The press report that actress Brigitte Bardot has been fined - the link given at the bottom of this posting is to an article written on this subject several weeks ago:

Bardot fined for racism | Herald Sun

Brigitte Bardot Convicted for Inciting Racial Hatred

Brigitte Bardot convicted of promoting racial hatred for fifth time - News - Film & TV - Entertainment - Belfast Telegraph

Bardot guilty of inciting racial hatred ... again | News | guardian.co.uk Film

Bardot guilty in race case - The Boston Globe

The Associated Press: Former screen siren Bardot convicted in race case

Brigitte Bardot on fifth fine for inciting anti-Islamic race-hate - Mirror.co.uk

El Khabar

Brigitte Bardot convicted over racism - eitb24.com

An article written on the eurosceptic Brussels Journal website several weeks ago:

Brigitte Bardot: Heroine of Free Speech | The Brussels Journal
[Rep]

Oscar Wilde spoke of “The love that dare not speak its name”. Time has showed that the thing that was so rejected at the time was actually simply a natural fact of life and the denying of it caused infinitely more harm than benefit.

BB unfortunately has become embroiled in today’s equivalent, this time though it is “The truth that dare not speak its name”.

I believe that in a few years people will be looking at this in the same way that we see the fallacy in the law and our understanding that resulted in Oscar being banged up.
[Rep]

Bardot is a long term campaigner for animal rights. She is disgusted by hal al slaughter and campaigns to end it. France has conceded hal al slaughter against the interests of its own animal rights campaigners. It is up to nations to set policies on animal slaughter that respect the wishes of their people and it is not right to allow exemptions for religious groups. Try slaughtering a pig in Saudi and see what happens when the boot is on the other foot.
[Rep]

it takes a french woman to show some guts doesnt it
[Rep]

Unless she wrote some other things that don't make the ress, it does seem ridiculous that this is considered "inciting religious hatred" - which is a pretty illiberal piece of legislation to start with.

However, surely the government's job is to provide what its citizens needs while getting in the way as little as possible. As long as it is still possible to buy meat slaughtered the traditionally humane French way (?) and Bardot and those concerned with animal rights can eat that - why should they be allowed to stop other people following their own beliefs. It affects her (and the majority of the population) not a jot.

If we were talking about a religion that practised torture, virgin sacrifice or demanded it be allowed to ignore some other law and basic rule that would be entirely another matter and should not be tollerated on religious or any other ground - just as we should take a much firmer stand on issues such as forced marriage or female genital mutilation - but what halal amounts to is a method of slaughtering animals which some non Muslims find distasteful.

That's hardly a reason for banning it any more than there's a reason for banning piggy banks or bacon because some Muslims might (and most don't care) be upset.
[Rep]

benjamin, Do you think that male genital mutilation is acceptable? I wouldn't want my foreskin removed for anything other than the most pressing medical emergency. Just because it is advocated in a very old religious document doesn't make it acceptable. I would go so far as to say that circumcision of baby boys without anaesthetic is more barbaric than hal al or kosher slaughter and psychologically more damaging in the long term.
[Rep]

Like so many things in the Bible it seems that male circumcision was a thing way before the Jews started going the chop, but that the Jews included it their Torah as a way of ensuring that it got done in spite of possible objections from over protective mothers and to prevent the spread of diseases.

Now it turns out that there is a hell of a lot more to the prevention of disease thing than was thought. Research on the spread of AIDS has shown (and it’s there to be found on the Web) that the inside lining of the foreskin is lined with cells that are especially liable to allow penetration by virus, especially retrovirus.

I can see a return to fashion for kids to be trimmed shortly after being born. I was, and it’s left no scars on me ….. apart from the obvious!

Female genital mutilation, that’s another thing altogether. One starting point is that it is often referred to as “female circumcision” which it is NOT. There is a procedure that does equate to circumcision in which the hood of the clit is cut or removed when the clit would otherwise be mostly shielded most of the time and for women with this condition there is much to be gained in terms of sexual satisfaction but FGM? Pure butchery.
[Rep]

There is a strong medical case for circumcision for boys, in so far as the incident of cervical cancer in Jewish women is considerably less than that of non-Jews. However other factors come into play like diet and genetic factors, therefore it is not conclusive.
[Rep]

I obviously don't support her prosecution but personally I'm not bothered about hal al or kosher it is not that bad and doesn't need the state to stick its nose in and ban.
[Rep]

Britannist, I'm assuming that you do not support what has happened here - which is may be why you made such a detailed original post.

Can I ask why you think this fine is a bad thing, yet you support the retention of the blasphemy laws (which you have said in previous threads)?
[Rep]