That is the argument currently going on up in Canada, on what appears to be "Criminalize any negative words about Islam" day around the world. There appears to be some good legal work headed toward free speech attorneys in the US if current legal trends around the world hold.
She was fined $23,325 on June 3, 2008, for those comments and also ordered to pay damages to the complainant party, a group known as MRAP. This is Bardot's fifth time to be convicted for anti-immigrant comments. Just comments, mind you — not actions.
This one is a doozy: there is absolutely nothing resembling fairness involved. The jurisdiction appears to rest solely on the mythical grounds that worldwide Islam was offended, as none of the parties involved actually has residence in British Columbia and the human rights commission in Ontario (where they are located) refused to hear the case.
There are no rules of evidence and no disclosure rules. Plus, the defendants always have to pay the costs of the case. The complainants made the argument that indeed, using the word "Mohammedan" incites violence against Muslims and is an example of hate speech and therefore should be banned. The case is ongoing this entire week and is the subject of wide interest as Canada's journalists have sought to intervene to protect their freedom to publish.
What does the complainant want? Why, that any article mentioning Muslims be subject to inspection by this tribunal for "fairness" — i.e., the end of freedom of speech and the press. Judging by the testimony and what has been admitted, magazines are now liable for what others have said about Islam just because they also wrote about it. And history shows that human rights commissions are very likely to side with the complainant, so free speech is at the least under attack. Good news for the speech lawyers!
