|
|
|
|
Friday, April 25, 2008
|
Fighting Words
By Supna Zaidi Some might find it highly amusing that on April 15, 2008, actress Bridgitte Bardot went on trial in France for "inciting racial hatred" against Muslims in France. Apparently, Bardot, an ardent animal rights activist, wrote a letter to Nicolas Sarkozy in December of 2006 when he was Minister of the Interior, demanding that Muslims anaesthesize their animals before slaughtering them. Ms. Bardot, unfortunately added that she was "fed up with being under the thumb of this [Muslim] population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its habits [on France presumably]." The verdict of the Paris court is expected on 3 June and if convicted, would be the 5th verdict against Bardot for comments made against Muslims since 1997. In doing a little bit of research on Ms. Bardot, I have found her to not only be xenophobic, but a homophobe as well as sexist towards her own gender. Yet, I find France’s "inciting racial hatred" law more offensive than anything I read about her. What happened to defending free speech and French secularism? In the United States, the courts defend speech no matter how offensive as a First Amendment right. Only when words create an imminent threat (Clear and Present Danger Doctrine) or constitute "fighting words", can the speech be curbed. Needless to say, the standard is high and therefore, we allow the KKK or Neo Nazis to march, we allow the Nation of Islam to talk daily about the "white devil", and we let numerous pundits on cable television talk about a myriad of topics from the President, the war in Iraq to minorities and immigration that must offend a part of the television viewing public with certainty without any one voice fearing persecution for his or her words (Ann Coulter isnt in jail is she?). Our voice and the pen in our hands are our only tools to engage and improve society by raising and resolving issues. Offensive speech should be met with the same – more words, counter-arguments. This is what the West has been trying to make Islamists understand whenever they kill, threaten, or burn an offender in effigy because something said, written, or filmed "offends" them. One can always argue against the way a point is delivered, but never that it was delivered. This is because the speech in question is a symptom of a greater problem, not the problem itself. Regardless of the tactless delivery of Ms. Bardot’s words, her letter contained a point. A valid concern: Is France changing for the better or worse with immigration? What is France doing about to help immigrants assimilate while respecting their unique customs but without harming, lowering or hesitating on the secular principles that all French citizens – natural or naturalized must adhere to. France is shooting itself and secularism in the foot by allowing laws like the "anti racial hatred" laws in its penal code instead of fomenting debate from all sides to find a resolution to a very real problem.
|