A year later, the banlieue still boils

Almost 12 months have passed by since I started this weblog with a first post on the riots on France's immigrant housing estates. A year on, little has changed and the pessimists are predicting a new flare-up for the anniversary of their outbreak at the end of this week.

The forecast could fulfill itself since the media cover obviously fanned the violence last autumn. The car-burning subsided after television stopped transmitting pictures of the mayhem. But no-one contests that the anger and despair among the young of the lawless cités remains as intense as ever. A report by the police intelligence service (Renseignements Généraux), leaked to the media this week, concludes bleakly: "Most of the conditions which led, a year ago, to an outbreak of collective violence over a large part of the country are still in effect."

A band of kids at the Grande-Borne estate, on the southern edge of the Paris region, provided graphic proof on Sunday. In mid-afternoon, they hijacked a municipal bus, ordered the passengers off and used petrol to incinerate it. They then stoned firemen and police who came to the scene. [Picture above]

The incident followed four violent ambushes of police officers in the Paris region in the past month and spectacular police raids in response, ordered by Nicolas Sarkozy, the Interior Minister and presidential candidate.

As a measure of the level of violence, an average of over 100 cars have been torched every day in France so far this year -- most of them in and around the housing estates. The police unions are complaining that the toughest kids are not just out to destroy property but to kill or wound them.

There is no question that the worst of the cites are sinister places, but the foreigners' view of grim wastelands populated by drug-dealing criminals is far off the mark.

A couple of days ago,  I visited Clichy-sous-Bois [picture above], the eastern Paris suburb where the riots broke out last October 27. The revolt began after two boys were electrocuted while taking refuge from police in an electrical station. The Chêne Pointu housing estate, where the Zyed, 17, and Bouna, 15, lived and where the violence started, is a collection of apartment blocks in leafy streets next to a park. This may be the heart of the neuf-trois -- the notorious Seine Saint Denis département --  but with its greenery and tidy appearance, Clichy has none of the menace of the urban wastelands of say, south central Los Angeles or Moscow. 

Below the surface, though, you can feel the tension.  About a quarter of the estate residents are unemployed. A quarter of Clichy's population is under 25 years old. I talked to teenaged boys who boasted of their car-burning exploits and complained that nobody gave a damn about them. There is no sign of the billions of euros that the government promised for the banlieue after the shock of the revolt last year. Nothing has been done to defuse the hostility between the police and the boys and young men, mainly of Arab and African origin, who see them as the agents of an alien power.
   
Community leaders feel betrayed by the government.  "Nothing has changed since the riots. I would say that things have got worse," said Mehdi Gaberne, 25, an educator with a Clichy association called "Beyond words" (ADM). He blamed Sarkozy, heavy-handed policing and the failure of the authorities to fulfil promises of jobs, housing and education.

The local authorities also feel let down. Claude Dilain, the long-serving Socialist mayor of Clichy-sous-Bois, has struggled to improve conditions over the past year and he has even written a book on his pride in his town. He blames the state for failing to deliver promised funds. "People here feel that they are on the edge of the Republic," said last week. "After the emotion passed last year, the political debate shifted away from the banlieues....   All the conditions are there for it to blow up. If people feel nothing has changed, we cannot tell them that they are wrong."

One feature of France that has not changed is the refusal to face the racial side of the banlieue unrest. Everyone agrees that discrimination is rampant and that if your name is Mohamed and you live in the 93, you face a much tougher time finding a job than Pierre Durand from Paris even if your qualifications are better than his. Yet it remains illegal in France to collect any information on citizens' ethnic origin. Sarkozy wants to change this. How, for example, can more non-whites be encouraged to join the police if it is illegal to try to find out how many are already in the force?

But the establishment remains opposed. Dominique de Villepin, the aristocratic Prime Minister who is determined to prevent his colleague from reaching the presidency, today rejected proposals to revoke the law and allow measures to collect ethnic data. His put-down was typically grandiose and absurd   "Identifying people by their origin, their religion, the colour of their skin, means going against the spirit of the Republic, which is that of the universal man."   

Here's the full flavour of de Villepin: Je me méfie de tout ce qui ressemble à des classifications et à des comptages. Identifier une personne à son origine, à sa religion, à la couleur de sa peau, c'est aller à l'encontre de l'esprit de la République, qui est celui de l'homme universel.

Comments

[Frank Schnittger]

It is hardly surprising that nothing has been done to change the conditions which led to the rioting last year. After the banlieues went wild, it was the turn of the French middle classes to look for attention. They decided they didn't like the idea proposed by Villepin that they shouldn't be guaranteed a job for life. It was as if they were sending a coded message - "do what you like with the banlieues, but not at our expense".

Many might argue that there was no connection between the two events. But it was a case of the "have-nots" telling the state in no uncertain terms that they wanted to have a bigger slice of the action, and then the "haves" saying they weren't prepared to give an inch on any issue.

France needs faster economic growth and greater social mobility if the banlieue problem is to be addressed. Neither will happen so long as the present political and economic sclerosis is not addressed.

If the banlieues riot again in an election year you can expect a similar robust Sarkozy response. His electoral chances depend on his being able to keep the rabble in check and preserving the comfortable life of the majority. In so doing he will pick up the latent racist vote. More extensive riots will simply pay into his hands by scaring the French electorate into supporting more extreme measures.

Royal will present the softer, caring face of French society: The belief that, given time, the State can solve all of France's problems. Throw more resources at the problem, and it will go away. She will be badly undermined, though, if the rioting gets really bad. "When you are up to your neck in crocodiles, it is easy to forget that the original objective was to drain the swamp!“ No doubt she will highlight her law and order and boot camp proposals if the going gets tough..

Either way, what happens in the banlieues in the next few months could hold the key to the result of the next Presidential election.

[GAG]

Having raised three children in France – two of whom now work in the UK – I can say from personal experience that employment racism is not only something that African young people face.

My youngest daughter experienced a form of racism in her school where a certain teacher would rant about the British system, British food, etc in front of her.

When it came to finding ‘stages’ (training in companies) my daughters would often send out over 100 c.v’s and motivation letters without receiving a single reply. Although my children are all perfectly bi-lingual, I was told in confidence by an employee of a company searching for language skills, that they would prefer to offer the job to a French youngster, even with poor language skills. The reason being that the French candidate was not rich like the British kids, who could always find a job in London !

Two of my children did go to London and both found well paid and interesting employment almost immediately.

Nevertheless we are the lucky ones. I do feel dreadfully sorry for many of the kids in the French suburbs who are offered no hope, except to get involved with one of the many local associations, these often being run by left wing dreamers.

Before I get accused by the ‘inferiority complexed’ Flocon of French bashing, I would like to say that in my experience the French are a friendly, helpful and loyal people. Unfortunately, they are governed by a selfish elite, whose twin concerns are power and wealth.

Can anyone name a poor French Socialist politician ?
GAG

[alan morgan]

Perhaps I've missed something here.The press reports and court convictions, even the tv reporting recorded not, unenmployed have nots, but under age children, let out at night by their uncaring parents who were rioting. Copying and trying to outdo others. It wasn't political, it wasn't unemployment. It wasn't racial, whatever that term means. It had a lot to do with boredom, failed family units and envy.
Every politican, journalist and armchair pundit is stoking this pot for their own ends. The truth becomes what you believe.So watch for all those little hooded people in the months to come.

[Flocon]

Before I take time to participate in the on coming exchange, it may be interesting to have a look here: http://tinyurl.com/ya6ckf

Sort of what comes around goes around... And before casting the first stone... what about thinking twice?

[john gregory Flinn]

"Yet it remains illegal in France to collect any information on citizens' ethnic origin."
Mr Bremner; I cannot believe that you are still trailing the notion that changing this law will somehow cool 'Les Quartiers difficiles'. And, encourage more non-whites to join the police!
Collecting such information is racist by definition, and experience of the multicultural mayhem in Britain should be warning enough.

Employers may discriminate in their selection of employees. They use criteria to suit their product, service and organisation. These criteria will include education, physical attributes necessary for the work, experience, etc. Inevitably criminal records and address will feature here, because no employer in his right mind is going to hire someone who lives on a estate where extensive criminality exists.
Every time the boys you mention burn a car, or a bus, or a car dealership, or a restaurant, they shoot themselves in the foot and all their probably innocent, co-dwellers.
I do not doubt that there may be racial discrimination also, but there are so many other hurdles these boys from the bainlieues can fall at that it's really a diversion.
Then there is perception, for example, no-one wants to hire a muslim in case he/she demands and maybe imposes prayer-time breaks 3,4 or 5 times a day on the organisation. And they could through current 'human-rights' laws.

You cannot make employers hire unsuitable applicants - except of course in the totalitarian socialist state. Which reminds me of your blogs about Ms Royal....
Members of ethnic groups have to learn that respect has to be earned; violence, burning cars, etc., will work the opposite way. There's plenty of examples of ethnic minorities who have gained this respect in France, including in M. Villepin's government. What's their advocacy?

If these cités are anything like the council estates in Britain, then I suspect most of the unemployed are unemployable. This is nothing to do with racism and everything to do with competition for the few jobs available to this sector of youth. Most of the jobs they might have done in the past have long gone to China, India and eastern Europe. (This latter location may reflect all those EU subsidies mentioned by Flocon, Frank S. et alia elsewhere...)

PS. I have'nt noticed the racism GAG has experienced with my two in the French school system, but I'm sure there's lots of teachers and employers in England who would do the same.

[GAG]

Flocon.

I’ve read your http about Muslims in London. I personally know many Muslims throughout the UK who have made a success of their lives in the U.K.

I know that money is no measure of man, but aren’t there two Ugandan Asians in the top ten richest people in the U.K. list ?

Of course, it’s difficult for immigrants in all countries. But aren’t the British immigrants to France and the French immigrants to the U.K. helping to establish a true multi-cultural Europe ?

Flocon, you never answer the questions that other Bloggers pose. Why not ? Because like all soppy socialists, you’d prefer to ignore reality. And when faced with reality, you put your head in the sand !

Flocon, why not tell us all about your experiences while working or living in the real Europe, in the U.K. Germany, Italy, Spain, Holland, Belgium, etc. It would be of interest to other bloggers I’m sure.
GAG

[rocket]

Ahh! Si on n'avait pas Flocon, il fallait l'inventer

Have at it partner!

More to come on this right bank newpaper seller who is so well knowledged on America without ever having been there

ROCKET

[Flocon]

GAG:

1°) "Flocon, you never answer the questions that other Bloggers pose. Why not?"
- GAG, auriez-vous l'extrême amabilité de me faire savoir quelles sont les questions qui m'ont été adressées sur ce blog et auquelles je n'aurais "jamais" répondu. Les vôtres en particulier.

2°) "Because like all soppy socialists, you’d prefer to ignore reality. And when faced with reality, you put your head in the sand!"
- Auriez-vous également l'extrême amabilité de vous abstenir de qualifier de quelque façon que ce soit les participants de ce blog en général et moi en particulier? J'ignorais que je fus un soppy socialist, merci donc de m'ouvrir les yeux sur ma nature véritable. Je ne serai pas venu vainement chez Mr. Bremner.

3°) L'un des plaisirs et intérêts des blogs c'est l'échange d'idées, la confrontation de points de vue, voire d'analyses. Si cela doit aboutir systématiquement de la part des Anglais à des accrochages personnels, des mises en cause ad hominem, on n'en sort pas et il n'y a plus de raison de fréquenter ces lieux. Yorktown n'est toujours pas digéré dirait-on...

4°) Je ne peux que constater combien se vérifie une fois encore la vérité vieille comme le monde: quand on n'a plus d'arguments, on en est réduit aux misérables querelles de ruisseaux par des bassesses dignes de gâtes-sauces.

5°) J'avais cru comprendre que ce blog était en quelque sorte un blog franco-anglais mais je constate que ne s'y expriment en fait que nos sympatiques voisins du nord qui y trouvent -à l'exception de M. Schnittger- une bonne occasion de faire savoir combien la France et les Français leur sont insupportables. M'étant plus souvent qu'à mon tour exprimé dans votre langue -sans jamais la moindre réciproque bien évidemment-, il est temps de comprendre ce qu'il y a à comprendre.
N'ayant pas, par ailleurs, particulièrement goût pour le genre d'incorrections auxquelles il semble que je doive répondre, je prends donc congé de ce blog.

Merci à Mr. Bremner de son hospitalité.

MR. Bremner, just for the record, the blogger who signs Rocket has been fired from another franco-American blog for both his rudeness and his stupidity. Need some links?
Suffice to consider the richness of his first comment here. It is really high time for me to take my leave...

[Valentin]

Is this indeed about racism ? Maybe John Gregory Flinn is right... people don't hire Mohamed from Saint-Denis because the place is ill-famed, its news is bad, the people come out as of violent nature, easily offendable, muslim sensibilities, and I can go on and on like this. It's not the skin colour, it's the upbringing, the social environment, the character of the average Mohamed that make employers prefer to avoid working with him, than take a chance. He should probably be at least given the chance of an interview, if the application fits the position...

It all starts with the immigration. It's not that many come from Africa and are black - Chinese for instance have far less problems, and that's because they don't create problems in the first place. I avoid certain KFC or MacDonalds restaurants not because most clients are black, but because they look aggressive, almost dangerous.
Many immigrants look that way because they come from famished places, families torn by war, went through hell before arriving here, and all they know is pain, fight for survival, gang-like environment. And extremist muslims, besides that (suffice it to read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book to understand what kind of Islam rules in Africa). This kind of cultural/societal problems don't go away easily, maybe one, even two generations aren't enough. I don't see how they can be expected to integrate without serious help. In any case, forcing companies to hire them is not the answer.

[Sam]

As a white well-paid catholic male, i am deeply dissatisfied. I can never be a victim! How pleasant it would be to be able to cringe that, because of my origins, i was never given a chance in life. Instead of complaining about what they do not have, these testosterone-driven yobs should consider that they have received free housing, education and health care. That's a lot more than their parents had when they arrived in France from the Maghreb and Africa, and a lot more than millions of people all over the world. The tourism and building sectors in France are desperately lacking low-skilled workers. Likewise, the manual sectors are lacking medium-skilled workers. Any one of these so-called victims could get the ANPE (the French Unemployment Agency) to pay for a 6-month training course, and learn how to become, for example, a boiler technician or an air-conditioner installer. What's wrong with that? Is it not “hot” or “cool” enough for them? A frequent traveller myself, I watch with amusement as France (and indeed old Europe in general) gets each year slowly sicker with the plague of leftism. I go to China and watch; India and watch. I note how America remains vigilant and self-questioning. Then I note France with, as Samuel Beckett would say “Les mêmes questions - les mêmes reponses”. Of all the developed countries I know, France is beyond doubt home to the greatest number of uneducated, closed minds. To say nothing of the arrogance and aggressiveness which is common here. In a perverted way, I support these council estate goons, the neo-Marxist trade unions (novembre, mois de grèves et merguez, n’est-ce pas), the dictator racist socialists and the blockhead teachers, because they each play a role in bringing to its knees a country which deserves nothing but the most complete annihilation. Quelle faste journée!

[selwyn]

The Prime Minister of France is a pompous oaf.

Which country has the worst race and ethnic problems, Australia or France? Well in Australia we don’t burn 100 cars a day (or even one third of that bearing in mind the different population sizes; about two cars a year get torched in Australia, I would guess). Nor do we have masses of unemployed youths living in ghettos; in West Australia the unemployment rate is about 3%.

But in France “it remains illegal in France to collect any information on citizens' ethnic origin”

In Australia we keep detailed statistics on these matters; we have just had a new census (two months ago) and all of us were asked (along with all the usual questions of where we live, how big is our house, our income etc):
1. ethnic background. Why (according to the Bureau of Statistics website)? “Australia is a diverse society with people from many different cultures. Knowing how many citizens there are in particular areas throughout Australia enables planning for voting arrangements in elections, and for citizenship awareness campaigns….Over the last two centuries people have come from all parts of the world to live in Australia. An understanding of the origins of the people who call Australia home is essential in developing policies and services which reflect the needs of our society. Therefore, we ask about citizenship, country of birth and ancestry. Ancestry is not necessarily related to the place a person was born but is more the cultural group that they most closely identify with. For example, a person may be born in New Zealand but have Samoan ancestry.” So we get asked our “Country of origin.. Birthplace of father and mother” “Ancestry For each person provide a maximum of two of the main ancestries with which they most closely identify, if possible.”
2. LANGUAGE Why? "Australia is a multicultural society. In 2001 approximately one in five people were born overseas or spoke a language other than English at home." ...”Australia's main language is English. However, past Censuses have shown that nearly 3 million Australians spoke a language other than English at home.Knowing which other languages are spoken and how well English is spoken, makes it easier to plan for English teaching programs and for translation and interpreter services.” So they ask “If the person speaks only English at home, mark 'No, English only', even if they can speak another language.”
3. RELIGION Why? “Church and religious organisations depend on the Census for information about how many people of their religion there are in different parts of Australia. They and others use the information to assess the need for religiously based schools, hospitals, community services and homes for the elderly.” Answering this question is OPTIONAL. “If a person identifies with no religion at all, mark ‘No religion’”
See the form at
http://www.census.abs.gov.au/eCensusWeb/
Does anyone seriously think that Australia is worse off because of the collection of this data? That it leads to terrible racism in Australia? Is “discrimination rampant” in Australia or in France?

[GAG]

Flocon

It appears to me that you can be impolite and criticise other bloggers, Anglo-Saxons, liberals, etc, but when the criticism is aimed at your ideas and beliefs you can’t take it.

I’m so sorry if I hurt your sensibilities, yet I do find it hard to stomach your latest stream of self righteous comment in reply to my observations.

Perhaps you’ll be just as demonstrative the next time I praise France and its people.

You know what they say ‘If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen’.
GAG

[Valentin]

Selwyn, we cannot compare France with Australia or the US, countries made by immigrants. There are books written by specialists that do this kind of comparison and insist on the cultural specificities of France. France can be difficult for a foreigner, one must work in order to adapt to living here, and recipes that work in the UK (and in the US, the Commonwealth countries etc.) may not work in France, Italy, or Spain.

Once you're a citizen of France, you cannot be forced to disclose your religion, race, and so on. It is noone's business where you came from, say, 20 years ago, and noone needs to know what colour your skin is and where were your parents born. Your privacy must be fully respected. They even thought of forbidding employers to demand a photo or exact name and address, in order to make it impossible to discriminate those in bad neighbourhoods and with foreign names.

All citizens are to be treated equally, regardless of their race, origin, or religion, which are all private matters. So then what's the use of collecting this data ? Collecting it is illegal, because it might open the door to discriminations difficult to control afterwards.

Finally, France is not a diverse, multicultural society, just like Japan is not one. There are spots, indeed, like Paris and some places in Ile de France or Lille, or Marseille. But France sees itself as a basically French society, where foreigners must do the effort to integrate and adapt, even if they don't like certain aspects - a bit like Japan, if you like. This is not right or wrong, it just is so, and noone has the right to judge the French - or the Japanese - for their culture.

[Robert Marchenoir]

Gag's anecdotes about his daughters are simply terrifying. One knows about the deep xenophobic and self-righteous streak of the French, but this really takes the biscuit.

[Matt]

So much is said about these riots, but some key issues are still rather unclear to me.

For example, I'd be interested to know why the unemployment rate in the depressed suburbs is so much higher than in the country as a whole. Are the schools so much worse? Is it just the out-and-out racism that some people have mentioned? What is it?

Also, as Charles Bremmer notes, these suburbs aren't the most horrible places in the world. People have a roof over their head and food on the table. So, what exactly is setting off the riots? Are the young people rioting because they're unemployed? because the police beat up blacks and Arabs? because they're bored?

On the issue of collecting ethnic and racial data about the population, and trying to encourage minority recruitment with "positive discrimination," we do something like this in the USA. It's not a perfect system, and has led to various kinds of excesses. On the other hand, at least it constitutes an acknowledgment that racial inequality exists and needs to be combatted in some organized way. Maybe France could find a middle way, using personnel data to enforce anti-discrimination laws, but without the development of the de facto quota system we have in America.

[julie]

Flocon, en reponse a votre point #5 :
Je suis francaise et lectrice de ce blog et je ne trouve absolument pas que les anglo-saxons qui s'y expriment trouvent la France et les francais insupportables. Je trouve au contraire qu'ils sont tres moderes et ouverts d'esprit. Qu'ils pointent les incoherences du systeme ne me derange pas, la France a malheureusement bcp de problemes a regler. Et ce n'est pas comme vous le faite en niant la realite, defendant le statut quo, ou en faisant l'autruche (merci GAG) que nous allons les resoudre.

[Neil Davidson]

On the subject of Muslims in France, I am very curious about the demographic situation, since the information one sees is so contradictory. I have seen it claimed (by the columnist Mark Steyn, who does not quote a source) that 25% of people under 20 in France are Muslim. This would suggest that Muslims in France have a far higher birth rate than non-Muslims and at the present rate will fairly soon be a majority, as Steyn claims (which will at least have the advantage of solving the problem of discrimination against them, since they will be running the country!). The Economist magazine, on the other hand, has stated that the fertility rate of non-Muslim French women is systematically underestimated, compared to that of Muslims - but again without quoting a source. Is there actually any reliable information on this subject? Can anybody help with this?

[Frank Schnittger]

Excusez-moi, mais mon Français est malheureusement très pauvres. Que est-ce-que le problème avec le point le numéro 5 ?

[Isabelle]

In my oppinion there are several different reasons why some youth act like this.
1) real or felt exclusion from society (lack of good education, unemployment, social care housing in ghetto-like cités.
2) the young in general have a tendency to be rebellious and to do things that are forbidden (seen as "thrilling"). This car burning might just be the result of an escalation that began with throwing over ripe tomatoes into the neighbours garden when the adult generation was young (not that I! did it ;) )
3) the gang does it or the older brother does it. So the rest doesn't want to stay aside.
4) some people with an Arab background might identify more than reality allows with the Palestinian Intifada. Unfortunately this possible motivation for some of the rioters is transported and increased by French media, inciting in my point of view just to adopt this attitude.
5.) You get attention if you do something others find shocking. Especially you get attention from media.
6.) Manipulation and incitement by some extremists who have an interest to exploit the dissatisfaction of a part of the population.

I don't know which of these reasons prevail, if all of them apply and if I missed some. But if it is the first reason above all, the youngsters just give even more reason to the "establishment" and the French "bourgeoisie" to exclude them even further. They achieve exactly the opposite of what they wanted. If this was what they wanted.

It is nonetheless true that people from certain estates are disadvantaged just for the simple reason that they come from some places known as hot spots. Some months ago, a study was presented that even people's names may be inconvenient while applying for a job, if these names don't sound "bourgois". For exemple, someone called "Cindy" would have lesser chances to get a job than someone called "Valerie" independently of competences ... Now imagine if your name is "Latifah" ...

[Valentin]

"So, what exactly is setting off the riots?"

There's little doubt that unemployment is much higher amongst young people from poor neighbourhoods, of immigrant origin, especially black or arab, even if there are no official numbers. There is also, amongst these people, a feeling of rejection by the French society, not completely unjustified, and which fuels frustration.

But there's also the more general problem of uncontrollable teenagers, independent of the race and the origin. I think this accounts for the most part of the torched cars and riots.
This article published by the BBC shows the direction where France too is going :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6079210.stm

[Flocon]

Since a French blogger (Julie) addresses me I feel compelled to answer.
- May I ask you where you take your information that I deny problems, that I hide my head in the sand like an ostrich and, what else, I want to preserve the status quo?
I have a strange feeling I don't need your advice to learn there are many problems in France, like everywhere else for that matter.
The strawman tactic seems only to run high among a certain segment of the bloggers indeed...

- I've posted several times with specific points which haven't received any serious answers. Now consider this blogger who complains I "never" respond to questions that I haven't been asked and don't answer to questions that he's been asked. I asked him to show me said questions he would have asked me, I'm still waiting. On the other hand he didn't stop at calling me names. Can someone inform me in which way I ever addressed him in impolite or personal terms?

- Franck Schnittger. Regarding the point #5 you refer to and in which your name appears, I was merely stating that, save for you precisely, I had a strong impression that this blog seemed to be a golden opportunity for many English and Americans to have a go at France and the French. Not that there's anything wrong with that, to each his own but I thought that bickering and venting one's anger or frustration wouldn't lead anybody very far. I singled you out in my point #5 precisely because your comments are both informative, critical and pleasant to read since it is obvious you don't jump on the first opportunity to express some sort of "annoyance" with everything French.

[Andrew Robertson]

I think we have overlooked one point concerning the riots which is that they are a struggle for control of territory and the economic (criminal) opportunities that go with it. Many articles in the French press have attested that the recent attacks on police are considered as straight retaliation for investigations or raid in previous days by the authorities. Burning, rioting and - for sure soon - killing a policeman serve both as an intimidation against the local population in the cités and to ensure that these are no-go areas for the police.

[GAG]

Flocon

You accuse me of ‘calling you names’. I in fact my words were: ‘Because like all soppy socialists’.

The English dictionary interprets the word soppy, as silly. Not a word that offends, unless you believe you are, and I doubt that.

Here’s two questions for you. Explain to other bloggers why you believe, if you do, why the latest French socialist manifesto is not soppy ? Especially from an economic point of view.

And, while you’re at it, perhaps you could explain why thousands of French young people have decided to work and build their lives in Great Britain ?
GAG

[john gregory Flinn]

Isabelle and others pose and debate the question of violence in 'Les Bainlieues' of French cities. But a more cogent question to pose is why in France at all?
Does the present youth in the countries of origin of these 'Bainlieues boys' behave in the same way?
I don't think so, certainly not to anything like the same extent. (Palestine is an obvious exception for which there are special reasons).
So - why not?
Are conditions generally better with more opportunities there?
Again, I don't think so, otherwise they would surely consider emigrating.
So, how do these third world Arab and African countries manage it?

Matt observes they have a roof over their heads and food on the table, which facts do not always apply in the third world.
And it's not just France where such problems with youth exist - in Britain it can more murderous in nature - I'm sure it's a problem the west wrestles with and agonises over at length.

Perhaps our 'civilised society' is a tad too 'civilised', and we could learn some simple truths about our youth from these third world cultures.

For me, Valentin's epitome of French society in reply to Selwyn is just spot on!

For Flocon; Frank S. is not 'Anglais' nor American nor British, but he is Irish...
Sorry to be a pedant.

[Maggie]

I think people are forgetting the fact that these riots are for the most part created by French youths.
These kids are not immigrants, but, were born in France, many are bilingual & have had a good, French education. BUT, because of their address, & the obvious bias, they cannot even get as far as an interview, for a decent job.
No wonder they feel frustrated with the way THEIR country & fellow country men treat them.
What an utter waste of their talents, this is.

[flocon]

GAG has a strange way of putting thoughts in other's minds indeed.
1°) "Explain to other bloggers why you believe, IF YOU DO, why the latest French socialist manifesto is not soppy? Especially from an economic point of view"
. Well, first of all I don't exactly appreciate the tone of your question, as if I was summoned to give accounts (rendre des comptes). I certainly don't have to. That should suffice for me not to respond to your rude address.
. Why should I be a spokesman or barrister for the socialist party? Did I ever write anything, positive/negative, related to the socialist party?
. Save for the diehard members of the socialist party, about everybody in France knows they simply have no serious program, be it regarding economics or whatever else. Ever heard of demagogy on the eve of elections? I guess this sort of things is totally unheard of in UK...
. Of the three contenders from the socialist party, 2 of them have been previously ministres des finances (spare us the remark, it didn't make much of a difference etc...) My guess is that they both know a litle bit more on economics than you probably do. 2 of them have been studying at the ENA. Not that this would qualify for whatever Nobel prize for economics but why is it that, while they followed the same teaching with the same teachers than their counterparts on the right just because, it seems, they're on the left side of the spectrum that makes them innate ignorants in economics. Besides, Fabius posturing as a socialist is simply pathetic.. Further more, since I understand, rightly/wrongly, that you'd qualify as liberal in France (nothing wrong with that, once again don't waste your time pretending I assume liberalism is evil) I kind of remember the French PM calling themselves liberal (Balladur, Juppé, Raffarin and their posse) didn't exactly perform miracles. As for R. Barre, "the best economist" in France according to Giscard d'Estaing (who himself introduced the notion of liberalism in France 32 years ago) I fail to remember he made an impressive impact on the course of French economy. Strange enough indeed for the best liberal economist we ever had...
And yet, all these people certainly were very competent, weren't they?
. Since you're fond of asking questions to others, will you be kind enough to tell us were would the UK be without a little help from its former colonials, the Americans?
. Now, here are at least four answers to your question. Will that be enough for the right honourable GAG?

2°) Another funny one now...
"Perhaps you could explain why thousands of French young people have decided to work and build their lives in Great Britain?".
. Perhaps could you answer this other question: Why have about 400.000 Britons decided to quit the rat race they lived in the UK and choosen to enjoy life in France? Not for a couple of months but more likely something in the range of ten years and +. Just the weather? Well, there are Spain too, and Italy.
. Oh, and by the way, how would you grade the great Italian liberal known as Berlusconi who worked wonders on Italian economy? Not liberal enough?
. Liberalism... I kind of remember the French were very critizised for not opening the doors of their employment market to the newcomers from east Europe, Poland notably, as opposed to the generous liberals of UK who didn't fear competition of low costs etc. They expected something like 15.000 Poles and, ô surprise, they arrived by the 500.000. That makes a difference indeed. So, hasn't Mr. Reid made a little statement very recently that the games of the rules had changed? And no more than a few thousands from Romania and Bulgaria will be accepted under strict conditions? Now, what do I understand here? State regulation of the employment market? Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... liberalism is no longer what it used to be...
. And since we're at it as you say, why don't let the thousands immigrants from all over the world enter in your welcoming liberal country instead of being stucked in the French ports? At French expense and accusing the French not to do what is necessary to prevent them from trying to cross the Channel?

[Flocon]

John gregory Flinn.

I agree with your statement about the criminal behaviour of some parts of the youth in France. I don't buy the economic dire straits argument that is commonly proposed as an explanation but, rather, stupidity, urban paranoid mythology they delve into after they've been made believe they were victims of, laxism of the State fear of racist accusations etc.
The same phenomenom used to exist, probably to a lesser degree, some 45 years ago in England, it was then called the Mods against the Rockers (or something as sophisticated).

I know F. Schnittger is Irish, I guess a bad phrasing of mine may have led you think I didn't know...

[rocket]

Yesterday Flocon was leaving and today he is back. I suppose after a long night of reflection he realized he hadn't yet convinced the participants of this blog of his intellect.

[GAG]

Flocon,

I’ve read your comments and am a little confused.

But I can answer one of your questions. The majority of English people, as many Dutch, German and Belgiums living in France have decided to retire to France. As I understand it, only 5% of the Anglo- Saxons, living in France, work in France. That’s to say, that the majority have earned their money elsewhere and decided to take their retirement in a calm, almost dead country. Which is ideal for retired people. Who can blame them ?

On the contrary, the majority of French people living in the U.K, work there. And knowing some of them, what superb, creative and intelligent people they are.

And there’s the question that you haven’t answered.

I’ll repeat; could you explain to other bloggers, Flocon, why many thousands of French young people have decided to work and build their lives in Great Britain ?
GAG

[rocket]

"N'ayant pas, par ailleurs, particulièrement goût pour le genre d'incorrections auxquelles il semble que je doive répondre, je prends donc congé de ce blog.

Merci à Mr. Bremner de son hospitalité."

Posted by: Flocon | October 24, 2006 at 11:31 PM

Cela doit être le congé le plus court dans l'histoire de la France moderne

amitiés

[Robert Marchenoir]

Unfortunately, Maggie, the young from the estates have had a rotten education, not a good one. French education is generally appalling nowadays, but even more so in the suburbs. The only reason parents put their children in those destitute schools is that they have to, by law.

As for their being bilingual, what is the other language you refer to? If you mean Arabic, I have not read any figures to that effect lately (I suppose polling second or third-generation immigrants about their knowledge of Arabic would be deemed racist with the stupid laws we have over here), but even if there were a lot of proper Arabic speakers, it would not help them very much on the job market, except to apply for job in the islamic department of the secret services -- hardly a large-scale solution to unemployment.

Also, in order to be bilingual in France, you need to speak, read and write French properly, and this is far from being the case. The illiteracy figures are really cause for concern. It is a country-wide issue, but of course the problem is even worse in the estates with their bad schools.

Lest some French chauvinistic feathers are unduly ruffled, I shall point out that the United States and Britain have the same problem, with universities and corporations having to put up remedial courses in English, so that students and white-collar workers can write properly essays, letters or even e-mails.

[Isabelle]

I propose, rocket, GAG and flocon that you exchange email to continue your hostilities in private ;)

Actually I'd prefer that we turn back to the topic.

A special word to rocket: up to now I've just read personal attacks on some people on this blog. May I ask you to participate to the discussion in a more constructive way?
quote: "I agree with your statement about the criminal behaviour of some parts of the youth in France. I don't buy the economic dire straits argument that is commonly proposed as an explanation (...)"

Actually I don't buy it too much either. Why on earth do they burn shops and stores in their area as they did? The only consequence is that merchands will leave even more the zone and others won't get there increasing the unemployment ...

[selwyn]

A reply to Valentin:-

Valentin: Selwyn, we cannot compare France with Australia or the US, countries made by immigrants.
Answer; France has been “made” by immigrants especially over the last 2 centuries; denatalisation ( a French fear since well before 1789), this shortage of babies, has meant that France had to rely on migrants; in the early and mid 20th century there were many from Italy, Portugal, and elsewhere (eg Sarkozy) and these migrants succeeded; now the most important impact on France is the post war migration from Africa since the 1960s; essentially these waves of migration have only been, at best, a partial success.

Valentin: There are books written by specialists that do this kind of comparison and insist on the cultural specificities of France.
Answer: I think most people in France have now, finally, realised that the exception française is a myth. Think McDo, think French TV, etc

Valentin: France can be difficult for a foreigner, one must work in order to adapt to living here, and recipes that work in the UK (and in the US, the Commonwealth countries etc.) may not work in France, Italy, or Spain.
Answer: the French “recipes” have not worked in France, and no one has tried to use them outside France!

Valentin: Once you're a citizen of France, you cannot be forced to disclose your religion, race, and so on. It is noone's business where you came from, say, 20 years ago, and no one needs to know what colour your skin is and where were your parents born. Your privacy must be fully respected. They even thought of forbidding employers to demand a photo or exact name and address, in order to make it impossible to discriminate those in bad neighbourhoods and with foreign names.
Answer: all this would be wonderful if it meant that the beurs etc had the equal chance to a good education, housing , jobs etc but , as everyone knows, they live in ghettos, with large unemployment rates etc. So these statistics should be collected for their benefit, to show the extent of the this discrimination.

Valentin: All citizens are to be treated equally, regardless of their race, origin, or religion, which are all private matters. So then what's the use of collecting this data ? Collecting it is illegal, because it might open the door to discriminations difficult to control afterwards.
Answer: “All citizens are to be treated equally, regardless of their race, origin, or religion,” what a joke! Tell that to the citizens of the banlieue! It doesn’t lead to a worse situation in Australia but a better one

Valentin: Finally, France is not a diverse, multicultural society, just like Japan is not one. There are spots, indeed, like Paris and some places in Ile de France or Lille, or Marseille. But France sees itself as a basically French society, where foreigners must do the effort to integrate and adapt, even if they don't like certain aspects - a bit like Japan, if you like. This is not right or wrong, it just is so, and noone has the right to judge the French - or the Japanese - for their culture.
Answer: I think the French are doing a pretty good job (finally) of judging France and they don’t like what they see!

[john gregory Flinn]

For Flocon; "I know F. Schnittger is Irish, I guess a bad phrasing of mine may have led you think I didn't know..."

No, it was'nt that, it changes your original post. It now reads as though there are NO (Anglais) exceptions "... de faire savoir combien la France et les Français leur sont insupportables" , and this is not true. For example, I am an avid Francophile, and have never found any French unbearable! ( Well, our local butcher can be rude, but the locals complain about him as well. I think you get my drift...)

[Maggie]

Robert,
I am sorry to hear about the demise of the French education, especially in the 'poor' areas.
My bilingual comment was made in relation to a writer I was listening to yesterday, who had been to the area & interviewed a number of these youths.
He said it was unfair & misleading to portray them all as not worth employing.
They " were biligual & some had qualifications, but could not get work " My assumption was the first language would be an Arabic tongue spoken at home, then French going through their schooling, plus some have a smattering of English.
Frankly it does not matter how many languages they speak, the fact is , they will not get passed the prejudice which is rife.
Wasn't it only this year there was a great fuss about the 1st French, black , TV newscaster ? That really said it all.

It is so sad to think this is happening still, especially when we know that if one of these kids should suddenly show a great talent, IE: football, they would most definitely be lauded, feted, & claimed as FRENCH no matter where he or his family originated.

[Valentin]

Selwyn,
France has had immigration during the last 2 centuries, but this has changed little the core of the society. Even today, there are whole regions where a black person would be looked at as an exotic curiosity ! (no kidding at all)
It's not a country *created* by immigrants, it never had politics to actively attract immigration. One simply cannot compare the society mindset in Canada, or Australia, with France, or Italy.

L'exception française: based on my personal experience, I lean to say that it exists. See also the books from Raymonde Carroll, or Jean-Benoit Nadeau.
As to "most people in France", it is true that many French are nowadays using the expression in a pejorative way :)

As to the "equal chance", someone already said the "beurs" shoot themselves in the foot. The problem is that they're generally seen as (and most are) poorly educated - especially at home - and of aggressive nature. It's not the skin colour or the origin, but the behaviour and the attitude. The best integrated beurs or black are those who really wanted to become French, and not only on the ID card. Hanging onto your Algerian or Malian ways, unfortunately, is not very helpful in France. The cultural differences are too big, insurmontables, and most often you'll end up closed in your own community. I see this rather like a foreigner (or of foreign origin) discriminating himself. Isn't that exactly what is happening in England and Holland ? Both countries start to admit that targeted policies and multicultural approaches rather brought community isolation. The jury is still out on that in the US as well.
It's also true that the State doesn't do any special effort to integrate people of foreign origin, and that's a point to ponder on.

[Frank Schnittger]

"I’ll repeat; could you explain to other bloggers, Flocon, why many thousands of French young people have decided to work and build their lives in Great Britain ?"
GAG

You may also find the following story of interest:

" French pharmaceuticals company Servier has announced a €185-million expansion that will create 267 jobs in counties Wicklow and Kilkenny.

The company will spend €70 million on expanding the capacity of its Arklow plant, which produces 15 medicines for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and depression. Some 112 jobs will be created.

Servier, which has an annual turnover of €3.2 billion, established a plant in Arklow in November 1989. The plant, which employs 206 people, supplies medicines for the company's Canadian, European, South African and Australian markets.

Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Employment Micheál Martin also announced the expansion at the Belview site, a new industrial zone on the border between Kilkenny and Waterford, where Servier will build a plant at a cost of €45 million and create 155 jobs.

The factory will produce active pharmaceutical ingredients for three new Servier products: Ivabradine (whose market name is Procoralan), which regulates heart rhythm; the anti-depressant Agomelatine (Valdoxan) and Terutroban, which protects the walls of the arteries.

Thirteen of the world's top 15 pharmaceutical companies have substantial operations in Ireland. There are 83 foreign-owned pharmaceutical facilities in Ireland. The sector employs 17,000 people and had a production value of €34 billion in 2002.

Mr Martin said: "Servier is a global company with an excellent reputation for its commitment to research and development, reinvesting 25 per cent of its annual turnover in R&D."

A Servier spokesman said: "This investment is a major part of Servier's strategy for the future growth of its worldwide business. . . . We know that we can find the necessary life sciences capabilities and skills we need in Ireland."

Are these skills not available in France?

[Maggie G]

Valentin,

"Once you're a citizen of France, you cannot be forced to disclose your religion, race, and so on. It is no one's business where you came from, say, 20 years ago, and no one needs to know what colour your skin is and where your parents were born. Your privacy must be fully respected."

There is a difference between disclosing your race and religion in a job application and in a census.

As Selwyn pointed out, there are all kinds of useful services (such as translation) that governments can provide based on the information learned in the national census. And if nothing else, at the very least it's INTERESTING for all the citizens to know the history of their country and where the various people have come from.

But there is another way of looking at it.
If the French laws insist that it is nobody's business where you came from, it gives the impression that they consider your origins shameful. Why should people be ashamed of where they came from?

If it is so very shameful, then there should also be a law requiring all imigrants who take up French citizenship to legally change their names to a French one. Perhaps there could be a selection of acceptable family names, the same as there are already saints names on the calendar for each day of the year. But would French families appreciate having their names distributed to new immigrants? Wouldn't it cause problems for future geneologists? and what about aristocratic names? Would presidents and prime ministers be allowed to keep their names off the calendar?

If identifying people by their origin means going against the spirit of the Republic (which is that of the universal man), perhaps what we need is a universal name. It can't be that confusing -- Koreans seem to get along all right with just about everybody being a Kim or a Lee.

Perhaps a good universal name for the French would be de Gaulle.

And if it's nobody's business what colour your skins is, why is it forbidden in France to wear veils in the schools? Not only do we need more veils, we need them for the men as well as the women. (It should be nobody's business what your sex is either.)

If the French state declares that a citizen cannot be forced to disclose his origins, that his privacy must be fully respected, it certainly seems to me that the French state considers wherever he came from to be inferior and shameful. In other words, that only the French are French and universal. Isn't this even more discriminatory than the countries that ask where you come from in the census, as if it didn't matter?

In my experience, most people are proud of where they came from. My ancestors left Ireland more than two centuries ago, but I still consider myself 'Irish'. Most Canadians know exactly what their roots are, one quarter this, one eighth that, one eighth something else. Seems to me that in Australia it is a great honour to be able to claim that you are a descendant of one of the convicts, and aren't American blacks proud now to say their ancestors were slaves?

If you want to see people who are proud of their origins, you should go to Winnipeg in August for the 37th Edition of Folklorama, the 'largest and longest-running multicultural festival of its kind in the world, showcasing the food, song and dance of our ethnic communities'. Folklorama is a huge tourist attraction, and the local people never tire of it either. The Ukranians arrived in Canada more than a hundred years ago, but you still see Ukranian dancing in Manitoba that is world class, in fact even non-Ukranians do it. And that's just one example.

Just one other thing. I would like to ask Flocon why he said that Frank Schnittger is the only one who is respectful and polite towards the French. What was wrong with my last last message to you, Flocon? I think I was just as polite and repectful as Frank.

And I'm sure I am more Irish than Frank Schnittger. His name sounds German to me!!

(You see, we're just not universal enough here.)

[Valentin]

I feel I have to insist on Charles' quoting de Villepin : "Identifier une personne à son origine, à sa religion, à la couleur de sa peau, c'est aller à l'encontre de l'esprit de la République, qui est celui de l'homme universel."

I am so sorry, my impression is that Charles, and maybe others too, don't quite see how seriously this principle is taken in France, and proudly so - not at all just big words devoid of sense. De Villepin refers to the Universal Human Rights Declaration, stating that a human being is not defined by her race, religion, origin and should not be treated by others, or by laws, as if it were. People are recognized to have dignity, free will, identity that transcend race.
Making anti-racism laws is one thing, creating reverse discriminatory laws is stepping over the principle, and even if a situation may seem to justify it, that's still not right.

Today the UHRD is seen as something rather abstract; in France it is very much alive, often mentioned in speeches, taken into account, seen as the base of the Republic. I doubt de Villepin was trying to impress the audience, or just talking void principles with no connection to reality.
Gathering racial data leads to quota systems. Hiring someone because he's black is just as wrong as NOT hiring them because of that: someone of better merit could cry out injustice, and rightly so.
Classifying people by race, much like cattle, reminds me of the infamous J-stamp on the German jews' ID cards.

In short, other solutions must be found, and like I said before, my belief is that the banlieue problems are not so much due to racism, but more to lack of social integration, lack of education, and poverty.

[Rick]

This anglo-saxon correspondent is not so much "annoyed" as exasperated by the French.

[Maggie G]

Valentin,

I've just been looking at some OECD - PISA data comparing education in different countries.

In the section entitled "Where Immigrants Succeed: A Comparative Review of Performance and Engagementin PISA 03" , I found the following information:

"While immigrant students generally exhibit strong learning prerequisites, the size of the performance difference between native students and immigrant students varies widely in international comparisons. The differences are most pronounced in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany , the Netherlands and Switzerland. In contrast, immigrant and native students perform at similar levels in three of the traditional settlement countries: Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as well as Macao - China."

(The analyses include seventeen countries with significant student immigrant populations.)

So, the French can quote the Universal Human Rights Declaration as much as they like, and grandly state that identifying people by their origins goes against the spirit of the Republic, and refuse to collect any ethnic data in their census, but some of us other countries who aren't quite so eloquent do manage all the same to do a better job at actually IMPLEMENTING the Universal Human Rights Declaration, at least as far as integrating immigrants is concerned.

[Valentin]

This is not at all about shame, Maggie, but simply "it's nobody's business" and "we are all born equal, so race/origin are not so important". When I speak with someone, or at work tell someone what to do, I almost don't notice he's black or brown or red. I don't even try not to discriminate, it's almost automatic. To me it sounds a bit strange to take into account my arab friend's race, no matter where and how. I appreciate him for who he is, as a man. Of course people should be proud of being French and of their origin as well, if it's foreign. This is maybe all cultural. This sounds quite clear, logical and fair to me here in France, and I realize it may sound absurd or upside down in, say, Australia (no pun intended).

Secondly, all examples you give in your post, Maggie, are, again, from Canada, Australia, or the US. Sorry for repeating myself, these are countries made by immigrants, immigration was for a long time (and still is) their very blood. It changes perspective. Culture and society mindset there have little to do with those in an "aboriginal" type of country, like France.

[Valentin]

Ok, funny difference of perspective, identifying someone by origin. I meant it in a limiting, negative way (as in, I'm more than just Scot, so keep your clichés for yourself), and of course one may see it as originality. Fair enough, the universal man does not mean uniformity, lack of identity, but equality of rights, equality in general (an Irish is not better, nor worse than a Scot). It is, after all, called the human Rights declaration.

On the other hand, Holland was such a nice multicultural country, where Turks, Moroccans, and others where proud of their origin and of being Dutch in the same time - until the day the differences of culture showed their negative side and they all started to (more or less) hunt their (different) neighbour.

[selwyn]

I have been reading some articles over the last week (if Charles will allow us to read something other than the Times!) and want to comment on a few recent posts.
1. re Frank Schnittger comments on why a French pharmaceuticals company sets up in Ireland…and his question “Are these skills not available in France”. There was a description (in this weeks “the Economist”) of the Pfizer (an American pharmaceutical giant) plant at Amboise. Where however “there are hardly any workers … No human being drives forklift trucks around the factory floors.. etc” In France firms often invest in machines rather than hire people. This is not because French workers are inefficient… because social-security contributions are high, the working week is short, the labour code is strict and shedding jobs is slow and difficult. Taking on an employee in France is a risk”
2. Valentin says that “France has had immigration during the last 2 centuries, but this has changed little the core of the society. Even today, there are whole regions where a black person would be looked at as an exotic curiosity ! (no kidding at all)”. Well, yes, I know that; in our part of the Bearn (where I go twice a year to see my wife’s family) even someone from Paris is an “exotic curiosity”. But these rural areas are the exception, not the rule these days. North of Paris there are towns where non beur, non African residents (français de souche) are in the minority. So to say that it has not changed “the core” is a nonsense.
3. The really silly policy of not collecting statistics means that France has no idea of the level of discrimination against these migrants (and their children). In a certain weekly magazine this week (The Ec*n*m*st) there was a long article on the plight, this time of the poor whites, with comparison of their job prospects compared to about eight other ethnic groups (the whites actually came off worse). This clearly showed the problems in Britain, so why not do similar surveys in France?
4. Another wrong argument: France “never had politics to actively attract immigration”. It doesn’t matter if it had policies or not; you now have about 8 to 10% (who knows?) Muslim minority with or without a policy, not to mention all the prewar waves of Italian, Spanish etc etc.
5. “L'exception française: based on my personal experience, I lean to say that it exists.” It certainly does; it used to be boasted about but now usually tied in with a discussion of it as a failure, an inability to reform, declinism, etc.
6. Valentin also says “In short, other solutions must be found .. the banlieue problems are not so much due to racism, but more to lack of social integration, lack of education, and poverty.” Well according to your Institut Montaigne in a landmark 2004 report “there is racial discrimination on an “undreamed-of scale””. The worst result of this is unemployment, Again “Unemployment destroys all social models,” says Louis Schweitzer, former CEO of Renault and head of France's new anti-discrimination body” If you cannot get a job, then you have a problem; in USA there are few problems with, for example, Muslims (eg in Dearborn) as people have jobs, and can aim at home ownership. Not in France.
7. Valentin says that people “don't quite see how seriously this principle is taken in France, and proudly so - not at all just big words devoid of sense. De Villepin refers to the Universal Human Rights Declaration, stating that a human being is not defined by her race, religion, origin and should not be treated by others, or by laws, as if it were. People are recognized to have dignity, free will, identity that transcend race” . This is pious nonsense; the French politicians love to preach from the high moral ground but, (as a certain weekly magazine puts it this week) “The persistence of a large jobless multi-ethnic underclass, combined with the dearth of non-white faces in top jobs, mocks France's claim to be colourblind. “Under the cover of an abstract concept of 'equality',” says Mr Baverez, the author, French society “practises a pitiless form of apartheid”.

[GAG]

Frank,
With regards to your comment about the French company's investments in Eire, see the following. It happens in France too.

Un programme d’investissement industriel de 500 millions d’euros pour le site de production GSK Biologicals à Saint-Amand-les-Eaux (59)

Le Groupe GlaxoSmithKline a le plaisir d’annoncer un programme d’investissement industriel de 500 millions d’euros pour le site de production de vaccins de GSK Biologicals à Saint-Amand-les-Eaux (59). Plus de 300 emplois seront créés progressivement d’ici 2009 ; le site comptera près de 750 emplois à horizon 2011.

Afin de créer un centre d’envergure mondiale de production de vaccins, le groupe GlaxoSmithKline débute en 2006 un programme d’investissement industriel sur le site de production de vaccins Stérilyo de GSK Biologicals à Saint-Amand-les-Eaux (59), ville située dans le Nord de la France, près de Valenciennes.

D’un montant total de 500 millions d’euros, il permettra d’augmenter les capacités de production de GSK Biologicals, la division Vaccins du Groupe GSK. Plus de 300 emplois seront créés progressivement d’ici 2009. En 2011, ce site comptera, lorsque les nouvelles infrastructures industrielles seront pleinement opérationnelles, près de 750 collaborateurs d’un haut niveau d’expertise et de qualification.

Ce projet est un des éléments clés de la stratégie industrielle de GSK Biologicals. Il permettra au site de Saint-Amand-les-Eaux de devenir une des plates-formes européennes de production regroupant des activités de formulation, de lyophilisation, de remplissage et de conditionnement, tout en répondant aux standards les plus exigeants en matière de qualité pharmaceutique. Le site contribuera à la production de plusieurs nouveaux vaccins GSK dont CervarixTM - vaccin destiné à prévenir les infections à HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) à l’origine de la survenue de cancer du col de l’utérus - ou encore les futurs vaccins conjugués contre la méningite et le vaccin contre la grippe. Plus de 300 millions de doses de vaccins seront produites chaque année.

Le site de Saint-Amand-les-Eaux représente l'un des projets industriels de biotechnologies les plus importants menés ces dernières années en France par un laboratoire international.

Par cet investissement, le Groupe GSK reconnaît la compétence des équipes en place, ainsi que l’expertise et le savoir-faire industriel français. Ce projet s’inscrit dans la démarche initiée en 2004 par les autorités françaises visant à mieux prendre en compte les enjeux de compétitivité des entreprises du secteur pharmaceutique, et à renforcer l’attractivité de la France pour les industries de santé.

Cette politique, qui doit intégrer les contraintes financières de notre pays, doit également garantir la visibilité nécessaire à la pérennisation de projets tel que celui de Saint-Amand-les-Eaux, ainsi que la juste reconnaissance des progrès thérapeutiques issus de la recherche pharmaceutique.

[rocket]

May I simply add a few words concerning the French idea of the Universal Man as preached by the highest echelons of French power.

> Le bruit et l'odeur
Voici des extrait d'un discours qu'a tenu Jacques Chirac le 19 juin 1991. Jacques Chirac qui, rappelons le, était notre "rempart contre le racisme et la xenophobie" le 5 mai 2002 !
Notre problème, ce n'est pas les étrangers, c'est qu'il y a overdose. C'est peut-être vrai qu'il n'y a pas plus d'étrangers qu'avant la guerre, mais ce n'est pas les mêmes et ça fait une différence. Il est certain que d'avoir des Espagnols, des Polonais et des Portugais travaillant chez nous, ça pose moins de problèmes que d'avoir des musulmans et des Noirs [...] Comment voulez-vous que le travailleur français qui travaille avec sa femme et qui, ensemble, gagnent environ 15000 francs, et qui voit sur le palier à côté de son HLM, entassée, une famille avec un père de famille, trois ou quatre épouses, et une vingtaine de gosses, et qui gagne 50000 francs de prestations sociales, sans naturellement travailler... si vous ajoutez le bruit et l'odeur, hé bien le travailleur français sur le palier devient fou. Et ce n'est pas être raciste que de dire cela...

> Pour donner des exemples, je dirais que si je suis élu [je m’engage] à une diminution très considérable du train de vie de l’Etat, aussi bien d’ailleurs du Président que du gouvernement, qui me paraît tout à fait excessif, voire insolent, dans un pays qui connaît les difficultés que nous connaissons.

Campagne pour la présidentielle de 1995

[Robert Marchenoir]

The Universal Man? What's that? A children's cartoon character, no doubt. A lullaby for toddlers. A variation on the eternal theme of the French reality denial.

[Guessedworker]

Are there no Frenchmen here who understand that losing France to the Third World will put an end to all this universalist idealism. Look at North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa and tell me where are the revolutionary ideals of equality and human rights.

Wake up.

[selwyn]

Regarding the view held by some of your readers that France is largely a country where immigration has not played a very large role, I came across this (“French Lessons” by Sunil Khilnani, from the November 13, 2006 issue of ‘the Nation”):
After World War I, “the country's population changed. Already a destination for Italians, Belgians, Poles, Czechs and Russians, France in the postwar years experienced further waves of immigration, so that by the early 1930s "the French working class, alongside the world of the arts and the intellect, was the most cosmopolitan in Europe." But 3 million adult immigrants remained outside the pale of citizenship. With neither the vote nor security, they manned expanding factories in areas like Boulogne-Billancourt and elsewhere; they tenanted the slums of Bobigny and Saint-Denis.” http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061113/khilnani
I think this proves my point that the waves of migration in France did not just happen after WW2, and also that you don’t always need a government policy (as Australia does) encouraging migrants; sometimes these waves come with or without government encouragement. Hence the need to document their effect on society, the economy etc

[Isabelle]

Not to forget the generosity with which France welcomed refugees from Nazi Germany. Indeed, as far as I know it was the most generous country in that time. Unfortunately France was overrun in 1940 and all the refugees who couldn't leave France in time where again under Nazi rule ...

[selwyn]

Isabelle is right;
the American historian Robert O. Paxton points out in the latest NYRB that “It is well to remember that France had accepted, proportionally, more Jewish refugees during the 1930s than any other country, including the United States, raising its foreign-born population to 7 percent of the total. Both traditional French republican hospitality to refugees and the bitter backlash it generated by 1940 form part of the story. … Vichy's own discriminatory measures applied to all Jews, whether French citizens or not. When the Nazi deportations began, however, Laval tried to fill the quotas with foreign Jews. While about 70 percent of Jewish immigrants to France since 1930 perished, the losses drop to about 5 percent of the Jews long-established in France.”

[Robert Marchenoir]

It is wrong to say that France never had a deliberate policy to attract immigration.

In the 1960's, French people hunters were actively canvassing poor Algerian villages, selecting the strongest-built folks, and persuading them to come and work on the car assembly lines of Renault, Peugeot or Citroën.

It was assumed, then, that they would return home after a while, having made enough money for themselves and their families.

They did not. They stayed, and it is their sons and grand-sons who raise hell in the city estates these days, despising their fathers for what they perceive as their lifelong submissive attitude towards the French.

It is now obvious that being obedient, quiet and blending as much as possible within the social woodwork did not bring them any benefits.

On the contrary: the children are worse off than their fathers. Behind the smokescreen of Human Rights Declarations and what not, racism and discrimination are rampant, unemployment is rife and housing is appalling.

This grudge, inherited through generations, is political dynamite, for the very simple reason that you cannot change your father's life, the relationship you had with him and what he taught you when you were young.

So when even the supposedly morally superior Left has only more of the same on offer, the children go wild and foul their own nest.

We'll be f*** up anyway, they think, so at least let's do it in style and have some fun while it lasts.

The 1970's decision by president Giscard d'Estaing to allow immigrants to bring over their families, once it had become clear that these people were here to stay, was another policy which deliberately increased immigration.

For decades, France thought of immigrants as non-entities. They did not exist. Nobody saw them. The present attempts to whitewash the problem by pretending that according to Our Sacred Principles, everybody is equal in France, and that ethnic statistics would bring back Hitler, is just hanging on to the same tragically misguided and blind policy.

For years, it has been deemed racist to even discuss immigration, and this perverted view is still very much alive today.

Ignoring the issue for so many years has only made the problem worse, and increased the desperation and violence in the estates.

[Maggie G]

As usual, Robert expresses himself so well -- "Behind the smokescreen of Human Rights Declarations" , "according to Our Sacred Principles".

He also mentions one of the points that I wanted discussed more -- "For years it has been deemed racist to even discuss immigration" .

I was out most of the weekend, but in the time available I've been trying to read two books that deal with immigration, in time to continue this discussion before Mr Bremner moves on to a new topic.

Here is some history about immigration in France that comes from a book called "Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective", edited by Cornelius, Martin and Hollifield, published in 1994 by Stanford University Press. Since I'm in a rush, I'm just going to quote directly, from the chapter on France.

"Despite ...,the xenophobic rhetoric of politicians like Jean-Marie Le Pen, and the restrictionist policies adopted by various governments...., France has remained relatively open to immigration, a tradition that dates to the middle of the nineteenth centuray.

....the right to asylum has been respected by every postwar government. In addition, France has maintained one of the most liberal naturalization policies in Western Europe....

...The continuity in both the principles and results of French immigration policy is closely linked to the power of what some historians and analysts refer to as the "republican synthesis. This is a reference to a particular phase of French political development, most closely associated with the twenty years or so preceding WWI, when many of the universalist and republican principles of the French Revolution gained the legitimacy that they had lacked in previous periods of French history.

The last decade of the 19th century saw the victory of republicans over royalists, the final separation of church and state and the triumph of secular authority; and most importantly, the application of due process and equality before the law, with the vindication of Captain Dreyfus. Republicanism became a powerful ideology....

Throughout this period (roughly 1890 to 1940), France was rapidly becoming a COUNTRY (if not a NATION) if immigrants.
...state building and nationhood in France PRECEDED the intensive periods of immigration....Immigration did not play a significant role in the historical process of building the French nation-state, as it did, for example, in the US, Canada and Australia -- all clearly NATIONS of immigrants. In the case of the US, immigration constitues a "founding myth" of the nation....

....Immigration in France was associated not only with the triumph of republicanism but also with the takeoff of French captialism, which was slow and late by comparison with the cases of Britain and Germany. To sustain the surge in economic growth during the belle époque, French industrailists needed access to additional supplies of labor, which they had great difficulty finding at home. ....French population growth slowed dramatically suring the first half of the 19th century and never really recovered until the post-WW II period.

This anemic population growth -- together with the sedentary nature of French peasant farmers, who resisited market pressures to leave their relatively comfortable family farms -- created labor shortages in such important industrial sectors as mining and steel. These shortages set the stage for a rise in immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[skipping out about ten pages]

"Yet despite the long and continuous history of immigration in modern France, immigration has never achieved the legitimacy that it has enjoyed in the United States or Canada.

....no matter how badly the government wanted to reduce the range of rights and entitlements for resident aliens (especially Algerians), it was simply unwilling to challenge the republican concensus or the rule of law. These values were deemed too important to risk for the sake of stopping immigration and reducing the size of the foreign population.

....the primary reason for the continuation of immigration in France (as in the Federal Republic of Germany) was the republican concensus and the power of rights-based policies, which prevented the state from acting to halt all forms of immigration. "

The other book I am reading is a critisism of the policy of multicultiralism in Canada.

Mr Bremner, I hope you can renew this debate, because I have found lots of really interesting ideas.

[selwyn]

I think Robert makes some interesting points re 'migration' from the Maghreb in the 1950s and 1960s; but i dont think that this was a 'migration' policy. In fact, as he says, they were supposed to go back, but didnt. This is not a matter of semantics, as the result was a disaster for France but countries that wanted to have migrants (eg australia, USA) have had appropriate policies, and so have the result that, by and large, after 2 or 3 generations the migrants' descendants are better educated, employed, intergrated etc than their grandparents. They also have 2 things they dont have in France; they have a job and own their own house.
and they collect statistics to monitor it as well.. and as, robert says, Hitler has not re-appeared

[john gregory Flinn]

"But France sees itself as a basically French society, where foreigners must do the effort to integrate and adapt.... This is not right or wrong, it just is so, and noone has the right to judge the French - or the Japanese - for their culture."

What Valentin says here is an unassailable truth.
Selwyn, Maggie G and others post heavily to deny this, but they miss the point - above!!

France's inimitable sense of nationalism has permeated and influenced its culture, politics, technology and society to an extent that others clearly find somewhat trying. And because 'La France' promotes this unashamedly and exclusively it is judged censoriously. However the “advice” offered is reminiscent of the politically correct cant that the 'international left' would have us all believe to be correct.
The French view (of itself) is rooted in 'La Republique' and is not up for debate ...that is, not at present!

There are a set of migration realities sweeping Europe and the New world as emancipation develops in the former communist bloc and the 3rd world.
It is quite evident that a massive wave of new colonisation is taking place, and which has different effects in different countries.

In Europe colonisation matured some centuries ago, and the indigenous people have a well-defined culture based on christian values and a common history.
The current wave of immigration has a large element of 'reverse-colonisation' because it mainly emanates from countries previously colonised and de-colonised by individual european nations - a sort of international 'what goes around comes around'!
The motives of the colonists are the same - to take command and exploit the wealth and natural resources available.

Some immigration was originally encouraged to suit ourselves, for example to fight our wars, build cars in Paris and man the buses in London.
I've no doubt the immigrants from Algeria like those from the Carribean to Britain came to enjoy a better life and work hard for their children.
They were not sorry to leave the poverty and privations endemic in their 3rd-world origins behind, although they retained their religious culture.
However their descendants who burn buses in Marseille, kill one another in London for dissing and murder TV executives in Holland have no memory of that existance, do not listen to those who might counsel them and so cannot compare. They have a life cushioned by welfare, indulged by guilt-ridden, leftist administrations, far removed from that of their origins.
Naturally there is growing resistance among the indigenous people of Europe to the militant army of 'ungrateful free-loaders' evident in the ghettos of London and Amsterdam, the ban-lieues of Paris and elsewhere. Especially as this army has enlisted Islam, is well trained abroad, has already embarqued on a series of terrorist ventures, has shown a marked reluctance to integrate but seems bent on taking command!

Whereas, in the New world immigrants are mostly welcome, and policies are established to handle the flow of what become new citizens.
Colonisation of the USA is approaching maturity and has developed a dominant ethnic footprint based on a fusion of largely european cultures. The Black and Latino peoples live in a sort of equilibrium with these. However the indigenous peoples have been marginalised, genetically assimilated or died out - one way or another.
Bush's fence is indicative of this maturity and a desire to protect the status quo.
Australia and Canada are massively underpopulated and the final ethnic dominance is yet to develop, although the process of fusing european cultures continues. Selwyn paints a rosy picture of Australia, and I remember Canada as being a very ethnically scattered and diverse country. Irish, French, English, Scandinavians, Germans and Chinese stretch across the continent from east to west.
However the indigenous poeples there have suffered a similar fate as in the USA.

South America is interesting because there is some kind of renaissance of indigenous nationalism developing with Chavez, Morales and Ortega gaining political power, and similar leaders in Mexico and Peru amassing substantial minorities. Castro is on the same side but hardly an indigenous nationalist.

Finally, it is a fact that people of the USA view themselves as 'Americans' first; and they all want to attain the 'American Dream'. It seems likely that Canadians and Australians will see themselves in the same light and shed their ethnic origins, after a generation or two. And - voila - this is how the French see themselves, including immigrants.

[Maggie G]

"But France sees itself as a basically French society, where foreigners must do the effort to integrate and adapt.... This is not right or wrong, it just is so, and no one has the right to judge the French - or the Japanese - for their culture."
What Valentin says here is an unassailable truth.

Selwyn, Maggie G and others post heavily to deny this, but they miss the point - above!!”

John Gregory Flinn: Good post. I think you’ve described various immigrant situations very well. Your point that “The motives of the (reverse-colonization) colonists are the same - to take command and exploit the wealth and natural resources available” is very interesting, and so are a lot of your other points.

I don’t think I posted heavily to deny the line you’ve picked out above. I was basically responding to his line that it’s nobody’s business where you come from (and what colour your skin is). I realized the next day that “it’s nobody’s business” was probably just the way Valentin happened to express himself, and that the French state would express the same idea in more neutral terms, so that my argument to Valentin was going down a side track not really centered on the issue.

But I was concerned that people were mixing up and confusing a lot of separate ideas, and I think we need a few definitions to clarify the different issues. Issues such as assimilation vs integration, ‘nation’ of immigrants vs ‘country’ of immigrants, multicultural society vs multicultural policy, and what exactly a census is for, for example.

Some of the statements I think need clarification are:

France is not a diverse multicultural society, just like Japan is not one. (He means that France and Japan do not have policies of multiculturalism.)

France sees itself as a basically French society where foreigners must make the effort to integrate and adapt. (This could be said about every country in the world.)

France can be difficult for a foreigner, one must work in order to adapt to living here. (Same for any other country.)

All citizens are to be treated equally, regardless of race, origin or religion. (All citizens are to be treated equally, period. The rest of that sentence is unnecessary.)

Holland was such a nice multicultural country, where Turks, Moroccans, and others where proud of their origin and of being Dutch in the same time. (I think Holland was a multicultural country where different cultures co-existed relatively peacefully, but I don’t think there was much interaction between the native and immigrant communities.)

France has had immigration during the last 2 centuries, but this has changed little the core of the society. (Not sure what to say about this. Cous-cous may not be a national dish to the extent that curry is in Britain, but surely there have been changes.)

Hanging onto your Algerian or Malian ways, unfortunately, is not very helpful in France. (I think this concerns the issue of assimilation vs integration. This would make an interesting discussion. It is a debate taking place in Canada.)

My impression is that Charles, and maybe others too, don't quite see how seriously this principle is taken in France, and proudly so (So far, I still don’t think that collecting ethnic data on the census challenges this principle.)

Gathering racial data leads to quota systems. (Gathering racial data could POSSIBLY lead to quota systems.)

Classifying people by race, much like cattle, reminds me of the infamous J-stamp on the German Jews' ID cards. (Collecting racial data on the census is not done in order to classify people by race; it is done to paint a portrait of the NATION.)

These are countries made by immigrants, immigration was for a long time (and still is) their very blood. It changes perspective. Culture and society mindset there have little to do with those in an "aboriginal" type of country, like France. (According to my book, “the more closely immigration is associated with the political myths that legitimate and give life to the nation, the easier it is for the state to justify its immigration and refugee policies, and to manage the ethnic or distributional conflicts that often arise as a result of immigration”. So perhaps Valentin is right here.)

I think this post is long enough, so that’s all I will say for this time.

[Valentin]

>>My impression is that Charles, and maybe others too, don't quite see how seriously this principle is taken in France, and proudly so (So far, I still don’t think that collecting ethnic data on the census challenges this principle.)

This sentence wasn't aiming at the census thing, but rather at the impression of "pompousness" (selwyn) or absurdity (Charles Bremner) that could be retained from de Villepin's statement about the universal man by someone unfamiliar with the French society.

My point was that since 1789, for the French, the ideas of freedom, of basic human rights for everyone, form the basis of the Republic. French do not take the Republic easily, or philosophically. The Republican spirit is instilled since childhood, and permeates most aspects of the society. They (I am not French :)) don't joke about it. In a way, France is a bit of a dictatorship when it comes to the republican ideals. Once it is decided this is right, one is not allowed to think otherwise, and people are formatted from school to think this way. On one hand, I prefer much more the freedom of opinion from, say, Canada. On the other hand, French do have the nasty habit of believing in absolute truths (in a philosophical way), while, I think, English-origin people tend to take things much more relatively (the Enlightenment is showing its ugly face in this). But I'm over digressing here. The point was that for the French, referring to republican ideals is not at all absurd or devoid of practical meaning. For an English-origin person it may sound so, because of the relativising tendency and pragmatism, innate to these nations.

>> Gathering racial data leads to quota systems. (Gathering racial data could POSSIBLY lead to quota systems.)

I stand by my formulation :) Once you have a problem and you have data related to it and looking like pointing to its cause, the next logical step of any rational society is to act on it. How ? In the same (robotical) way: classifying. I meant this, classifying. It would be only a picture of the society, if it remained without consequences. The moment states start to act on census data and enforce policies that actively take into account race, for me this is classifying and defining (in a limiting way). I do not want to get a job because I am of blue skin, while my yellow friend would become an ANPE client because of it.

Let alone that someone like Le Pen, democratically come into power (as Hitler was) would have no problem to issue ID cards with B (for black) stamped on it, just like Hitler did with the Jews.

[john gregory Flinn]

For Maggie G; I'm grateful for your comments, your breakdown does indeed clarify many of the points.

I'm against racial data because it will inevitably lead to abuse. And, for example, positive discrimination is abuse. But I believe France did collect racial data pre-war (WW2), and this data was used by the Vichy government and the Nazis to identify and transport Jews. Hence the official refusal to do it any more.

By the way, was your bit about universal (French) names in jest? The French process 'Naturalisation par Decret' does allow for the francisation of names. Its not obligatory but suggestions include 'El Mehri' to 'Emery', and Dos Santos to 'Dessaint'!
The Japanese operated a similar policy in Korea after their conquest of the peninsula in 1910, although it was obligatory for all Koreans to change their name to a Japanese version then.
Regards.

[Maggie G]

Valentin,

I sent a short answer to you on Thursday, just after reading your message, but it seems to have got lost in space. I think we will have to wait till this topic comes around again, and pick up this discussion again then.

What I said on Thursday was, do you really think that if the state decided to issue ID cards with B (for black) on them, that they would turn to the census results to find out which people are black?

Most people who are racist figure these things out for themselves, don't they?

John Gregory Flinn -- yes, I was just jesting.
Do you mean that Hitler relied on census figures to identify Jews? I thought that the census didn't put names on their forms, that they just came to the house and collected data about the number of people living in the household, and if your kids are away at university, then they're not even included -- they get counted on their own form wherever they are residing. I think I've done one census in France and maybe one in Canada, but I don't really remember if they took names. It seems to me, if I remember correctly, that the census is just a nameless form collecting various data about the population on a particular day (or week) , kind of like a snapshot.

[john gregory Flinn]

Census, what census?
Sorry Maggie G but I dont know how the data was collected.
However the recent census in the UK did ask for ethnic origin against one's name.

[fleur]

I have been reading this posting with much interest, some frustration and some smiles.
For the census; when entering (UK) university 4/5 years back, I remember being obliged to fill in forms where all students are asked to describe their origin specifically. I remember being very surprised at the extent of indiscretion of the questions. The problem with 'racial data' is that we no longer have any confidence in our governments (UK and French...)on how it will be used and that it will remain secure. I find this level of angst in the lack of intergrity sad and worrying.
May I make a suggestion that, simply put, yes immigration in France has been badly handled over the years but that now people have woken up (again)and it is not just a case of looking back on how badly everything was managed. I want to know about the massive overhaul that should be taking place now to put things right. Starting with the schools - the teachers, the lessons, the funding. Followed then by giving the famous 'cités ' a new lease of life, getting rid of the gangs that are being allowed to prosper (This is not downtown LA!)and to inject much needed funds into those areas with real projects so that families living there can bring up their children decently. The violence and hate shocks me enormously but the 'jeunes' remain youngsters and I do not agree that the answer is to put them into prison earlier to punish them. This is a less philosophical view than the recent postings, but I think goes back to the original point. Even more to the point; I do not see any one candidat currently proposing any humane and longlasting response to the immense and disturbing problem this has become.

[john gregory Flinn]

"However the recent census in the UK did ask for ethnic origin against one's name."

I should have added that detailing one's ethnic origins was not obligatory - one could tick a box accordingly.

UK public bodies seem to make it a habit to ask this question, usually I decline, but once on some official form or other - it may have been Council Tax - I declared my ethnic origin as Celtic Catholic, and later found out I had been classified as an ethnic minority!

[Valentin]

Amazing how this thread keeps living ! :)

Just one word on the idea that "les jeunes" are in the end just youngsters. I think we are far from the youths of the past. Today's teens tend to be overwhelmed by the information poured onto them by internet, TV, video games, they tend to consider themselves young adults and act accordingly, in all the bad ways.

I wonder if we are allowed to not take seriously a youth with a gun in his hand, menacing a bus full of people, setting it on fire, almost killing a passenger.
Fleur is so nice, but hers is just theory: according to a recent poll, many adults don't dare confront troublesome teenagers anymore. Parents are dominated at home (and not only single mothers) and upon seeing a youth attack someone on the street, most people cross on the other side and speed up. And if they do intervene, it's worse: a friend of mine, witness to a car accident, interpelles a boy filming with his camera phone and his reaction was death threats.
I think many troublesome youngsters have no fear (let alone reverence) towards adults, don't hesitate to challenge them, hence they are a danger to society.

I do agree with Valentin. I watch the same reportages on sunday evenings, read the same articles and have witnessed and been on the receiving end of the same and similar agressions - it makes me very angry. I am not nice - just trying not to be sucked into the downward spiral of answering tremendous agression and disrespect with dead-end ideas that have been suggested - earlier and tougher prison sentences, period. The situations are difficult and out of control and yes security needs to be increased and present. But that is not all. Overhauling across the board the schools, the teachers, the centres sociales, the anpe and staff, the transport system...is required and therefore that dreaded word; Spending. This does not make me a socialist (very