Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slur

PARIS (Reuters) - French former film star Brigitte Bardot went on trial on Tuesday for insulting Muslims, the fifth time she has faced the charge of “inciting racial hatred” over her controversial remarks about Islam and its followers.

Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was “destroying our country and imposing its acts”.

Since retiring from the film industry in the 1970s, Bardot has become a prominent animal rights activist but she has also courted controversy by denouncing Muslim traditions and immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.

| story |

Bardot has been a supporter of the neo-fascist ‘Front National’ for many years - she’s married to a leading party activist.

So this is the equivalent to a “Nazi says Jews are very, very naughty,” or “Communist denounces bourgeois democracy,” story, I’m afraid.

“I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts,” the star of ‘And God created woman’ and ‘Contempt’ said.

Prosecutor Anne de Fontette told the court she was seeking a tougher sentence than usual, adding: “I am a little tired of prosecuting Mrs Bardot.”

If she is tired of it, why not just stop? Doesn’t France have freedom of speech?

I knew there was a reason I liked her. Besides her films, that is.

you like her because she is an unapologetic bigot?

Short answer, no. Long answer, France, Canada, England, Germany, Spain, The Netherlands, and many others, have Hate Speech Laws that protect minorities and are ever watchful for anyone to say anything that might in the least be considered offensive. Then the law comes and breaks down your door and arrest you for saying something not Politically Correct. America will soon adopt these tactics and like the aformentioned countries if a preacher preaches an anti-gay message they are arrested also. The rejection of gays being normal in the Christian world will be compromised if(when) this happens. Thus a big controlling big brother government is what we will have.

I’d be interested in your oppinion in this as a European. I understand this woman seems to be a biggot, but are you comftoriable with her being prosecuted for speech?

I personally find Europe’s speech laws troubling

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.


I think this political correct thing is getting way out of hand…except that when you say something negative about a minority its hate speech but if you bash Christianity it’s applauded

I don’t think it’s political correctness, the lack of such laws helped usher in the most horrific genocide in history.

So while I am uncomftoriable with their speech laws, I certianly understand why they have them

Telling the truth about the muslim issue in France doesn’t make her a bigot unless you are that minority. France is over run with disenfranchised muslim youth running in the streets and they have a different religion than you so it’s a non-issue if she is a bigot or not. Everyone needs to look at the minority issue no matter where you live and judge if it’s a problem. She is 73, what is she really inciting anyways? This is as ridiculous as hunting down 95 year old Nazi war “criminals” that were guards that weren’t directly responsible for any part of the Holocaust. Simon Weisenthal Center has been tracking them down for decades, but where is the center tracking down Soviet war criminals that tortured people by the hundreds of thousands, and under Stalin is responsible for 20 million dead? Where’s the hunt for them, oh yes, there’s not a Holocaust involved for a center to care. Well except maybe the Ukrainian Famine that the Soviets were in the spearpoint of, but for some reason those people responsible aren’t even thought about…hmmm…I wonder why… :newidea: :idea:

Bottom line she has nothing to apologize for, she spoke her mind on a growing problem in her country. :thumbsup:

Yes but there is a difference between speech and an act of hatred. Once the speech turns into a Hate Crime, an act of violence toward a specific group then yes that should DEF be punished and not tolerated…but if you start punishing people for their speech, what’s the next thing? THought Crime? Thinking bad things about someone constitutes arrest? Oh wait that’s already in the works

HR. 1955 Thought Crime Bill
Passed the House

I just wanted to add, I didn’t mean my post to sound sarcastic or anything. I’m just expressing concern for where we are all headed.

There is a distinction, and I also find speech laws disturbing, however Europe is not the United States.

They saw a Dictator seize power by gaining popular support through the vilification of minorities. By the time Hitler translated his hate speech into outright genocide it was to late to stop him.

In that context Europe’s speech laws certianly are understandiable, and perhapse necessary.

No given law is transcendently, objectively correct and suitable for all countries. The Greeks gave all of their citizens direct control in the legislative process, American’s participation in government is, next to the Greeks, highly restrictive, however America’s political and national reality is such that citizins haveing the same power of Greek citizins is simply impossible.

In the same way, the political reality of a region may be such that the free speech protection possible in another region may not be possible. It is quote possible that Europe is such an instance.

Of course:)

And it is a very good point.

I should think that it is precisely hateful speech that is most in need of First Amendment protection. Of course, the First Amendment applies only to the U.S. Constitution. Certainly it’s fair to prosecute libel, or slander, as legally defined. But mere speech should not be punishable. Bardot spoke her mind; she didn’t incite riots. Muslims also have the right to speak their mind in response.

Bill Maher can use hate speech against the Pope, and the Catholic League has every right to respond. And people may boycott his program. But I find it disturbing when any nation makes the expression of opinion a crime.

You don’t even have to go into deep cable to find anti-catholic or anti-Christian antics, on Family Guy on Fox (basic cable) to see Stewie (the baby) watching a Jesus get out of the shower and dry off VERY slowly in front of a child; with the idea that Jesus is a pedophile.

Well, the US doesn’t have the same history as Europe, the same historic civil conflicts, the same wars - when I lived in the US, people would ask me what I thought about the question gun ownership and, partly to avoid commenting on US politics, I’d say immediately words to the effect of “it’s not a good idea in Europe; unlike Americans, Europeans would actually use them,” and could point to what was happening in the Balkans - Croats, Serbs and Bosnians - as an example.

Now, I’m going to make myself even more unpopular than usual! I think Americans tend to congratulate themselves a lot on certain subjects without really thinking about them too much and ‘free speech’ is one of them - as citizens of the country that conjured-up the House Committee on Un-American Activities ought really to consider.

‘The Law’ is not the only way to shut-up/exclude ‘free speech’, systematic non-application of laws, social violence, social fear and social pressure (and let’s not forget psychiatry) work just as well - in a freedom-loving privatized sort of way.

So, am I comfortable with BB being prosecuted - well not too uncomfortable. Would I feel less uncomfortable in the US? Possibly but not necessarily.

I know from my reading on Jewish history that there was a long history of antisemitism in Europe. Also, some of the ‘academics’ of the western world-America included- were interested in activities like sterilization for social misfits. Because of its history, I am uncertain if curtailing free speech would have stopped Hitler’s raise to power.

Besides you can’t stop people from ‘being’ bigots if they really want to be. You can stop them, perhaps, from being public with beliefs but that doesn’t mean that their hate won’t fester, or that they won’t quietly influence people.

Doesn’t the only thing that hate speech laws accomplish is to drive the haters underground?

I looked up the party that Bardot’s husband belongs to and here is a link to a wikipedia article on it. Yes, I know that wiki isn’t always reliable but it is a good starting point for some of us.:slight_smile:

The National Front posts a comprehensive political platform on its website. Amongst other things it argues for:
*]**A return to traditional values: to include making access to abortion more difficult or illegal; giving an income to women who do not go out to work; promoting certain local traditional culture. **
*]**Greater independence from the European Union and other international organizations. **
*]**The establishment of tariffs or other protectionist measures against cheap imports. **
*]**Reinstatement of the death penalty. **[/LIST]The party opposes immigration, particularly Muslim immigration from North Africa, West Africa and the Middle East. In a standardized pamphlet delivered to all French electors in the 1995 presidential election, Jean-Marie Le Pen proposed the “sending back” of “three million non-Europeans” out of France, by “humane and dignified means”.[7]

And apparently, this group denies the holocaust. I have to admit that I was a bit confused on this issue as there weren’t enough specific quotes on Wiki as to what the members actually said on the holocaust.:confused:

Gollnisch had carried out the incriminated verbal contestation on October 11, 2004, by declaring:
I do not question the existence of concentration camps but historians could discuss the number of deaths. As to the existence of gas chambers, it is up to historians to make up their minds {de se déterminer}.** [18] ******

In the 1930’s, the British stopped their fascists in their tracks, not by banning them, not by banning their meetings, not by banning their publications. What they did was to ban their wearing uniforms (like the Nazis ‘brownshirts’ and Italian fascist ‘blackshirts’) - this, obviously, stopped the all the fun and the fascist fuss died away.

Doesn’t the only thing that hate speech laws accomplish is to drive the haters underground?

And this is a bad thing, why? Does it give them ulcers?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit