Brigitte Bardot’s Greatest Role — ‘Silence of the Sheep’

June 17, 2008 at 3:40 am 3 comments

Brigitte Bardotby Denis Schulz
11 Jun, 2008

Brigitte Bardot

The penalty for telling the truth in France is $23,325. The penalty for telling the truth in Canada is yet to be determined—in England a million dollar libel suit is certainly a possible outcome while telling lies can gain the liar a Knighthood. The penalty in Iran and Saudi Arabia is left to the hangman. Apostasy—a matter of conscience, truth as one sees it—is worse than treason in Iran. In Saudi Arabia, enjoying life is treason. 

 Khalid bin Mafouz, owner of one the biggest banks is Saudi Arabia, sued Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld for some of the statements that appeared in the original edition of her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop it. Mafouz sued in England. The Brits have the most generous libel laws in the world. Few people in England dare speak the truth for fear of being dragged into court. Adolph Hitler, were he still around with the current libel laws, could successfully sue Winston Churchill.

And there is pain and suffering. A hairdresser was sued for failing to hire a Muslim woman because she was wearing a headscarf; Muslim convicts sued prison officials because they were offered ham sandwiches during Ramadan. (It was one of three choices on the menu) And wrapping the truth in an allegory doesn’t work either. Salman Rushdie tried it in The Satanic Verses and was rewarded with his very own fatwa.

Freedom of speech has all but disappeared in Europe. It’s what happens when Liberals accomplish all the good that can possibly be accomplished. Instead of disbanding or dying or opening shoe repair shops they stick around to fine tune their pseudoliberal Marxist dictatorship and like all good socialists ingrained with political correctness and cultural diversity the first thing to go is freedom of speech. They don’t lop off heads—they are opposed to the death penalty; that will come later—but they do impose heavy fines and heap scorn, ridicule, and abuse on the malefactors, those recalcitrant enough to occasionally insist on telling the truth.

So Brigitte Bardot—France’s one-woman PETA—was charged with racial hatred. She was found guilty and received a fine of $23,325.

Well, for crying out loud, she’s 73-years-old—almost as old as Jed Clampett! Why don’t they let her say what she wants? Hardly anybody listens to her. There aren’t ten Muslims in all of France who can pronounce her name. She’ll be dead in a few years or in a nursing home and the Imams and the Mullahs can go on shamelessly slaughtering sheep and no one will be the wiser.
Sure—shamelessly slaughtering sheep—that’s what it is. Is there a better way to describe it? How many Parisians have been to a honest-to-goodness, old-fashioned slaughterhouse? Not many.

Imagine the master abattoir drawing his razor-sharp blade across the throat of an unsuspecting sheep, the blood spurting warm and red across the slaughterhouse floor! The flies buzzing, the master abattoir’s dog lapping up the fresh claret. It’s like watching a scene from a Sam Peckinpah movie. Then the master abattoir gets out his hose and squeegee and cleans up the mess so he doesn’t slip and fall on his head. Then he shouts, “Next!”

Brigitte was so concerned with the plight of the sheep in Islam’s amateur slaughterhouses she wrote a letter to Nicolas Sarkozy who was then France’s Minister of the Interior. She said she was “tired of (France) being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts.”

MRAP, a shadowy organization at best, took her to court. (MRAP stands for Movement Against Racism And For Friendship Between People) They claim to be a human rights group but spend most of their time trying to stamp out freedom of speech guarantees.

This is the fourth time Brigitte has been charged with inciting racial hatred. It was five years ago that Ms Bardot wrote A Cry of Silence.” The book was not kind to Islam. “I do not hold religious Muslims in high esteem,” she said. “For 20 years we have submitted to a dangerous and uncontrolled underground infiltration. Not only does it fail to give way to our laws and customs. Quite the contrary, as time goes by it tries to impose its own laws on us. All those ‘youths’ who terrorize the population, rape young girls, train pit bulls for attack…spit on the police—they are the ones who at the smallest signal from their chiefs will suddenly put us through the same kind of thing that happened in a Moscow theatre.”

Strong words…Churchill thundering against the Nazis…William H. Seward warning of the ‘irrepressible conflict.’ Who will take heed? Clemenceau? He is dead. Ferdinand Foch? He is dead. Henri-Phillipe Petain? Dead. Joffre? Dead. Gallieni? Dead. All dead! Jacques Chirac? Alas, he is still alive and there are millions in France just like him. The spirit of Jeanne d’Arc is not in them.

Ms Bardot has her detractors. Le Monde, France’s version of The New York Times, reviewed A Cry of Silence. It’s conclusion, a bombastic Keith Olbermann headline: “Brigitte Bardot: A Friend of Animals. An Enemy of Man!” Lire, a literary magazine said the book had “racist and homophobic undertones.” And so it went.

If she could she would have everybody eating string beans and cauliflower. Every one in France is tired of her racist antics—so they say. Prosecutor Anne de Fontette said she was seeking a longer sentence that usual because, “I am a little tired of prosecuting Mrs. Bardot.”

What a sad state of affairs! Convicted of hating the Muslim race! Who did the judge have in mind? Was it Louis Farrakhan? Ibrahim Hooper? Osama bin Laden? Muqtada al-Sadr?  

When is a religion a race? What does this say about French jurisprudence? It appears to be up to its ankles in Sharia Law. Ms Bardot was convicted of telling an uncomfortable truth, for facing reality. She had heard the voices crying in the night and it wasn’t “Viva La France” she heard as rioters stormed through the streets of Paris torching cars and assaulting police officers—it was “Allahu akbar!” The Mussulmen were back!

The riots lasted eight days. That was in 2005. There have been more riots—in 2006 and 2007, in Paris, in the suburbs, elsewhere in France. Last year the ‘discontented’ were armed with shotguns and Molotov cocktails. Seventy-seven policemen were injured. An attempt was made to torch St. Peter’s Hospital.

The riots didn’t make much of a splash in the hinterlands—in Swaledale, Iowa, or in Gun Blast, Texas, or in Shakespeare-on-the-Craven in Stratfordshire or in The New York Times or in The Washington Post but they did happen and if it were not for Ms Bardot the world outside of France would not have had the slightest inkling of what was going on in the land Charles Martel, who saved Western Europe from decisive Islamic invasion 1,276 years ago.

Thank you, Ms Bardot, you have more guts than Le Monde and Jacques Chirac combined, as much as Charles De Gaulle, and at age 73 are better to look at than De Gaulle was at 25. This is your greatest role and the free world—what is left of it—is praying for you. The radical left can stew in their juices—if this war is lost they will have a choice between conversion and eternal doom. They are not much different than the sheep Ms Bardot is seeking to protect, merely less worthy of her affections.

Altogether now, “Viva La France!” and “Viva Ms Bardot.”


Entry filed under: Freedom of Speech, Muslims, Politics, Religion. Tags: , .

Breaking the Silence (about Radical Islam) Say NO! To Shariah Finance

3 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Nicolas Krebs  |  June 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm

    “When is a religion a race?”

    It seem you have some misunderstanding about french language.

    “Ms Bardot was convicted of telling an uncomfortable truth, for facing reality.”

    No. She has been convicted for claiming that Muslims are ruling France and destroying its culture.

  • 2. mary christina love  |  June 26, 2008 at 12:33 am

    Scrabblebabble wins again! Islam is a totalitarian doctrine, NOT a race. I guess you still can’t prosecute someone for speaking out against a doctrine. That is why they conveniently and ignorantly termed it a “race”; so they could prosecute her in spite of their ignorance. So what if she has an opinion against Islam that disagees with the way sheep are slaughtered!

  • 3. Nicolas Krebs  |  November 9, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    “Islam is […] NOT a race.”


    “why they conveniently and ignorantly termed it a “race””

    They did not.

    “So what if she has an opinion against Islam that disagees with the way sheep are slaughtered!”

    She would have not been convicted.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed