|
RealityLicks -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/20/2008 5:09:25 AM)
|
I can't claim to be any sort of expert when it comes to various countries' laws regarding freedom of speech. I did obviously grow up in an era and under the ethos that a society can be measured on the way it treats minorities within it's midst. Like, are they being encouraged to play a full part, or treated as permanent outsiders. I had assumed that laws protecting the rights of those who might have less power or influence - no popular newspaper upholding their privileges, maybe struggling to create something reflecting their group to pass to a new generation - were perhaps imperfect but that the point was to develop them rather than simply fall victim to hatred because of them.
Before the 1960s - when those terrible liberals held centre stage - there wasn't that much freedom of speech in America. Your Supreme Court dealt with more First Amendment cases between 1959 and 1974 than in its entire previous history. All due to the series of restrictive laws which went to define the nation until then, like the crime of seditious libel - criticising the state. One such case was a 1964 Civil Rights group prosecuted over an ad they placed in the New York Times which allegedly defamed the police chief of Montgomery, Alabama. It was not uncommon for the authorities to attempt to stifle opinions which were "un-American" .
The UK Race Relations Act attracted much apoplepsy from right wingers when introduced in 1965. The authorities silenced these critics by ensuring the first person charged under it was black. Again, not much to crow about looking back but since I genuinely dislike being accused of US baiting, I thought I'd throw that in.
I don't think any country has it right but then, I regard freedom of speech as conditional on other freedoms. I pity those who draw pride in left liberals championing the First Amendment, but remain silent on the miscegenation laws. These are arguably much more formative in the character of your nation - whites couldn't marry blacks who couldn't marry Native Americans and so on. Some places, even fucking each other was illegal.
Anyway, back to Bardot: the National Front (far right party) are probably better established in that country than in any other western state. If these laws are preventing the expression of views which are anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and racist, it does not seem to be reflected in their Assembly. If in such a climate an individual repeatedly falls victim of such laws there must be something wrong with them. Le Pen, I think, has managed to stay out of prison for a while now.
I know a French Algerian, born near Marseilles, beaten and kicked unconscious by these people. That action was catalytic in her turning to Islam - her parents are fairly secular. But Nadia's attack was not unprovoked. It was provoked - by the verbal violence of Bardot and her ilk. As a keeper of dogs, she should understand the occasional need for a muzzle.
|
|
|
|
