Bridgette Bardot on trial for inciting racial hatred (against Muslims)

[celeb_2006]

Is Brigitte Bardot Bashing Islam? - Yahoo! News

She may be better remembered as the revolutionary sex kitten of 1960s French cinema, but these days Brigitte Bardot is better known as a standard-bearer of the anti-immigrant wing of France's political spectrum. Bardot went on trial Tuesday charged with "inciting racial hatred," and in view of her four previous convictions on similar charges, prosecutors sought exceptionally stiff penalties of $22,000 and a two month suspended sentence.

"I'm a bit tired of trying Madame Bardot," admitted assistant prosecutor Anne de Fonette, as she urged the court to impose "the most striking and remarkable" punishment in the case. A verdict is expected on June 3.

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. Her missive, whose contents were later leaked to the media, had been sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, whose rising popularity was based in part on his hard line on immigration and tough stand against troublesome youths from immigrant backgrounds.

Lawyers for the 73 year-old Bardot, who did not attend the trial, argued the offending sections of the letter had been taken out of the context of her militant defense of animal rights over the years, a cause in support of which she has raised and spent millions of dollars. Her work in the area has been hailed by French political leaders and organizations around the world, although more recently French courts have interpreted some of her statements as Islamophobia.

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." Darkening Bardot's public image in both cases was her marriage to an active supporter and political ally of French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

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." And in 2004, another Bardot book, A Cry In the Silence, again took up the question of immigration and Islam - ultimately running afoul of anti-racism laws by generally associating Islam with the 9/11 terror attacks, and denouncing the "Islamization of France" by people she described as "invaders".

The prosecution has called for the harshest possible punishment in the hope of getting through to Bardot the seriousness of her transgressions of French law. MRAP implored the judge to "take note of this refusal by (Bardot) to learn the lessons of previous convictions and cease using racist language". The court will make its decision by June, although the repeat convictions on similar charges suggest that Bardot has not exactly been chastened by previous court rulings. View this article on Time.com

[Burnt Sienna]

ohhh my goodness, she looks horrible now.

[Sibyl]

It reminds me of when Oriana Fallaci was on trial for a similar reason.

[tkdgirl]

Coming soon to the United States.

I like that kooky woman. And I admire her for speaking how she feels.

But with all the hate speech laws being considered here (and already in place in Canada), this will be standard fare for many Americans.

SIGH... surely NOT what the founding Fathers had in mind, esp. considering the 1st amendment.

[southernbelle]

Originally Posted by tkdgirl

Coming soon to the United States.

I like that kooky woman. And I admire her for speaking how she feels.

But with all the hate speech laws being considered here (and already in place in Canada), this will be standard fare for many Americans.

SIGH... surely NOT what the founding Fathers had in mind, esp. considering the 1st amendment.

Yep. Free speech as the founding fathers envisioned it doesn't exist anymore, now that you're able to be put on trial for saying something that hurts someone else's feelings or isn't a glowing, positive review of someone's practices. They also aren't evenly enforced. I know I haven't heard of very many people on trial or forced into sensitivity training for inciting racial hatred against whites, or discriminating against Christians.

[ManxMouse]

Originally Posted by southernbelle

Yep. Free speech as the founding fathers envisioned it doesn't exist anymore, now that you're able to be put on trial for saying something that hurts someone else's feelings or isn't a glowing, positive review of someone's practices. They also aren't evenly enforced. I know I haven't heard of very many people on trial or forced into sensitivity training for inciting racial hatred against whites, or discriminating against Christians.

Oh come on, you can't be prosecuted in the U.S. for "saying something that hurts someone's feelings" etc. Are you confusing the civil system with the criminal (where anyone can sue but being successful is often another matter)? The lack of freedom of speech in France is pretty appalling to anyone who understands and values the rights we have in America. And dare I say that the radical Muslim element in Europe IS causing them a world of shit. I think that Bardot should be allowed to express her opinion.

[Charmed Hour]

Originally Posted by southernbelle

Yep. Free speech as the founding fathers envisioned it doesn't exist anymore, now that you're able to be put on trial for saying something that hurts someone else's feelings or isn't a glowing, positive review of someone's practices. They also aren't evenly enforced. I know I haven't heard of very many people on trial or forced into sensitivity training for inciting racial hatred against whites, or discriminating against Christians.

That's not true. It's not a criminal offense to speak ill of somone. It may become a civil matter when one sues for slander or defamation.

The First Amendment does indeed allow for such expression, even if it's directed at Christians. What is not covered and is "illegal" are instances where using words creates an unsafe environment, such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater or inciting a crowd to riot.

I'm pretty shocked that France has such stringent restricitons as to what constitues a hate crime. IMO, Bardot has every right to express her opinion, and I would think there are many French people who are like minded. Being criminal and being "racist" are two very different things.

[Dixie Normos]

^ besides which, aren't Muslims just followers of a certain religion (Islam)? They aren't a 'race' are they? How can you get in shit for slamming (make)belief?

[AgentOrange]

Originally Posted by Charmed Hour

I'm pretty shocked that France has such stringent restricitons as to what constitues a hate crime. IMO, Bardot has every right to express her opinion, and I would think there are many French people who are like minded. Being criminal and being "racist" are two very different things.

France is still trying to come to terms with it's past of 'German collaboration', as Germany is with it's past. Germany has pretty similar laws,
maybe even more strict. Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany, for which you can be sent to prison. I believe I've heard of one guy who's serving 2 years in a Germany prison on that charge.

Very few European countries have clear consciences, or clean hands, on WW2.

[Belt Up]

Originally Posted by Burnt Sienna

ohhh my goodness, she looks horrible now.

Well she is 73.

[McJag]

This looks like overkill!

[thrpschr]

I think most European countries have laws that prohibit agitation against an ethnic, social or religious group. We don't really see it as an impediment of free speech; you're allowed to have any opinion you like, even thoroughly undemocratic ones, and it's perfectly legal to work politically for those opinions. You are just not allowed to slander, incite discrimination of or violence against specific groups of people.

There are brown political parties in most European countries, and they are represented in the parliaments of Austria, the Netherlands, France and Denmark, among others. Even in Germany one of those parties has gained entrance into a few regional parliaments (where they are being continuously attacked and ostracized by all other parties, by the way, but no one disputes their right to their mandates).

And yes, WWII made a huge impact on Europe - of course it did. We've seen first-hand what that kind of scapegoating can lead to, which is why agitating against Jews, Muslims, homosexuals and other clearly defined religious, ethnic or social groups isn't allowed.

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by tkdgirl

Coming soon to the United States.

I like that kooky woman. And I admire her for speaking how she feels.

But with all the hate speech laws being considered here (and already in place in Canada), this will be standard fare for many Americans.

SIGH... surely NOT what the founding Fathers had in mind, esp. considering the 1st amendment.

I agree..As gay and liberal as I am..I am against these 'hate speech' laws..

That said..I can understand the European point of view..give the horrors of WW Two..and even more recently in the Balkans..I just think we do not need those laws HERE.


Even evil fucks like 'Reverend' Phelps have a right to speak. And there are ways to deal with, isolate, etc. these people..we do not need these 'laws' here. JMO.

[lalala]

Exactly what Thrpschr said

[WhateverLolaWants]

YouTube Video