quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave


Laws are not inviolate, but human constructs which very frequently have been wrong.
No code has as yet arrived at perfection; possibly with one exception.......Islam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

Interesting take from a Frenchman:

quote:

Now don't get me wrong: this whole affair is indeed clearly another case of a Western liberal democracy suicidally turning itself against one of its core value by stifling the critics of Islam. You know, technically. However, the French state has a consistent history of confusing what is legal and what is right and making sure there is no such thing as a civil society to question the former. A raw deal, if there ever was any.

In an ideal world, or simply a decent country (present France excepted) Brigitte Bardot should definitely not be prosecuted, no matter how stupid or pertinent her opinions.

Yet it is happening no matter what, leaving one with the sole consolation to pick a side—if any—and decide how much one is willing to compromise. As far as I am concerned, this particular case is a dogfight between two equally totalitarian factions. I certainly do not recognize myself in the kind of France Brigitte Bardot (and the company she keeps) mourns in the book that sent her clashing with France's multicultural thugs nor with the "alternative" these thugs have in store. In any case, her getting in trouble for that is not enough of a reason for me to drop my principles and side with one flavor of Fascist just to oppose the other.

I'll just wait on my side of the line in the sand, to see which one comes on top. Rifle at the ready, if need be.

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/blog/link/the-problem-with-brigitte-bardot

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

Interesting take from a Frenchman:

quote:

Now don't get me wrong: this whole affair is indeed clearly another case of a Western liberal democracy suicidally turning itself against one of its core value by stifling the critics of Islam. You know, technically. However, the French state has a consistent history of confusing what is legal and what is right and making sure there is no such thing as a civil society to question the former. A raw deal, if there ever was any.

In an ideal world, or simply a decent country (present France excepted) Brigitte Bardot should definitely not be prosecuted, no matter how stupid or pertinent her opinions.

Yet it is happening no matter what, leaving one with the sole consolation to pick a side—if any—and decide how much one is willing to compromise. As far as I am concerned, this particular case is a dogfight between two equally totalitarian factions. I certainly do not recognize myself in the kind of France Brigitte Bardot (and the company she keeps) mourns in the book that sent her clashing with France's multicultural thugs nor with the "alternative" these thugs have in store. In any case, her getting in trouble for that is not enough of a reason for me to drop my principles and side with one flavor of Fascist just to oppose the other.

I'll just wait on my side of the line in the sand, to see which one comes on top. Rifle at the ready, if need be.

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/blog/link/the-problem-with-brigitte-bardot

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I understand the concerns from a certain libertarian line of thought - it makes sense that libertarians would feel threatened by the lack of an American-like first amendment in European laws. Call it a quirk of history. Should other nations build a legal system that mimics the American model? Of course not. I understand that France is a troublesome country, hard to understand for those that don't know its intricacies. Fair enough. Many frogs are equally puzzled by the way things are handled on this side of the Pond.

Stand at the top of your ivory tower, draped in your certainty that America owns the monopoly for freedom of speech, all that you want: France, and Europe by extension, are well armed with laws that protect and promote such freedom as an unalienable human right. I listed some of them on this thread, only for them to be studiously ignored. Is any law perfect? No. Is it good to question the law? Always.

You can judge these foreign laws with your limited practical knowledge of the countries in question if you like, but until you have sat in a university lecture theatre, surrounded by chanting neo-Nazis stomping their boots, until your high school magazine had to be censored because a kid wanted to publish an article that denied the existence of the gas chambers and called it a 'Jewish-lobby Zionist conspiracy', you might have trouble understanding why it is necessary for these countries to protect their peoples' rights to exist safe from the harm and violence certain groups would like to bestow upon them.

This thread's been interesting: some posters even made my personal convictions oscillate in their favour, albeit temporarily. Quite a feat :-). In the end though, I know there is no perfect system. I also know that the average American doesn't take advantage of his or her freedom of speech much, that I have rarely seen a people so scared of its own police (except, perhaps, in less 'democratic' societies), and that investigative journalism in America today is conspicuously absent from the mainstream. I also know that the subject of freedom of speech is only a small part of a larger question, that of human rights, and that these latter have not been the main priority of the American legislator, certainly not in recent years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

Interesting take from a Frenchman:

quote:

Now don't get me wrong: this whole affair is indeed clearly another case of a Western liberal democracy suicidally turning itself against one of its core value by stifling the critics of Islam. You know, technically. However, the French state has a consistent history of confusing what is legal and what is right and making sure there is no such thing as a civil society to question the former. A raw deal, if there ever was any.

In an ideal world, or simply a decent country (present France excepted) Brigitte Bardot should definitely not be prosecuted, no matter how stupid or pertinent her opinions.

Yet it is happening no matter what, leaving one with the sole consolation to pick a side—if any—and decide how much one is willing to compromise. As far as I am concerned, this particular case is a dogfight between two equally totalitarian factions. I certainly do not recognize myself in the kind of France Brigitte Bardot (and the company she keeps) mourns in the book that sent her clashing with France's multicultural thugs nor with the "alternative" these thugs have in store. In any case, her getting in trouble for that is not enough of a reason for me to drop my principles and side with one flavor of Fascist just to oppose the other.

I'll just wait on my side of the line in the sand, to see which one comes on top. Rifle at the ready, if need be.

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/blog/link/the-problem-with-brigitte-bardot

Hardly your average Frenchman is he? He sounds like a rejected lover bitching about being dumped. The idea that France is a totalitarian state is laughable. The bloke is probably a loser full of resentment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

The distrust of the State is a very American thing: it has shaped the posters' reaction on this thread, for sure. The European posters are much more mitigated in their opinion over this issue... give or take an exception or two.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

It always amuses me when so called "law and order" conservatives cherry pick which laws should be obeyed. As in immigration law vs. tax law or gun laws, sex laws, etc., etc.

It may amuse you when done by "conservatives" but I love when hypocrisy from any side comes to the surface. I especially enjoy using it as a reference for future consideration. Consistency speaks for integrity and separates those with opinions based upon an agenda. It matters not if that agenda is conservative or liberal. At least it shouldn't be unless it is used as a rationalization. Your position seems to bear that out. Or else the "its the law" answer would have equal weight regardless if you are in agreement of it or not. It would seem that using the "its the law" argument when you like the result, but shying away from it when you don't represents more "cherry picking"; wouldn't you say? 

The use of law isn't selective. Any and all laws should be enforced equally. Of course that would require integrity, understandable when some don't like it pointed out. Conservative or liberal labels notwithstanding. A hypocrite is a hypocrite; their own words identify them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I am HARDLY a "law and order" conservative and I cannot agree that laws shouldn't be questioned.  Bad laws are among the greatest imaginable threats to human civilization--and any way you slice it, this one is a bad law.  Even if you're philosophically sympathetic to it, you have to agree both that this law fails to define unacceptable speech in any coherent way, and that it's impossible to enforce this law without prosecuting selectively.  No one has responded to my points about that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

It always amuses me when so called "law and order" conservatives cherry pick which laws should be obeyed. As in immigration law vs. tax law or gun laws, sex laws, etc., etc. In this case , it seems, Bardot was convicted of violation of French law. The French have a legal concept of what constitutes "freedom of speech" and what does not. It's their affair.

quote:


If all Laws were to be obeyed all the time...
in the UK we would all still be serfs.
The US would still belong to the Brits.
The French Revolution would not have occurred..
Choose any starting point in history and you can change those situations....look at the principle involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

Sir, you have a point, but a good wig will cover it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

Sir, you have a point, but a good wig will cover it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

My point, sir, is that you are questioning FRENCH law. That may be fine in the abstract, however, consider the fact that, as kittinsol has pointed out in this thread, laws are made in the context of the nations, societies, cultures , values and , hopefully, democracies, that produce them. In this case, it is a French affair, entirely.

One of the things that disturb me is the attitude that we, as Americans, have the right to impose "our" ideas on other independent countries and societies. This is madness and leads to such things as "pre-emptive" invasions and "nation building". Scary shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

You can judge these foreign laws with your limited practical knowledge of the countries in question if you like, but until you have sat in a university lecture theatre, surrounded by chanting neo-Nazis stomping their boots, until your high school magazine had to be censored because a kid wanted to publish an article that denied the existence of the gas chambers and called it a 'Jewish-lobby Zionist conspiracy', you might have trouble understanding why it is necessary for these countries to protect their peoples' rights to exist safe from the harm and violence certain groups would like to bestow upon them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

The distrust of the State is a very American thing: it has shaped the posters' reaction on this thread, for sure. The European posters are much more mitigated in their opinion over this issue... give or take an exception or two.

Which is a little ironic for a country that flies so many national flags and has its children swear an oath of alligence every day.

quote:

Criticizing a bad French law is hardly the same thing as invading Iraq.  Come on, let's have a little perspective.  It's not heartening to see lefties being as reductionist as righties these days.