Groups Say French Actress Inciting Racism

[Tony]

http://www.rr.com/v5/2/news/frame/0,2331,,00.html?90~ap~1~9006_413475 ..full article

French movie legend Brigitte Bardot is being threatened with a law suit by two rights groups who accuse her of inciting racism in her new book.

"Cry in the silence," (Cri dans le silence) takes on issues such as racial mixing, immigration, the role of women in politics and Islam.

"We're going to go to the corrections court against Brigitte Bardot," Michel Tubiana, president of France's Human Rights League, said in a telephone interview Thursday.

On Monday, the rights group Movement Against Racism and for Friendship of People called for a boycott of the book, saying it was a source of "racist propaganda."

Bardot and her publisher, Editions du Rocher, denied the allegations. In a statement, they said they were "particularly shocked" about the boycott and efforts to portray the book as racist.

Bardot and her publisher "are ready and waiting" for any lawsuit, the statement said. They also raised the prospect of countersuits and vowed to defend their right of freedom of expression.

In the new book, "everyone is targeted: teachers, the unemployed, illegal immigrants, homosexuals, the Paris mayor," Tubiana said.

Passages of the book were published last weekend in the daily France-Soir. The excerpts laid out Bardot's questioning of the role of women as ministers in government and criticism of "average" French people. But the rights groups focused on the alleged anti-Muslim comments.




I guess freedom of speech isnt a cherished right in France or muslim "culture".

[Flo]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.rr.com/v5/2/news/frame/0,2331,,00.html?90~ap~1~9006_413475 ..full article

I guess freedom of speech isnt a cherished right in France or muslim "culture".

Poor BB has to resort to insulting everybody these times in order to get some attention ... unfortunately for her, freedom of speech in France isn't considered the same as the right to say anything, anytime, about anybody, regardless of consequences, especially when what is said cand lead to heinous crimes as has been the case throughouth the 1930s (antisemitic litterature ...) or more recently (from the young Arab who had the misfortune of meeting participants to a far-right rally in Paris and was beaten then thrown into the Seine river, to the burning of synagogues by pro-Palestinian thugs inspired by fanatic islamic preachers).

It doesn't mean BB will automatically be prosecuted and condemned (those who accuse her will have to prove she has actually broken the law against incitation to crime), just that she'll have to justify her prose. I don't feel too sorry for her: she'll certainly turn a confortable profit in book sales and popularity from the brouhaha.

[Genghis Pwn]

LOL if someone is able to take a writer to court in France over some comments like this. What a joke! Just goes to show you how dangerous political correctness is.

[shemp]

"corrections court"??? oy vey :rolleyes:

[corplinx]

liberte, egalite, fratenite

Somehow they've forgotten the first and most important word in that credo. And the second word they've taken beyond its original meaning to a point where their current form of socialism is untenable.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.rr.com/v5/2/news/frame/0,2331,,00.html?90~ap~1~9006_413475 ..full article




I guess freedom of speech isnt a cherished right in France or muslim "culture".

It's cherished all right but the right to incite others to commit crime isn't. Bardot is an admirer of Jean Marie Le Pen (extreme influential racist right winger) and the book is arguably an incitement to racial hatred. For reasons which should be obvious european legal systems are aware of the risks of this sort of thing. It is, for example, an offence in some states to deny the existence of the holocaust.

Now I would agree that laws of this type do infringe freedom of speech but they are not evidence of some state policy to limit freedom of expression.

You might care to consider the extent to which the detainees in Guantanamo bay are receiving the rights to which they would be entitled as either prisoners of war ( to whom the Geneva Conventions apply ), or as criminals accused under US law, before the US pot calls the French chaudron black!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nikk



You might care to consider the extent to which the detainees in Guantanamo bay are receiving the rights to which they would be entitled as either prisoners of war ( to whom the Geneva Conventions apply ), or as criminals accused under US law, before the US pot calls the French chaudron black!


That’s a stupid comparison. The people at Gitmo are combatants who were caught on the battlefield; this woman is a civilian writing a book.

[Flo]

Originally posted by corplinx
liberte, egalite, fratenite

Somehow they've forgotten the first and most important word in that credo. And the second word they've taken beyond its original meaning to a point where their current form of socialism is untenable.

You're so right !

And now, you'll excuse me while I'll go and flagellate myself while worshiping a picture of the president of the republic ... :rolleyes:

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Flo


Poor BB has to resort to insulting everybody these times in order to get some attention ... unfortunately for her, freedom of speech in France isn't considered the same as the right to say anything, anytime, about anybody, regardless of consequences, especially when what is said cand lead to heinous crimes as has been the case throughouth the 1930s (antisemitic litterature ...) or more recently (from the young Arab who had the misfortune of meeting participants to a far-right rally in Paris and was beaten then thrown into the Seine river, to the burning of synagogues by pro-Palestinian thugs inspired by fanatic islamic preachers).

It doesn't mean BB will automatically be prosecuted and condemned (those who accuse her will have to prove she has actually broken the law against incitation to crime), just that she'll have to justify her prose. I don't feel too sorry for her: she'll certainly turn a confortable profit in book sales and popularity from the brouhaha.

As a matter of interest Flo is the "European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" incorporated into French law? I thought it was. If so arts 9 and 10 deal with freedom of thought and expression. I've no idea how that would interact with the preexisting constitution though.

[Frostbite]

Let's club a baby seal to state our disagreement.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Nikk


As a matter of interest Flo is the "European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" incorporated into French law? I thought it was. If so arts 9 and 10 deal with freedom of thought and expression. I've no idea how that would interact with the preexisting constitution though.

It should be, but that convention has been drafted in order to accomodate national, and sometimes regional, laws. In addition, limitations similar to the French ones to "freedom of speech" exist in many European countries. In Switzerland, for example, the people voted (60% of the population and a vast majority of cantons/states) to adopt a law condemning racist behavior and talk constituting an apology or incitation to racial discrimination, and apology or incitation to genocide. This means for example that someone publicly supporting the authors of 9/11 could be condemned ...

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Tony



That’s a stupid comparison. The people at Gitmo are combatants who were caught on the battlefield; this woman is a civilian writing a book.

Then they are prisoners of war who should have been released long ago according to the Geneva conventions. There is no provision in International Law OR domestic US law for "unlawful combatants".

The point is that it is sanctimonious to say the least to whine about an alleged lack of civil rights in France based on no more than a press statement by a civil rights group when you are in such a clear breach of International Law and your own constitution in the case of Guantanamo Bay.

What you are doing may be convenient, legal protections for the accused are such a nuisance after all, but my pot calling the kettle ( chaudron) black comparison stands.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Flo


It should be, but that convention has been drafted in order to accomodate national, and sometimes regional, laws. In addition, limitations similar to the French ones to "freedom of speech" exist in many European countries. In Switzerland, for example, the people voted (60% of the population and a vast majority of cantons/states) to adopt a law condemning racist behavior and talk constituting an apology or incitation to racial discrimination, and apology or incitation to genocide. This means for example that someone publicly supporting the authors of 9/11 could be condemned ...

Thanks. I thought it would probably work in that sort of way. We have similar laws in the UK. I can't say I like them much but I don't see a satisfactory alternative.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nikk


Then they are prisoners of war who should have been released long ago according to the Geneva conventions.


Evidence?


There is no provision in International Law OR domestic US law for "unlawful combatants".

A flaw in design. International "law" needs to be moderized.

US domestic law doesnt apply, the detainees are in Cuba.


The point is that it is sanctimonious to say the least to whine about an alleged lack of civil rights in France based on no more than a press statement by a civil rights group

Who said I was whining? I was merely commenting on the article.


when you are in such a clear breach of International Law and your own constitution in the case of Guantanamo Bay.

International "law" is irrelevant if there is no one to enforce it.

The constitution doesnt apply to Gitmo.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Let's club a baby seal to state our disagreement.

Throw in a couple of kittens and you're on!

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Tony


Evidence?

.....read them.

There is no provision in International Law OR domestic US law for "unlawful combatants".

A flaw in design. International "law" needs to be moderized.
......you were parties to the negotiations, you agreed to them.
US domestic law doesnt apply, the detainees are in Cuba.
......a US base in Cuba. And I know this is how the administration evades its constitutional obligations.

The point is that it is sanctimonious to say the least to whine about an alleged lack of civil rights in France based on no more than a press statement by a civil rights group

Who said I was whining? I was merely commenting on the article.

....Several other words occured to me of which whining was the least objectionable. I might not have used the word if the same sort of unthinking comments had not been made by a bunch of other posters after you. Perhaps moan would have been better.


when you are in such a clear breach of International Law and your own constitution in the case of Guantanamo Bay.

International "law" is irrelevant if there is no one to enforce it.
......An argument dear to criminals everywhere. YOU are there to enforce it YOU signed the treaty

The constitution doesnt apply to Gitmo.

......See above, it is the evasion of clear international and domestic US legal obligations that is objectionable. It is your refusal to acknowledge that it is objectionable that makes your comments sanctimonious.

[/B]

[Tony]

.....read them.

YOU made the claim, YOU back it up.

YOU are there to enforce it YOU signed the treaty

Like we did in Iraq? Its funny how people seem to only care about international "law" when the US is allegedly in violation.

[Tony]

bump

[Baker]

Originally posted by Nikk

Now I would agree that laws of this type do infringe freedom of speech but they are not evidence of some state policy to limit freedom of expression.


You are assuming that all of the comments Brigitte Bardot made were wrong if the statements or correct is it inciting racism.
This would make a good topic for a new thread.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Nikk
What you are doing may be convenient, legal protections for the accused are such a nuisance after all, but my pot calling the kettle ( chaudron) black comparison stands. Oh, I think it is quite the opposite. The French are want to point out our problems as if they are somehow superior.

I think the example shows how the French are guilty of the pot calling the kettle black

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
That’s a stupid comparison. The people at Gitmo are combatants who were caught on the battlefield; this woman is a civilian writing a book.

Can I see some evidence that these people were caught on the "battlefield"?

If they were caught on the "battlefield", shouldn't they be treated as prisoners of war, under the Geneva convention?

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Can I see some evidence that these people were caught on the "battlefield"?




Im not going to compensate for your willful ignorance. It has been widely reported for a long time now.

If they were caught on the "battlefield", shouldn't they be treated as prisoners of war, under the Geneva convention?


It depends on what the Geneva Convention says.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
Im not going to compensate for your willful ignorance. It has been widely reported for a long time now.

By whom? It's your claim, you back it up.

Originally posted by Tony
It depends on what the Geneva Convention says.

Which you can find right here: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm


Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.


Why don't the "unlawful combattants" held on Guantanamo qualify as prisoners of war?

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


By whom? It's your claim, you back it up.




Its only a "claim" because you dont know about it. Ill try to find something, but doubtful.




Why don't the "unlawful combattants" held on Guantanamo qualify as prisoners of war?

I didnt see a provision in the convention for non-government entities (like alqueda).

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why don't the "unlawful combattants" held on Guantanamo qualify as prisoners of war?

I suspect the excuse will be the casual dress code they had for the battlefield.

Anyway, IRT Brigit Bardot, the whole thing sounds like a huge publicity stunt; any publicity is good publicity as they say, and I wonder how many people will buy her book as a result of the current controversy?