RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs

RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 3:49:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol She has broken the law, which is why she was prosecuted, and found guilty. Absolutely correct! The US should follow this fine example of French inspired Law & Order. The Law of any sovereign Country should be pragmatic; not subject to debate. The law is clear. The accused should be required to answer for their crimes. Trial should be swift with immediately implemented consequences. It is inspiring to see such respect for the Law and appropriate disdain for those who break the law, or feel they are above the law. There can be no excuse and there should be no safe haven for the perpetrator regardless of their circumstances. Ignorance or motivation can not be considered. Amnesty should never be brought into consideration. I'm encouraged to see such a pragmatic approach blatant lawlessness. Now that this evil and dangerous offender has been brought to justice, let's focus these ideals of law enforcement on another target - illegal immigrant workers and their criminal employees.

Politesub53 -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 4:02:38 PM)
One thing that does disturb me about the latest case, is that this is a dangerous step. The comments were sent in a private letter. Does this mean all mail in France will be censored ? My own view is there is a difference between stating immigration is a problem. As oppossed to inciting violence. Being intolerent isnt a crime.

Politesub53 -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 4:05:36 PM)
No need to back down in general Stella. I was only arguing about denying her free speech. That doesnt mean i agree with her comments, but she does have the right to make them.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 4:10:07 PM)
Dont go wimpish PoliteSub. Stella revealed herself for what she really is. A bit of a fascist. he he he he he he

Politesub53 -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 4:20:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Dont go wimpish PoliteSub. Stella revealed herself for what she realy is. A bit of a fascist. he he he he he he Wimpish ?........ It isnt me in a wig is it ? [8D]

Level -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 4:33:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Being intolerent isnt a crime. Unless one is in jolly ol' France. [8\|]

Griswold -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 4:44:13 PM)
She broke the law...why is this discussion continuing? She broke the law. Asked and answered. Done.

christine1 -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 4:49:52 PM)
Griswold, now let me get this right....you think she broke the law? [sm=juggle.gif]

Level -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 4:59:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold She broke the law...why is this discussion continuing? She broke the law. Asked and answered. Done. But that's not the only question asked, G.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 5:00:06 PM)
Griswold: because some can see that the law is wrong thats why.

cjan -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 5:22:18 PM)
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. Also, U.S. ciitizens, on this forum and elsewhere, deeply resent ,and say so, when foreigners try to tell us how to do things and run our affairs. More irony, eh ? Finally, with freedoms come responsibility. In the U.S., freedom of speech is not entirely without restrictions. There are laws against libel, defamation and speech that encourages people to break laws. I, personally, think that speech should be restricted when it's intention is to incite violence, inflame racial, ethnic or religious tensions or to promote bad taste, such as ridiculous wig wearing. But, until the law is changed, I must abide by it, or be willing to face the consequences.

Level -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 5:56:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan Also, U.S. ciitizens, on this forum and elsewhere, deeply resent ,and say so, when foreigners try to tell us how to do things and run our affairs. More irony, eh ? They do indeed, wrongly. Fortunately, our off-shore friends don't let it slow them down. [:D]

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 6:50:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Aren't you just glad you're not European, hmmm? PS: by the way, it doesn't look like you read the rest of the thread. It's the only explanation for your knee-jerk. PPS: if the people of France long for freedom... about time you invaded them, and showed them what life's really about, isn't it [:D] ? I'm sure they're waiting for you with open arms [8\|]. I did read the whole thing, even every one of your, and I have to say there is no knee jerk reaction in my post that is my reaction after reading every single post up to the point I posted, which at the time was the end of the thread. You seem to equate my equating France's dumb ass law, to not understanding. Actually you seem to do this everytime someone comes to a different conclusion. Sorry, I understand, basicly france has banned a large portion of opinion from being legally expressed. What's not to understand. I understand her comments could be hurtful to some people. The difference is I value freedom of speech above hurt feelings, or even if you are really out of your mind and think her words may add a slight probability of racial conflict, I think her right to express that opinion as well. Anyway, it's not lack of understanding, it's essentially I think it's a very dangerous law, that can easily be used for nefarious purposes. Actually, I'd classify this example about the 70 year woman stating a rather benign opinion as a nefarious use of the law on France's part. And to answer your question, I'm really glad I don't live in France. That's for sure. Second question, answered above. Third question, answer. I don't agree with invading any country other than those that directly attack us. I support Ron Paul for god's sake, the most anti-war politician I know of. So, I wouldn't invade France, Iraq, Iran, etc... I can still spot a slippery slope when I see one.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 6:55:16 PM)
Is great as long as someone's steel doesn't pierce your throat. quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol How's freedom of speech on Gor?

kittinSol -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 6:55:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan It always amuses me when so called "law and order" conservatives cherry pick which laws should be obeyed. (...) Also, U.S. ciitizens, on this forum and elsewhere, deeply resent ,and say so, when foreigners try to tell us how to do things and run our affairs. More irony, eh ? (...) I, personally, think that speech should be restricted when it's intention is to incite violence, inflame racial, ethnic or religious tensions or to promote bad taste, such as ridiculous wig wearing. But, until the law is changed, I must abide by it, or be willing to face the consequences. C'est beau. Great post, cjan.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 8:59:35 PM)
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.

pollux -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 9:19:01 PM)
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

Lordandmaster -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 9:30:29 PM)
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.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/21/2008 10:44:38 PM)
OMG, hell has frozen over. I agree with L&M. Someone pass me a whiskey bottle. 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.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/22/2008 2:39:37 AM)
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. 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. Obey the Koran, see the error of your ways infidel, or Allah may guide his followers to do something about it. OK? In fact he may already have started since he appears to have induced guilt ridden wishy washy Liberals to pass laws that forbid criticism of Muslims or Islam. Amongst other things. Some peoples feelings deserve to be hurt some of the time. Some peoples feelings deserve to hurt all of the time. Very few should pass this way without at some time experiencing hurt feelings. Thats the way life is OK? adding: many Muslims think that the West is there to be taken....by stealth

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125