Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slur

[pegleg]

Source: Reuters

PARIS (Reuters) - French former film star Brigitte Bardot went on trial on Tuesday for insulting Muslims, the fifth time she has faced the charge of "inciting racial hatred" over her controversial remarks about Islam and its followers.

PARIS (Reuters) - French former film star Brigitte Bardot went on trial on Tuesday for insulting Muslims, the fifth time she has faced the charge of "inciting racial hatred" over her controversial remarks about Islam and its followers.

Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was "destroying our country and imposing its acts."

Since retiring from the film industry in the 1970s, Bardot has become a prominent animal rights activist but she has also courted controversy by denouncing Muslim traditions and immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.

She has been fined four times for inciting racial hatred since 1997, at first 1,500 euros and most recently 5,000.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080415/people_nm/france_bardot_muslims_dc

[Bonobo]

1. She even looks hateful.

[pitohui]

8. she looks like she's 73, post your photo when you're 73

not that i support any of the nonsense espoused by ms. bardot but why don't we attack her for what she has done and said instead of for her looks?

you can't win at 73, if you're skinny, you're at risk for osteoporosis, if you put on a little weight and have the wrinkles that come with time, apparently you look "hateful" -- oh, and if you actually get work done then you look "plastic"

we can criticize her nasty remarks without descending to her level, i would hope?

[Bonobo]

9. I disagree. People's expressions get set on their face. If they spend a lot of time scowling,

they get scowl lines.

My 73 year old mother does not look like that. She has "smile lines", not "hate lines".

[pitohui]

39. well karma has a hard lesson in store for you

she's your mom, of course you don't see her as she photographs

it's different when it's your own face in the mirror

isaac newton didn't rewrite the laws of gravity to excuse you or any other woman -- and i'm not clear why a woman who constantly fake smiles and shapes her face in that manner is more attractive than a woman who thinks (we all know that "scowl" is code for thinking and that this simply isn't allowed in the aging female)


bardot looks like a perfectly normal 73 year old woman who hasn't had work done, but don't take my word for it, you'll find out from time itself

again, i would ask why we can't talk about what people DO instead of how they LOOK but all i get by way of reply is a defense of bigotry based on appearance...sigh...

"smile honey" is the kind of bigotry i expect from an older male, but that's my own prejudice showing i guess, i should never forget there is no shortage of self hating females

[Bonobo]

45. Like many, you have a perfectly OPPOSITE understanding of what karma is apparently.

It is not what so many Westerners think of, as "fate".

[Bake]

61. In that case, I'd hate to see YOU at 73.

Karma's gonna get ya.

Bake

[noamnety]

58. Well stated.

Society hates women who look serious.

"Smile"
"Lighten up"

[Terry in Austin]

59. "By age 50 everyone has the face they deserve." - George Orwell

[Duppers]

83. bullcrap

I look 20 yrs. younger than I am, yet I'm a bitter old shit!
(nope, absolutely no surgery either, just fantastic genes)

Why argue over what BB LOOKS like and not the real issue--the truth of her statement here?

How much have you researched it?????

[noamnety]

84. "by age 50 everyone has the face they deserve" - what an offensive quote.

That's right up there with people who live in poverty live that way because they deserve it. Republican thinking at its finest.

Bush laughed while people in New Orleans drowned. If he has a bunch of laugh lines, are people going to deduce he's a "good" person, while survivors of traumatic experiences are "bad" because they don't have laugh lines?

[treestar]

63. "Looking hateful" does not mean her looks are being criticized

It is referring to her demeanor. A young and/or beautiful woman can "look hateful" if their faces are reflecting their hatred.

[knight_of_the_star]

95. Why are we debating this based on how she looks?

Did I step into the Twilight Zone or something, this is starting to sound like Free Republic.

[heliarc]

11. This photo is much much better.

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Brigitte-Bardot-Posters_i274820_.htm&h=425&w=337&sz=29&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=4psddc-x0mDjPM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=100&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBrigitte%2BBardot%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

[Dutch]

32. So people's moral worth can eb judged by their external appearance?

I wonder why they even bothered with a trial then- a quick looking over from the judge (On loan from the Miss World competition, presumably?) should have been enough. In fact, I wonder they don't just pre-emptively lock up any hateful looking people- it'd be much more efficient, surely...

[pitohui]

40. thanks dutch

i dislike what bardot has to say but for crap's sake let's judge her on what she says and does not on her looks

[Bonobo]

44. You can never tell a person's life experiences from the lines etched on their face?

I can. Their wrinkles form and set in different places. It doesn't make me shallow. It makes me observant.

[arundhatiroyfan]

54. I respectfully disagree.

The wrinkles are deeper on the woman's face but in a similar position as the man's in my opinion.

[Bake]

60. There is literally no way you can look at those photos

and have any earthly idea whether those people are saints or sinners, humanitarians or murderers. You're an idiot if you think otherwise.

Bake

[uppityperson]

91. I have lines between my eyebrows from squinting into sun. You'd probably call me an awful person.

No, you can't always tell. There are genetics and care involved as well as general holding patterns. How about people who use botox? Being able to tell be looking at a picture is very narrow minded.

Her words and attitude are hateful, her looks are just old.

"Bardot has previously said France is being invaded by sheep-slaughtering Muslims and published a book attacking gays, immigrants and the unemployed, in which she also lamented the "Islamisation of France.""

[treestar]

64. Exaggeration, straw man

OP merely said she looked "hateful" - reasonable persons would attribute that to meaning she had a hateful look on her face. The thread is not about her attractiveness. The RP merely introduced that into the topic by a strained interpretation of the OP.

[suston96]

36. Uh, showing my age, I know...but this is the Brigitte Bardot I remember....

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3968899072/nm0000003?slideshow=1

[girl gone mad]

98. She does not.

The woman clearly has some mental problems, but her looks are fine.

[tomtomtom]

107. what's so hateful

about loving creatures, these creeps were slaughering sheep in plain view of each other!

[KSinTX]

2. Now I have to look up France's position on free speech

Just goes to show ya, someone can do so much good (animal rights) and make the news for what they do wrong. By the time a person hits 73, you'd hope one might have exorcised those sorts of hateful demons.

[nomorenomore08]

3. This is idiotic. Criminalizing speech, whatever the motive, is authoritarian bullshit.

And don't bring up yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, because you know and I know that that's a straw man.

[mainegreen]

6. ...

:thumbsup:

[Psephos]

7. I emphatically agree

The only speech that actually needs protection is speech we don't like. Authoritarian control over opinion is the hallmark of totalitarianism.

[marshall]

33. Thank the maker we're not putting people on trial for slurring Christianity

Half of the stand up comics would be in prison.

[endarkenment]

13. For some reason Europeans are very sensitive to the issue of hate speech.

I can't imagine why that is. Must be something in their history, but off hand I can't figure out what.

[nomorenomore08]

14. I really don't think Europe is unique in having a blood-stained history.

And besides, even if you accept that some restrictions are necessary, who determines what speech is allowed and what isn't? Seems to me it would depend on the biases of whoever is currently in power.

For instance, were such laws implemented in the U.S., I guarantee fundamentalist Christians would try to twist it to their advantage. As soon as they start claiming that this or that is "hateful" toward Christians, there goes whatever freedom we might have left.

[endarkenment]

16. Actually they are.

WWI: 20 million dead. WWII: 72 million. Most of the deaths were in Europe, including of course the Soviet Union with 23 million dead in WWII. They just might have a different prespective on what the boundaries on free speech are because of their rather horrendous recent history. We have nothing to compare with that. We have nothing even close to the reign of terror imposed by nazi germany (or stalinist russia for that matter) on entire populations. Nor do we even begin to comprehend the devastation that wars can cause and the facilty with which war mongerers can use racism, nationalism, xenophobia and other idiocy to convince people to participate in war.

[nomorenomore08]

18. Point taken. But still, who determines where the "boundaries on free speech" are?

And how can they be determined, except arbitrarily? I don't want to get into an argument, I just don't see how such notions are workable in the real world.

[endarkenment]

27. Of course it is arbitrary.

Bardot hangs with french neo-fascists, I just cannot work up sympathy for her desire to speak her mind on this issue.

[nomorenomore08]

29. Yeah, not much sympathy for her here either.

I'm only concerned about this case in a "slippery slope" sort of way, not because of anything to do with Bardot herself. She can pay the government another tiny fraction of her fortune, it won't hurt her.

[Bake]

62. Then hell, let's do it here.

Let's criminalize speech here, whattaya say? I know, let's start with criminalizing people who say "God damn America."

Sounds like a plan.

Bake

[treestar]

66. Somehow cases are made out for hate crimes

And we don't fall into a state of totalitarianism.

It's not a case of either/or. The French apparently believe they could have serious violence on their hands if people were stirred up with this.

If the penalties were more than fines and the fines not gauged to the income, I'd be against it, though.

[endarkenment]

69. Which is pretty much all I am saying.

The Europeans have decided that in this area freedom of speech needs to be more regulated than we do, in other areas they are far more permissive. Their historical perspective on what the consequences are differ from ours. They are not putting Bardot in jail they are slapping her with a fine.

[GirlinContempt]

71. An elected government makes those decisions.

Almost all laws are arbitrary. How do you decide the age of consent? Adult hood? Voting age? minimum or maximum sentences for crime? On and on the list goes. Yet somehow, as a society, people in countries manage to live with arbitrary laws, most of which work and are used on a daily basis.

[Psephos]

20. You've overlooked the Civil War

Read either of these and it's likely you're opinion will change dramatically. Especially if you read about the final year of the conflict.

http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Narrative-Vol-Set/dp/0394749138/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208291243&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Bruce-Cattons-Civil-War-Boxed/dp/1898800227/ref=pd_sim_b_title_6

[endarkenment]

26. I didn't overlook it, but while horrendous it is not at the same level

and is was long ago enough that it has mostly faded from our political consciousness. Military deaths were around 2% of the population, I can't find any numbers for civilian deaths but I am sure they were also very high. Compare this to Germany losing over 10% of its population and the Soviet Union over 13% in WWII. 16% of the population of Poland died in WWII. That is a stunning number. We just don't have the historical perspective - in addition we have had only one huge conflict in over 200 years.

[Hannah Bell]

49. Native America? n/t

[endarkenment]

55. yes sure that was a genocide

however it really does not inform mainstream american culture. I certainly was not arguing that we don't have a violent bloody genocidal history, just that we do not share the European perspective on modern warfare and its causes as we have not suffered the direct impact of the industrialized violence of the 20th century's warfare and totalitarianism.

[reprobate]

104. Nothing informs mainstream American culture except Paris Hilton and TV wrestling

We are a nation of sheeple being led to the slaughter. France is there already with violent extremists masquerading as religious people burning, looting, and otherwise terrifying the populace into giving way to their fanaticism.

Perhaps miss Bardot spoke words that trouble some here, but her words should strike fear into OUR hearts as well. And NO, not all Muslims are dangerous to democracies. But we should note that the only thing more dangerous than fanatical religious youth is a bullfrog with a hand grenade.

[Flagg]

105. "France is there already with violent extremists masquerading as religious people burning, looting,"

and otherwise terrifying the populace into giving way to their fanaticism."

Someone's been drinking his Eurabia Kool-aid, I see.

The people you're talking about were in their overwhelming majority minors (hundreds were arrested) who listen to Rap music and couldn't care less about Islam.

If you lived where they lived, if you were discrimanted against like they are, you'd turn out pretty violent too.

The riots in France were predicted and a lot of people expected them. It's actually a miracle it didn't happen sooner.

Don't buy into the Eurabia hoax, dude. You're better than this.

[Dogtown]

25. YET

We have done nothing to compare yet.

[endarkenment]

28. Indeed.

Hopefully we won't get there.

[Hugabear]

43. We did a pretty good job on our Native American population

We'll never know how many Native Americans were slaughtered during our "Manifest Destiny".

[endarkenment]

56. Oh absolutely. But not really relevant to this discussion.

[Dutch]

31. Yeah, criminalising speech you don't like is a great way to distance yourself from the Nazis.

:sarcasm:

[hack89]

41. They should be equally sensitive to the issue of individual freedoms.

then perhaps they will never relive the Nazi era.

[Dutch]

30. Well said. n/t

[treestar]

65. We have hate-crime laws

So we penalize it to some extent.

The USA is so diverse that these hatreds are spread out. A county the size of France can have more conflict on its hands, because the hatred is more focused. Muslims immigrants in Europe are probably in more danger of this kind of hatred than any particular group in the U.S.

[GirlinContempt]

70. Many, MANY countries have this position.

Just as you cannot openly, truthfully and with malice aforethought call for murder, be it of a private or public citizen, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. And it isn't a straw man, because the principle is that you are intentionally and willfully creating a disturbance that can lead to injury, rioting, etc. Intentionally inciting racial hatred in a country known for racially charged crimes and issues is not that much different. Should I be protected if I tell people that Jews are the source of all evil in my country, knowing that people have been burning synagogues, and I clearly have a voice to reach a mass of public? Should this be allowed, knowing that I am encouraging and inciting racial or religious hatred?

You may disagree, but many, MANY countries have limits on 'free speech' which are intended, and USED, to protect a variety of people and civil order.

It isn't speech itself, as an idea, that is criminalized. It is the intent to incite hatred and violence with words.

[sir pball]

75. Yes, absolutely.

Should I be protected if I tell people that Jews are the source of all evil in my country, knowing that people have been burning synagogues, and I clearly have a voice to reach a mass of public?

As long as you don't actually tell them to go out and burn the Jews, you can say whatever you damn well please - one of my personal favorite SCOTUS decisions is Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Court found that speech is subject only to a strict scrutiny "imminent lawless action" test. Speech can only be restricted here if it will directly and immediately incite lawless action; going to a synagogue burning and encouraging the crowd to continue their spree would be outside the lines, but simply ranting about Jews in public would not be.

Think about it like this. If things were to degrade here, would you ever say "Should I be protected if I tell people that Republicans are the source of all evil in my country, knowing that people have been burning government buildings, and I clearly have a voice to reach a mass of public?"

[GirlinContempt]

77. Well, I disagree.

If I used my supposed prominent public position to encourage and promote hatred and violence, I think that I should not be allowed to. I value other peoples rights to safety and security more than I value my right to publicly encourage racism and violence.

[WildEyedLiberal]

79. But how do you determine what promotes hatred and violence?

I would generally agree that intimating violence should be illegal - for example, a bigot implying that "someone" should "take care" of the "problem" of immigrants implies a suggestion of violence. However bigoted Bardot's words may have been, I think it's quite a stretch to say that she actually encourages violence against Muslims. She is - or should be - free not to like them, and free to lobby for stricter immigration reform, without ending up in jail on some bogus "hate speech" charge. If it is now considered "hate speech" to say that you hate someone's culture and that said culture is "destroying your society", then most of DU would be in jail for the vitriol it spews at fundamentalist conservative Christians.

[GirlinContempt]

81. So, indicating that French citizens should follow their forefathers

who "gave their lives to chase all successive invaders from France," doesn't count?

Read her books.

[WildEyedLiberal]

82. That's not what she's being fined for, though

The specific statement that is apparently against French law is something about Islam "destroying our country and imposing its acts." Frankly, that's no different that what a lot of DUers say about conservative Christians every day on this site. It's no different than what I've said about conservative Christians on this site. People would be slapped with fines all over the place if claiming that "(____ social group) is destroying our country" were illegal.

Freedom of speech is worthless if it's only applicable to ideas we don't find disturbing or repugnant.

[Amonester]

108. Bardot is a well known (actually, worldwide) personality...

DUers (well, on average...), not so much... (by looking at what happened in the past seven years, in spite of a much needed "change" at the top of the federal gov. and the way $elections work...)

[knight_of_the_star]

96. That's a bit disturbing that

If I used my supposed prominent public position to encourage and promote hatred and violence, I think that I should not be allowed to. I value other peoples rights to safety and security more than I value my right to publicly encourage racism and violence.

Suppressing speech because you disagree with it is an incredibly authoritarian thing to be doing, Free Speech must be protected most heavily when it is most vile because that is where Freedom of Speech is most heavily tested.

[barnel]

86. would you support a hate crime law against anyone who supported immigration limits?

since we all know they are motivated by xenophobia?

or does anyone who opposes Bush 'support terrorism'?

who decides?

do you really think it will be anyone other than who's currently dominent?

that's no problem if your thinking currently dominates the culture, but where would you be if it didnt?

sometimes the dominent beliefs go very wrong, a part of europe in the 1930s, for instance

at what point are you criminalizing all dissent in policy discussion, how can you correct course if your society goes wrong and dissent is criminalized?

where you you draw that fuzzy line?

[barnel]

88. ban on criticizing foreigners not new in France

I believe in the early 1940s in France, you werent allowed to criticize German visitors

[Flagg]

94. 13 posts ?

Interesting...

[GirlinContempt]

90. I would recommend

reading in full the French laws on this matter, and reading in full Ms Bardots books, speeches and other works.

[leftynyc]

4. Too bad they don't have

a first amendment-like rule there. Sounds like the thought police in action. I don't see her asking people to take up arms against Muslims - how exactly is she inciting racial hatred? And have the French walked into any of the right wing mosques in Paris and listened to their sermons? The sermons are all over the internet - how is THAT not considered inciting racial hatred.

[Taverner]

5. FREE BRIGET BARDOT!!!

Seriously, I'm a Free Speech absolutist. People should have the right to say the dumbest, bigoted and racist things.

I have a shirt somewhere that says "I love free speech - it lets us know who the idiots are"

[leftynyc]

12. I love that shirt's message

I'm also an absolutist about the first amendment (all of it). Other people deciding what is and what is not allowed to say leads to nothing but tyranny.

[B3Nut]

57. "I despise what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

n/t

[Puckster]

10. This is outrageous.

I may or may not agree with what she said, it's a complicated issue, but who the hell decides what kind of speech is permissible. She's not inciting violence toward Muslims. Over here, we even tolerate the Fred Phelps crowd, and while they are atrocious people, they are shooting themselves in the foot every time they picket a funeral, or spout off on TV. Kind of works out in our favor in a weird way. So, if she's SO horrible, they should let her speak, and people can certainly decide for themselves how important or irrelevant she may be.

[GirlinContempt]

73. You can't just compare the US to France.

Elected governments decided this. It isn't anything new.

The US has a varied, nearly 100% immigrant population. It is a huge landmass, with varieties nearly unknown in most of Europe. France is a country seething with racial and religious hatred. Her words are inciting violence, just as every other public figure with a loud mouth bigots head on it's shoulders is. Muslims in France face a far different, and far more tangible, source of hatred and fear in their lives than those in say, California.

If words were not a powerful tool, we would not even be debating the importance of their free use. However, I firmly believe that your freedoms end where others begin. And a muslim or a black person or a jew has the freedom to live without persecution or fear of violence, and if you are promoting the curtailing of their freedoms, your 'freedoms' should come to an end in that regard.

[Amonester]

109. and the stupid Phelps had their Jesus Bu$h selected...

wow... and more than a million innocent people died...

wow... effective, indeed.. :sarcasm:

[LeftyMom]

15. Wouldn't criticizing immigration be a matter of policy?

I can understand, considering the history there, laws against hate speech. But wouldn't a comment about immigration rules, no matter how inflammatory, be something one would want to protect in order to avoid limiting legitimate policy discussion?

Couldn't limiting criticism of muslim practices also effect policy discussions? For example, there is a problem here in the US, and also in Europe, that some immigrant communities from muslim areas persist in mutilation of female genitals despite it's illegality. It's incumbent on free people who care about women and girls to state loudly and clearly that cutting a girl's clit off is fucking barbaric. Wouldn't laws that make saying that potentially criminal make it harder to find a legislative solution to the problem, or even to promote cultural changes and awareness that intact daughters aren't dirty and will still be marriageable once they reach adulthood?

[provis99]

17. actually, what you just said about ritual circumcision would be hate speech in France

which further emphasizes the stupidity of these laws. If you can't criticize barbaric cultural customs, then you really don't have free speech.

[LeftyMom]

21. That's my concern.

How can a society progress when meaningful dialog on admittedly sensitive issues is criminalized?

[struggle4progress]

47. There was a major French scandal about FGM in the early 1980's

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/310/6994/1592

IIRC that led to the founding of GAMS
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/..associationgams/pages/presgams.html

GAMS is visibly active today
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18376776

[struggle4progress]

46. Actually, France has an active movement against female genital mutilation: GAMS

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/..associationgams/pages/presgams.html

They've been around for about a quarter of a century and are well-established

Feel free to post any evidence you have that they're getting grief from the authorities for speaking out against such practices

[GirlinContempt]

74. Yay for facts and reality!

[treestar]

67. But there you're not hating the people, just criticizing one of their

cultural practices. That could apply to any culture.

"Some Muslim cultures have the barbaric practice of genital mutilation of girls" is not "Muslims are barbarians who should all be deported" or the various things you will hear right wing warmongers saying about them to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[guyanakoolaid]

19. Irony is not dead - she talks about Islam "imposing its acts" and they impose their acts

I'm sorry, I'm a very tolerant person, but the recent push to not offend Islam has gone too far. All religions believe in fairy tales and deserve all of the ridicule heaped upon them. A free society should be allowed to criticize freely.

[lefty2000]

22. It Is a Bad Law

In this country, we prosecute people for what they do, not what they say.

To allow one religious group to pass laws forbidding "insults" to their religion not only is a violation of freedom of speech, but also a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

Here is another bad law the French have: You can't wear a head scarf to school. This is clearly anti-muslim. Both laws should be repealed.

[izquierdista]

37. Hear, hear!

But you have it wrong, it's not anti-muslim. It's ageism trying to keep the elderly from continuing education!

[Amonester]

110. we prosecute people for what they do...

oh how I wish...

so far, one million innocent people dead... and counting...

are the prosecutions coming? (and when, please).

[Savannah_H]

23. reply to photo

Grow Up You Guys!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

24. I don't interpret this as racial hatred at all...

French anti-racist groups complained last year about comments Bardot made about the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha in a letter to President Nicolas Sarkozy that was later published by her foundation.

Muslims traditionally mark Eid al-Adha by slaughtering a sheep or another animal to commemorate the prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's orders.


Ms Bardot is well-known as an animal rights activist. She is merely protesting the senseless slaughter of animals.

I think she has a valid point.

[GirlinContempt]

76. She's a raging bigot.

She married Bernard d'Ormal, who advised the National Front.
The National Front is a french political party, which has been accused of Holocaust denial. (" do not question the existence of concentration camps but historians could discuss the number of deaths. As to the existence of gas chambers, it is up to historians to make up their minds {de se déterminer}.") Their policies include:

Making abortion illegal

Reinstating the death penalty

Deporting three million legal immigrants (most of them non-european, and many Muslim)

Cutting out funding for multicultural activities

Giving a bonus (money) to each family who bears a pure French child.

Preventing libraries in their regions of power from carrying 'leftist' materials, and supplying them with books that detail Judeo-Masonic conspiracies and declare for negationism.

and on and on.

The Front also has had a hand in murder, and I'll start with Ibrahim Ali. He was shot, in the BACK, by National Front party members. He was a Comorian. NF Presidential Candidate had this to say about the murder:
"at least this unfortunate incident has brought to everyone's attention the presence in Marseille of 50,000 Comorians. What are they doing here?"

David Beaune beat a Tunisian French youth to death and dumped him in the harbor.

Brahim Bouraam was pushed in to the Seine and drowned by four NF activists.


Her talking about the slaughter of sheep is amidst talking about the "browning of france", in the same book where she denounces the gay rights movement.

"In her new book, A Cry in the Silence, Ms Bardot denigrates gay and lesbians people as "cheap faggots or circus freaks" and the unemployed as people "who only accept jobs on the black market ... and cash in on taxpayers' money".

Getting into her stride, BB says schools are "dens of depravations filed with drug dealers, young terrorist clubs and condom users," while teachers "come to work unshaven, their hair a mess, their shirts dirty, wearing filthy jeans and muddy trainers".

The star of Jean-Luc Godard's Le Mépris and Roger Vadim's Et Dieu Créa la Femme also denounces "the Islamisation of French society", benefits for "polygamous families" and the Muslim festival of Eid in the book.

No prize for guessing which French politician Ms Bardot most admires: Jean-Marie le Pen, the leader of the far right National Front. To BB, he is "faithful to his ideas through thick and thin"."
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,957580,00.html

[uppityperson]

92. A bit more of what she has previously said (from OP article)...

Bardot has previously said France is being invaded by sheep-slaughtering Muslims and published a book attacking gays, immigrants and the unemployed, in which she also lamented the "Islamisation of France."

[GoddessOfGuinness]

100. Her bigoted statements do her no credit. Still, I think she has a good point

with regard to the sheep slaughter.

[barb162]

99. Yes, I think she has a valid point about senseless slaughtering animals

[BigDaddy44]

34. You know what I find funny?

Imagine this language: "Christianity is destroying our country and imposing its acts." Who wants to take a bet there wouldn't be some here defending her remarks?

[nomorenomore08]

While the two scenarios may not be precisely analogous, this does illustrate the danger of arbitrary

limits on speech. I think the current panic over "radical Islam" in Europe is overblown and overhyped, due to politicians' and pundits' exploiting fear of the "other" for personal gain, but that doesn't mean that any part of the dialogue should be shut down. Even if I think some of these people, like Bardot, are total asshats.

[nomorenomore08]

35. dupe

[customerserviceguy]

38. I'm going to come down on free speech whenever possible

and get real, "destroying our country" being some sort of hate speech? All kinds of people in all sorts of countries can credibly make this point about those coming in from outside, and changing the values of a place, for better or worse. And "imposing their acts"??? Maybe I've lost something in the translation, but there isn't a one of us here who would sit still for the imposition of Sharia law on our lands.

I actually feel lucky to live in a country where any court in the land would dismiss this case, long before a citizen had to come to court to defend him/herself. France needs to search its soul as to what it has done when it allows the court process to be used to deal with a simple fucking opinion.

[tidy_bowl]

42. When they cam for Bardot...

...I did nothing because I didn't agree with her obvious fascist position.


But then they came for me at last and there was no one to speak up for me.




So sad that so many here are so quick to condemn others for their speech.

[WildEyedLiberal]

48. Gee I'm sure glad some of you only support free speech that you agree with

You don't like Bardot's comments, so you "have a hard time feeling sorry for her." I bet you'd be singing a different tune if you got thrown in jail for calling Bush a "fucking mass murdering war criminal" and everyone who disagreed just couldn't be bothered to stand up for YOUR right to freedom of speech because they "have a hard time feeling sorry" for someone who expresses such violent opposition to the government. Good thing you live in the United States where you can't be thrown in jail for literally voicing a political opinion.

All of you who refuse to condemn this are hypocrites of the highest order. You CANNOT maintain a free society if you elevate sacred cows to a level beyond reproach or criticism. Sacred cows - and I don't give a flying frak if they're Christian, Muslim, or Flying Spaghetti Monster - are antithetical to freedom. Period.

[ItNerd4life]

72. Agree with you completely. n/t

[U4ikLefty]

50. I wonder if she said this about Jews instead of Muslims.

If she said this of the Jewish community: "I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts,"

How would that play on this board?

[fujiyama]

53. It wouldn't play well

and neither does this statement about Muslims. Most people here disagree with Bargot's statements, but this is a free speech issue and the ruling is idiotic.

And the simple fact is that the huge influx of Muslim immigrants is causing friction. People can act like everything is going well, but obviously there is xenophobia and racism, but a huge number of immigrants that refuse to assimilate into French (and for that matter European) society...

[treestar]

68. True - there was plenty of defense of the Austrian law punishing

Holocaust denial, IIRR.

I don't think we could have that law here. It just wouldn't work. In smaller countries with a less diverse tradition, maybe it can be carried out without too much damage to civil rights, so long as the penalty is relatively light.

If we had it here, Lou Dobbs would be fined daily.

[WildEyedLiberal]

78. It changes nothing.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with her comments is 100% irrelevant. All you need to know is that she is going to JAIL for expressing an OPINION. If you don't think that's a grave transgression against the ideals of a free society then you have no idea what "freedom of speech" truly means. It does not mean "freedom to express ideas, opinions and beliefs.*"

* as long as those beliefs aren't extremist, offensive, bigoted, or in any way hurtful to someone's feelings.

If you put an asterisk on freedom of speech, you've already lost.

[GirlinContempt]

93. Sorry, JAIL?

Says who?

[dger11]

51. It seems as though the French, and Western Europeans in general, don't

care about free speech as much as Americans do. It wouldn't surprise me if we were more outraged about this than the majority of French citizens.

[fujiyama]

52. On trial for what?

Being a bitch?

What a stupid law.

[Traction311]

80. What a horrible governmernt to live in

Where you get in legal trouble for a comment that is quite tame by US standards. Tom Tancredo has said worse and he's in Congress!

[barnel]

85. You're looking at our country in 10-15 years

it's where unchecked political correctness takes you

[DuaneBidoux]

87. Unless she advocated violence I am against this. I like France but this is, in my opinion too far

limit speech. Not only that, I have to admit that if that kind of immigration were occurring in my country I would be a lot more concerned about immigration than I am. The Muslims going to France are from a completely alien culture from the rationalist post-modern secular state of France.

They don't (on average) conceive of separation of church and state and they are all in all against equality for women, gays, etc. There is no way that France can continue to move forward in progressive ideals if these people become an ever greater minority. I have French family and visited France for the first time in 1983 and have been probably 15 times since. I lived there for 2 years. The country is changing, because of a huge influx of Muslims, in ways that I as a progressive am extremely uneasy about.

It is nice to be accepting and open toward diverse religions and cultures, but progressives must accept that all cultures, measured against rational and progressive ideals, are simply not equal. All individuals must be treated fairly regardless of age, sexual orientation, race, religion, culture, etc.

But, there are ideas that ARE better than others. Democracy is better than fascism or communism, equality is better than inequality, and secular government IS better than a theocracy.

[T Monk]

89. she's probably not mentally well

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UndertheOcean]

101. You go Girl!

Free speech is a basic right , so is being offended.

This is preposterous.

[superconnected]

102. So much for free speech.

I don't agree with what she says but I also disagree with her being on trail for saying it.

[superconnected]

103. BTW, I could say the same thing for the bush junta.

Many americans would claim I was anti-american and hurting our war in iraq(with whom I don't know) for doing it.

[mac2]

106. Isn't she old now and maybe a bit "odd"?