[quote]Miserere wrote:
After seeing what happened in New Orleans with the looting, and now in France…the link is clear: It’s the French language connection.
Canada, beware. You are next.[/quote]
Hahahahhaha.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
At the very least, you need to promote enforcement of the laws with equality, not with any eye toward being “inoffensive,” especially with regard to preserving the traditional individual freedoms of speech/expression, and to avoid changing/modifying cultural milestones in the attempt to be inclusive (i.e. getting rid of “Christmas” references in favor of “Winter Holidays”, which waters down the meaning and makes it less, not more of a societal holiday – the original people don’t like it, and the new people don’t see what’s so special about it anyway).
In addition, you need to enforce a national language – making accomodations for people who don’t know English/French whatever may make sense in certain, limited circumstances (i.e. Emergency response services), but when such accomodations are made more broadly you simply move further toward assuring that people will never learn the majority language, and will be consigned to language/cultural ghettos.
In essence, it is my strongly held belief that many of the salad-bowl-type policies that discourage assimilation may have been well intended, but they are actively harming both the destination societies and the immigrants themselves. Though I suppose you’ll continue to hear about how immigrants who don’t know English/French and won’t or don’t assimilate to the majority culture are simply victims of racism or some other -ism when they don’t succeed and are caught in a poverty cycle, rather than placing the blame squarely where it belongs, which is with the touchy-feely anti-assimilation multiculturalists policies that cause it.[/quote]
Great post Boston.
Those who insist on creating a country within a country should then rely on the resources of the “country” they created, not the host. If they want what the host country has to offer, then integrate.
I generally argue the “Leftist” point of view on things, but I think America has done a pretty good job with the melting pot concept. No, it’s not perfect, but better than most, in spite of the rampant intolerance among the general population.
And whoever posted the articles insinuating that these riots are somehow part of a diabolical master plan to take over Europe, STOP!
[quote]bluey wrote:
France looks to be edging closer to a civil war with its sizeable Arab and African populations.
Already it would appear that whole suburbs are no longer under the governments control.
Paris rioting enters second week
The unrest has been spreading
See the aftermath
More cars and shops have been set alight in Paris’ suburbs, as youths rioted for an eighth consecutive night.
Most of the attacks again took place in the largely immigrant area of Seine-Saint-Denis, where about 1,300 police had been deployed.
The violence, which has engulfed a dozen towns around the capital in the past week, was triggered by the deaths of two teenagers of African origin.
Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has pledged to restore order.
Map of main flashpoints
He was speaking in parliament, following criticism at the government’s failure to end the violence.
Violence spreading
Thursday night’s incidents occurred in several towns to the north-east and north-west of the capital, including Aulnay-sous-Bois.
As on previous nights, gangs of youths armed with bricks and sticks have been roaming the streets of housing estates.
Nicolas Sarkozy has come under fire for his handling of the unrest
At least 50 of cars and several warehouses were set ablaze, and there were attacks on a school and a bus.
Shots were also reportedly fired at riot police - it was not immediately known if there were any injuries.
On Thursday, the violence also spread beyond the Paris region for the first time, with reports of cars on fire in the central town of Dijon.
The unrest began after teenagers Bouna Traore, aged 15, and Zyed Benna, 17, were accidentally electrocuted at an electricity sub-station in Clichy-sous-Bois.
Local people say they were fleeing police - a claim the authorities deny.
A criminal investigation and an internal police inquiry have been opened.
‘Troublemakers’
Mr de Villepin said restoring order was his “absolute priority”.
In scenes of escalating unrest overnight on Wednesday, shots were fired at police and firefighters, while gangs besieged a police station, set fire to a car showroom and threw petrol bombs. At least 177 cars were also set alight.
Deaths that set off unrest
Send us your reaction
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who earlier met the dead teenagers’ families, said the violence was “not spontaneous” but rather “well organised”.
He said the government would not allow “troublemakers, a bunch of hoodlums, think they can do whatever they want”.
On Thursday afternoon, Mr de Villepin held talks with Mr Sarkozy, other ministers, as well as MPs and mayors from affected towns.
The areas affected are poor, largely immigrant communities with high levels of unemployment.
Minister for Social Cohesion Jean-Louis Borloo said the government had to react “firmly”, but added that France must also acknowledge its failure to deal with anger simmering in poor suburbs for decades.
Muslim leaders have urged politicians to show respect for immigrant communities.
Dalil Boubakeur, the head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion, said people in the suburbs “must be given the conditions to live with dignity as human beings”, not in “disgraceful squats”.
PARIS RIOTS
Clichy-sous-Bois: Two teenagers die in electricity sub-station on 27 October. Successive nights of rioting follow rumours they were fleeing by police. A number of people arrested or injured.
Aulnay-sous-Bois: A flashpoint after violence spread from Clichy. Shots fired at police and cars and shops set ablaze. Further trouble in eight nearby suburbs, with more shots fired at police.
Others: Police report incidents involving gangs of youths in town in the suburban departments of the Val-d’Oise, Seine-et-Marne and Yvelines. Reports of petrol bombs thrown at a police station in the Hauts-de-Seine.
[/quote]
NEAR TO A CIVIL WAR? what a load of BOLLOCKS. That sounds like typically sensationalist and biased fox shit to me. If that’s a civil war then im superman.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Great post Boston.
Those who insist on creating a country within a country should then rely on the resources of the “country” they created, not the host. If they want what the host country has to offer, then integrate.
I generally argue the “Leftist” point of view on things, but I think America has done a pretty good job with the melting pot concept. No, it’s not perfect, but better than most, in spite of the rampant intolerance among the general population.
And whoever posted the articles insinuating that these riots are somehow part of a diabolical master plan to take over Europe, STOP!
[/quote]
Thanks AZ.
As an example of the kind of thing I find very worrisome w/r/t adjusting equal enforcement of the laws, see this post from USD law professor Gail Heriot:
http://therightcoast.blogspot.com/2005/11/by-all-means-let-us-all-follow-our.html
By All Means, Let Us All Follow Our National Customs
By Gail Heriot
My friend Jeff Jacoby’s latest column ( A war of values, not religion - The Boston Globe ) deals in part with a new police handbook in Australia’s State of Victoria ( http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,17026063,00.html ), which urges officers to treat domestic violence differently in Muslim households out of respect for Islamic tradition. Unsurprisingly, women’s groups are … well … a bit troubled by all this.
My, how times have changed! Years ago, when British General Charles Napier was Commander-in-Chief in India, he was approached by a delegation of Indian citizens who complained of British interference in sati–the not-so-charming Indian custom of burning widows alive on their husband’s funeral pyre. He is said to have replied this way:
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
If only the Australians were as dedicated to their own customs …
[quote]alstan90 wrote:
NEAR TO A CIVIL WAR? what a load of BOLLOCKS. That sounds like typically sensationalist and biased fox shit to me. If that’s a civil war then im superman.[/quote]
Here are some other reports/perspectives from Paris:
My opinion is that the problem may not be that the French arent doing enough. They are perhaps doing too much (of the wrong thing).
We can liken society to a family almost, if somebody, a child is not given clearly defined boundaries the child will feel insecure and constantly push to see where those boundaries lie. The child will not feel happy under these conditions.
These immigrants are not given clearly defined boundaries. They will keep pushing. The demands or “reasons” will not cease to justify such behaviour.
Only if a clear message is sent by France that such behaviour will not be tolerated and steps will be taken to maintain order - the same steps that apply to everyone who breaks the law will the unrest cease to an extent.
If you teach people a cause and effect relationship where harmful actions/behaviours are tolerated/rationalized and can bring results then you reinforce that as a method they will use and you perpetuate the problem and nobody ends up happy. If you tolerate and respond to violence you TEACH people violence can be used as a method to bring you what you want.
In the past ultra-right with its prejudicial policies held back people of other races and cultures, to (over)compensate for that I think we’ve gone to the other extreme and now what is failing civilization (and failing these other cultures/races we attempt to protect) is ultra-leftist policies.
We need balance or eventually it will be people of western culture who revolt and we could see ultimately see real civil wars break-out.
Western people (citizens) are feeling more and more desperate and insecure.
We would do well to think more in terms of cause and effect rather than “right” and “wrong”.
I’m not God, so my words are not absolute truth, but I’ve tried to share my sincere opinion. Thanks.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Thanks AZ.
As an example of the kind of thing I find very worrisome w/r/t adjusting equal enforcement of the laws, see this post from USD law professor Gail Heriot:
http://therightcoast.blogspot.com/2005/11/by-all-means-let-us-all-follow-our.html
By All Means, Let Us All Follow Our National Customs
By Gail Heriot
My friend Jeff Jacoby’s latest column ( A war of values, not religion - The Boston Globe ) deals in part with a new police handbook in Australia’s State of Victoria ( http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,17026063,00.html ), which urges officers to treat domestic violence differently in Muslim households out of respect for Islamic tradition. Unsurprisingly, women’s groups are … well … a bit troubled by all this.
My, how times have changed! Years ago, when British General Charles Napier was Commander-in-Chief in India, he was approached by a delegation of Indian citizens who complained of British interference in sati–the not-so-charming Indian custom of burning widows alive on their husband’s funeral pyre. He is said to have replied this way:
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
If only the Australians were as dedicated to their own customs …[/quote]
Hi Boston,
As an Australian, this article disturbs me greatly. I think most Australians would react in a similar fashion. It must be hard enough to be a copper now without having to deal with all of that extra, pointless bullshit.
A multi-tiered legal system based on different cultures will never work. I see much of this being based on “respect for other cultures”, but no respect for our own. I have said this on other threads: If you live in Australia, you have responibilities as well as rights. Those responsibilities include obeying our laws. If you want to beat your wife, that is fine. Just don’t complain when you have to pay the consequences for it under our law, and not yours.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Walks like a duck.
V[/quote]
werent you the one who started that brilliant thread about not needing privacy? I have nothing to even say to you, someone who could think like that doesnt even deserve a response except kiss my lilly white ass…
Check out this excellent article. It describes life in the housing projects, the alienation of their inhabitants, the apallingly lax attitudes of the French toward crime, and problems integrating their large Muslim population. Written three years ago, it is alarmingly prophetic:
Twelve nights in a row, and in over 300 towns?
I guess if there is a good thing to be said about this is that only one person has died so far.
I wonder if this will have any affect on France’s immigration policies.
A few pointers:
The rioters are generally not immigrants but born in France and second or third generation.
The riots are quite localised. The destruction is in the same communities (for want of a better word) that the rioters live in.
The French system has a very strong preference for integration, just like the US, and unlike UK/Scandinavia.
The integrationist bent is so strong that you must become exactly like the French in thoughts, preferences etc.
The French school system is designed to identify and promote high flyers, the kind of meritocrats you see mouthing off on television. Everybody else gets dropped by the wayside.
France is the most conservative and hierarchichal society in Europe. The intermittent explosions of fury are precisely triggered by the fact that the “lower orders” are powerless.
So, You are born in France, told that you are Fraternal, Equal and Free, live in a slum, go to a school that does not teach you anything except to obey, get picked on by a rather racist police, have no prospect of a job, can’t get a loan to start your own, because you are “Algerian”, and you wonder why you haven’t rioted before.
The pity is that now curfews and a strong response is needed to put down what has started, before anything can be done to fix the problem.
Is it really neccessary to riot in a liberal country like France?
The violence should be subdued by any means neccessary to send a message to anyone that violence is not a method to get heard and dialogue should then be opened to solve the other social issues.
France has not been doing nothing to help them infact France offers them a better quality of life than in their native countries. Its unreasonable to expect miracles, fixing social problems is a process. This does not mean their pleas should be ignored however just be taken in perspective. We must not lose sight of the fact that the immigrants (3rd generation) need to take responsibility for their behaviours too and held accountable.
If you don’t want to abide by European culture (not perfect - but which allows for a good quality of life) then you need to leave. If you want to enjoy the benefits of the host country then contribute to it, abide by it. These principles need to be followed or the benefits the civilization provides to anyone dries up and the reasons for people seeking a better quality of life in your civilization in the first place dissapear.
France and these immigrants need to work together to solve this and not blindly blame the other.
I observe that we’ve all got these wonderful solutions for France.
It’s not a nice thing to consider but maybe there is no comfortable or warm and fuzzy solution.
Perhaps what we are seeing is not a failure in implementation of liberal policy and what we are actually seeing is an inevitable consequence of multiculturalism.
If Europeans continue to allow other (often violent) cultures to dictate to and eventually envelope them (through replacing the native population) then they will lose their own culture and arent going to be in a position of helping anyone - anywhere.
I wouldnt quality these statements even as opinions of mine yet - These are just some thoughts I had after writing my previous post.
[quote]ragehonor wrote:
Is it really neccessary to riot in a liberal country like France? [/quote]
France is not a liberal country.
France is not a multicultural country.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
This isn’t really that different than what went on in the Balkans in the late 90’s. The only difference was that Milosevic handled it by genocide. What happened there was that muslim population got a foothold in a certain area through years of having lots and lots of babies in a certain area. After over populating the area they wanted it all to themselves. [/quote]
This is so wrong I don’t even know where to begin…
You may be able to make that argument on some basis, but certainly not on the basis of their economic policies. France is an elitist country. It’s “liberal” in the U.S. political definition of the term relating to its economic policies and to many of its social policies.
Interesting article in the Opinion Journal today taking a look at France’s economic policies w/r/t the riots:
[registration required]
Excerpt:
The French political response to the continuing riots has focused most on the need for more multicultural “understanding” of, and public spending on, the disenchanted mass in the country’s grim banlieues (suburbs). What has been largely ignored has been the role of France’s economic system in contributing to the current crisis. State-directed capitalism may seem ideal for American admirers such as Jeremy Rifkin, author of “The European Dream,” and others on the left. Yet it is precisely this highly structured and increasingly infracted economic system that has so limited opportunities for immigrants and their children. In a country where short workweeks and early retirement are sacred, there is little emphasis on creating new jobs and even less on grass-roots entrepreneurial activity.
Since the '70s, America has created 57 million new jobs, compared with just four million in Europe (with most of those jobs in government). In France and much of Western Europe, the economic system is weighted toward the already employed (the overwhelming majority native-born whites) and the growing mass of retirees. Those ensconced in state and corporate employment enjoy short weeks, early and well-funded retirement and first dibs on the public purse. So although the retirement of large numbers of workers should be opening up new job opportunities, unemployment among the young has been rising: In France, joblessness among workers in their 20s exceeds 20%, twice the overall national rate. In immigrant banlieues, where the population is much younger, average unemployment reaches 40%, and higher among the young.
To make matters worse, the elaborate French welfare state–government spending accounts for roughly half of GDP compared with 36% in the U.S.–also forces high tax burdens on younger workers lucky enough to have a job, largely to pay for an escalating number of pensioners and benefit recipients. In this system, the incentives are to take it easy, live well and then retire. The bloat of privileged aging blocks out opportunity for the young.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Interesting article in the Opinion Journal today taking a look at France’s economic policies w/r/t the riots:
[/quote]
Doggone it BB. I actually agree with you ;-o
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Interesting article in the Opinion Journal today taking a look at France’s economic policies w/r/t the riots:
TQB wrote:
Doggone it BB. I actually agree with you ;-o[/quote]
You make that sound as if it’s a bad thing… =-)
[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Walks like a duck.
V
werent you the one who started that brilliant thread about not needing privacy? I have nothing to even say to you, someone who could think like that doesnt even deserve a response except kiss my lilly white ass…[/quote]
I actually questioned why people wanted it so bad. My basic reasoning is that the more someone wants privacy, the more I think they have something bad to hide. It’s not all that whacko of an idea but you have to get past the initial box and think outside of it for a few minutes.
You can think i’m a whacko all you want, to tell you the truth, I wonder about it myself sometimes. Basically I think real real big. I’m not saying I have all the answers, nor do I ever claim to, but I will never let stigmas and others opinions interrupt my thought process on a particular topic. I will be influenced by the information I recieve and process it the only way my brain knows how. Many on these boards don’t have the ability to take in information, because it falls too far outside of thier reality. My reality is relative so there is no boundries with which to disqualify information.
Anyways, people here aren’t stupid, if you back up liberal ideas and ideals then you’re a fucking liberal, and vice versa. You can label yourself any little cute thing you want, but for the intents and purposes of this discussion forum, you are a liberal.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
V