Immigrant Riots

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Colon
Well, strictly spreaking the youth who are causing problems right now aren't immigrants either. You can bet your arse on it that all of the people were born in France.

Yes, but it's so much easier for DanS to entitle the thread 'immigrant riots' (based on who knows what research) in order to tell us hapless Eurocoms how wonderful the United States' record on immigration is, in comparison to evil Europe.

I fail to see how someone like myself (the son of immigrants, born in the United Kingdom) qualifies for the appellation 'immigrant', when in fact I'm a British citizen, born in the United Kingdom.

Just like the rioters in Birmingham, in fact.

[Spiffor]

Yesterday, I've met a guy living in a city affected by the rioting, and who strongly supports the rioters (I don't think he rioted himself, but I wouldn't put it past him).

There was nearly nothing political in his speech. Basically, he and his mates replied to Sarzkozy and his police as they'd have replied to the provocations of any other gang.

Sarkozy's flamboyant and insulting speeches have been taken as a provocation, and many kids wanted to show who's the boss.

On the political scene, the whole orientation of the police these past years has come under serious flak. Basically, Chirac has been elected in 2002 because of a hysteria about petty crime, and the voters rewarded the tough language of the right (the whininess of the left was rejected). As a result, since 2002, the police focused much more strongly about repression, and much less about prevention. For example, the police could use rubber bullets in many more circumstances, the young delinquants got jailed more often, etc. The aim was to show the thugs that there was no impunity anymore for their crap.
It bore some results at first, as the thugs first feared the police, but we are now witnessing the failure of this idea. Even the police (traditionally very favourable to Sarkozy) is now criticizing these orientations, saying that the gap between the police and the population has only increased, that the police couldn't do its job of defusing the impending riots, and that the provocative language should have never been held by the minister.

OTOH, even conservative news channels are now speaking about the socio-economic conditions of the ghettoes, and pinpointing the role of poverty, and of the shattered family or neighborhood structures, in the development of that crap.

[Spiffor]

And indeed, we're not talking about immigrants here, but about French people (many of them being indeed of foreign origin).

Failed integration factors in the crap happening, but it's far from being the only one. Among the rioters, you'll find all the races that make the ghettoes (including whites of French ascent). The problem is not so much a problem of immigration (though the far right wants to bring imigration in the mix), but a problem inherent to our ghetto-situation.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
As a result, since 2002, the police focused much more strongly about repression, and much less about prevention. For example, the police could use rubber bullets in many more circumstances, the young delinquants got jailed more often, etc. The aim was to show the thugs that there was no impunity anymore for their crap.
It bore some results at first, as the thugs first feared the police, but we are now witnessing the failure of this idea. Even the police (traditionally very favourable to Sarkozy) is now criticizing these orientations, saying that the gap between the police and the population has only increased, that the police couldn't do its job of defusing the impending riots, and that the provocative language should have never been held by the minister.

You many sympathize with the rioters but public lawlessness cannot be tolerated. The anwser of the state should be stiff jail sentences for everyone caught until the rioters learn who is boss.

[DanS]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Yes, but it's so much easier for DanS to entitle the thread 'immigrant riots' (based on who knows what research) in order to tell us hapless Eurocoms how wonderful the United States' record on immigration is, in comparison to evil Europe.

You're assuming way too much with regard to my views, the reasons that I started the thread, why I titled it like I did, and what I think about immigration in the US. Don't continue to make an ass of yourself.

I wonder why it's the Brits in this thread who are getting all pissy about it.

I fail to see how someone like myself (the son of immigrants, born in the United Kingdom) qualifies for the appellation 'immigrant', when in fact I'm a British citizen, born in the United Kingdom.

Just like the rioters in Birmingham, in fact.

I note that this is the definition for immigrant that you use, and is not universally accepted. For instance, the Germans seem particularly stingy in giving out citizenship, even for people who have lived in Germany for their whole lives.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You many sympathize with the rioters but public lawlessness cannot be tolerated. The anwser of the state should be stiff jail sentences for everyone caught until the rioters learn who is boss.

I do not sympathize with the rioters. They are *******s who wreak havoc for their petty pleasure, and who just destroy for kicks. They're thugs, and I hate them.

However, you have to understand what has happened here.

For 5 years (1997-2002), the Socialists have been responsible for the French domestic policy. Their attitude toward domestic safety was that, if you gave jobs to the inhabitants of the ghetto, they'd be calm and rise above petty crime. Part of the strategy was also to make the police into a discreet force, that didn't look provocative to the alienated youth. This strategy wasn't successful (some indicators of petty crime got better, some worsened).

Prior to the elections of 2002, the media overhyped the matter (the coverage of safety issues rose by +127% in a few months IIRC, whereas petty crime remained stable). This hype benefited the far right and the right. Crime was the most important issue for 40% of the voters. The tough speech of the right seduced many voters. And when the right came to power, it wasn't merely speech, but acts.

Several projects of the left have been completely hollowed out:
- the "proximity police" that was supposed to maintain peace in the ghettoes by projecting a positive image of the public order, and by gently defusing problems before they got ugly, was completely out.
- the project to force rich cities to build social housing, in order to progressively remove the concentration of the poor in the ghettoes, has been immediately shot down.
- The programme of public jobs for youth has been stopped.

The right brought new policies:
- Rubber bullets for the cops on a more ordinary basis
- No discretion at all by the police. The police is now very visible.
- Media-ops by the government to show toughness whenever there is crime.
- Objectives-driven police forces, which had to respond to the figures demanded by the government.
- Harsher punishment, and easier judicial procedures in order to punish petty crime.
All this aimed to show the thugs that the party was over. The government fought against the "feeling of impunity" (which was probably one cause of petty crime indeed). And for a time, it worked.

But now, it doesn't work anymore. I'm not speaking here in theoretical words. I'm currently speaking with the knowledge that riots have occured for more than a week, and that they have grown increasingly worse with time. And that the government's toughness, while it had been effective for a time, now is a recipe for failure.

Maybe these riots will be a wake up call for our government and for our people, and maybe we'll understand that you don't avoid them just by bashing some skulls.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
I wonder why it's the Brits in this thread who are getting all pissy about it.

Because I'm the only Frenchman here, and I didn't bite on your troll

[Spiffor]

Oerdin:

I'd also like to add that the personal behaviour of Nicolas Sarkozy has seriously contributed to fanning the flames.

On TV, our minister wasn't just speaking about "punishing the culprits", or "being tough on the criminals". That would have been expected of a police minister.

Rather, he was talking about "Cleaning the cities with the Kärcher [high-pressure-water cleaning machine]", and about the "scum" that is wreaking havoc.

These words have been taken as a provocation by many young thugs who think they have to show who's the boss. And who now defy the police by wrecking havoc, believing they are the masters.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

What I don't understand is how the incident that sparked the Paris riots resulted in rioting.

I found a good essay today that lays out the background for these riots. Very prescient...

http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_...arbarians.html

Interesting essay, with quite a few worthwhile insights (in particular, his vision of the cité counter-culture looks very true to me, as well as the structural problems specific to the French ghettoes), but you should take it with a grain of salt.
Remeber that it was written in 2002, back when the Socialists had just ruled like "weenies" for 5 years. His assessment of the thugs' feeling of invulnerability, of the police's unability to do its job etc. was shared by most French people. This is why Sarkozy and his tough language, as well as his tough laws, were immensely popular back then.

Since 2002, the feeling of invulnerability has changed, as well as the role of the police. The police now feels supported by its ministry (Sarkozy backs the police's tough methods on pretty much every occurence). There have been many police attacks against organised gangs since 2002. And there has been a complete change in the way our society at large approaches crime.

Yet, the current **** is happening.

The structural problems of the cités are still here indeed (unemployment slightly increased since 2005, poverty increased among the poorer parts of society, the counter-culture remained unchallenged). But the police and political reaction to it is now pretty much the opposite to what the author describes.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by DanS
I wonder why it's the Brits in this thread who are getting all pissy about it.

please don't lump dirty immigrants like molly in with us brits.

[GePap]

The idea that Europe preaches muticulturalism while the US itegrates: BULL****.

US "culture" as such does not exist. There is no such thing. THe US has not been around long enough, and its population is so mixed that such a thing as "American culture" is not the same as European culture. Look at what foods are seen as "American" You have the decendents of German dishes, Italian dishes..where are the common English roots? NO such thing. If the US absorbs immigrants its because the "culture" changes when new people come. And still new immigrants do separte themselves. THe biggest group are from Latin America, and there are plenty of places in this country were you can live without ever speaking a word of English. Go to Chinatown in SF or NYC and tell me about "integration".

On the other hand France has a state that does inforce a more strict line of integration- this is after all a state that banned outward religious symbolism in state schools in order to further the civic religion of the French Republic. This more settled, rigid culture clashes more distinctly with those immigrants that simply want to retain thier culture. As liberal democratic state FRance could not undertake the sort of ham-handed program of forced integration that would bring new people's intyo the fold.

The situation in the US is simply historically different from Europe's. The fact is that culture in the Old World, not just Europe, but the entire Eurasian landmass) is far more developed, and settled than anything in the New world, given the extermination of what was there before. Hence it has been far easier for the states of the New World to deal with immigration, in so far as new immigrants can simply add to the still-forming cultural melange.

[DinoDoc]

Is this going to be a repeat of 1968?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is this going to be a repeat of 1968?

I find it very unlikely. 1968 was made by student riots and a general strike, and as such it had a much higher political content. There was a political cohesiveness (and politics-led organisation) that made the 1968 movement something long-lasting, rather than a straw fire.

Besides, the 1968 student riots was pushing for the social modernisation of France, which was stalled but fairly inevitable, considering the economic modernisation that occured for two decades. OTOH, the current riots aren't related to modern forms of consumerism or of ideas about freedom.

Lastly, 1968 was significantly supported among the population (though the majority opposed it). Currently, there is nearly no sympathy for the rioters, except in the alienated population group from where they come (and the sympathy is dwindling, since the rioters are burning the livelihood of these very people).

I don't think it'll turn in anything like 1968. Nobody will plan a general strike to accompany such an impopular movement. Nobody will take heed of the demands of the rioters (which are extremely unclear in any case).

The only positive result one could hope from these riots is that our authorities actually consider the ghettoes as an actual problem, and take actual steps to solve it. It's nothing like the wave of social modernisation and of deep reforms in the labour code that followed 1968.

[Drake Tungsten]

How are they going to solve the problem of the ghettos, though? Seems like the most logical steps for solving the problem of the ghettos are the steps the French are least likely to take, as they would go against what it means to be "French" in this day and age.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
On the political scene, the whole orientation of the police these past years has come under serious flak. Basically, Chirac has been elected in 2002 because of a hysteria about petty crime, and the voters rewarded the tough language of the right (the whininess of the left was rejected). As a result, since 2002, the police focused much more strongly about repression, and much less about prevention. For example, the police could use rubber bullets in many more circumstances, the young delinquants got jailed more often, etc.

Christ, no wonder they're rioting.