Brigitte Bardot Fined for Inciting Racial Hatred
 

I must admit, I was a bit surprised by this when I read it. I had no idea she felt the way she did about certain ethnic groups.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...t&section=news

PARIS (Reuters) - French actress-turned-animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot was convicted Thursday of inciting racial hatred and ordered to pay $6,000 -- the fourth such fine for the former sex symbol since 1997.

The Paris court sentenced Bardot, 69, for remarks in her book "A Scream in the Silence," an outspoken attack on gays, immigrants and the jobless that shocked France last year.

In the book, she laments the "Islamization of France" and the "underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam."

"Mme. Bardot presents Muslims as barbaric and cruel invaders, responsible for terrorist acts and eager to dominate the French to the extent of wanting to exterminate them," the court said.

France's 5-million-member Muslim community is the largest in Europe.

Bardot, who was not present for the verdict, denied the charges in a tearful court appearance last month, saying her book did not target Islam or people from North Africa.

She told the court France was going through a period of decadence and said she opposed interracial marriage.

"I was born in 1934, at that time interracial marriage wasn't approved of," she said.

"There are many new languages in the new Europe. Mediocrity is taking over from beauty and splendor. There are many people who are filthy, badly dressed and badly shaven."

In her book, she also attacks homosexuals as "fairground freaks," condemns the presence of women in government and denounces the "scandal of unemployment benefits."

Bardot's attacks on Muslims prompted anti-racism groups to launch legal proceedings against the former star, who turned her back on film after 46 films to concentrate on animal welfare.

Bardot, who in her 1960s heyday was the epitome of French feminine beauty, was fined $3,250 in January 1998 after being convicted of inciting racial hatred in comments about civilian massacres in Algeria.

Four months earlier, a court fined her for saying France was being overrun by sheep-slaughtering Muslims.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

She was fined for something she said, something she wrote?

Good to know that France still cherishes the right to free speech.

-sm

you are free to say anything you want as long as we agree.

i think she is senile and foolish for saying the things she does, but how can she be fined for it? wouldn't someone have to buy her book to be offended?

that's like buying playboy and trying to sue because their were offensive images inside.

France never cherished the right to free speech. They've got a government department dedicated to preventing the evolution of their language. If you're not supposed to publish certain words, certain thoughts can't be far behind.

seriously, after reading things like this i always come back to the same question. why are we concerned about what the french think of us?

They've been an ally since before our country was founded.

only becasue of a common enemy and their long range goals, honkey.


fuck the french......with no grease

allies, like friends are not necessarily forever. when is the last time the french came to the aid of the US?

Actually you can't tell en idiot idiot in Europe... And it has nothing to do with right of free speech. If you offend somebody with what you are saying than this person can raise charges against you. And we over here in Europe have bad memories about yenophobe and inciting racial hatred, so there are limits. You can go on and ask what would happen if the "majority" is against democracy, what would you do? And to hijack the thread. What would happen if in US the "majority" would be against the constitution on constitutional rights?

shit-stirrer

i'm sorry pi - i don't follow.

Amazing that someone possessed of such beauty can be capable of such ugliness.

The right to free speech in Europe tends not to include the right to incite racial hatred .....We had a teensy bit of a problem with that sort of thing a few years back, dont know if ye've heard boutthat? Fella by the name of Hitler got all stirred up about social darwinism and the German Volks' glorious destiny. You must know him, he had a particularly silly moustache and a tendency to gesticulate wildly....

For as long as there has been a Europe there have been pogroms within it. We dont need the right to incite racial or religious hatred. It's very difficult to get something censored in the UK but incitement to racial hatred or violence will get you a) censored and b) prosecuted.

aren't we all, to one degree or another? i mean, where would we be without the stirrers of the world? standing in front of a pot of unstirred shit, that's where.

i'm probably going to get stoned for say this but, wtf -

i despise hitler and everything he supported, caused, ... but - i think hitler, or any idiot scumbag, should have the right to say (or write in a book) just about anything. i may want to drag them out back and kick the shit out of them, but getting sued (outside of libel, or is it slander) after writing ignorant inflamatory statements in a book is pretty ridiculous.

hitler would have been just another loser if the people hadn't followed him. genocide didn't happen because adolph opened his mouth. those atrocities were due to people following him of their own free will.

to say otherwise is just as ridiculous as Judas Priest being sued because a kid killed himself "cuz the music told him to"

...and now that there's a rule against it, racial hatred is completely gone from Europe.

http://cellar.org/2004/cemetaryattack.jpg

An unidentified member of the Jewish community looks at Nazi signs painted on headstones at a Jewish cemetery in Herrlisheim, eastern France, April 30, 2004. About 100 headstones have been desecrated in the cemetery.

thand god for racial harmony.

I think you are severely underestimating the power of propoganda and streetlevel agitation.

They often are. The Supreme Court usually smacks them down. Then they complain about "judicial activism".

Of course......having said all that we are happy to say all manner of expletives and assorted obscenities in our media and nobody really gets upset. That whole farce over Janet Jackson ( was it her?) boob on tv was just amazing. *that* couldnt happen here......but yes you want to write a best selling book about why Niggers arent to be trusted and are being employed by the Jewish bankers of the world in a mad bid for domination of the aryan race you better believe you will raise the hackles of the law.

i think you overestimating the power of stupid words in a book. it takes the idiots willing to follow for bad things to happen.

i can sit here in my office and plot the end of civilization and nothing will happen. wait a second.

i just told my wife that i think iowans are responsible for the problems in the US. they hoard all of the corn because they are part of a secret cult with a plan to destroy the rest of us.

her response - "you're a moron" and she walked away.

stupid ideas are just that - ideas until groups of people decide to get together and do something about them.

The strength of the freedom of expression comes from its inherent defense of unpopular, minority opinions.

The irony of using Hitler and other dictatorial racists as a defense for censoring certain speech is that their populism fomented exactly because they outlawed certain kinds of speech.

Are we so confident that chipping away at the right to speak racists thoughts can never be abused?

Is it not better to make speech an unmolested right? Particularly political speech. Particularly minority opinions. Particularly that speech that is most repugnant to us.

The abuses of censorship are far more vile than the abuses of expression.

-sm

In order for your stupid idea to be anything other than a local phenomenon, reserved only for your wife and closest friends, you would need to disseminate the idea more widely.

i just did, how many cellarites are currently spreading the word that we are going to get those damn iowans? show of hands?

all i am saying is that you punish and work to prevent harmful actions, not thoughts. the "thought police" idea will generally backfire. that is why the horrible band Marilyn Manson is so big - nobody knew about him until people told the kids they couldn't listen to the evil spew.

Hitler's populism was fomented by the political zeitgeist. With massive economic and social problems, a sense of defeat and unfair punishment ( versailles, the total warguilt clause) the shambolic Weimar government looked devoid of answers. A running war began to be fought by two sides. Communism and fascism. That war was fought at street level with fists and boots and raucous humour and posters and books and music and violent confrontation......In the end though, capital which held its decision in abeyance for as long as it could then decided and swung it's support behind the fascists as being the less devastating force than the communists

The war that was fought on the streets of Germany and in the barracks of bavaria was one of intimidation and the spreading of an idea, any idea in a very dark time for a defeated and demoralised people. Hitler offered them a golden. jewel encrusted dream of the true destiny of their nation but before he ever got to offer that to them on a national level he first had to win various smaller victories. In order to place himself in such a place as to take advantage of the political situation he first had to manouvre his way through various military and political organisations and he used the tactics one might expect him to have used.

you are absolutely correct in all of that. but stifling the ability to say what a group wants is more likely to draw more people to their cause. it is human nature.
the more freedom of speech is restricted, the more people will sit around and wonder what is being kept from them. they will seek out the outlawed ideas and some will grasp onto them as truth merely because the powers that be, (which can't be trusted) are trying to suppress these ideas.

This had me thinking: Is it "fair" that hatespeech isn't punishable by law but taking action against that speech is? For instance, if someone called me the "N" word, and I felt compelled to bash that fucker right in his face, then *I* am the one who gets punished, while the other person is free to disrespect the next person with his hate speech.

Hm...

you would be welcome to 'hate speech' them right back. bashing someone in the face is illegal.

sticks and stones, folks. sticks and stones.

is it fair? absolutely not. and i sure as hell wouldn't be on a jury that convicted you of assault. but ignorant people do have the right to espouse ignorant ideas. the difficulty for me lies in where to draw the line of what is a hateful thought put into the public forum vs one that is directed at an individual.

1) "there are n's in the world and they are what is wrong in america"

ignorant, he should be tarred and feathered, but not sued.

2) "john you are a loathesome N and the reason for problems here"

that is specifically directed at someone and there is room for some sort of repercussion there. i am not a lawyer, so i don't know where libel or slander comes into play.

it is a hard one and i think we will debate it until we just screw until we are all the same color.

Generally in my experience the far right are happy to use both of those

in my experience the far left like to sit around crying while planning the next trial.

see it's easy to throw out ridiculous statements

dana, i was referring to the child's poem

sticks and stones
may break my bones
but names will never hurt me.

Lsyc seems to think she would be justified in physically harming someone for something they said. ( compelled even)

hateful words suck, but they're just words. lookout is right. say what you want, if noone listens, you're not going to hurt anyone.

words that directly cause mayhem or panic resulting in violence are one thing, but some actress making an ass out of herself in a book that you'd have to purchase to read? i think not.

There have been numerous incidents in the uk in recent years with BNP candidates for Council elections having with them a bunch of thugs who intimidate the opposition leafleters with violence. They seemed quite happy to put bricks through the window of my asian neighbour a few years ago as well.

I am aware of the rhyme LJ :P

What is at issue really, is how much damage does such a view cause when expressed in print? My opinion is that it can cause a great deal of damage. Does that person have the right to cause a great deal of damage?

if they put on a flyer and put it on every car and neighborhood door - i'm with you.
if it is put into a book that you would have to buy in order to read, then let them be ignorant.

boy - all we sling here is mud.

Every so often there is a rise in fascist activity in most European countries. We are on a bit of an upswing in the Uk at th moment, have been for a couple of years. They have a two pronged approach. The first prong is the traditional booted bovver boys kicking the shit out of any asian lad that strays into their turf and intimidating other political activists/campaigners out of the area. the second prong is the rather more public attempt to show a "respectable" face. This respectable face is the one they show on their electoral campaign video and on the News interviews.....It slips from time to time they cant seem to help themselves *chuckles* They had to kick out one rising young star for glassing someone at their conference :P

Wow. my whole world is just spinning right now.

Am I nuts, or are the cellarites on the right defending civil liberties and those on the left are arguing against them?


-sm

wait, which side am i on?

You're on team "Salty"

I'm on team "Go Jiff Go"

DanaC is on team "Miss Grab Hands"


good god man, can't you keep anything straight.

i don't know. that whole left wing, right wing thing always confused me. team salty sounds good. some days i play for "team asshole button", though, just to warn you.

right again. says so right here in my answer book.

Isn't that the way things started out in this country?

Conservatives used to be the good guys?

First off, let's get it correct...the question was:
"Is it "fair" that hatespeech isn't punishable by law but taking action against that speech is?"

Where was the "justification" or the "compulsion"?

If it was about assumption or implication, then that's on YOU, not me. I didn't mean myself LITERALLY! Just making myself clear on that. (should have put "assuming and implying something" under the bitch-switch topic) :p

Quote:

hateful words suck, but they're just words. lookout is right. say what you want, if noone listens, you're not going to hurt anyone.

The whole "sticks and stones" thing, to me (repeat: TO ME) is a load of crap. Words DO hurt, and I believe that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE has a word/phrase that will turn on the "bitch button" no matter how many times you say that words don't hurt...even you Jim. It seems as though you got pretty upset at certain words when you and Sycamore were going toe to toe a while back..You may not get to the boiling point as quick as someone else, but there is that word floating out there...all someone has to do is to find out what it is and speak it. "If no one listens"? Kind of hard to do if that person is shouting the words right in front of your face or within earshot.

My thing is why do *I* have to "not allow" words to hurt ME? Why not get on the other person's case to not speak those types of words because they are rude, disresepctful, etc.? Has society forgotten the days of "if you have nothing good to say don't say it at all?" Obviously so, because NOW it seems that people would rather get called all kinds of vicious names instead of teaching people the art of couth and "home training".
Oh well...*shrugs*

Thanks to lookout123 for actually answering the question I posed:

"is it fair? absolutely not. and i sure as hell wouldn't be on a jury that convicted you of assault. but ignorant people do have the right to espouse ignorant ideas. the difficulty for me lies in where to draw the line of what is a hateful thought put into the public forum vs one that is directed at an individual.

1) "there are n's in the world and they are what is wrong in america"

ignorant, he should be tarred and feathered, but not sued.

2) "john you are a loathesome N and the reason for problems here"

that is specifically directed at someone and there is room for some sort of repercussion there. i am not a lawyer, so i don't know where libel or slander comes into play.

it is a hard one and i think we will debate it until we just screw until we are all the same color."

Intesting answer. However, I saw both examples of contributing to a possible negative situation (whether that be more verbal mudslinging or actual physical violence...which I am NOT condoning, but I won't lie...sometimes I think that beating the crap out of someone who has blatently disrepected me would be in short order, and think "boy if it weren't illegal..."). I mean come on: You don't think that at all those weak ass Klan rallies, that the counterprotesters aren't itching to beat the living fuck out of those clowns? Sure, but they don't, but yet they (the Klan) are allowed to continue their hatespeech, and no one says one blasted word about it (because of the First Amendment).

Maybe not punishable in the form of a lawsuit, but damnit, somebody do/say SOMETHING! :mad:

Eh, not quite. I firmly believe in protecting free speech, even hateful speech.

Regarding the original post, I'm not sure what's more fucked up...Bardot's words or that she was punished for saying them.

to answer your question in more simple terms, YES. it IS fair.

Depends on your perspective. Roundabout 1776, the conservatives would have been pro-England, as opposed to the radical secessionists.

And what about the islamists preaching in the country against whites and for terror?

Which country?

Ok lady syc , i agree with you mostly , BUT why is it ok for a black person to call another black person the "N" word but let a white person say the same word and they are racist ???? Where is the fucking equality there ???? And YES it buges the fuck out of me to be called cracker by a black person for this same reason .

A few years back i was working in a plant that had a black superviser , he called all the black people by name , all the white people he called bubba . I said " ok rastis " , he got verry Irate . I told him my name is CHRIS NOT BUBBA !!!! We had to be seperated so we didn't kill each other .

Not trying to rile you up , just curious .

Coming in rather late here, but what the heck? I understand Dana's stance in light of modern European history. While this country took part in WWII, our people and our country were not nearly as ravaged by the results of Hitler's Hate Machine as the Europeans were.

Hitler's was a clever evil, coming at precisely the right time and place, and worded so as to find support from the German people. You can hardly compare his words with a random insult about the people of Iowa that finds no resonance with those who read it.

Try this insult instead: The US is going to hell thanks to all those lazy N- 's and Mexicans who sit around all day on welfare and bleed the honest, hard-working taxpayer dry.

Now that I have your attention...

I am actually on the side of free speech and if that means free insults then so be it. It's just that I can understand why Dana and many other Europeans might feel as they do.

When my right to free speech means the right to incite hatred, one starts to walk a fine line. The trouble is who gets to define what "inciting hatred" consists of? Sure ethnic slurs would fall into that category, but what about someone who says "You white republicans" or "you black democrats"? One could easily make a case for outlawing statements like those as well if you are going to outlaw ethnic slurs or words which inspire hatred between the races. There we go down that slippery slope which ends with those in power censoring the words of those who are not.

As unpaletable as it may be, I'll accept your right to make racist statements, publish pornography (although I draw the line at kid and snuff porn, sorry), and make the "Anarchist's Cookbook" available in every public library because freedom of speech is one of the most valuable freedoms a person or a people can have. When the censors take over, the people have lost.

Wasn't it a little thing called the revolutionary war?

My history is a bit weak in the 1800s ... but didn't they blockade Southern ports in the Civil War?

You forgot the stupid white trash who are equally culpable.

Sure, that's a good ethnic insult, too.;)

*sighs* I don't get some attitudes here, nor the shallowness of opinion. How the fuck are some of you people thick enough to extrapolate this represents general french opinion is beyond me.

The racial situation in France at the moment is an interesting one for sure and it's mostly the result of poor planning by the french government, whether the situation can repaired now is hard to tell. There's been a very stories posted here on the happenings on the outskirts of Paris, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

I also find the irony of americans claiming to have free speach pretty funny as well.

The last time the french came to the aid of the US was about 4 days ago in allowing the UN resoluion to be passed, which frankly, in their position I wouldn't have done without more concessions.

Similar laws were passed in Victoria, my state in Australia a couple of years back, while I don't entirely agree with them they've only been used about 4 times in extreme cases and have probably contributed to the greater good. They certainly haven't had a limiting effect on public discussion.

Go ahead, knock me out. Who's the last guy to sit in an American prison for making a racial slur? How about for criticizing the ruling powers? For protesting against the war? For advocating an unpopular, radical overhaul of the culture or the law?

Several months ago, I ended up in the middle of downtown LA, near a protest against the war in Iraq. There were people standing on a platform, speaking into a microphone to a crowd of thousands, and saying the most vile and hateful things against the leader of our country. Standing around the perimeter were hundreds of police officers - they were facing outward. They were protecting the protestors from the angry counter-protestors gathered to shout them down.

You want to know the condition of our freedom here in America? We pay officers of the state to protect and defend those who criticize the state.

-sm

That's pretty rich coming from a knee-jerk anti-American.

IMO, Bardot wasn't fined because her remarks offended Muslims. She was fined because by being against Islam, she appeared to on the side of the US.

If people in other places are content with making laws to protect everyone from hate speech and allowing their governments to enforce them, that's fine. I personally don't trust our government any further than I can throw them, and feel that enough of my civil liberties have been violated in the last few years. Plus, there's too much grey area when it comes to what is hate speech and what is not.

In order to truly call oneself a 1st Amendment supporter, I believe that one must particularly support the speech that they don't like.

Point out the last one in Europe too, particularly your last point, we have bigger problems with far right groups across the EU than in the US and they're given a fairly free ride.

On the flipside, I dare you to openly advocate that Bin Laden is right, Bush should die and america destroyed and wait and when they finish putting you in 'stress positions' along with a few other US citizens in the US prison camp in Cuba, outside the protection of your legal system so you can be held for as long as they see fit without trial, we'll discuss this again.

Failing that, try not to come a cropper of libel or slader laws, they can be a mite tricky at times.

Oh an russotto, try reading sometime. See I bolded it to make it nice and easy for you.

Syc, I think you forgot that voltaire quote that has to go with that post ;)

BIN LADEN WAS RIGHT!
BUSH SHOULD DIE!
AMERIKA SHOULD BE DESTROYED!

I'll let you know if I'm still around at the end of the day.;)

hadn't thought about it from that angle. i don't know if i'm ready to buy into it, but anything is possible.