BC ain’t where the only action is.
French film star Brigitte Bardot was today convicted of provoking discrimination and racial hatred for writing that Muslims are destroying France.
A Paris court also handed down a €15,000 ($11,920) fine against the former screen siren turned animal rights campaigner.
Bardot had been convicted four times previously for inciting racial hatred.
She was first fined in 1997 for her comments published in Le Figaro newspaper.
A year later she was convicted for making a statement about the growing number of mosques in France “while our church bells fall silent”.
In 1998 she was convicted for making a statement about the growing number of mosques in France.
In a book she wrote in 1999, called “Le Carre de Pluton” (Pluto’s Square), she again criticised Muslim sheep slaughter and was fined 30,000 francs £3,000).
In a 2001 article named, Open Letter to My Lost France, she lamented: “…my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims.”
In her 2003 book, A Scream in the Silence, she warned of the “Islamicisation of France”, and said of Muslim immigration: “Over the last twenty years, we have given in to a subterranean, dangerous, and uncontrolled infiltration, which not only resists adjusting to our laws and customs but which will, as the years pass, attempt to impose its own.”
She was fined €5,000 (then worth £2,900)
And, uh, Canada again:
Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest and pro-life activist known throughout Canada for his orthodoxy, is currently being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) — a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it. The CHRC is using section 13 of Canada’s Human Rights Act to investigate the priest. This is a section under which no defendant has ever won once the allegation has gone to tribunal — the next stage of the process.
Most defendants end up paying thousands of dollars in fines and compensation. This is in addition to various court costs. Moreover, defendants are responsible for their own legal defense. In contrast, the commission provides free legal assistance to the complainant.
What was Father de Valk’s alleged ‘hate act’?
Father defended the Church’s teaching on marriage during Canada’s same-sex ‘marriage’ debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching.
Imagine that! Canada’s human rights tribunals are now attempting to prosecute a case against an American resident, based upon what an American citizen allegedly posted to a mainstream American Catholic website. What passes for mainstream Catholic discussion in America is now the basis for a hate complaint in Canada.
Well, that’s kinda happening, since yesterday American blogs were quoted as evidence of Muslims being exposed to hate in British Columbia, in a case having no jurisdiction over the internet at all brought against a Canadian print magazine by a guy that did all his reading in Ontario. But anyway.
Curtsy (sort of (her link’s wrong but I did a google search)): Wheat & Weeds](http://wheatandweeds.blogspot.com/2008/06/potpourri-of-popery-sacred-heart-of.html)
Are we sensing a trend yet?
Augh! The Kangaroo Court ends the day on a cliffhanger!
Plus this italics (all his!)-laden passage:
4:04 PM We’re going to adjourn for the day! We don’t even know whether we’re calling any more witnesses. If so, we’re back at 10 tomorrow. Otherwise, we hear final arguments on Friday.
Talk about a cliffhanger! Will Porter get to call Habib? Will Joseph cross-examine? Tune in tomorrow… same kangaroo-time, same kangaroo-channel…
Wait! Porter in on his feet: “If Habib and Elmasry are afraid to testify, I don’t want them as my witnesses. They’re a pair of scaredy-pants, and…” I swear to God that’s what he said. The proceedings dissolve in even more confusion than usual…