Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • IF IT’S TOUGH TO BELIEVE THEN YOU MUST BE AN AMERICAN

    Posted by James R. Rummel on May 11th, 2004 (All posts by )

    So Brigitte Bardot is a French screen goddess, but that sells her short. She’s an activist, a tireless promoter of animal rights, and a best selling author.

    It’s that last that got her in trouble. She wrote a book that addressed a variety of subjects, one of which was Islamic culture. Bardot stated in the book that she was against undue Islamic influences in French culture.

    Well, why not? A successful businesswoman and artist such as herself. What kind of chance would such a talented female have to shine in an Islamic state? One thing is certain, she would have never risen to her level if she was born into a government that practiced sharia.

    But the French courts have decided that this incites violence against Muslims. Bardot has come up against anti-hate speech laws. She’ll probably be convicted.

    I don’t have much to say about this. it pretty much speaks for itself.

    (Hat tip to Mike Spenis at The Feces Flinging Monkey.)

     

    8 Responses to “IF IT’S TOUGH TO BELIEVE THEN YOU MUST BE AN AMERICAN”

    1. Sylvain Galineau Says:

      Well, she’s also a bit of a nutcase and is very friendly with anti-semitic types like Le Pen. In other words, politically incorrect. Which is a felony in France.

    2. JK Says:

      Nor did she attend the right schools, which seals her fate in this sort of encounter. Those who did in France receive a pass.

    3. Scott Says:

      So…shouldn’t the entire legislative body be prosecuted under hate speech laws for banning head scarves? –s

    4. Sylvain Galineau Says:

      They made laws to prevent that from happening ages ago…Even Chirac is immune from prosecution, except in cases of treason. So although I doubt it would fly in practice, technically the French President could shoot someone in his office and get away with it until he steps out of office.

      And to answer the obvious question, French for accountability is…..damn, I can’t remember.

    5. Shark Week Says:

      I’ve been wondering. What possible reason or pretense was given for giving the French president such broad immunity?

    6. Sylvain Galineau Says:

      Well, I don’t know the details from a purely legal standpoint. You haven’t read obscure legalese until you’ve seen it in French.

      But suffice is to remember the context that brought the current constitution in 1958; it was enacted by De Gaulle in troubled times. The IVth Republic was mired with political instability and frequent changes of government. After Indochina and four years into the war in Algeria, De Gaulle carved out a solid fortress of executive power for the President. The idea being to ensure strength and stability at the top.

      The original text, on the Constitutional Council’s web site, is available here. A pretty good translation in English is available here.

      Wikipedia also has a good article on the overall political system, including a list of parties and their leaders. In fact, I’d start there and follow on with the actual text, if you’re really interested.

    7. David Dylan Says:

      Bardot IS a nutcase. And a socialist one at that. While I respect her rights, probably more than the French courts do, I have better people to do battle for.

    8. James R. Rummel Says:

      “Bardot IS a nutcase. And a socialist one at that. While I respect her rights, probably more than the French courts do, I have better people to do battle for.”

      Sure, she’s a nutcase. She’s an animal rights activist and an actress, which means that she’s twice removed from easily perceived reality. Her Socialist tendencies and anti-Semitism just means that she’s in tune with current French culture, in my book.

      None of that invalidates the fact that she had a good point about how Islam is hostile to basic Western values, particularly their attitudes about women. (Heck, even a broken clock is right for two seconds out of the day.) To punish someone who points this out means that France is ever more hostile to basic Western values.

      James