Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Brigitte Bardot: 'France invaded by sheep-slaughtering Muslims'

And for saying this, the 73-year-old Ms Bardot, who was evidently quite beautiful in her day, is being prosecuted for ‘inciting racial hatred’, even though Islam is not a race. But such a minor technicality appears to present no hindrance to the zealous prosecutors of Paris. Under the Napoleonic system, there is an uneasy fusion of the judiciary with the legislature which is rapidly developing into an EU-wide ‘corpus juris’.

Ms Bardot, who is not now quite so beautiful, has already been given a two-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of 15,000 euros for saying the Muslim community was ‘destroying our country and imposing its acts’. She has been a prominent advocate of animal rights, and understandably therefore finds Eid al-Adha more than a little distasteful since so many sheep are slaughtered to commemorate Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael, which is even more of a waste when one considers that they are commemorating an event which never took place.

But France is home to 5 million Muslims, Europe's largest Muslim community, making up 8 per cent of France's population. Mr Bardot is Roman Catholic and slightly objects to this. Prosecutor Anne de Fontette told the court she was seeking a tougher sentence than usual, adding, "I am a little tired of prosecuting Mrs. Bardot."

Ms Fontette is, of course, under no compulsion to prosecute Ms Bardot at all, but she is evidently of a masochistic persuasion and has no understanding of genetics. It is difficult to see how the holding of any of Ms Bardot’s opinions constitutes a crime, or why her attorneys have not demanded to know what ‘race’ has been slurred.

But there is a certain demographic development in France which is resulting in a degree of Shari’a-creep, and the authorities would rather not have national icons like Ms Bardot drawing attention to the fact. French prosecutors and judges are therefore determining the guilt of those who do not accord with l’état, and acknowledging Shari’a principles in the process. It must also be observed that it is the French courts which are also now defining what constitutes a race.

The fanatical Islamists who insist on using bombs and bullets ought to observe this process, for violent jihad is evidently no longer necessary: the courts are delivering what is demanded, and they simply ought to be patient.

But Cranmer thinks that Ms Bardot should counter-sue for harassment, or take her case to the European Court of Human Rights. His Grace would be more than happy to begin a fund to help defray the costs.


Blogger Bert Rustle said...

In AmConMag there is an article by Professor James Kurth which is pertinent in parts. To quote:

... in the West, radical demographic change means that the prospect for greater peace and tranquility abroad is dialectically and diabolically connected to the prospect for greater conflict and violence at home.

Current social attitudes and demographic trends in the West suggest that there will be a continuation of low reproduction rates among Western peoples and therefore a severe decline in their populations. Conversely, there will be a continuation of high immigration of non-Western peoples into the Western nations and of higher reproduction rates among the non-Western communities in the West than among the Western peoples themselves. This will have major consequences not only for the military strategies of the Western nations but for their national security—and even identity.

The most dramatic consequences are likely to occur in Europe, where most of the non-Western populations will be Muslim. ... Many European countries will become two nations, and Europe as a whole will become two civilizations. The first will be a Western civilization or, more accurately, given Europeans’ rejection of many Western traditions, a post-Western civilization comprised of people of European descent. It will be secular, even pagan, rich, old, and feeble. The second will be the non-Western civilization, descended from non-European peoples. It will be religious, even Islamic, poor, young, and vigorous. It will be a kind of overseas colony of a foreign civilization, a familiar occurrence in European history, but this time the foreign civilization will be the umma of Islam and the colonized country will be Europe itself. The two civilizations will regard each other with mutual contempt. In the new civilization, there will be a growing rage, and in the old civilization, there will be a growing fear. These will be the perfect conditions for endemic Islamic terrorism, urban riots, and mob violence: an Islamist insurgency within Europe itself.

... European nations could experience in their homelands and from a Muslim minority of 10 percent or more a version of what France experienced in its Algerian colony from a Muslim majority of 90 percent. And the European population will have no place to retreat to. The Basque guerrillas in Spain, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, and the Muslim insurgents in India (Kashmir) are largely concentrated in a particular territory, making territorial secession seem like a viable objective. That is not the case with the Muslim community within Europe.

... in our era of low birth rates, there are not that many young men of the majority around.

When a militant, violent minority community confronts a militant, violent majority community, the outcome will be clear—so clear that the minority is usually sensible enough not to become militant and violent in the first place. The outcome is less certain when a minority community confronts a majority that is only one in the numerical sense— just a conglomeration of little groups and isolated individuals who define themselves by ideologies like multiculturalism, diversity, or expressive individualism.

For the nations of the West, which have arrived at this historically unprecedented state, a viable strategy for the nation is no longer really possible because they are no longer really nations at all.
[emphasis added] ...

This grim scenario seems somewhat reminiscent of the Global Strategic Trends of Rear Admiral Parry of the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC), a Directorate General within the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MOD).

22 April 2008 at 08:05  
Anonymous Eat Pork and and see the difference said...

You could stand atop the Eiffel Tower and scream through a megaphone that white Christians suck....and nobody would pay the slightest bit of attention to you

22 April 2008 at 09:31  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

your grace
an event that never took place ?? I had no idea that the old testament had been corrupted as well.

brings a whole new meaning to acting sheepishly !!

ms bardot it appears is suffering assault by the liberal fascist movement.

on the more grisly subject of animal death , i am not yet sure wether a bolt to the head or a slash of the throat have any discernable difference.

of course throat slashing is messy so i can see ms bardots point on that one .

although it does seem she is being wronged bu the french establishment , in the way they dismiss her .

oh well vive le de gaul

22 April 2008 at 11:14  
Blogger Dark_Heretic said...

This is a warning of the future of British justice. When the EU consti-treaty is hammered through we will be subject to Napoleonic (French) law. In French law all it takes is for a prosecutor not to like you and they can make a case against you. You then have to proove you're innocent more often than not whilst in jail.

This is already happening here with Brits being deported for crimes in Europe which aren't crimes here. They're then held without charge and trial for months whilst the charges against them are firmed up. Our Government and Foreign Office as usual does nothing.

His Grace's story is about Ms Bardot and the French legal system but it is much closer to home than many realise.

I applaud Ms Bardot for taking a principled stand against the medieval practices of Islamic festival. I also ask how our own government and for that matter the RSCPA condone it here in the UK?

Apologies your Grace for a rambling comment

22 April 2008 at 11:16  
Blogger The Heresiarch said...

The case is slightly more complicated than Cranmer makes out. BB has a long history of aligning herself with neo-fascists (I think she even married one). I don't doubt that she should be allowed to say what she wants to say. The trap however being laid is to hold her up as a typical "critic of Islam", expose her as a fascist, and thereby "prove" that criticism of Islam is fascist. In that sense, prosecuting BB is a bit like prosecuting Nick Griffen.

If you believe in free speech, then you must assert her right to say the things she says. But you must also assert the right of Abu Izzadeen to say the things he said. He was sent down for four years, for "inciting" and "fundraising for" terrorism, despite the absence of any evidence that he had actually incited anyone or raised any money for terrorism. He just ranted a few times with the usual Islamist conspiratorial nonsense. And why shouldn't he, in a free society.

Ora pro Heresy Corner

22 April 2008 at 12:29  
Anonymous LOL said...

"despite the absence of any evidence that he had actually incited anyone or raised any money for terrorism".

the heresiarch: you just made all that up!

by the way, it's Nick Griffin.

22 April 2008 at 14:54  
Blogger Harry Hook said...

Your Grace,

Methinks, even at 73, Ms Bardot is firming up your ashes somewhat.

Sharia will become law in this country... when it becomes EU law.


22 April 2008 at 19:23  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Bardot deserves everything she gets. She is a horrible woman and I have absolutely no sympathy for her whatsoever.

22 April 2008 at 20:58  
Blogger Harry Hook said...

Well... I'd give her one.

24 April 2008 at 03:48  
Anonymous Lurker said...

"The fanatical Islamists who insist on using bombs and bullets ought to observe this process, for violent jihad is evidently no longer necessary: the courts are delivering what is demanded, and they simply ought to be patient."

Its good cop/bad cop.

The nasty muslims are there to frighten the faithful and infidel. The nice ones (you know the vast majority of moderates we are always hearing about - though rarely from) are there to make things nicer for muslims in the west.

Both strategies advance forward together.

28 April 2008 at 04:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She has right!
Thomson Fan

3 June 2008 at 23:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) how beautiful Mme. Bardot is, or was, has nothing to do with the story. Why mention anything about her appearance?

2) Abraham sacrificed neither Isaac nor Ishmael. It was Isaac that God ordered him to slay, however, according to the Bible. Is is different in the Qu'ran?

Please stick to facts!

4 June 2008 at 19:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In France, they have the same situation with muslims as here, in United States, with blacks.

25 August 2009 at 07:06  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older