At 11:21 AM 6/20/2008, Christian Lheureux wrote:
>I think no reasonable person would try and pretend that Mrs Bardot committed
>a hate crime. However, she committed an offense, which, according to French
>law, is called incitation to racial hatred. Or, as you put it, hate speech.

Racial?  Islam isn't a race, it's a religon, and 
if Bardot was in america, I'm sure she'd be 
pissed about thanksgiving as with any slaughter 
of animals, she's probably against clubbing baby 
seals for their fur by Canadian trappers, I 
suppose then she could be called a racist.

Now I'm going to use a personal example involving 
one of our beloved people in the 3000 community, 
who other than this one incident, I've always had 
the highest respect for, the fact that it sticks 
in my mind 18 years later shows how much it 
hit.  I'm Mormon, as most people know, the 
Mormons practiced polygamy about 150 years ago, 
there were practical reasons for it at the time, 
such as the government sending troops and 
militias to wipe out every man woman and child 
that was a Mormon, both the Missouri Governor 
Bogg's extermination order, and President 
Buchannen sending the troops to Utah to wipe them 
out, so there was a distinct lake of men 
folk.  Now in general you never hear Mormons 
pissing and moaning how our government tried to 
wipe us out, but people like to still talk about 
Mormons as though they practice polygamy.  Now to my point.

Alfredo Rego wrote a paper a long time back on 
object oriented programming, and one of his 
examples was mormon polygamy.  I found this 
highly offensive as my family has been mormon 
since about 10 years after the founding, and 
never practiced polygamy (not all mormons 
did).  I asked Alfredo to change the paper 
because it was offensive, but he refused.  In 
this case Alfredo was propagating an invalid 
stereotype for no reason at all, since plenty of 
other examples are available.  For Bardot, she is 
speaking out that she finds the mass slaughter of 
sheep to be a vile act.  Now I don't know if 
these sheep are eaten or just slaughtered.  If 
they are just slaughtered for a ceremony, then 
I'd tend to agree with her.  If they are killing 
them and eating them after ranching them, like we 
do with Turkey's, I don't see the problem, but 
again, it's her right to express her opinion.  No 
one has a right to never be offended by 
anything.  What Alfredo did offended me, but it 
didn't stop me from continuing to support him and his products.

Sorry to drag you in to this Alfredo, but the 
whole incident still bugs me and the recent cult 
offshoot mormons that got busted with the teen 
brides just reminded me about it all over again.



>I'm not sure a comprehensive definition of what's hate speech and what is
>not can ever be reached. I would be absolutely satisfied to see some
>flexibility left to courts, so that society can quietly evolve and adapt
>itself to changing trends.
>
>Christian
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Simpkins, Terry [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Envoyé : jeudi 19 juin 2008 23:00
> > À : Christian Lheureux; [log in to unmask]
> > Objet : RE: Brigitte, was: Carly in the news
> >
> >
> > Ahhh, but the catch lies in how you define 'incitation to racial
> > hatred'.  I don't pretend to know the details of this case.  But we are
> > having what I assume is a similar debate here in the USA regarding 'hate
> > crimes' and 'hate speech'.  There is a loud contingent that wants to
> > define 'hate' in very broad terms.  To the point of including a church
> > saying that xxxx action/lifestyle/etc is immoral.
> > That is what I see as the real rub.   I can't see anyway to justify a
> > 'hate crime'.  What does that mean?  If I kill someone, not matter what
> > the reason or 'justification', they are just as dead.  I should be
> > prosecuted for what I did, not why I did it, assuming the act is not
> > considered 'justifyable'.
> >
> > *****************************
> > Terry W. Simpkins
> > Director ISIT
> > Measurement Specialties
> > 757-766-4278
> > [log in to unmask]
> > *****************************
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of Christian Lheureux
> > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:42 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [HP3000-L] RE : [HP3000-L] RE : [HP3000-L] RE : [HP3000-L]
> > Carly in the news
> >
> >
> > I finally took a moment to enquire about what Mrs Brigitte Bardot has,
> > or has not, done. In fact, she got taken to court and tried for a quite
> > serious offense : incitation to racial hatred. Nothing to do with free
> > speech per se. Just a practical limitation to irresponsible speech.
> >
> > Bottom line : even if you're famous, you can't incite to racial hatred.
> > Ask Michelle Obama how she got blasted for some racial slur that she may
> > or may not have uttered.
> >
> > Even the United States of America has to strike a balance between the
> > First Amendment (IIRC, that's the one about free speech) and incitation
> > to racial hatred.
> >
> > Christian
> >
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *


Regards,

Shawn Gordon
President
theKompany.com
www.thekompany.com
www.mindawn.com
949-713-3276

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *