Carnie, these two posts on this matter have indeed been interesting. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I am sorry that I am not as familiar with the French “hate crimes” laws as I should be, so I hope that you will take that into consideration if I err in any statements I make.

The enforcement of “hate crimes” in the US is usually against a member of the majority sector if they do something against one of the minority sector. Very rarely are the charges leveled against persons of a so called “protected minority” against a majority class person.

This is one major reason I am against the “hate crimes” laws. The way they are enforced, not the indented protection the laws are to provide.

Now, in this case, with a minority (Muslim) against another minority (Jewish) it brings up a situation that the courts do not like to see. There was a case here in the US when the Korean community was extremely put out when charges were not placed against a Black man who allegedly committed crimes against a Korean storekeeper.

How can the French court appease both sectors here, which, really, is the reason for the laws? The protection of minorities against the actions of the majority members of society is the real reason for the laws. The court is put into a lose-lose situation, no matter which side prevails in this case. After all, the lawmakers wanted these laws to stifle the majority. How can that be done when both involved are minorities?

But it looks like we can see which side they end up wanting to support, don’t we?
Once again, hate crimes are selectively enforced.

Andy,

Remember here we are talking about "hate speech" law. Incitement to racial hatred or crime apology can be prosecuted in France, which sometimes comes real close to censorship.

What is surprising in that case it's that France 3 TV was blamed and received a warning by the government following the broadcasting of this sketch.

Here is another case in which the ruling didn't support Islam or Muslims.

Hate crimes in the US are almost exclusively things that are already are illegal, and as Andy says they are enforced rather unevenly. Inasmuch as assault and so forth is already illegal, hate laws are pretty worthless for anything but gathering statistics.

As for Houellebecq -- the courts were required to determine if calling Islam a stupid religion was "hate speech". Would a court even be consulted if he were a mullah on a soapbox decrying the evils of the west and trumpeting a call to arms?

Well, it looks like the French governement is starting to act. Though the way it manages the problem appears to be a little messy:

An administrative tribunal ruled the April 24 expulsion illegal, since [the imam] was never charged with a crime and not allowed to defend himself, and the imam was granted a return visa from Algiers.

The case has proved an embarrassment to the government, which has deported several other imams before but mainly because they urged a jihad, or holy war, against the West. . .

Following the high-profile arrests, Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin pledged to press ahead with the deportation of radical Muslim clerics, while officials sought to reassure leaders of the Muslim community - the largest in Europe - they did not intend to undermine the community as a whole.

President Jacques Chirac has also said that the government could modify legislation of the expulsion of foreigners in order to avoid the legal scuttle that has returned Bouziane to France.

"If we have to... modify the law so as not to have other cases of this sort, which are unacceptable to us, we shall modify the law to enable us to expel people who make this kind of statement," Chirac said in late April.

"The arguments which it seems this imam put forward are unacceptable, totally to be condemned. They are an attack on human rights and we cannot therefore allow to be put forward in our country."

I guess that's a "yes", thanks for the link.