One of the greatest blessings of living in America is our First Amendment, which protects the right of all of us to speak out without facing government persecution. People in other countries, even strong Western democracies, are not as fortunate.

The French government, for instance, is prosecuting 73-year-old former film goddess Bridget Bardot for criticizing the ritual slaughter of sheep in a 2004 letter to Nicholas Sarkozy, now France’s president.

Ms. Bardot, an animal-rights activist, complained about the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha, alluding to those running it as “this population that leads us around by the nose, [and] which destroys our country.” In the Orwellian eyes of French prosecutors, that qualified as “inciting racial hatred,” and they are seeking to punish her with a $22,000 fine and two months in jail, with a suspended sentence.

This is not the first time Ms. Bardot has been prosecuted for expressing what seem to most Americans to be mere opinions. In 1997, she was found guilty of inciting racial hatred for writing a letter to the editor complaining about “foreign over-population” of France. She was later convicted for pointing to the proliferation of mosques “while our church bells fall silent for want of priests.” Two of her books also brought the government down on her. In one, she wrote that her country was being “invaded”; in another, she wrote about the involvement of Muslims in the attacks of 9/11.

“I’m a bit tired of trying Madame Bardot,” said assistant prosecutor Anne de Fonette, as the latest trial began. Imagine how Madame Bardot feels.

Meanwhile, to our north, the writings of conservative columnist Mark Steyn have been under investigation by multiple Canadian government human-rights panels. Ontario this month dropped charges against him, but he still faces trial before the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

In his best-selling book America Alone, Mr. Steyn (whose work has appeared on these pages) argued that demographic trends point toward the eventual Muslim conquest of Europe. He cited “forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia and that call into question the future of much of the rest of the world. The key factors are: demographic decline; the unsustainability of the social democratic state; and civilizational exhaustion.”

Members of the Canadian Islamic Congress complained that their “human rights” had been breached by a “flagrantly Islamophobic” excerpt of the book published in Maclean’s magazine.

In America, there are efforts, particularly on college campuses, to silence voices of dissent through the imposition of punishments for stirring bad feelings. But most citizens still seem to understand the Founders’ wisdom in crafting the First Amendment: A vigorous exchange of ideas helps us solve problems, and protects other freedoms. Without a First Amendment, government officials would move quickly to silence the spread of information they found inconvenient or threatening to their power.

This is not to say that we do not have a strong moral obligation to treat each other with respect and to avoid castigating entire groups because of the behavior of individuals.

It is sad — and not a little scary — to witness what is going on in such once-vibrant democracies as France and Canada these days. Government, even in the name of stifling ill-will, should not be silencing debate about demographics, immigration and religion.