selective in their application of such a doctrine. Certain extremist and racist organizations react in the most sensitive ways when they feel offended or exposed by their enemies.




French screen legend Brigitte Bardot is on trial for allegedly inciting racial hatred after making controversial comments concerning the Islamic religion.

Bardot is facing a possible two-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of US$23,500 if found guilty.
The charge came about after Bardot publicly disclosed a letter she sent to French president Nicolas Sarkozy last year, criticising the Muslim religious festival of Aidiladha.
http://www.star-ecentral.com/movies/buzz/buzz.asp?file=archives/buzz/2008/4/21BrigitteBa&date=4/21/2008&title=Brigitte%20Bardot%20stand%20trial

[Bud Struggle]

She was a pretty hot babe in her day!

http://images.allposters.com/images/54/039_18543.jpg

[Robert]

Those that play the "freedom of speech" card are dishonest and selective

It's not a "card."

Now, what did the famous defendress of animal rights say that was "racially venomous"? Are you sure she wasn't criticizing a homophobic and misogynist religion?

That typically wins awards on this forum.

[Joby]

What a bunch of politically correct, absolutely idiotic goons. She's going on trial for writing something somebody might find offensive.

It's shit like this that keeps Ayn Rand popular.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What did she actually say? The article doesn't mention it.

[Kami]

French screen legend Brigitte Bardot is on trial for allegedly inciting racial hatred after making controversial comments concerning the Islamic religion.

Now, we are aware that Islam is not a race, and is rather an oppressive religion, aren't we? Ergo comments against islam != Racism? Good, just checking.

[Sky]

Now, we are aware that Islam is not a race, and is rather an oppressive religion, aren't we? Ergo comments against islam != Racism? Good, just checking.

In certain western nations Muslims are considered to be a separate ethnic group even though they have diverse national origins whether from Arabic-speaking countries, Pakistan, African countries, etc. Muslims in these countries are united by virtue of their common religion. Since Muslims are a distinct identity in western countries, it would be hateful to disparage the fundamental marker of their identity i.e Islam. The only acceptable criticism of Islam is by progressive, modernizing forces within predominantly Muslim countries.

[Kami]

In certain western nations Muslims are considered to be a separate ethnic group even though they have diverse national origins whether from Arabic-speaking countries, Pakistan, African countries, etc. Muslims in these countries are united by virtue of their common religion.
Great. So they're a religious group, not an ethnic one. That's not what the word means.


Since Muslims are a distinct identity in western countries, it would be hateful to disparage the fundamental marker of their identity i.e Islam.
No, it wouldn't. Islam is a oppressive religion and should be opposed at every oppertunity.


The only acceptable criticism of Islam is by progressive, modernizing forces within predominantly Muslim countries.
No, criticism can be made by anyone, anywhere. I don't need to be in a special situation to criticise such a... monstrosity.

[Andy Bowden]

You have to examine what motivations people are coming from when they criticise a religion - and if in fact its the religion they are criticising, or immigrants etc who overwhelmingly follow that religion.

Nobody seriously considers Ian Paisley's criticisms of Catholicism to be related to secularism for example.

And theres also the point that criticising religion endlessly doesn't actually undercut the material reasons people are religious, and generally doesn't have any effect on the spread of that religion.

[Sky]

Great. So they're a religious group, not an ethnic one. That's not what the word means.
This is a shallow argument that consists of semantics. Jews are neither a nation nor an ethnic group. But no sane person would disagree with the fact that anti-Semitism constitutes racism.


Islam is a oppressive religion and should be opposed at every oppertunity.

To oppose Islam on principle is ridiculous. While Islam in some cases has played a negative role in the context of the national liberation movement in certain countries, in others it has demonstrated anti-imperialist tendencies such as in the Iranian Revolution.

[Kami]

This is a shallow argument that consists of semantics. Jews are neither a nation nor an ethnic group. But no sane person would disagree with the fact that anti-Semitism constitutes racism.Judaism has the odd case of being an Ethnoreligious group; after all, you get people who call themselves "Jewish", but do not follow Judaism, such as Messianics.
I may be wrong, but I have not known of ex-muslims, or those who are not muslim but come from muslim background to still refer to themselves as such.

To oppose Islam on principle is ridiculous. While Islam in some cases has played a negative role in the context of the national liberation movement in certain countries, in others it has demonstrated anti-imperialist tendencies such as in the Iranian Revolution.To support Islam without looking at what Islam actually states is ridiculous; it is misogynistic, homophobic and generally bigotted in the extreme. The Iranian Revolution left us with a theocratic regime, which is in no way desirable. We cannot give Islam special status as a set of beliefs just because it's a religion; it should be challenged just like any other.

[Sky]

It hardly needs to be emphsized that anti-imperialism as one form of active struggle of the peoples of the East against presentday neocolonialism is progressive in its very essence. In cases in which the struggle begins and continues under slogans that by virtue of a country's specific features take on a religious coloring, the anti-imperialist essence of this struggle does not change.

Islam is a complex and variable social and political force. The green banner of Islam casts its shadow over fighters against imperialism, supporters of revolutionary-democratic transformations, and the most doubleeyed reactionaries. Islam's flexible ideology makes it possible for it to be used by various political forces who sometimes pursue diametrically opposite goals. The Iranian Revolution was manifestly progressive and anti-imperialist. But the Islamist regime of General Zia in Pakistan was reactionary because of his assertion that Islam and capitalism are natural allies.

[Robert]

NoXion asks, reasonably, "What did she actually say?"

It's been several different things over the years:


The current charge against Bardot was lodged by the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP), citing a letter Bardot wrote to French officials in 2004 in which she alluded to Muslims as "this population that leads us around by the nose, [and] which destroys our country." The former actress-turned-animal rights crusader had written that letter to protest the ritual slaughter of sheep during the Muslim festival of Eid-al-Kabir.
Bardot's defense Tuesday was that her passionate denunciation of the ritual slaughter of Eid-al-Kabir had been misinterpreted as an attack on Islam in France. A similar defense had failed to spare her from conviction in four earlier trials. In 1997, for example, Bardot was first convicted on the charge of "inciting racial hatred" for her open letter to French daily Le Figaro, complaining of "foreign over-population", mostly by Muslim families.
The following year she was convicted anew for decrying the loss of French identity and tradition due to the multiplication of mosques "while our church bells fall silent for want of priests."



In 2000, Bardot was again convicted - this time for comments in her book Pluto's Square, whose chapter "Open Letter to My Lost France" grieved for "...my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims."Pretty clear that Mme. Bardot is conflating race, religion and nationality. No matter in France:

Art. 6 (http://www.juridat.be/cgi_loi/arch_a1.pl?rech=6&language=fr&chercher=t&row_id=1&trier=promulgation&fromtab=loi&choix1=ET&la=F&choix2=ET&ddda=2003&tri=dd+AS+RANK+&sql=dt+contains++%27LOI%27+and+dd+=+date%272003-02-25%27&cn=2003022537&DETAIL=2003022537/F&caller=archive&imgcn.x=33&imgcn.y=4&numero=6&dddj=25&dt=LOI+-&fr=f&dddm=02&set1=SET+TERM_GENERATOR+%27word%21ftelp/lang=french/base/root/derive/inflect%27&set3=set+character_variant+%27french.ftl%27&ver_arch=002#Art.7). § 1er. Est puni d'emprisonnement d'un mois à un an et d'une amende de cinquante EUR à mille EUR ou d'une de ces peines seulement :
- quiconque, dans l'une des circonstances indiquées à l'article 444 du Code pénal, incite à la discrimination, à la haine ou à la violence à l'égard d'une personne, d'un groupe, d'une communauté ou des membres de celle-ci, en raison du sexe, de l'orientation sexuelle, de l'état civil, de la naissance, de la fortune, de l'âge, de la conviction religieuse ou philosophique, de l'état de santé actuel ou futur, d'un handicap ou d'une caractéristique physique.

For you uncultured and fuel-ish Americains, I translate that phrase as: "on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, marital status, birth, wealth, age, religious or political conviction, state of present or future (?) health, or physical characteristic or handicap." How in the hell can you criticize someone's future health:

"Shutup, you likely to develop Lou Gherig's disease fool!"

Anyway, Ms. Bardot loses every which way. If you travel to France, keep your mouth shut. You can get ONE YEAR of prison time for saying the wrong thing. That's what you want for Brigitte Bardot?

[Killfacer]

Sky do you genuinly beleive that Islamic fundementalism is okay because you think it might be anti neo-colonialism as you so quaintly put it. Thats laughable. As Kami said there are large proportions of even moderate muslims who live in the UK who beleive that homosexuality is morally wrong and that gays are wrong. Women are treated extremely poorly in Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. I dont see the stoning to death of a woman as part of a struggle against colonialism, its part of the struggle against egalitarianism, just vile religious fundementalism rearing its ugly head. Is this something you really want to relate to your cause?

[Faux Real]

She called the French Muslim immigrant population "invaders, barbaric and cruel, responsible for terrorist acts, wishing to subdue the French people to the point of extermination."

I'm not in favor of censorship especially with something as trivial as some over-the-hill actress' stupid opinion, but I don't approve of her statements.

Now, we are aware that Islam is not a race, and is rather an oppressive religion, aren't we? Ergo comments against islam != Racism? Good, just checking.
Great. So they're a religious group, not an ethnic one. That's not what the word means.There's no such thing as "race" or "ethnicity" either, but does that prevent racial hatred based on "ethnic" (or "racial") and cultural appearances? Haven't Shikhs, Hindu Indians, and other "Muslim-looking" groups been targets of violent hate? As Robert said she's mixing nationalism, racist imagery, and religious differences in her statements, very well making the case that this consists of "racist speech" even though "race" doesn't exist. (Not that I approve of this form of trial, being that an indefinite number people hold the same if not worse view in France alone and all of Europe)

Persecution and deportation of people solely on account of believing and living their lives according to, what many here consider, a nonexistent mythical sky fairy shouldn't be acceptable and quite frankly isn't very internationalist, for those who agree with her.

Putting in effort to alienate a religious working base just because they're religious is counterproductive, you're not going to erase their beliefs with the flip of a switch. This paternal chauvinist attitude is needless and perpetuates the very problems that fuel current global 'war on terror' with ease. It's needless.


Sky do you genuinly beleive that Islamic fundementalism is okay because you think it might be anti neo-colonialism as you so quaintly put it.For the people who grew up in parts of the world where this fundamentalism exists it's the most progressive force they have had to rally a banner around. Are you denying neo-colonialism exists? Don't you think capitalist globalization is neo-colonialism via the rape of resources in the 'underdeveloped' world? Why does the US and its allies need this many bases then?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2003/0710imperialmap.jpg

The issue here, however, is the further polarization of the immigrant and now domesticated Muslim population of Europe ("Eurabia" or "Islamification of Europe"). Many immigrants fleeing lands of conflicts under centuries of colonization and war.

Thats laughable. As Kami said there are large proportions of even moderate muslims who live in the UK who beleive that homosexuality is morally wrong and that gays are wrong.Unfortunately it's not just them, so do atheists and people of other religions. Not all are, and there are religious people aren't homophobic, including -gasp- Muslims.

Women are treated extremely poorly in Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan.This is a universal problem not limited to Muslim countries.

For a crime that has always been vastly underreported, it is disturbing that the Justice Department reports more than 560,000 intimate partner victimizations in this country in 2005 - and even more disturbing that domestic homicides against women rose from 2004 to 2005. On average in 2005, more than three women a day were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the U.S. (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/71309/)

As for Iraq being in that list, the burden of proof is on you...

I dont see the stoning to death of a woman as part of a struggle against colonialism, its part of the struggle against egalitarianism, just vile religious fundementalism rearing its ugly head.That is not a homogeneous characterization and is legal in seven of over twenty Muslim-majority countries (UAE, KSA, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan and Nigeria), with Pakistan having never sentenced anyone to stoning. Needless to say it's not practiced by immigrants...

Is this something you really want to relate to your cause?To be perfectly honest I would rather align myself with the 'reactionary' movements that combat imperialism, colonialism and destruction of self-autonomy in the non Eurocentric world than with what may be seen as those who 'bring civilization' to underdeveloped places.

I don't need to be in a special situation to criticise such a... monstrosity.I agree, but it won't get you anywhere. They'll change themselves if they wish.

[Bud Struggle]

Why does the US and its allies need this many bases then?

Bridget Bardot says something about Moslems and it ends up America's fault! :lol: Moslems definiely need to chill a bit.

[Dean]

The only acceptable criticism of Islam is by progressive, modernizing forces within predominantly Muslim countries.

I'm very much in favor of fighting Islamophobia and giving people the benefit of the doubt, i.e. not judging them because they're Muslim. But to say that believing certain things gives you some kind of privilege above criticism is outrageous.

As usual, you present a case almost nobody could agree with. Within Islam, as within any ideological or religious movement, there is a duty to criticise the reactionary and digressive elements. But outside of the movement, there is no reasonable restriction, and certainly not when it comes to cases where the religion does indeed tread upon the rights and dignity of people.

It is a reasonable criticism to talk of Shar'ia law in the sense that it is often sexist (i.e. requirement of Burka). It is xenophobic, however, to imply that Islam - and hence muslims - are somehow inherently or unanimously to blame for that sexism. You need to understand the distinction there.

[Lector Malibu]

Bridget Bardot says something about Moslems and it ends up America's fault! :lol: Moslems definiely need to chill a bit.

That's Muslims , continue please.

[Dean]

That's Muslims , continue please.

Moslems is also accurate. Some people even say it that way.

[Lector Malibu]

Moslems is also accurate. Some people even say it that way.

First I've heard of it.

[Robert]

This is a universal problem not limited to Muslim countries.

Universal? So you see stonings, forced clitorectomies and burkas on the streets of your hometown too, eh?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Universal? So you see stonings, forced clitorectomies and burkas on the streets of your hometown too, eh?

You would be surprised to learn how many Christians, particularly of the conservative variety, put stock in stoning and decency garbs. Apparently God is very loving for condemning homosexuals to death on TheologyOnline (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=341).

OIers have the audacity to complain about 17% of Leftists wanting to ban organized religion when 1/4 conservative Christians think homosexuals should be put to death (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22483&highlight=kill+homosexuals) (on this forum) and 40% of the general public thinks homosexuality should be criminalized (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll3.htm)? :rolleyes:

[Joby]

I highly doubt those TheologyOnline polls.

If 40% of the populace wanted Homosexuality made illegal, it would probably have been criminalized already.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I highly doubt those TheologyOnline polls.

If 40% of the populace wanted Homosexuality made illegal, it would probably have been criminalized already.

I would think so too, but then again - how many Americans believe intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution?

I posted on TOL for over a year. I can tell you they're being perfectly frank when they say homosexuals should be killed. They've even established http://www.shadowgov.com/Focus/focus.html, hoping America will become a monarchy. :laugh:

[Joby]

I would think so too, but then again - how many Americans believe intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution?

Yeah....you got a point there. Living in Dallas, it's an issue I see come up pretty much every year in some way (of only on the evangelical TV stations :D).

Personally, I think Theology should be taught in school, ie the study of religion. So many people lack any understanding of Judaism, Islam, or even Christianity. They have absolutely no understanding of why Jerusalem is important to all groups, or why Iraq is a hotbed for sectarian strife.

So in the end, their mind resorts to Muslims being savages and Jews running the world :rolleyes:


I posted on TOL for over a year. I can tell you they're being perfectly frank when they say homosexuals should be killed. They've even established http://www.shadowgov.com/Focus/focus.html, hoping America will become a monarchy. :laugh:


:lol:

[Luís Henrique]

Brigitte Bardot is a fascist, is there any question about that?

Her "criticisms" of Islam may even be formally correct (I doubt it, though), but they serve a precise political end: to put an end to immigration into France and stop the "pollution" of French culture by North African "barbarism".

Defend that at your own risk...

Luís Henrique

[RHIZOMES]

It's not a "card."

Now, what did the famous defendress of animal rights say that was "racially venomous"? Are you sure she wasn't criticizing a homophobic and misogynist religion?

Brigitte Bardot is a homophobe so lol

[Dimentio]

Brigitte Bardot is a fascist, but Islam is not, was not and will not ever be progressive just because a fascist wanker thinks so. She is attacking the people and claiming that islam is somewhat biologically determined. In her worldview, muslims are like Orcs, tainted biologically.

She could'nt care less about islam. Islam just offers something which most people hate and fear, and that for legitime reasons.

Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a barbaric seventh century dogma.

[Robert]

1/4 conservative Christians think homosexuals should be put to death (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22483&highlight=kill+homosexuals) (on this forum)

There is someone on this forum who thinks homosexuals should be put to death?

Who?

You can find plenty of points -- like in the Middle Ages, where Christianity exceeded Islam in violent intolerance, but I can't think of any Christian political movement which has made serious policy inroads into, much less gained actual control of, any modern governments. Don't throw the Christian right in my face. Yes, the Christian right in the USA is behind faith based initiatives and (together with others) the teaching of ID under the current regime, but that's a pretty benign and tepid development compared to institutionalized Sharia, stonings, clothing police, and clitorectomies.

There are few if any laws remaining on the books that punish homosexual conduct, and those that are are not enforced and are unconstitutional. So can we stop with the silly comparisons between what are, at worst, predominantly Christian western societies and overtly Islamic authoritarian governments?

[Unicorn]

http://images.digitalmedianet.com/reuters/OLVNUENTPEO_iptc/20080415/2008-04-15T164201Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_PEOPLE-FRANCE-BARDOT-MUSLIMS-DC-dmn350.jpg

She has not aged gracefully. She reminds me of the UN commercial about how racism causes ugliness. :D

[Bud Struggle]

http://images.digitalmedianet.com/reuters/OLVNUENTPEO_iptc/20080415/2008-04-15T164201Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_PEOPLE-FRANCE-BARDOT-MUSLIMS-DC-dmn350.jpg

She has not aged gracefully. She reminds me of the UN commercial about how racism causes ugliness. :D

As a Capitalist I find it rather insulting that Communists can so easily judge people on what they look like. In Capitalism we judge people on the quality of their ideas rather than the smoothness of their skin. ;)

[Joby]

Brigitte Bardot is a fascist, is there any question about that?

Her "criticisms" of Islam may even be formally correct (I doubt it, though), but they serve a precise political end: to put an end to immigration into France and stop the "pollution" of French culture by North African "barbarism".

Defend that at your own risk...

Luís Henrique

Your missing what we're defending.

It's not what she's saying, but her right to say it.

[Green Dragon]

Your missing what we're defending.

It's not what she's saying, but her right to say it.


What ought to be instructive ALL the members on this board, is that it is the "Restricted" folks who are defending freedom of speech on this thread. Whereas the revlefters are either in favor of crushing it outright, or are stuck in a quandry as to the extent of crushing it.

[Lector Malibu]

What ought to be instructive ALL the members on this board, is that it is the "Restricted" folks who are defending freedom of speech on this thread. Whereas the revlefters are either in favor of crushing it outright, or are stuck in a quandry as to the extent of crushing it.


Oh please! like this is really the noble cause of the horribly oppressed restricted members. People get restricted for a variety of reasons and if Revleft had no intrest in free speech as you say they would just ban people flat out.

AND no one is making anybody stay...

[Green Dragon]

Oh please! like this is really the noble cause of the horribly oppressed restricted members. People get restricted for a variety of reasons and if Revleft had no intrest in free speech as you say they would just ban people flat out.

AND no one is making anybody stay...


I am referring to the debate regarding the comments of Brigid Bardot.

[Lector Malibu]

I am referring to the debate regarding the comments of Brigid Bardot.

suuureeee:D

[Luís Henrique]

Your missing what we're defending.

It's not what she's saying, but her right to say it.

No, dear. I am not talking about her right to say shit, I am talking about the shit she said.

Luís Henrique

[Robert]

Luis, you seem to admit that "her 'criticisms' of Islam may even be formally correct (you doubt it, though)" and you still call it "shit." Most people call it an "opinion," and France used to protect this sort of thing.

Deciding how to preserve one's culture while simultaneously being respectful of others is not an easy thing to do, especially for an elderly woman of any race or culture who watches kids by the hundreds committing acts of violence (supposedly) because they can't find jobs.

I am sure there are decent Muslims in many countries who, like Ms. Bardot, would be uneasy about violent riots among a non-arab immigrant community. It doesn't make them "fascists."

[Luís Henrique]

I am sure there are decent Muslims in many countries who, like Ms. Bardot, would be uneasy about violent riots among a non-arab immigrant community. It doesn't make them "fascists."

What makes Mme. Bardot a fascist is her affiliation to a neo-fascist political party, Front Nationale.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Most people call it an "opinion," and France used to protect this sort of thing.

Opinion is protected against censorship, not against criticism.

Luís Henrique

[Qwerty Dvorak]

What a bunch of politically correct, absolutely idiotic goons. She's going on trial for writing something somebody might find offensive.

It's shit like this that keeps Ayn Rand popular.
You're a moron, she's not going on trial because someone might find it offensive. There are important policy motivations for censoring racist speech. You're probably not aware but Europe had some problems with racism a few years back, there is a legitimate aim in preventing those problems from recurring.

[Robert]

censoring racist speech.

"First the punishment, then the trial!"

[Robert]

Opinion is protected against censorship, not against criticism.

Really? Tell that to the French prosecutor who is "rather tired of prosecuting Mme. Bardot."

[Joby]

No, dear. I am not talking about her right to say shit, I am talking about the shit she said.

Luís Henrique

Who care's what she said. She's a washed up actress and is as pathetic as Jane Fonda.

We're talking about her going to prison for saying what she did, which you seemed to suggest should happen.

[Joby]

You're a moron, she's not going on trial because someone might find it offensive. There are important policy motivations for censoring racist speech. You're probably not aware but Europe had some problems with racism a few years back, there is a legitimate aim in preventing those problems from recurring.

Here in America, we have racists. Used to have a lot more of them.

It's sad that you Euro's are so immature that you need the government to edit out material any rational person should be able to censor themselves.

Pathetic.

It's shit like this, the state saying people are unable to think for themselves, that keeps Ayn Rand popular.

[Bud Struggle]

Who care's what she said. She's a washed up actress and is as pathetic as Jane Fonda.

We're talking about her going to prison for saying what she did, which you seemed to suggest should happen.

I agree. I think the difference in attitude here is between Americans and EU/the world. For Americans Freedom of Speech is embodied in our Constitution. One could make any kind of political statement one wants supporting everyone from Hitler to Pol Pot and there are no legal consequences. You could be criticized, maybe fired from your job--but you won't be prosecuted and sent to prison.

The idea of political speech not being "free" is quite alien to the American conciousness. And I agree with the concept--it's when speech is suppressed that it goes undergound, and then erupts with the rather nasty consequences we've seen in Europe in the last century. For the most part, America was spared those dramatic political events by keeping political discourse in the open.

[Kami]

For Americans Freedom of Speech is embodied in our ConstitutionAs it is for Europeans

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and
ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers...

[Robert]

A lot going on here ...


She's a washed up actressNo old women can get the acting jobs they had when they were young. We'll all be "washed up" sooner or later, so take it easy, will you?

Second, she's not pathetic. She has given a lot of her energy, time and money to protecting helpless animals. That's very admirable, IMO. Could she do more to save the world? Probably. Could you?

As for the constitutionally protected speech, it is true that there are lots of limitations on the American right to free speech as well: 1) you can't yell fire in a theatre; 2) you cannot legally defame, slander, or libel another person though the definitions and problems of proof are considerable; 3) you cannot falsely claim you are a police officer; 4) you could probably be expelled from public schools for inciting race hatred (standing on a soapbox at recess and calling for the murder of all members of a certain race, religion, etc.), or even hurling racial epithets at a classmate, though I'm unfamiliar with any specific cases; 5) you can be sued for intentionally inflicting emotional distress, such as phoning a family and falsely reporting that their loved one just died in an auto accident; 6) you can't falsely claim on T.V. that your miracle ointment cures cancer; 7) you cannot advertise tobacco products on TV at all; 8) you cannot fund unlimited campaign ads for the candidate of your choice; 9) you cannot even attempt to coax children into your bed.

Here's a current U.S. criminal case involving mailing of threatening letters: http://fe10.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_re_us/ohio_threat_arrest;_ylt=AjkEAfj95UudjG9Om74GPxFvzw cF

The E.C. convention cited by Kami below appears to guarantee the same freedoms as our First Amendment, but I don't know that this convention gives Mme. Bardot any help; presumably she would have won her prior 3 cases if it did. A convention is not the same thing as a constitution. the French have the Rights of Man embodied in their constitution: La libre communication des pensÈes et des opinions est un des droits les plus prÈcieux de l'homme. Tout citoyen peut donc parler, Ècrire, imprimer librement; sauf # rÈpondre de l'abus de cette libertÈ, dans les cas dÈterminÈs par la loi.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Every citizen can therefore speak, write and print freely; but may need to respond if freedom is abused in cases determined by law.

The American constitution would be more in conformity with legal reality if it included that last, underlined qualifier as the Frecnh version does.


Anyway, it is a fact that Nazis and communists can receive parade permits in the USA. Nobody but the Nazis and commies are happy about that, but the "wisdom" of our current law says, essentially, that you can spew any political nonsense you want, and the marketplace of ideas serves as well as censorship in controlling or debunking it.

[Bud Struggle]

From RTG: As for the constitutionally protected speech, it is true that there are lots of limitations on the American right to free speech as well: That's why I specificly mentioned POLITICAL speech.


And you make an interesting point about convention as opposed to constitution--a convention is more like a suggestion?

[Luís Henrique]

Who care's what she said. She's a washed up actress and is as pathetic as Jane Fonda.

We're talking about her going to prison for saying what she did, which you seemed to suggest should happen.

Some have suggested that she might have made a valid statement "about a homophobic and misogynistic religion". Knowing her a little better than who stated that, I am saying, no, she didn't make a valid statement about a homophobic and misogynistic religion; she made a statement to incite hatred against those who believe in such homophobie and misogynistic religion.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Second, she's not pathetic.

No, she isn't. Fascists are never pathetic, they are just horrible.


She has given a lot of her energy, time and money to protecting helpless animals.

And a lot of her energy, time and money to harass innocent people.


That's very admirable, IMO. Could she do more to save the world?

Yes. She would do a lot more to save the world if she simply shut up her fascist mouth.

Luís Henrique

[Robert]

Luis, so that we're clear: do you want Brigitte Bardot to go to prison for what she said and wrote about muslims? How about those who defend her right to speak under the constitution? Do they all have to go to prison too?
Why or why not?

Tom, I was aware you had drawn the distinction between political and non-political speech. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Anyway, "convention" in Europe, as here, as I understand it is just an agreement. Like a treaty. A "convention on human rights" gets everyone speaking the same language and establishes goals. To my knowledge, it doesn't give you any affirmative right that you can demand in court. But maybe Luis is European (?) and can tell us what effect it has.

In the states, we almost found out definitively, in '05, if the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights for example gives aliens in the USA a legally enforceable "right" to have their consulates notified when they are in jail or facing execution or deportation. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said "no, that isnt a right" and then the U.S. Supreme Court said they wanted to review the court of appeals' decision. Then Bush short-circuited the process by saying "I don't care what the Fifth Circuit says, i am instructing federal agents to provide consular notification upon the alien's request." (Note to Bush haters everywhere: he did not have to do that.)

Anyway, now the Supreme Court won't review the matter because they consider review unnecessary in light of current policy.

[Luís Henrique]

Luis, so that we're clear: do you want Brigitte Bardot to go to prison for what she said and wrote about muslims?

No, of course, unless these speeches and writings constitute direct incitement to crime ("let's burn Lyon's mosque this night, patriot Français and Françaises!" - and the mosque at Lyon is indeed burnt down).


How about those who defend her right to speak under the constitution? Do they all have to go to prison too?

That's ridiculous. Who's saying that those who defend her right to speak should be jailed?

Her speech constitutes hate speech, and its protection by law is debatable; the defence of her right to speak obviously is not, per se, hate speech, and it's protection is certain, not debatable, under any civilised constitution.


But maybe Luis is European (?) and can tell us what effect it has.

There are many reasons I am going to hell when I die, but being European is not one.

Luís Henrique

[Bud Struggle]

made a valid statement "about a homophobic and misogynistic religion". Knowing her a little better than who stated that, I am saying, no, she didn't make a valid statement about a homophobic and misogynistic religion;


So you are saying that you believe that Islam is NOT a homophobic and misogynist religion?

[Unicorn]

I think Bardot should be sentenced to do some community work with immigrants and ordered by the court to shut her hateful mouth.

[pusher robot]

I think Bardot should be sentenced to do some community work with immigrants and ordered by the court to shut her hateful mouth.

Well aren't you special. I support her just to spite authoritarian jack-offs like you.

[Joby]

Some have suggested that she might have made a valid statement "about a homophobic and misogynistic religion". Knowing her a little better than who stated that, I am saying, no, she didn't make a valid statement about a homophobic and misogynistic religion; she made a statement to incite hatred against those who believe in such homophobie and misogynistic religion.

Luís Henrique

All right, thanks for clarifying, and I completely agree with you.

The best thing I think the government of France should do is say, when the question is raised, that they don't care about her views anymore than any other citizen.

Ignoring her is probably the best way to treat the issue, as making a big issue out of it will only stregnthen the image of her status.

[Bud Struggle]

Well aren't you special. I support her just to spite authoritarian jack-offs like you.

Every Communist seems to have bit a bit of "Stalin" in their souls. :D

[Green Dragon]

Her speech constitutes hate speech, and its protection by law is debatable; the defence of her right to speak obviously is not, per se, hate speech, and it's protection is certain, not debatable, under any civilised constitution.


HER speech constituted a crticism of an Islamic holiday which features the slaughtering of a lamb.
Bardot has been a life long animal rights activist, and she finds such a means of celebrating a holiday abhorrent.

Why do Revlefters seek to defend a religion against criticism? Is not this board filled with threads denouncing religion in general?

Is it more hateful to damm all religion, or just parts of it?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Here in America, we have racists. Used to have a lot more of them.

It's sad that you Euro's are so immature that you need the government to edit out material any rational person should be able to censor themselves.

Pathetic.

It's shit like this, the state saying people are unable to think for themselves, that keeps Ayn Rand popular.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the rest of the world looks upon American society with contempt. If they're not doing it in the US, that's a pretty good indication that it's the way to go. At least that's how I'd say many Europeans think.

European history is something you can't really deny, sorry.

[Joby]

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the rest of the world looks upon American society with contempt. If they're not doing it in the US, that's a pretty good indication that it's the way to go. At least that's how I'd say many Europeans think.

Yeah fuckin right.

Unless you haven't noticed, American culture has conquered the globe athousand times over. If they truly despised American society, how has this happened? And I'm not referring to the third world, but the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Russians etc etc who bought into it.

They can curse Bush and all the stupid tourists.

And when they stop drinking Coke, wearing Nikes, give away their Levis, and quit rooting for the football team when a Yank buys it, well, then I'll take their claims of hating the US seriously.


European history is something you can't really deny, sorry.

Yes, it's sad that Europeans need the State to put people jail because a genocide is always waiting to happen.

Fuck European history, a bunch of petty squabbles over naught shit. Thankfully, the US has been able to keep a major war from happening.

You can surely agree that after the US took the reigns from them, there's been a significant decrease in the number of major (ie regional or greater) conflicts, no? After all, we went from 1 every 25 years to 0 in 60+, eh?

[Luís Henrique]

So you are saying that you believe that Islam is NOT a homophobic and misogynist religion?
No, I am saying she didn't make a valid statement about it.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

HER speech constituted a crticism of an Islamic holiday which features the slaughtering of a lamb.

Slaughtering a lamb is a right warranted to anyone, of any religion, under French laws. So she was trying to deny a group of people a legal right.


Bardot has been a life long animal rights activist, and she finds such a means of celebrating a holiday abhorrent.

Her problem.


Why do Revlefters seek to defend a religion against criticism? Is not this board filled with threads denouncing religion in general?

She has every right to criticise religion. But the criticism she made is, a. invalid; b. hypocritical (French culture involves killing all sorts of animals - or does she thing a stake au poivre doesn't require the slaughter of a cow?); and c. intended to incite hate against Muslisms, not to defend the lambs.

Luís Henrique

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Luís Henrique;1133325]Slaughtering a lamb is a right warranted to anyone, of any religion, under French laws. So she was trying to deny a group of people a legal right.


It ws more along the lines of saying that it is wrong to have that legal right.






She has every right to criticise religion. But the criticism she made is, a. invalid;

why?


b. hypocritical (French culture involves killing all sorts of animals - or does she thing a stake au poivre doesn't require the slaughter of a cow?);

I believe she is a vegetarian, because she believes it is wrong to kill animals for human purposes.



and c. intended to incite hate against Muslisms, not to defend the lambs.


that is your opinion, to be sure.

BTW, how does one criticise religion without inciting hatred against that eligion?

[Module]

Fuck European history, a bunch of petty squabbles over naught shit. Thankfully, the US has been able to keep a major war from happening.

You can surely agree that after the US took the reigns from them, there's been a significant decrease in the number of major (ie regional or greater) conflicts, no? After all, we went from 1 every 25 years to 0 in 60+, eh?
(Although I haven't read this discussion other than this quoted exchange,)
That has nothing to do with the United States, and more to do with the development of nuclear weapons in a number of countries worldwide, which threaten the destruction of the United States itself, as well as the development of global capitalism meaning that direct wars for land have become unnecessary.
Wars for markets are clearly the replacement, and first world nations are well aware of the fact that this is far more beneficial than wars of territory.

I'm sure you're well aware of the reason the Cold War was a Cold War.
Things have become far more sly and sinister since the US "took the reigns".

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Yeah fuckin right.

Unless you haven't noticed, American culture has conquered the globe athousand times over. If they truly despised American society, how has this happened? And I'm not referring to the third world, but the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Russians etc etc who bought into it.

They can curse Bush and all the stupid tourists.

And when they stop drinking Coke, wearing Nikes, give away their Levis, and quit rooting for the football team when a Yank buys it, well, then I'll take their claims of hating the US seriously.


Whinge whinge whinge.

Do you seriously think Europeans think that US public policy is the way to go? Do you think that, considering the disparities between European history and US history, as well as what a shithole the US is, Europeans would consider the road the US has gone down correct for Europe as well?

And I'm not saying they're right or logical, just that this is what they think, and it is. The fact that they buy American products has nothing to do with it.


Yes, it's sad that Europeans need the State to put people jail because a genocide is always waiting to happen.

Fuck European history, a bunch of petty squabbles over naught shit. Thankfully, the US has been able to keep a major war from happening.

You can surely agree that after the US took the reigns from them, there's been a significant decrease in the number of major (ie regional or greater) conflicts, no? After all, we went from 1 every 25 years to 0 in 60+, eh?
You realize the PATRIOT Act is just as restrictive yes? Only the US don't just put people in jail; they ship them over to Guantanemo Bay without trial and torture them. Censorship of racial hatred is a legitimate public interest and the Europeans, unlike the Americans, pursue the policy of censorship in a legitimate and civilised way.

And you're really just embarrassing yourself by saying that war in Europe stopped because the US "took the reigns". The US do not control Europe, not politically, not economically, not militarily. War stopped in Europe because of the establishment of the European Union, that's like, really really obvious.

[Luís Henrique]

It ws more along the lines of saying that it is wrong to have that legal right.

I believe she is a vegetarian, because she believes it is wrong to kill animals for human purposes.

French Christians eat meat. French atheists eat meat. French Jews eat meat. Why does she single French Muslisms?


that is your opinion, to be sure.

Based on my knowledge of Mme. Bardot's positions, which include her affiliation to Le Pen's Front Nationale - the main French neo-fascist party.

You chose to ignore Mme. Bardot's quite well known record on this issue. That is your problem.


BTW, how does one criticise religion without inciting hatred against that eligion?

There is a difference between saying that Judaism is a stupid religion, and stating that Judaism is a barbaric religion that requires human sacrifice, don't you think so? There is a difference between stating that Judaism is a misogynistic religion and calling for the outlawing of Jewish religious cerimonies, don't you think so? There is a difference between saying that Judaism is a homophobic religion, and demanding the expelling of Jews from one's country...

...or is there not?

Luís Henrique

[Robert]

Why does she single French Muslims?Probably because the white French "race" (Celtic Gauls mixed with Germanic Burgundians and Goths) is not reproducing itself. French Arabs are growing in number. The fear of the average Pierre/Brigitte on the French street is that French culture and government will soon be supplanted and that Sharia (sp?) law will inevitably follow. I don't think there's any doubt that Bardot is xenophobic, just like millions of her white compatriots.

Luis, you will say this isn't a close case under French law. That's obviously how the government sees it, too. Do you really feel comfortable trusting the government -- any government -- to decide what constitutes incitement of hatred and what constitutes mere criticism? What if Bardot says out loud, or worse, in print, that Arab families who forbid their daughters from having an abortion or going to the beach in a bikini are sexual Nazis? We say that and worse right here. You' d send her to jail for that. I'd give her La Croix de Guerre.

Vive La France! Vive la liberté d'expression!

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Luís Henrique;1133374]French Christians eat meat. French atheists eat meat. French Jews eat meat. Why does she single French Muslisms?


She doesn't. She is a vegetarian. She is against all meat consumption.





You chose to ignore Mme. Bardot's quite well known record on this issue. That is your problem.


Not at all. I choose to question why the difficulty in accepting somebody expressing her opinion.


There is a difference between saying that Judaism is a stupid religion, and stating that Judaism is a barbaric religion that requires human sacrifice, don't you think so?

The occasion of Bardot's comment was an Islamic holiday which includes sacrificing a goat. It is a statement of fact, which is not so regarding your comments regarding Judaism.
The occasion of the holiday was celebrating Abraham's sacrifice of his son to please God.
Had Bardot limited her criticism to questioning the character of Islam for such a holiday, would that be religious hatred?

[Luís Henrique]

Luis, you will say this isn't a close case under French law. That's obviously how the government sees it, too. Do you really feel comfortable trusting the government -- any government -- to decide what constitutes incitement of hatred and what constitutes mere criticism?

That's why any civilised State has an independent Judiciary branch, isn't it?

The government isn't trusted with deciding what constitutes incitement of hate. Courts are.


What if Bardot says out loud, or worse, in print, that Arab families who forbid their daughters from having an abortion or going to the beach in a bikini are sexual Nazis? We say that and worse right here.

No problems. Now if she says that those people should be expelled from France, have their cult disrupted, or forbidden to hold their beliefs...

... which is what she usually says...


You' d send her to jail for that.

No, I wouldn't.


I'd give her La Croix de Guerre.

I don't give medals to fascist bigots, sorry.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

She doesn't. She is a vegetarian. She is against all meat consumption.

But she uses the fact that Muslisms eat meat as an excuse to ask for a ban on their religious cerimonies.


Not at all. I choose to question why the difficulty in accepting somebody expressing her opinion.

Because her enlightened opinion is that other people have no right to worship their God the way they want to?

She is in favour of censorship. Why do you support her wish to suppress other people's freedoms?


The occasion of Bardot's comment was an Islamic holiday which includes sacrificing a goat. It is a statement of fact, which is not so regarding your comments regarding Judaism.
The occasion of the holiday was celebrating Abraham's sacrifice of his son to please God.

And what, do you think those people have no right to celebrate Abraham (not) sacrificing his son by sacrificing a lamb?

If they don't, what would be the basis for Mme. Bardot's right to speak shit?


Had Bardot limited her criticism to questioning the character of Islam for such a holiday, would that be religious hatred?

I reject the hypothetic. This is not a random woman, it's Mme. Bardot, well known member of Front Nationale.

Her hate comes first, the pretexts for it are fabricated to fit it.

Luís Henrique

[Robert]

Luis, if you want her prosecuted, how can you avoid sending her to jail? She has money, but the law applies regardless of her economic situation. If she were broke, what would her sentence be?

Let's continue the hypothetical. Can she say "I hate those cultures that force their females to wear burkas. They can stay in France, but I hate them for what they are doing to women."

Is that okay with you? Why does calling for their expulsion from France make a difference? Hate is hate. Good lord, I just noticed Luis is a "global moderator."

[Luís Henrique]

Luis, if you want her prosecuted, how can you avoid sending her to jail?

Who said I want her prosecuted?


Is that okay with you? Why does calling for their expulsion from France make a difference? Hate is hate.
She doesn't hate them because their women use burkhas (as an aside, I doubt anyone uses burkhas in France). She hates them because they have a different culture, and quite probably because they have a different skin colour. In a word, because they are different.

Don't take her word for it, man.


Good lord, I just noticed Luis is a "global moderator."

Yes, who says "globalisation" hasn't a good side?

Luís Henrique

[Robert]

Who said I want her prosecuted?Oh, really, Luis, you are coy! However:


But the criticism she made is, a. invalid; b. hypocritical (French culture involves killing all sorts of animals - or does she thing a stake au poivre doesn't require the slaughter of a cow?); and c. intended to incite hate against Muslisms, not to defend the lambs.If you say her comments are invalid and then you condemn her as a fascist, I am left with no alternative but to read you as sympathetic to the prosecution and not to her. There are only two sides to the legal controversy: Mme. Bardot et L'Etat, non? If you want to say now, after all this, that you would prefer that she be merely denounced as stupid, ignorant, hateful, and fascistic, and that she be acquitted of the alleged crime, then we have no argument.

Is that really all you want? Or do you want her prosecuted? It's one or the other, n'est-ce pas?

[Luís Henrique]

If you say her comments are invalid and then you condemn her as a fascist, I am left with no alternative but to read you as sympathetic to the prosecution and not to her.

Oh, of course I am "sympathetic" to the prosecution, more than to her. It doesn't mean that I favour her being prosecuted. In fact, this is France's Judiciary branch's business. They are enforcing French law, which is what they are paid to do. My opinion of this particular French law? I don't like it. The relevance of my opinion? Zero.


There are only two sides to the legal controversy: Mme. Bardot et L'Etat, non? If you want to say now, after all this, that you would prefer that she be merely denounced as stupid, ignorant, hateful, and fascistic, and that she be acquitted of the alleged crime, then we have no argument.

Evidently, I would prefer that she be merely denounced as a fascist; but as she is not innocent from what she is being accused of, I can't say I prefer she would be acquited. I would prefer that the French law was different. However, I think this is French people's business, not mine. I would sign no petitions in her favour.


Is that really all you want? Or do you want her prosecuted? It's one or the other, n'est-ce pas?

What I want is immaterial, don't you think so?

I don't want her prosecuted; if I was a French citizen maybe I would even voice the opinion that the law should be changed. But I am not, and I think the French are enough grown up to mind their own business. If their law says that what Mme. Bardot did is verbotten, and if they find that she actually did it, I will spare my eventual tear for some more moving issue. France is a democracy, not a brutal dictatorship like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Luís Henrique

[Robert]

My opinion of this particular French law? I don't like it.

Youpi! Drinks all around!

A bas la censure!!

Vive la liberté!!!

Votez Luís!!!!

[Vi~]

All of this begs the question: who is Brigitte Bardot and why should I care?

[Robert]

She's a ... oh, you can figure out who she is if you want to. Read the thread or google the name.

[Bud Struggle]

All of this begs the question: who is Brigitte Bardot and why should I care?

She used to be pretty darn hot.:D

http://yahti.com/slike/bridget_bardot.jpg

[Luís Henrique]

She used to be pretty darn hot.:D

http://yahti.com/slike/bridget_bardot.jpg

Pas de question. You don't imagine the amount of wank-offs that I had to take back when she turned out a fasho.


Oui, Brigitte... I took back all of them! Toutes!

Luís Henrique

[Bud Struggle]

Pas de question. You don't imagine the amount of wank-offs that I had to take back when she turned out a fasho.


Oui, Brigitte... I took back all of them! Toutes!

Luís Henrique


:laugh::laugh::laugh:

That was funny! You are a bueatiful man, Luis! Don't much agree with your politics--but you are a wonderful guy!