Has France started converting Notre Dame into a mosque yet?
mid-afternoon on Tuesday, the 3rd of June 2008 by Katie
Ok, I know, that is a very strange question - although I have a feeling, for some, in their heart of hearts, they have pondered similar ideas.
http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=317259>1=7701
Never, in my life would I have believed that I would be siding with Brigitte Bardot on anything, but I am now. In part. Now, I still think that she is a kook. In fact, I think that she is way out there on the freak scale.
Let’s look at the opening paragraph: “Brigitte Bardot was convicted Tuesday of provoking discrimination and racial hatred for writing that Muslims are destroying France.” Wow. That’s quite amazing considering that she is a virtual recluse.
So, what is it that Ms. Bardot did? Draw some cartoons? Try to burn down a mosque? Wow, it must have been REALLY BAD to be convicted for such a crime and fined about 25K.
So, this is what she did: “In a December 2006 letter to Sarkozy, now the president, Bardot said France is “tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts.”
Bardot, 73, was referring to the Muslim feast of Aid el-Kebir, celebrated by slaughtering sheep.
French anti-racism laws prevent inciting hatred and discrimination on racial or religious grounds. Bardot had been convicted four times previously for inciting racial hatred.”
Hmm, so in France, all you have to do is say that you disagree with some religion’s beliefs or practices, and you can be convicted of a crime. This is the point that I’m siding with Ms. Bardot. She didn’t do anything wrong. Recently, in an attempt to appease their Muslim populations, several “Western” countries have considered adopting Sharia law (Britian and Canada spring immediately to mind). And with that in mind, under this French law, if you voiced your opinion in opposition to adopting Sharia law, you could be convicted of “provoking discrimitation and racial hatred”. Thought control police springs to mind.
So, where do I disagree with Bardot? Sheep, yum…
![[del.icio.us]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Sphere]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Email]](http://pirate-king.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
June 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
“so in France, all you have to do is say that you disagree with some religion’s beliefs or practices, and you can be convicted of a crime.”
No. You have to claim that some group (by example Jews or Rromany) are ruling the country and destroying its culture.
“under this French law, if you voiced your opinion in opposition to adopting Sharia law, you could be convicted of “provoking discrimitation and racial hatred””
No.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:38 am
So, what did she do that was wrong? Seems to me, she voiced an opinion. She did not incite a riot. She did not physically attack someone.
What if someone voiced the truth? In part, I think that she voiced the truth. I do think that France and other parts of Europe, are losing their identity. In Britian, the number one name for babies is no longer Jack or Thomas, but Mohammed. The British Gov has also played with the idea of allowing Sharia courts to rule over Muslim civil cases. Their children no longer learn about Churchill or Nazis (because it offends people and because it shows that sometimes, war is necessary). I think that it is sad that these countries are voluntarily giving up their own history and culture, all because they don’t want to offend people. And I think that it is sad.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
She has claim that Muslims are ruling France and destroying its culture.
Yes.
She did not use the word “riot”.
Yes.
He should not been convicted imo.
You think that Muslims are ruling France and destroying its culture? French president and prime minister are Muslims? Sharia apply in France? every church and sinagoge has been converted into mosqee?
Because too many Macdonalds and BMW in the streets?
So what?
I disagree with this idea.
No worse than USA, where people know very little about history and geography.
They elected Ronald Reagan and Margaret Tatcher. Their choice.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Hmmm, do I believe that Muslims are ruling France. No. Do I think that France is bending over way to far to “not offend” a small section of the population. Yes. Do I think that many countries are making the same mistake, yes. Another example would be that some British primary schools no longer read “The Three Little Pigs” in school. Evidently, even the word “pig” was offensive to some (not all) of the Muslims in the school. Seems like some people need to put their “big boy/girl pants on” and not be offended about some extremely minor things. Especially if they choose to move into a country, and then whine because they are offended by that country…
McDonalds in France. True. I didn’t feel the need to frequent McDonalds while I was abroad. But, that was my choice. And, I don’t like McDonalds.
History. Historically speaking, both England and France have traveled great distances to fight the Muslims. Now, they are rolling out the red carpet and apologizing for their own existence.
And no, I do not hate Muslims as a rule. I do dislike the extremists. But, I dislike any extremists, be they Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc.
Now, back to my original point. Ms. Bardot should have had the right to voice her opinion, be the opinion right or wrong. Freedom of speech can be restricted on rare occasions (such as yelling fire at the theater or inciting a riot) but I do not see her comment equalling abuses of that magnitude. I see the ruling as an attempt by the government to control her thoughts, and the thoughts of others.
Love the statement “USA, where people know very little about history and geography”. Nothing like a big, biased blanket statement to highlight one’s own bias.
Oh - and Ronald Reagan - I’d vote for him now if he was running - none of these weak willed namby pamby candidates for me…
June 21st, 2008 at 3:38 am
“Do I think that France is bending over way to far to “not offend” a small section of the population. Yes. ”
Lying that some group of people is ruling the country and destroying its culture is considered too offensive in France. You have to live with it.
“Another example would be that some British primary schools no longer read “The Three Little Pigs” in school.”
They elected Margaret Tatcher. Their choice.
“Historically speaking, both England and France have traveled great distances to fight the Muslims. Now, they are rolling out the red carpet and apologizing for their own existence.”
Not France.
“Ms. Bardot should have had the right to voice her opinion, be the opinion right or wrong. Freedom of speech can be restricted on rare occasions”
There has never been total free spaeech in France. There are legal restriction to freedom of speech from decades or more. dura lex sed lex.
“I do not see her comment equalling abuses of that magnitude.”
You can tell in front of Michael Bloomberg that Jews are ruling New York and destroying its culture, maybe you would understand.
“I see the ruling as an attempt by the government to control her thoughts, and the thoughts of others.”
Justice and government are separated in France.
“Oh - and Ronald Reagan - I’d vote for him now if he was running - none of these weak willed namby pamby candidates for me”
This weak man dealed with Iran (Iran-Contra Affair).
June 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am
Funny, most people in the US do not consider Ronald Reagan a weak man at all. All but the most virulent partisans and those that rewrite history do consider him the man most responsible for ending the Cold War.
Something the weak left had been advocating for decades.
Then Reagan actually does end the Cold War over the objections of even most of his staff.
But what you might not understand Nicolas is that most people in America are actually embarrassed by New York and most of those that live there. So a comment to Bloomberg that Jews rule New York, that’s actually pretty darn funny to the rest of us. Then we’ll make jokes about how recent news shows that over 25% of the people living there have Herpes.
I guess our true freedom of speech in the US means that over the centuries, we have no sacred cows that we’re not allowed to talk about. Everything is debated and defended. And that something like that Bardot incident would hopefully never happen here. Or what is going on in Canada with MacLeans.
Oh and BTW, I’ve been on 5 of the seven continents myself. Most of the people I know have traveled internationally. Sure the US has a (too) big contingent of utter morons, just like every other country in the world. They seem to be an epidemic.
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 am
“what you might not understand Nicolas is that most people in America are actually embarrassed by New York and most of those that live there. So a comment to Bloomberg that Jews rule New York, that’s actually pretty darn funny to the rest of us.”
If so, i can give you an other example. Telling to APAIC or to Republican Party or to Fox News that they are ruled and governed by Ossama Bin Laden.
I am glad you don’t object to my others statements.
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:33 am
“I guess our true freedom of speech in the US means that over the centuries, we have no sacred cows that we’re not allowed to talk about.”
That why nobody claims that George Bush lied in 2003.