| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 09:48:42
Is this really the kind of world the multiculturists want?
http://sg.search.news.yahoo.com/search/news_sg_pf?p=ukey%3A6016773
[begin article]
Thursday June 10, 23:36 PM
Brigitte Bardot fined for slurring Muslims in book
Former French actress Brigitte Bardot was fined 5,000 euros (6,000 dollars) by a Paris court for writing a book in which she declared disgust with her country's tolerance of Islam.
The judgement added to a number of previous decisions which have found the 69-year-old of provoking racial hatred in her expression of right-wing, xenophobic views.
Bardot's publisher, Rocher, was also fined 5,000 euros for last year bringing out the book, "Un Cri Dans le Silence" (A Cry in the Silence).
Bardot, who lives in the French Riviera town of Saint-Tropez, was not present for the verdict.
Two civil rights groups, the Movement Against Racism and For Friendship Between People and the League of Human Rights, brought the lawsuit because of several passages in the book.
One of the most incriminating sections read: "I am against the Islamisation of France! This obligatory allegiance, this forced submission disgusts me.... Our ancestors, the elderly, our grandfathers, our fathers have for centuries given their lives to push out successive invaders."
The two groups which sued the ex-actress were each awarded a symbolic one euro in damages.
A complaint over a tirade in the book against "mixing our genes" with non-European immigrants -- taken in context to mean Muslims -- was not upheld.
In its verdict, the court ruled that Bardot had deliberately tried to draw a link between Islam and terrorism by mentioning the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States in a chapter on a Muslim holiday celebrated in France and elsewhere.
It found that the book argued that "the presence of Muslims on French territory and only seem undesirable to the reader, who is ineluctably led ... to reject members of the Muslim community through hate and violence."
France has Europe's biggest Muslim community, estimated at five million out of a total population of 60 million.
In her defence, Bardot admitted in court last month that she may have been too direct in the expression of her views but she did not seek to hurt anyone.
"It's my overall view of a society becoming completely decadent, where it's like mediocrity has become more important than beauty and greatness, where there are more dirty, badly kept people invading the world," she said. [end article]
|
| 17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/11/2004 : 07:49:12
quote:
Originally posted by apl4eris
This coinage is usually used with a negative connotation, a connection insinuated with the obnoxious and rampant PCness (political correctness) that has screwed up society in America. Now we have false politeness, which is generally dictated by frivolous lawsuits. a parallel of the Brigitte Bardot judgement can be found in the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (only one example of many). Only it is much bigger and more powerful than the plaintiffs' groups in in this article.
If the only tool you have is an elbow macaroni,
all your problems look like Schroedinger's cat.
Interesting, I've never once heard the word multicultural as a negative term up here, but we seem to pride ourselves on it. I do agree about society being too PC, but that's not a flaw I ascribe to multiculturalism I guess. Just to people having no sense of humour, a gigantic pole up their ass, and lots of time to waste going to court for 'damages' which, to be fair, seems to happen far more down south.
I love how a politician can make a genuinely racist comment and then 'apologize' for it as though that makes one iota of difference. It's not like his views suddenly changed, he just was pressured into saying 'sorry' to somehow placate some people. The false apology just makes me laugh/sick. See David Ahenakew for more...
 "When 5000 posts you reach / Look as good you will not, hmmm?" |
| vilainde |
Posted - 06/11/2004 : 05:56:16
Coincidentally (I just made up this word), there was an article in this morning's French newspaper "Liberation", referencing a law that passed yesterday condemning homophobic speeches, which deals with the whole freedom of speech debate. I tried to babelfish it and the result isn't great, but I hope you'll get the idea.
<<A legislative evolution creating interdicts
From now on, the law says the good or truth, expresses values and rights specific to a group.
By Eric AESCHIMANN
Friday June 11, 2004 (Release - 06:00)
"Gayssot" law against the negationism on Shoah; law recognizing the Armenian genocide; private bill aiming at prohibiting any negationism on the Armenian genocide; bill against the homophobia intended to recognize the rights of homosexual or, in a different kind but near, the inscription of the principle of the parity in the Constitution; and even law on the veil, whose objective first was "to reaffirm secularity"... For a few years, the law has not been satisfied any more to say what is legal or illegal, or to assign the public appropriations: it states principles, recognizes rights, expresses values. Tells the truth and the good, often in the most opportunist way to regulate a temporary political problem.
The text on homophobia is a good example. Proposed by Jean-Pierre Raffarin [French prime minister] to compensate for the governmental "niet" about gay marriage, its objective is to symbolically raise the homophobic remarks to the same degree of indignity as racist or anti-semites declarations. With this imparable argument, proposed by homosexual associations: why them and not us? No combat really finishes if a symbolic recognition, a political word does not come to conclude it. "Societies need to be defined in the marble", notes the academic Antoine Garapon. But does this recognition pass inevitably by the law? When, in 1995, Jacques Chirac recognized the crimes of the State of Vichy, he did not make vote a law: he made a speech; nobody denied its impact.
A country precedes France in this legislative proliferation. Canada. On bottom of puritan heritage, a string of laws frames matter and behaviors there. Paradoxically, in the United States, country of the "politically correct" and positive discrimination, the first amendment guarantees the quasi absolute freedom of expression. Thus there is not text prohibiting the insults (hate speech), which are regulated by the social pressure. In France, the current evolution falls under a "jacobine" tradition and a belief in the absolute power of the legislative verb which the crisis of the "welfare state" accentuates: when the cases are empty, to proclaim great principles has the advantage of not costing a cent. Even if it means to neglect the concrete problems, as it is the case for the man-woman equality, which, in spite of the law on the parity in policy, tramples in the professional field.
This legislative evolution poses several other problems. It creates interdicts, which is never desirable. In the same way, it approaches fields where, obviously, it is not qualified, with the image of the Gayssot law on negationism, which, as psychoanalyst Elisabeth Roudinesco underlines, "opened the way so that the legislator solves historical questions. However, for me, the combat against Faurisson [french negationist] is a question of historiography".
Lastly, such laws draw a justice where whoever feeling attacked by a speech will be able to proclaim hisself as a victim. "Of objective rights, valid for all, one is passing to an accumulation of subjective rights, different according to the group which makes the request of it", constitutionnalist Guy Carcassonne notes. And to warn: "To undergo attacks, to feel attacked, it is the life. A world where the sensitivity of anybody is never touched, is a world a la Huxley, i.e. an insensitive world." I.e. a dead world.>>
Denis
|
| Scarla O |
Posted - 06/11/2004 : 02:38:13
Don't forget that freedom of speech is only of practical use when the parameters of a given society's cultural base actually allow for a diverse range of expression - there is always the appearance of diversity but less frequently is there a truly meaningful diversity.
A government that wishes to control it's citizens no longer needs to resort to authoritarianism - physical coersion is a messy business and is generally frowned upon...there are far more subtle and insidious means of achieving the same results.
It's become increasingly common for language itself to be coopted into the 'established' social structure and in these cases dissidents can talk until they are blue in the face but will be ignored.
|
| apl4eris |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 18:09:52
Well, it was about time I learned more about something so important. This link is pretty informative, both US and International law (EU and Canada, really): http://www.fact-index.com/f/fr/freedom_of_speech.html
An even better resource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression
It appears that France and Germany most certainly have speech censorship laws. I just remembered the big fiasco a few years ago? over yahoo.com, certain ISPs, and ebay.com (among others) when hate speech, Nazi items, etc. were banned in Germany and France, and caused a headache for the US companies and providers.
Here is another similar case from France in October 2002, but here the writer was acquitted of "inciting racism": http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000273.php
Still looking for constitutional specifics. Maybe someone from there can help us out?
If the only tool you have is an elbow macaroni,
all your problems look like Schroedinger's cat. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 16:12:03
Forgive my ignorance of international law, but does France guarantee the same right to free speech that we have here in the States, with the First Amendment? If so, I agree that the lawsuit should have been thrown out, even though I think Bardot was a jerk in that situation.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 15:47:29
quote:
Originally posted by vilainde
Sorry Erebus, I just misunderstood the meaning of "multiculturist" (if that word exists, as someone else used "multiculturalist" instead). Now I won't get into the discussion cause I don't understand it.
Denis
Yes, I should have been saying "multiculturalist". |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 14:21:14
Well, Denis, I'm at the senile age where a question like that gets me wondering if my vocabulary is upside down. This time, I'm ok. <phew!>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=multiculturalist
mul·ti·cul·tur·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mlt-klchr-l, -t-)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or including several cultures.
2. Of or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.
multi·cultur·al·ism n.
multi·cultur·al·ist n.
This coinage is usually used with a negative connotation, a connection insinuated with the obnoxious and rampant PCness (political correctness) that has screwed up society in America. Now we have false politeness, which is generally dictated by frivolous lawsuits. a parallel of the Brigitte Bardot judgement can be found in the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (only one example of many). Only it is much bigger and more powerful than the plaintiffs' groups in in this article.
Erebus-
I agree with your opinion that freedom of speech and the press should have won out in this case - I just wanted to point out that blaming the court's decision on multiculturalism doesn't work. These are parties that are out to protect themselves, like the Anti-Defamation League, but multiculturalists are interested in broadening respect and appreciation for cultures across the global spectrum. Maybe this is mostly semantic (I sense Limbaugh-esq word appropriation), but I wanted to address what seemed like a narrow and somewhat cynical basis for the argument. I think if people take a moment and then look past the ideological construct, issues can be argued and (maybe after a long time, resolved). I have mixed feelings about all sorts of protections we have for people, like do they help as intended, are they fair, does it do more harm than good? I believe that there's no cut and dry answer. Some people have obviously been given the shaft, and they need a leg up. It's a continual process of reevaluation to determine when it is the right time to put in the stops; and back to your argument, if we have no freedom of speech and the press, it might be impossible to have that debate when the time comes.
(A completely different topic, but I don't believe that there is true freedom of the press OR speech, nor that there has ever been. What I deeply dislike is that our system depends on extremes -until there is enough public outcry, you can't get people to be informed and to organize, and you can't inform them enough to cause a public outcry without pandering to sensationalism. The internet hasn't been nearly the democratizing influence some people had hoped it would be.)
If the only tool you have is an elbow macaroni,
all your problems look like Schroedinger's cat. |
| vilainde |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 13:09:54
Sorry Erebus, I just misunderstood the meaning of "multiculturist" (if that word exists, as someone else used "multiculturalist" instead). Now I won't get into the discussion cause I don't understand it.
Denis
|
| The King Of Karaoke |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 11:18:31
I would've liked to fined her too!
I would've liked to fined her in my bed (circa 1969)
------------------------------------
Confucious say - The philosophy of one century is the common sense of the next.
He also say my lucky numbers are: 16 27 36 23 11
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 11:04:24
quote:
Originally posted by apl4eris
My point was, if you subscribe to number 1, then you have to take the lumps that come with it. Our freedoms are protected by vigilance of the people and the living system of democracy. Frivolous lawsuits are part of the equation. Here in the US, this might be either ignored or taken to a higher court. That's how things work. If something doesn't agree with the body of law, it is contested. Just because one court decided in favor of the plaintiffs does not mean that this is what "multiculturalists" want. You seem to want to equate people who want equal rights under the law with fascists who don't want equal rights under the law. Your argument is flawed.
If the only tool you have is an elbow macaroni,
all your problems look like Schroedinger's cat.
Hmmm, I think I still don't get it. My point, I think, is that it is more important that the law respect freedom of speech than that the law sacrifice that freedom so as to support a sanctioned societal outcome. The law can support both freedom of speech and equal rights of citizens. No conflict as I see it. The lawsuit is not frivolous as the law is defined, but a law could be written which does discrimate among non-citizens, i.e. immigrants. |
| floop |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 10:50:33
can we please discuss how Brigitte Bardot is hot, and have people post pictures? |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 10:46:04
My point was, if you subscribe to number 1, then you have to take the lumps that come with it. Our freedoms are protected by vigilance of the people and the living system of democracy. Frivolous lawsuits are part of the equation. Here in the US, this might be either ignored or taken to a higher court. That's how things work. If something doesn't agree with the body of law, it is contested. Just because one court decided in favor of the plaintiffs does not mean that this is what "multiculturalists" want. You seem to want to equate people who want equal rights under the law with fascists who don't want equal rights under the law. Your argument is flawed.
If the only tool you have is an elbow macaroni,
all your problems look like Schroedinger's cat. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 10:25:24
quote:
Originally posted by apl4eris
Which world do you mean?
1. capitalism in a free-market democratic society, where legislation and justice are determined through the court of law, whatever its risks (frivolous lawsuits, laws you don't agree with, etc.) and benefits (living body of representative law, human rights (protection of minorities, etc.)
2. "multiculturalist" society which allows the "mixing" of races and cultures (gasp!! the horror!):
from the article-
"A complaint over a tirade in the book against "mixing our genes" with non-European immigrants -- taken in context to mean Muslims -- was not upheld....."It's my overall view of a society becoming completely decadent, where it's like mediocrity has become more important than beauty and greatness, where there are more dirty, badly kept people invading the world," she said."
If the only tool you have is an elbow macaroni,
all your problems look like Schroedinger's cat.
Not sure I get your meaning but I intended to question a world in which multiculturism is defending by prohibiting or punishing speech condemnatory of immigration, certain groups, or multiculturism in general. Denis, no "joke" intended, just a serious question about the price of fostering multiculturism by eliminating a freedom. |
| Steak n Sabre |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 10:18:56
I've never been someone who agrees with everything anyone may say, but I certainly support their right to say it. I'm more surprised that her comments actually merit this kind of attention. Do people really care about what Bridgette Bardot thinks???
 The Cult of Frank: Vorsprung Durch Technik |
| floop |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 10:05:15
yeah, just becasue she used to be a SERIOUS babe doesn't mean she should be forgiven for her wrongdoings..
though kind of.. i mean, come on??
 |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 10:00:02
Which world do you mean?
1. capitalism in a free-market democratic society, where legislation and justice are determined through the court of law, whatever its risks (frivolous lawsuits, laws you don't agree with, etc.) and benefits (living body of representative law, human rights (protection of minorities, etc.)
2. "multiculturalist" society which allows the "mixing" of races and cultures (gasp!! the horror!):
from the article-
"A complaint over a tirade in the book against "mixing our genes" with non-European immigrants -- taken in context to mean Muslims -- was not upheld....."It's my overall view of a society becoming completely decadent, where it's like mediocrity has become more important than beauty and greatness, where there are more dirty, badly kept people invading the world," she said."
If the only tool you have is an elbow macaroni,
all your problems look like Schroedinger's cat. |
| vilainde |
Posted - 06/10/2004 : 09:57:28
Yeah, she's turned into a sad old racist bitch. And ugly, too. I didn't get your multiculturist joke, though.
Denis
|
|
|
