France’s 1960s screen icon Brigitte Bardot received a 15,000-euro (23,000 dollar) fine on Tuesday for inciting hatred against Muslims.
In December 2006, the film star-turned-animal rights activist wrote a letter to France’s then interior minister, current President Nicolas Sarkozy, arguing that Muslims should stun animals before slaughtering them during the Aid al-Kabir holiday.
She outraged anti-racist groups by saying: “I’ve had enough of being led by the nose by this whole population which is destroying us, (and) destroying our country by imposing their ways.”
Bardot, now 73 and suffering from arthritis, was absent from Tuesday’s court hearing in Paris. She wrote to the court saying: “I’m sickened by how (these organisations) are harassing me.”
She added: “I will not shut up until stunning is carried out” on animals before their ritual slaughter.
Bardot already has four convictions on similar charges. In 2004 she was fined 5,000 euros for inciting racial hatred in her book “Un Cri Dans le Silence” (A Cry in the Silence).
Now you know what the Founding Fathers wrote the first amendment to the United States Constitution. To think that Flapâ€™s ass would be in court for his publication of the Mohammed Cartoons.
France has taken political correctness to the extreme of abrogating the inalienable right to speak your own mind.
Somehow Flap thinks we have not heard the end of this story.
Pope Benedict XVI greets the crowd during his weekly general audience at the Vatican May 14, 2008. Pope Benedict, speaking a day after a California court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, firmly restated on Friday the Roman Catholic Church’s position that only unions between a man and a woman are moral.
SACRAMENTO â€“ Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, released the following statement on behalf of Californiaâ€™s Bishops and the California Catholic Conference, following the California Supreme Courtâ€™s decision declaring the stateâ€™s Defense of Marriage Act (Proposition 22) unconstitutional, thus allowing same-sex marriages to take place in California:
â€œThe California Catholic Conference of Bishops must express its disappointment in the California Supreme Court decision to declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional.
â€œProposition 22, which states, â€˜Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognized in California,â€™ passed eight years ago by a vote of 61.2 to 38.8 percent. That statute reflected the wisdom of the voters of California in retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a biological reality and a societal good. Unfortunately, today, the Court saw fit to disregard the will of the majority of people of California.
â€œCatholic teaching maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and loveâ€”a union instituted by God for the mutual fulfillment of the husband and wife as well as for the procreation and education of children.
â€œPartnerships of committed same-sex individuals are already legal in California. Our state has also granted domestic partners spousal-type rights and responsibilities which facilitate their relationships with each other and any children they bring to the partnership. Every person involved in the family of domestic partners is a child of God and deserves respect in the eyes of the law and their community. However, those partnerships are not marriageâ€”and can never be marriageâ€”as it has been understood since the founding of the United States. Todayâ€™s decision of Californiaâ€™s high court opens the door for policymakers to deconstruct traditional marriage and create another institution under the guise of equal protection.
â€œAlthough we strongly disagree with the ruling, we ask our Catholic people, as well as all the people of California, to continue to uphold the dignity of every person, to acknowledge individual rights and responsibilities, and to maintain support for the unique and irreplaceable role of traditional marriage as an institution which is fundamental to society.â€
Other California Bishops have responded as well.
In regard to this decision of the court, the Catholic Bishops of California have said that “Catholic teaching maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love-a union instituted by God for the mutual fulfillment of the husband and wife as well as for the procreation and education of children.”
This teaching of the Church follows forth from the teaching of Jesus Christ: “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19: 4-5)
At a moment in our society when we need to reinforce the strength of marriage and family this decision of the Supreme Court takes California in the opposite direction. This action challenges those in society who believe in the importance of the traditional understanding of marriage to deepen their witness to the unique and essential role that marriage between a man and a woman has in the life of society.
Message on Trinity Sunday, 2008
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
From the decision of our State Supreme Court last Thursday, we appear to be heading â€“ at least for a time â€“ toward a social order in which same-sex couples will be able to contract marriage. This is a profoundly significant matter. I, as your bishop, want to speak to your about it, to offer you my pastoral support and guidance.
My message today, because of circumstances, must be relatively brief. I cannot talk about all that needs to be said in a full discussion of this question. Nonetheless, I will offer some strategic points that give us a sense of our situation.
I begin with the most fundamental point: Marriage is a reality authored by God in his very act of creating the human race. According to his irrevocable plan, the marriage relationship is only possible between one man and one woman. The purposes of this relationship are (1) the mutual loving support of husband and wife and (2) their loving service of life by bringing children into the world and raising them to be virtuous and productive. The experience of history â€“ both ancient and in our own time â€“ has taught us that no government has the power to change the order which God has inscribed in our nature.
The conviction that same-sex couples cannot enter marriage is a conviction which all Catholics implicitly affirm when, in our baptismal promises, we profess that we share the Churchâ€™s faith that the â€œFather Almighty [is] the Creator of heaven and earth.â€
This conviction about marriage, while confirmed by faith, can be known from reason. Therefore, our efforts to enshrine this wisdom about marriage in the laws of our community are not an imposition of an ideology but a service of the truth which we make for the common good. This wisdom about the nature of marriage is not a form of discrimination, but undergirds our freedom to live according to Godâ€™s plan for us.
Your priests and I, together with the deacons and our other co-workers, pledge to support you as you exercise your baptismal vocation. As the Second Vatican Council reminds us, God gave you the mission to configure the civil order to his design. In this way, through Christ and with the help of His Holy Spirit, you are making of this world a gift pleasing to the Father. This is the most fundamental act of your baptismal priesthood.
As I see it, the challenges ahead fall into two classes: (1) those of the short term and (2) ones for the long haul.
In regard to the short term: As faithful citizens Catholics are called to bring our laws regarding marriage into conformity with what we know about the nature of marriage.
In the long term: If such efforts fail, our way of life will become counter-cultural, always a difficult situation for Christians — one our forebears faced in many ages past, one that the Lord himself predicted for us. Indeed, even if such efforts meet with success, our work is far from done. We would still be living in a society where many accept a set of convictions that is ultimately detrimental to the integrity of human life, with negative consequences for oneâ€™s happiness in this world and the next. Your mission then will be, as it always has been, to be a light and leaven for the new creation established in Christ. The resources of the Theology of the Body, worked out by the late Holy Father, John Paul II, will be an especially helpful resource for this task.
I will do my best, as the principal pastor of the Church in the Diocese of Oakland, to lead you in your response to this situation in the months and years ahead. And I know that your priests are one with me in pledging you this service.
Above all, let us not lose heart. As Pope John Paul II constantly reminded us: â€œBe not afraid.â€ Christ is risen. His vision for our world, and for the place of marriage in it, will, according to the time he has appointed, become the truth of our world.
Yours in Christ,
Bishop Allen Vigneron
The Catholic Church in California WILL be active along with their Evangelical and Protestant Christian brethern in overturning the California Supreme court decision by passing the California Initiative and Consitutional Amendment 07-0098.
To follow campaign events of this initiative Constitutional amendment go to their website: California Marriage Protection Act.
Brigitte Bardot in earlier and better timesYeah, Flap knows that is a dated photo of Brigitte Bardot but Flap couldn’t resist – especially a free speech issue.
Brigitte Bardot is back on trial in France, facing charges of fanning discrimination and racial hatred against Muslims.
In a Paris court hearing Tuesday, prosecutors said they are seeking a two-month suspended prison sentence and a $23,900 fine against the former screen siren and animal rights campaigner.
Bardot, 73, was not present for the hearing. A verdict is expected June 3.
A leading French anti-racism group known as MRAP filed suit last year over a letter that Bardot sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, and which was published in her foundation’s quarterly journal.
In the letter to Sarkozy, now the president, Bardot accused France’s Muslim population of destroying France, and complained about the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha.
French anti-racism laws prevent inciting hatred and discrimination on racial or religious or racial grounds. Bardot has been convicted four times for inciting racial hatred.
Now you know what the Founding Fathers wrote the first amendment to the United States Constitution. To think that Flap’s ass would be in court for his publication of the Mohammed Cartoons.
France has taken political correctness to the extreme of abrogating the inalienable right to speak your own mind.
Live Leak has restored hosting for Geert Wilder’s film, Fitna.
On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film “fitna” from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families. Since that time we have worked constantly on upgrading all security measures thus offering better protection for our staff and families. With these measures in place we have decided to once more make this video live on our site. We will not be pressured into censoring material which is legal and within our rules. We apologise for the removal and the delay in getting it back, but when you run a website you don’t consider that some people would be insecure enough to threaten our lives simply because they do not like the content of a video we neither produced nor endorsed but merely hosted.
Good to see that Live Leak could NOT be intimidated for long……..
Fitna is on Google Video
Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.
This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.
We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.
For now, Google Video has the video and there are numerous links to Torrents over at Hot Air. Check them out if this video post goes down and Flap will update with new links as necessary.
The Dutch government is much relieved that there has not been an outbreak of violence over Fitna but after all they have appeased Dutch Muslim organizations.
The Netherlands breathed a sigh of relief on Friday after Dutch Muslims reacted with restraint to the release of a film by a Dutch lawmaker that accuses the Koran of inciting violence.
Dutch authorities reported a calm night after Islam critic Geert Wilders launched his movie on Thursday evening, in contrast to unrest that swept the country following the murder by a militant Islamist in 2004 of film director Theo van Gogh.
The Dutch government worked for months before the film appeared to defuse Muslim anger over its theme. In a statement broadcast live on television on Thursday in both Dutch and English, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said he rejected Wilders’ views.
“The government is heartened by the initial restrained reactions of Dutch Muslim organizations,” he said. “The Dutch government stands for a society in which freedom and respect go hand in hand… Let us solve problems by working together.”
Muslim groups have appealed for calm and mosques plan to open their doors to the public on Friday to defuse tension.
“Relief over a ‘mild’ Fitna,” De Volkskrant newspaper said on its front page. “Neatly told but no incitement to hate,” read the headline in the mass-circulation De Telegraaf, which said legal experts did not think Wilders had committed blasphemy.
So, the Dutch government has rejected Geert Wilder’s views and appeased Muslim organizations while protecting him from Muslim assassins.
Sounds like DHIMMITUDE to Flap.
In the meantime, Iran and Indonesia Muslims are NOT too happy about the film.
Iran called the film heinous, blasphemous and anti-Islamic and called on European governments to block any further showing.
Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation and a former Dutch colony, also condemned the film.
“We are of the view that the film has a racist flavour and is an insult to Islam, hidden under the cover of freedom of expression,” a foreign ministry spokesman said. “We call on Indonesian people not to be incited.”
Dutch Muslim leaders appealed for calm and called on Muslims worldwide not to target Dutch interests. The Netherlands is home to around 1 million Muslims out of a population of 16 million.
Update: Live Leak pulled the video off of their servers. For the moment it is on Google Video and here it is:Fitna the Movie: Geert Wilders’ film about the Quran (English)Lan astaslem: Arabic for â€œI will not submit/surrenderâ€
Xanax Side Effects
Firewall and VPN
Reporting to credit
Information from credit report
Credit reporting agencies in
Hotlink Caller Ringtones
No apr credit cards
Credit report equifax
Bankruptcy credit card debt
Are credit scores
Affect credit score
Annual credit report free
Adipex Diet Pills
Credit score ranges
Cheap SleepWell (Herbal XANAX)
Credit card debt bankruptcy
Credit reporting system
Score federal credit union
Credit reporting burea
Florida free credit report
Set up a VPN
Credit card debt information
Free Mp Ringtones
Improve credit scores
Online Cialis Professional
Scores credit card fraud
Cheap Viagra Professional
Secured credit card canada
Mac os x VPN
Freeze credit reports
Highest credit score
A popular comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell without incident one week ago was deemed too controversial to run over the weekend because this time it took a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists.
The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday’s installment of Berkeley Breathed’s “Opus,” in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.
The installment did not appear in the Post’s print version, but it ran on WashingtonPost.com and Salon.com. The same will hold true for the upcoming Sept. 2 strip, which is a continuation of the plotline.
The Wahington Post and other American newspapers have NO problems with political satire on the comic pages if it involves the Christian RIGHT but are afraid when it involves Islam.
The Washington Post Writers Group syndicates “Opus,” and the Post is the cartoon’s home newspaper. The syndicate sent out an alert about the two strips in question, according to Writers Group comics editor Amy Lago.
There was also considerable alarm over the strip at the highest echelons of The Washington Post Co., according to the sources.
Lago said she flagged some of the syndicate’s newspaper clients for two reasons: because of the possibility that the jokes about Islam would be misconstrued and because of the sexual innuendo in the punchline.
“The strip came in and I knew we would have to send out an alert to all the newspapers,” Lago said. “I do that fairly regularly with materials that might pose issues for local areas. … We knew that because it was a sex joke, it could raise issues. And there is another client that has issues with any Muslim depiction whatsoever.”
Sounds like a DOUBLE STANDARD to Flap.
Is the Washington Post afraid of offending the Muslims? Or afraid of a backhanded sex joke?
The Wapo will publish America’s national security secrets without hesitation and have done so on numerous occasions.
Maybe Wapo editors are afraid the Islamic fundamentalists might burn their building down? Or kidnap and behead their reporters?
Is there any WONDER why the American newspaper industry is dying a “SLOW DEATH?”
Freedom of speech – NOT found at the Washington Post.
Cox & Forkum: Stranger Than Fiction
FOX News: Muslims Unhappy Over ’24’ Portrayal.
Two years ago, Muslim groups protested when the plot of the hit Fox drama `24′ cast Islamic terrorists as the villains who launched a stolen nuclear missile in an attack on America.Now, after a one-year respite during which Russian separatists played the bad guys on the critically acclaimed series, Muslims are back in the evil spotlight. Unlike last time, when agent Jack Bauer saved the day, the terrorists this time have already succeeded in detonating a nuclear bomb in a Los Angeles suburb.
Being portrayed again as the heartless wrongdoers has drawn renewed protests from Muslim groups, including one that had a meeting with Fox executives two years ago over the issue.
“The overwhelming impression you get is fear and hatred for Muslims,” said Rabiah Ahmed, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. She said Thursday she was distressed by this season’s premiere. “After watching that show, I was afraid to go to the grocery store because I wasn’t sure the person next to me would be able to differentiate between fiction and reality.” …
Sohail Mohammed, a New Jersey immigration lawyer who represented scores of detainees caught up in the post Sept. 11, 2001 dragnet, watched the episode depicting the nuclear attack with an Associated Press reporter.
“I was shocked,” he said. “Somewhere, some lunatic out there watching this will do something to an innocent American Muslim because he believes what he saw on TV.”
Engy Abdelkader, a member of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee from Howell, N.J., launched a campaign Wednesday to encourage Muslims offended by the program to complain to Fox.
“I found the portrayal of American Muslims to be pretty horrendous,” she said. “It was denigrating from beginning to end. This is one of the most popular programs on television today. It’s pretty distressing.”
Perhaps the CAIR folks should discuss these issues with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad?