France to Erupt?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Whats a happy slap?

A beatdown. Just pick a random person on the street and beat the hell out of them. In some cases it can even include rape, just requires a recording be made of it to be called happy slapping.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

At the same time, he holds speeches on TV where he says he'll rid France of the "scum" ("racailles", as the members of the gangsta culture call themselves). For comparison, imagine Bush saying publically that he'll get rid of ******s (a self-depicting word used by the alienated US blacks), and you'll have a picture on how it was appreciated.

Not at all comparable. The "n-word" has been a derogatory term for blacks for a couple of centuries, and it is specifically ethnic in origin - ****** - from negro - ie Black in certain Romance languages. I dont beleive thats the same origin for "racailles" is it? If a pol here called for getting rid of, say, "gangstas" or "gang bangers" it might stir controversy, but many would approve.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
During the riots, Sarkozy also lied like there was no tomorrow: 1. He pretended for some time that the riots were manipulated by organized crime, that didn't want the police to claim their territory. As it happened, the ghettoes known for their organized crime were the quitest, precisely because the maffias didn't want the police to come on their territory, and prevented petty delinquants from wreaking havoc. Something any ghetto-dweller knows, but we now have an investigation that shows it.
2. He also said the riots were manipulated by the Islamists. In the end, absolutely nothing has been found on their involvement, despite searching.
3. He said he'd throw 120 foreign rioters out of the country. Almost all foreigners that took part to the riots actually couldn't be expelled, as per to the law he had himself promoted two years before (so it's not like he didn't know about it). In the end, 10 got expelled.

IIUC Sarkozy has since said that Islam was NOT involved in the riots, and some on the US right, notably Daniel Pipes, have decided Sarkozy is no longer the hope of France on this basis.

I presume he was making calls on what he guessed at the moment, and was biased by his own preconceptions, as are we ALL. From what I know of civil disorders in general, including the riots in my own country, they are complex things. While the riots in the US in the 1960s were triggered by police brutality, and by perceptions of police brutality, and with a background of social and economic conditions, and while accusations made at the time of cuban instigation, various conspiracy theories, etc seem overheated, its also true that all kinds of people tried to latch on the disturbances and use them for their own ends. I would be very surprised if that hasnt happened in the banlieues.

Your heated hatred for Sarkozy seems very much of a piece with the hatred some felt here for "law and order" Nixon, who was similarly accused of using racial fears for political ends. Yet it turned out that a conservative law and order politician was just the thing, who gave the frightened middle class a sense of having one of their own to protect them, while he actually pursued largely conciliatory social policies (though also defunding some of this predecessors social policies, but that was largely a matter of patronage - Lib dem types employed in poverty programs, vs black Republicans getting contracts) Of course here in the Last Best Hope of Mankind, policing is largely a local matter, and so many key reforms happened independent of the national govt - would Nixon have instituted civilian review boards to monitor complaints about police brutalitly? I dont know.

[lord of the mark]

BTW, since you seem to like commision reports, if you want to benefit from our experiences, you can find the Kerner Commission Report (1968) several places online

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
IIUC Sarkozy has since said that Islam was NOT involved in the riots, and some on the US right, notably Daniel Pipes, have decided Sarkozy is no longer the hope of France on this basis.

Yes. He retracted after the riots, when it became patently obvious the Islamists were involved (domestic intelligence reported as such, and it leaked to the press).

I presume he was making calls on what he guessed at the moment, and was biased by his own preconceptions, as are we ALL.

Well, if he did so, it is utterly irresponsible and even criminal. Unlike us ALL, Sarkozy is a minister. He is the most mediatic person in France. He is the one who wields most symbolic power currently. Any word he says gets largely broadcasted, and has large consequences. When you're in such a situation (a situation he seeked, if I may add - it's not like it had been forced upon him), you are entitled to being more cautious than the usual Apolytoner or the usual debater at the café.
When you go on TV, with a speech that you deliberately prepared, watched by millions of Frenchmen, including those who are involved in the riots, you don't engage in a bull****ting and provocative rant . Or at least, that's what I expect from a responsible politician.

From what I know of civil disorders in general, including the riots in my own country, they are complex things. While the riots in the US in the 1960s were triggered by police brutality, and by perceptions of police brutality, and with a background of social and economic conditions, and while accusations made at the time of cuban instigation, various conspiracy theories, etc seem overheated, its also true that all kinds of people tried to latch on the disturbances and use them for their own ends. I would be very surprised if that hasnt happened in the banlieues.

Indeed. The Islamists could watch an event that would make more people flock to them after the fact. They just had to be there after the end of the crisis. As to the organized criminals, they could re-assert their role as being the actual keepers of the peace on their territories - I imagine that any gentlemen's agreement between the police and organized crime has been reinforced after the riots.

Your heated hatred for Sarkozy seems very much of a piece with the hatred some felt here for "law and order" Nixon, who was similarly accused of using racial fears for political ends. Yet it turned out that a conservative law and order politician was just the thing, who gave the frightened middle class a sense of having one of their own to protect them, while he actually pursued largely conciliatory social policies (though also defunding some of this predecessors social policies, but that was largely a matter of patronage - Lib dem types employed in poverty programs, vs black Republicans getting contracts)

I don't know to what extent Nixon turned his professed aims into reality. From what I see with American pols, it is frequent that your pols profess an goal to satisfy their voters, but certainly avoid reaching said goal (the most recent example I have in mind is Bush, who does nothing serious against abortion, despite getting all those "value voters").

Sarkozy is a bit different. He cultivates an image of "someone who speaks the truth". Ever since he took over, he has turned his administration into a machine to hold his promises: when he announces that 20,000 foreigners will be expeeled that year, the whole police administration must make sure this amount is reached, at the risk of bad procedures, or of costly ones. When he says that there must be a precise amount of extra elucidated crimes, his police must follow, at the risk of being disconnected from reality.

Sarkozy has an obsession with quantifiable objectives. Precisely because he wants to show off his flattering figures to the public (after-the-fact figures, preferably). While he is fully eager to lie or to spin about the facts in order to make people more sympathetic to his cause, I haven't seen him lie often about his intents. I can remember only two such lies, the 120 expulsions of rioters being one.
As a result, I don't really imagine him as someone who has the same kind of doublespeak as Nixon. The only conciliating policies he had while in the government (with the tobacco retailers and with the anti-CPE demonstrators), he fully publicized his position, at the risk of getting a bad reputation among the hardliners.

[One_more_turn]

Why not arm the average French citizens, from militias, and take those scums head on?

Americans are heavily armed, that should explain why more people die in American riots than French ones. But thugs usually don't dare to come to the usual American suburbs where almost every family is armed.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
Why not arm the average French citizens, from militias, and take those scums head on?

Americans are heavily armed, that should explain why more people die in American riots than French ones. But thugs usually don't dare to come to the usual American suburbs where almost every family is armed.

1. Our citizens are unarmed for something like centuries, and this won't change.

2. Our ghetto-dwellers generally don't leave the ghetto when they revolt. Middle-class and upper-class suburbs aren't worried, despite having no particular police protection. That's because the rioters don't venture far (the ghettoes that revolt tend to be the ones least connected with the rest of the metropolitan area), and because theyhide best on their own territory.
Remember that all our ghettoes are somewhere in the suburbs. So, when you hear that a bus has burned in the suburbs, don't assume it has burned in your usual middle-class individual-housing-with-a-lawn neighbourhood.

3. Thanks to the fact that we don't have armed militias, weapon penetration is pretty low. It's very rare of an amateur thug to have a gun, especially a teen. Adult gangsters probably have more guns, but they also rarely engage in riots: like any businessmen, they prefer stability and quiet.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I presume he was making calls on what he guessed at the moment, and was biased by his own preconceptions, as are we ALL.

Well, if he did so, it is utterly irresponsible and even criminal. Unlike us ALL, Sarkozy is a minister. He is the most mediatic person in France. He is the one who wields most symbolic power currently. Any word he says gets largely broadcasted, and has large consequences. When you're in such a situation (a situation he seeked, if I may add - it's not like it had been forced upon him), you are entitled to being more cautious than the usual Apolytoner or the usual debater at the café.
When you go on TV, with a speech that you deliberately prepared, watched by millions of Frenchmen, including those who are involved in the riots, you don't engage in a bull****ting and provocative rant . Or at least, that's what I expect from a responsible politician.

there is a difference between making a statement based on what guesses at the moment, a "bull****ting and provocative rant". ANd yes, in such a crisis the public may not be happy with "we have no idea whats going on" and the IM, who in France is the boss of the police, can hardly not attempt to defend them. It seems the police in the banlieues are already demoralized - if they felt blamed, perhaps unfairly, that would not help.

Im sorry spiff, but the language you are using about M. Sarkozy does not give me the impression I can trust you as a source wrt to his statements or actions. Which is too bad, since you are generally well informed about events in your country, and the press here does not give adequate coverage.

Theres an upside though - making my through Le Figaro will improve my French

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
Why not arm the average French citizens, from militias, and take those scums head on?

Americans are heavily armed, that should explain why more people die in American riots than French ones. But thugs usually don't dare to come to the usual American suburbs where almost every family is armed.

I live in an American suburb, and the statement that almost every family is armed is absolutely untrue.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes. He retracted after the riots, when it became patently obvious the Islamists were involved (domestic intelligence reported as such, and it leaked to the press).
.

He retracted when it turned out he was incorrect.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
there is a difference between making a statement based on what guesses at the moment, a "bull****ting and provocative rant".

There can be a difference. For example, the minister could say that "the inquiry currently points to..." or "we believe it is...". Using cautious words, something many politicians do in a time of crisis. That's not what Sarkozy did. He had been antagonizing the ghetto youth for weeks with his "racaille" speech and then his separate "kärscher" speech. And he chose to antagonize them further by making deliberate assertions, villifying the victims, despite the circumstances of their deaths being absolutely unclear.

ANd yes, in such a crisis the public may not be happy with "we have no idea whats going on" and the IM, who in France is the boss of the police, can hardly not attempt to defend them. It seems the police in the banlieues are already demoralized - if they felt blamed, perhaps unfairly, that would not help.

I agree that he isn't in a position where he can publically blame the police. I don't think I've ever criticized him for not attacking his own troops in public, especially for matters where the blame isn't immediately obvious (it was perceived as obvious in the ghetto, because of the experience of police harassment).

However, he is also in a position where he can refrain from being deliberately provocative. That's not what he chose to do, for the entirety of the riots. His provocative statements about the two victims are just one element in a long list of antagonizations.

Im sorry spiff, but the language you are using about M. Sarkozy does not give me the impression I can trust you as a source wrt to his statements or actions. Which is too bad, since you are generally well informed about events in your country, and the press here does not give adequate coverage.

Well, you look to be a pretty well-informed guy in general, so I guess you have learned to read through bias Even though I use harsh language about Sarkozy, I'm not making anything up.

Theres an upside though - making my through Le Figaro will improve my French

BTW, when you're not surprised, you're "pas surpris". You mistakenly wrote "par", which means "by".

[DAVOUT]

Maybe Davout or LdiCesare can give a differing opinion (they aren't commies, and I don't think they hate Sarkozy as much as I do). But I really don't see how anyone could construe a valid counter-argumentation wrt these two dead.

I often disagree with Sarkozy, but I know that the Minister of the Police cannot be held responsible for every accident, crime or drama happening in the whole country. The problems of the suburbs did not appear with Sarkozy as IM; they result primarily of the leftist attitude prevailing since 1981 that this population has every possible rights and no obligations at all. When they
- attack medical men working locally, or ambulances of emergency services
- attacks firemen coming to help people living in the area
- attacks bus drivers and destruct buses assigned to transport in and out of areas where they are living
- destruction schools (even infants schools) and gymnasium in their areas
they must not be held responsible because they are sons of immigrants or still worse : descendants of slaves.
Now there is the case of two youngsters who entered a dangerous place, the entrance of which was forbidden and the danger explained visibly, by climbing over the wall; once in the place, they made the worst possible move and got electrocuted. In this country, everybody knows EDF, and the places used by EDF to transport electricity. All those places have large posts describing the danger and mentioning the interdiction to enter. How the two children who knew the place since it was in their suburb can have chosen to take a mortal risk ? Because they refuse all interdictions coming from authorities; they did not realise that the EDF post was made for their good, as the firemen, the bus drivers and the medical teams act for them.
And don’t tell me that they were afraid of being caught by the police; they knew perfectly well, as all boys below 18 know, that the police can do almost nothing against them except controlling their identity, which does not justify to risk their lives in an EDF place.

[LDiCesare]

But thugs usually don't dare to come to the usual American suburbs where almost every family is armed.

There may be a misconception here. In the US, rich people live in suburbs whereas downtown can be poorer. In France, the suburbs we are talking about here are where the poorest people live.
Weapons wouldn't do much difference here, considering thugs burn cars (or houses, but they don't need to live in suburbs to do that) when noone is there to see them or prevent it from happening.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

There may be a misconception here. In the US, rich people live in suburbs whereas downtown can be poorer. In France, the suburbs we are talking about here are where the poorest people live.
Weapons wouldn't do much difference here, considering thugs burn cars (or houses, but they don't need to live in suburbs to do that) when noone is there to see them or prevent it from happening.

yes, I was going to say something about Anglo-saxon vs french urban social patterns. Historically Americans left the center cities to the poor and the immigrants, while in France the wealthy kept the center cities. Its natural for those who value and can afford to pay for their time to live closer to the center of employment - thus the French pattern - unless they want to use their wealth to buy large living spaces, complete with useless status symbol lawns - thus the US pattern (UK somewhat in between, IIUC)

Some things should be noted though - 1. Its not just the rich who live in the suburbs in the US. There are upper middle class and lower middle class suburb as well - typically the wealthy live in a particular wedge of the suburbs. 2. A few of the largest US cities have a wealthy core, as well as wealthy and middle class suburbs - New York is a good example - its become a bit more common in recent years. 3. The decline of many of our oldest inner suburbs means its no longer that uncommon to see concentrations of poor there - places like Capital Heights, Maryland, outside Washington are examples.

What we DONT have are huge public complexes in the suburbs. The few really big concentrations of public housing are generally in the cities - think Cabrini - Green in chicago. And many of them have been torn down in recent years.

Oh, and as I said before, its NOT true that all USA suburbananites are armed, not at all.

[Jon Miller]

pretty lawns suck

however, having a yard rocks for pets and kids

JM