This is what happens when these idiotic "hate crimes laws" run amok

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Bardot is convicted of insulting Muslims

PARIS -- Brigitte Bardot was convicted Thursday of inciting racial hatred for portraying Muslims in a negative light in a book. The Paris court sayd the former film star compared them to "invaders, cruel and barbaric."

Bardot and her publishing house, Editions du Rocher, were fined $6,050 each, to be paid to two antiracism groups that took them to court. She could have been sentenced to a year in jail.

Bardot, 69, also an ardent animal rights campaigner, was not present for the verdict.

In her book, Bardot denounced the "infiltration" of France by Islamic extremists and criticized the ritual slaughte of sheep during Muslim religious ceremonies. She also described what she called the "Islamization of France."
-------------------------------------------

This is sickening. If any of you have doubts about where "hate crimes" legislation in the U.S. is headed, read this article again. We who oppose hate crimes legislation know that the end game is to criminalize thought, and to criminalize opinion, and to criminalize expression. It is already reality in other countries, so it's prety asinine to protest that this is not what could eventually happen in the U.S.

Bardot is prohibited from expressing her opinion about Islamic extremism in her country, because she does not have he protection of our First Amendment in France. That's a pity. Because the rampant political correctness spreading around the world now keeps her from speaking her mind about Muslims. It speaks of the weakness of a particular group when rather than meeting someone's opinions and statements head-on and refuting them, the solution implemented instead is to silence the person under penalty of law. After all, if your position is strong, it can withstand criticism, no? If it is strong, it could even withstand lies and distortions, and the truth would eventually come out. Laws like France has here do not aid in reaching the truth of a matter; they silence discourse.

Since when is saying what you think about some segment of the population a CRIME? Usually, that's what happens when a group's position is so weak that it fears criticism because the criticism will expose where it is wrong.

And criminalization of opinionated speech happens were liberty is weakest and tyranny is strong. Places like Cuba, the former Soviet Union... and France, apparently.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

This is sickening. If any of you have doubts about where "hate crimes" legislation in the U.S. is headed, read this article again. We who oppose hate crimes legislation know that the end game is to criminalize thought, and to criminalize opinion, and to criminalize expression.

Can I get an Amen here . . .

Quote

And criminalization of opinionated speech happens were liberty is weakest and tyranny is strong. Places like Cuba, the former Soviet Union... and France, apparently.

Don't forget Canada. Thanks for the compelling editorial.

. . =(_8^(1)

[quade 3]

Yes, well, fortunately we live in the U.S.A. and our speech is protected by the Constitution of the United States.

So, simmer down.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Yes, well, fortunately we live in the U.S.A. and our speech is protected by the Constitution of the United States.

So, simmer down.

I liken what you said here to an "it can't happen here" attitude, which I think is dangerous and irresponsible.

As soon as someone cries "racism" it is suddenly palatable to a lot of people to start infringing on all sorts of rights that we formerly enjoyed. Look at the "speech codes" that have infected many universities -- places that are supposed to be renowned for unfettered intellectual discourse!

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[quade 3]

I think you're over reacting.

The point is that just because something happens in another country doesn't mean it has to happen here.

Did we become communists? No. But that was the fear of a bunch of wackos in the 1950s. No matter how slippery the slope -- it just never happened here.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Michele 1]

Quote

Bardot is prohibited from expressing her opinion about Islamic extremism in her country, because she does not have he protection of our First Amendment in France.

Not even when she's standing on a street corner, either, but in a book...

Sigh.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

I wonder how far away the French are from book burning...

because it sure doesn't seem like "very."

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

I think you're over reacting.

Bardot is not over reacting when she notices the islamization/Infiltration of France.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Casurf1978 0]

and this is why we need those laws:

http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/925/Black_man_dragged_to_death_in_Jasper_TX


A message has to be sent out to people that do this type of crime, all hell is gonna come down on you. And what they did to this poor man is not the same as robbing a 7/11 and pulling the trigger and killing someone or getting into a bar brawl and beating the crap out of someone. It boils down to motive.

Also before comparing any European nation to the USA read up on the history over there. When in our history did we ever have a Kristalnacht, or deport certain groups to concentration camps, write "Jude" on Jewish owned establishments, forced certain groups to wear pink triagles or other symbols on their lapels.

[crwmike 0]

Quote

Yes, well, fortunately we live in the U.S.A. and our speech is protected by the Constitution of the United States.

So, simmer down.

You're joking ...right?

[Lindsey 0]

That is asinine!!!! I am thankful that we have the right to free speech, protected by the Constitution. But we also have the right to keep and bear arms, and the validity of that right has certainly been debated.

I hope that the lengths of our hate crimes legislation would end far before this point, but who knows. I DO support hate crimes laws, though. In this example the only thing she did was speak. There was no crime perpetrated on an individual motivated by hatred towards a race or nationality or whatever. I'm relatively vocal about my concerns that we are losing our personal freedoms at an alarming rate, but this one just really doesn't raise much of an eyebrow for me.

[crwmike 0]

Quote

I think you're over reacting.

The point is that just because something happens in another country doesn't mean it has to happen here.

Did we become communists? No. But that was the fear of a bunch of wackos in the 1950s. No matter how slippery the slope -- it just never happened here.

Oh my god, you're not joking! I suspect you were not around in the 50's. What we did to our citizens was far worse than adopting an ideological philosophy.

Michael

[Michele 1]

Quote

or deport certain groups to concentration camps

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but we did similar things to the Japanese during WWII. Shameful behavior on our part, but still, it's something we did.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[quade 3]

And that's exactly my point.

A bunch of WACKOS for some f'ed up reason decided that you wouldn't be allowed to associate and speak freely.

What they didn't understand was that the Constitution of the United States says that you can.

McCarthy was an asshole, reactionary, whack-job.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

No one is saying that dragging a man to his death is the same as shotting someone incident to another crime.

Everyone realizes there are variables when someone is killed. That's why most states have eight or more crimes covering homicide.

What I want to know is why you think dragging a man to his death becasue of race is worse than dragging a man to his death for any other reason.

Are you saying the US is perfect in its history on civil rights? Were there no klan riders? Was "nigger" never spray painted on buildings? Were crosses never burned? Were Japanese never rounded into concentration camps?

You think we never had a kristalnacht?

Maybe you ought to read up on US history.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

I want to ask everyone who disagreed with Jeffrey (those who think this isn't asinine) just one thing:

When will it be a crime to write similar literature about waspy christian fundamentalists 'infiltrating' the US and its government? denouncing prayer in the workplace?

Or is it ok to write that because it's about white christians?


edit to clarify

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Lindsey 0]

I didn't think that what Jeffrey wrote was asinine. I thought that fining Bridget Bardot for speaking her mind was asinine. I'm not so concerned, myself, about the issue though, because it did happen in (ahem) France?! I don't see THAT great of a comparison between our social policies and theirs. But I'm also not the most educated person on political topics, so maybe I'm just wrong.

Peace~
Lindsey

[crwmike 0]

>And that's exactly my point.

Guess I missed it.


>A bunch of WACKOS for some f'ed up reason decided that you wouldn't be allowed to associate and speak freely.What they didn't understand was that the Constitution of the United States says that you can.

The constitution surely says that. I looked it up just last week to make sure it was still there.



>McCarthy was an asshole, reactionary, whack-job

Well, perhaps. I suspect he was a politician who latched onto an issue that tapped so deeply into the fears of the era, he was able to subvert the most fundamental freedoms of our great country for tremendous personal/politcal power. He was actually popularly viewed a hero ...a great American doing a dirty job that had to be done to make us safe. People were scared and generally grateful we had such a dedicated leader making the hard decisions to protect the American way of life.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but this seems somehow ...familiar


Michael

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

and this is why we need those laws:

http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/925/Black_man_dragged_to_death_in_Jasper_TX


A message has to be sent out to people that do this type of crime, all hell is gonna come down on you. And what they did to this poor man is not the same as robbing a 7/11 and pulling the trigger and killing someone or getting into a bar brawl and beating the crap out of someone. It boils down to motive.

Also before comparing any European nation to the USA read up on the history over there. When in our history did we ever have a Kristalnacht, or deport certain groups to concentration camps, write "Jude" on Jewish owned establishments, forced certain groups to wear pink triagles or other symbols on their lapels.

So in any location where there was ever an abuse of freedom, freedom must be forever curtailed there? That seems to be your argument here: since Germany and France had big bouts with racism/ethnic purging, they may not now have freedom of speech, lest it lead to another Kristalnacht, or death camps.

Um, what's wrong with trusting people to use their freedom judiciously, letting them have that freedom, and punishing only those who transgress??

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

That is asinine!!!! I am thankful that we have the right to free speech, protected by the Constitution. But we also have the right to keep and bear arms, and the validity of that right has certainly been debated.

That right is not as debatable as some disingenuous liars would have you believe.

Quote

I hope that the lengths of our hate crimes legislation would end far before this point, but who knows. I DO support hate crimes laws, though. In this example the only thing she did was speak. There was no crime perpetrated on an individual motivated by hatred towards a race or nationality or whatever.

It may not have been directed at any individual, but according to the French, there was a "crime" committed, and that's what I think is absurd.

Quote

I'm relatively vocal about my concerns that we are losing our personal freedoms at an alarming rate, but this one just really doesn't raise much of an eyebrow for me.

Loss of the ability to express one's opinions doesn't raise your eyebrows. Hmm.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

• Quote

[billvon 2,453]

> That's a pity. Because the rampant political correctness spreading
>around the world now keeps her from speaking her mind about Muslims.

Yep. Even right here on this board we have people who are of the opinion that anti-american speech "aids the enemy" and should be quashed in time of war. I think Roosevelt summed it up pretty well:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but morally treasonous to the American public."

One of the great things about the US is that we tolerate pretty much everyone's shit as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. Hopefully we won't go the way of France.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

I doubt there's ever been a war during which the propriety of criticizing the government was not debated. It probably always will be.

But we have not passed laws to prohibit it. And if Congress did, we have the Supreme Court which would presumably strike it down. And if they did not, there would be a huge public opposition to the law and any enforcement of it.

But tell me, did the French oppose or otherwise fight against the passage of this law we're talking about, this anti-free-speech atrocity? She could have done a YEAR in JAIL over her unfavorable opinions of Muslims?!

WTF?!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Casurf1978 0]

Yeah we sent the Japanese to camps, but did we gas em, did we seperate the woman children and men. Yes it is sad part on our history, but we sent the Japanese to interment camps, not concentration camps like Mauthausen. That is if you use Mauthausen and other as the definition of concentration camps. As I recal we did not have a Kristalnacht in US history, on a national scale that was "supported" by our Gov. Did a US president ever support a national day of boycotting any establisment because the owner were XYZ race or religion. Did a US president ever pass any laws similiar to the Nurember ones?

Please enlighten me on my US history.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Quote

or deport certain groups to concentration camps

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but we did similar things to the Japanese during WWII. Shameful behavior on our part, but still, it's something we did.

Ciels-
Michele

I agree very shameful and ugly part in our history. Fear does something to people though, perfect example is EO 9066. I should have clarified the difference between concentration and interment camps.

[kallend 1,660]

Quote

I doubt there's ever been a war during which the propriety of criticizing the government was not debated. It probably always will be.

But we have not passed laws to prohibit it. And if Congress did, we have the Supreme Court which would presumably strike it down. And if they did not, there would be a huge public opposition to the law and any enforcement of it.



WTF?!

-

Well, there was the Sedition Act of 1798 (?date?). Clearly not a good idea, lasted only a couple of years before being repealed by Congress.

No-one has been stupid enough to try that again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.