Bardot and Marianne: free speech marches on in France—not!
From my own encounters with the French legal system and the cause of freedom of speech in France, I ought not to be the least bit surprised at the news that Brigette Bardot faces charges of inciting racial hatred against Muslims by criticizing them.
Bardot’s general pronouncements against the growing Muslim presence in France stem from her interest in the specific cause of animal rights: she doesn’t like the way they slaughter sheep and goats by slitting their throats. In addition to the moribund state of freedom of speech in France, another reason no one should be surprised at all of this is that it’s happened before. Beginning in 1998, Bardot has been tried and convicted several times for similar offenses.
Bardot’s transformation to dedicated animal rights advocate could not have been foreseen when she retired from acting around her fortieth birthday. But that’s what she’s been doing ever since, after an early life that featured a dizzying array of short-lived marriages and affairs, some of them simultaneous; and a latter-day quietude in that arena that involves a long-term marriage and the shunning of plastic surgery to preserve her youthful pulchritude.
Although Bardot was known as a sex “kitten” back in her 50s and 60s heyday, when her movies were considered especially steamy, that’s the only animal reference I can find to her early days as a starlet. Here she is—or rather, was—back then (and never let it be said that I don’t have my male readers in mind):
Researching Bardot led me to a few tidbits I’ll share with you. One huge surprise is that she started out as a ballet dancer (hard to picture that, since her natural endowments in those pre-silicone days were considerably more robust than those of the typical ballerina).
Some other factoids I once knew, but have since forgotten, indicate that Bardot has always been culturally influential. The evidence includes the fact that she was almost single-handedly (although hands were not involved) responsible for the popularization of the bikini, back when two-piece bathing suits in this country chastely covered the navel, even in the movies:
Bardot also popularized gingham, a pink version of which she wore at one of her weddings. Then there was the “choucroute” (“sauerkraut”) hairstyle, which involved a lot of teasing (thanks a heap, Brigette). And she seems to have put the city of St. Tropez on the map.
France recognized Bardot’s importance to the country when she became the first celebrity model for Marianne, symbol of the French Republic. Prior to that, Marianne’s features had been generic, but in 1969 they were fashioned after Brigette’s.
Maybe this experience went to her head, as it were. Here’s a description of what Marianne symbolizes to the country:
Marianne, a national emblem of the French Republic, is, by extension, a personification of Liberty and Reason. It represents France, as a State, and its values (as opposed to the “Gallic rooster” representing France as a nation and its history, land and culture). She is displayed in many places in France and holds a place of honour in town halls and law courts.
Despite all this cultural trailblazing, France does not appear all that grateful to Brigette. It seems a bit ironic that the last in that list of French institutions Marianne supposedly represents—the law—is involved in the attempt to punish Bardot for defending some of the former ones: liberty and French values.
Although linking Bardot, who is not renowned for her intellectual achievements, to the fiercely intelligent Orianna Fallaci may seem odd, they both were prosecuted (and persecuted, in my opinion) under similar laws and for similar reasons. Expressing a negative opinion of the changing Muslim demographics of Europe, and even mounting a spirited defense of national (French or Italian) ideals against that influx, is most definitely not considered okay in today’s relentlessly PC Europe.
I miss Orianna Fallaci.
I never came into knoweldge of her until the last year of her life when I read an article of hers that appeared in the Wall Street Journal that was so passionate I was in tears.
As I researched her older writings I ran into the interview she did with Khomeini.. That lady had balls.
One measly comment? One?
OK, how about this: France is the only country I know of that not only has a cute girl mascot but actually wants to be a cute girl.
I had to install a special filter on my gaydar because the signal from Paris kept overloading the system.
In WWII, how come the Americans and Brits let the French enter Paris ahead of them? Ladies first.
That was an exercise in free speech. Anybody want to sue me?
Your male readers are eternally in your debt for this posting. That includes the Annette Funicello pic too.
***Expressing a negative opinion of the changing Muslim demographics of Europe, and even mounting a spirited defense of national (French or Italian) ideals against that influx, is most definitely not considered okay in today’s relentlessly PC Europe.***
And we here in the USA are starting to resemble that continent more and more, everyday. Scary.
Bardot and Fallaci, beauty and brains, and the wonderful legacy of old free France; The big question is how long is it going to take for free Frenchmen to revolt against the current malaise, and the answer is desperation; Desperation when prohibition is promoted in a sharia complicit state, sparking the next european crusade, “Give me wine or give me death”, the mantra, one hopes… Play it again Sam…
Cappy, Neo: I first heard “succuluscious” from a very young sailor reacting to Miss Bardot’s picture. I’ve yet to hear a better description.
And speaking of salivating, Im imagining that is what many a “progressive” is doing over the French legalized ability to shut somebody up.
Imagine: Being able to fine or jail someone for calling a democrat politician an elitist. Imagine being able to fine people for saying “democrat” at all! (They go bat bonkers for some reason you dont say “democratic” instead of just democrat!)
(They go bat bonkers for some reason you dont say “democratic” instead of just democrat!)
Oh I love that one. There was a guy on You Tube who had a rant about how saying “democrat” is a Republican “dirty trick”
I swear those people are insane.
Every thing is a either Republican dirty trick or a “Rovian” attack. The current democrat 😉 presidential campaign battle has generated the very predictable nasty bouts of campaigning which is now being characterized by democtrats as “Republican tactics” as if nasty campaining has never existed before and that democrats have never gleefully participated.
ABC News acused of “swiftboating” Obama for daring to be the first to ask him some hard questions. Bet democtrats (democratics?) wish we were France.
The Democrats have the proud history of reverting the South back to an all Democrat region once they used lynching and terrorism to topple the Republican governments in the South after the Civil War.
Ain’t nobody got a better record than that of political tactics.
It would be a good thing for us and the French if they swabbed all their patriotic actors with our Hollywood. That way pieces can match and we will all be happy.
One thing that LGF and Dissedent Frogman are pointing out is that Bardot is involved with French fascists. In her case, it might be driven by animal rights concerns, but there are nontheless racial and fascist undertones.
We shouldn’t overdo the parallel to Fallaci.
OK, how about this: France is the only country I know of that not only has a cute girl mascot but actually wants to be a cute girl.
Bugs, I don’t quite agree. What they want is to be important, kinda like the US actually is.
They have an excellent history of heroic combat. They don’t lack in toughness or courage.
What they lack is the American free market individualism.
They didn’t stand up to Saddam due to lack of courage, but because they were secretly in bed with him, and in any case he was the enemy of their real enemy, the United States; they want to move out of our shade . . .
She is a blonde, a very special type of: not enough melanin to the skin, not enough tyrosine for brain, not enough melatonine for hypothalamus. The results: stupid, hypersexual, with regular sleep disorders, depressions from serotonin deficiency; under-human femme fatal, irresistable temptation for alpha-males, like presidents, big bosses, generals. But America also had a specimen of this kind: Merilyn Monroe, even physiognomicaly resembling her.
Sergey: I must come to the defense of blondes, despite the fact that I’m not one of them.
Neither Bardot nor Monroe is/was a natural blonde.
The teenage Bardot.
The early Monroe.
I’m not versed on somatotyping/anthropometrics, but Monroe and Bardot images seem only grossly similar to me. I’d also wonder how much we can deduce from very crafted physical and persona images.
The power that images exert upon us is awesome; that power, more than anything else, tilts me toward Jung’s notion of archetype. It is image we fall in love with, and it is image we recoil from, from early childhood onward. It is the image that imprints in young animals, as Lorenz demonstrated. It is the shadow image of a predatory bird that causes newly hatched chicks to freeze in place or run–an image that must be genetically encoded/transmitted. It is the image that sells us beer, beauty, cars, and, for a time, rock stars dressed up like the bogies from our nursery room storybooks. Kenneth Boulding tried to take on the subject. He was a renowned economist, but the image was beyond him. It’s a tough, fascinating topic.
Sergey: Nice ploy!
Neo: What else are you holding back?
If the French want to be important, they have to actually do something important. I respect their history of toughness and bravery, but as of today that’s all it is: history. I think they got burned pretty badly by their defeat in Indochina and even worse by their Algerian debacle. Now they are timid – or at least their leaders are. They can stand up to the big bully America because America means them no harm. Ask them to defend their precious culture against real enemies – foreign and domestic – and they cave.
Hm, golly, who will I choose as a target of my attack?
I know!
I’ll chose a SEX SYMBOL WHO IS CHASTE ENOUGH TO APPEAL TO MODERN NORMAL FOLKS BUT CLASSIC ENOUGH TO MAKE FOLKS WHO WERE BOYS THEN GO NUTS!!!!.
Great choice.
I can’t think of anyone else to attack that would make MORE enemies.
Bugs,
In order to do something important, they have to have the capacity to do something important, which they lack (besides which, they want to be important now, they don’t want to have to work for it).
We are important, not because we want to be, but because our economic power makes us so. They don’t have the same economic power, so when the French Legion wants to go into some Third World nation, they have to borrow American airplanes.
“I respect their history of toughness and bravery…”
This is the second time I’ve heard this. Please provide a post WW1 example. Other wise, I’m at a loss.
The greatest destroyer of this nation was Napoleon. even more pernicious than revolutionaries. His wars exhausted not only nation’s economy, but its gene pool. After his reign the average height of French men plummeted down by 10 centimeters: Army recruited the best, and they perished. WWI was also pernicious: losses were awfull and not sustainable. Indochina and Algeria debacles broke their morals, but in demographic terms not so important.
I believe that all French disasters had a common root: the Huguenot slaughter. This terrible sin precluded the possibility of a peaceful democratic development, making violent mob riots a sorrow national habit.
Julius Ceasar in his “Notes on Gallic war” reflects on unfitness of Gauls for sustained war effort: “They need too much good quality food and wine, do not like tolerate hardships, accustomed to leisure and comfort, and if I fancied to lead them to Alps, they would catch cold long before ascending mountain passes.”
I think the French fought toughly and bravely in Indochina and Algeria – they just lost.
The French lost to the blitzkrieg but it was the British and Jews that paid the price. The French lost Vietnam and it was the United States and the Vietnamese that paid the cost.
There’s nothing wrong with losing and paying the costs of defeat, but the French aren’t very good at even that.
The French individual soldiers lsuch as the French Foreign Legion are tough. But their officers and their political leadership sucks. That sounds very familiar, but still, it’s far worse for them than it is for us.
Ymar, have you read what you just said? French soldiers = French Foreign Legion?
Mr DuMaurier-Smith: you still think it’s a ploy, huh?
Miss Tatyana: I like your name. A Le Carre’ fan, I am reminded of Karla’s daughter in _Smiley’s People_, one of my favorites.
I’m basically a functionalist. Sergey’s comments resulted in neo’s posting more pictures. If we treat his comments as a ploy that worked, he is very clever to the benefit of us older leering males. Bravo! If he intended the comments as something else, then I’m a dolt who didn’t perceive the intent, but Sergey can still receive kudos for the result regarless of his intent. The leering males are happy (because they can still leer,–which they confuce with capability), the females are amused by the hubris of the dirty old men, and a good time can be had by all.
But, do I still think it’s a ploy? A communication act isn’t like a rose, which is a rose is a rose. A communication act is meaningful relative to a transactional usage. Meaning is transacted rather than transmitted; it is worked out (or not) by the communication participants.
Let’s take the two of us as a communication universe. I say it’s a ploy. You say it’s not a ploy. In our communication universe of two, neither of us has “functional information”– defined as that information which we recognized as valid in our universe of two. Unfortunately, we are not in a universe of two, but the universe of this list. I can maintain it is a ploy until the cows come home, but if the rest of the posters here agree it is not, I am functionally insane in this group. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong, only that I’m outnumbered. If I want to be a happy socialite, I must take my marbles elsewhere.
Aren’t you sorry you asked? But it’s your turn: Do you think it was a ploy? Or, to avoid the ontological issue of its reality, do you think we should operationalize it as a ploy in this group? (If we all agree was a ploy, we can send the nay-sayers packing–off to Shrinkwrapped.
legal system and the cause of freedom of speech
David Irving
Anti-Islamism does not justify racism
The sad truth is that victums of opression often are so moraly and intellectually damaged that are no better than their opressors. Their mentality even can be considered a root cause of opression they suffered from. And I do not find anything racist in Falacci diatribes: it is all about culture, not about race. And cultures can be bad, terrible and evil. They produce bad, terrible and evil persons, sometimes in vast quantities. The whole nations can be doomed and deserving lashing, at least verbal.
Sergey,
we got to some sort of agreement her “all about culture”.
I think I made its long time ago that there is bad cultures within Islamic world but its so impended with Islamic societies that make some using its as “Religious” things like wahabisim and khomienisim.
So as any societies there are bad and goods culture practices, you and others should be specific when it comes to talk about Islam and Muslim and be clear that when you talking not insulting the religion as these bad culture are not Islamic religion or Islamic teaching.