today that really got me to thinking. First off, we have this really wonderful title to the story:
. What, exactly, were they expecting to happen? Let's run over this concept one more time for the uninformed. If you have people who are already breaking the law, creating new laws is not a deterrant. I realize this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but the same people who are out there destroying cars and breaking windows and starting fights are not going to go "Gee! The government just imposed a curfew! I'd better stay inside or I might get in trouble!"
Now I just want to make sure I have this straight. France is one of the most socialist countries in the world without being outright communist. Right? Their workers, from what I understand, only have to work 32 hours a week. Now, if this great "socialist experiment" actually worked the way that liberals claim, why do they have a problem with poor minorities rioting? Heck, according to their theories, there shouldn't be any poor minorities! But, sometimes even the most hardcore liberal must wake up and face reality. And the reality in this case is that there are poor out there who have been left behind even by your wonderful socialist system and they are currently destroying your fair city.
And yet I have to wonder why President Chiraq isn't ordering his battalions of psychiatrists in to battle this problem? Isn't that the liberal approach? Aren't you supposed to talk with the aggressor? Attempt to understand his position and sympathize with his needs? Isn't that what we were supposed to do in France?
Well, I now call on Chiraq to stand behind his words. Withdraw your police forces, Jacques! These rioters are just misunderstood! Killing them, or even containing them, would be a violation of their civil rights. And it's clearly evident that they don't want your police force in their neighborhood. I call on you now to end your violent occupation of these streets! Continuing to attempt to stop these rioters will only cost innocent suburbanites their lives! It is time to bring forth your negotiators. Find out what the rioters want and appease them. Only through talk can you find the true path to peace!
And sadly, Jacques, if you cannot find it in your heart to pull out these occupying police forces, I must label you the biggest rioter of all!
Posted by: Laura at November 09, 2005 09:57 AM (ftixA)
2
Drew,
You are absolutely right. This is exactly the way the liberals behave in our country as well. Rather than enforce the laws already on the books, they prefer, or insist in some cases, that new laws be passed.
To do what you ask? Now you have an excellent question. The liberals are using the situation not to pass laws that they know will not be enforced on the people at hand, but to have these laws on the books to enforce them at a later date on someone else, you guessed it, conservatives. They have used this stealth strategy many times with gun control laws, with no intention to use them on criminals, but on the law abiding in an attempt to disarm America. The neo-liberal(new term, accurate, not fake) must be watched at all times, whether here in America or overseas.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 09, 2005 10:08 AM (rUyw4)
3
Liberals the world over are cut from the same cloth and they all suffer from a lack of a charactersitic that a person in authority needs: good analytical skills. From their actions they are incapable of studying a problem fully. Most of the time they pledge to resolve the problem, but never are able to say how they intend to do so. "We'll balance the budget." Great, but HOW do you intend to do so? Furthermore, when they do present a solution, they don't think more than 2 days down the road about what effect that solution will have and whether the consequences will be good, bad or a wate of resources. JJ's mentioning of gun control is a good example. Yes guns can be dangerous and are used to commit crimes and accidents involving kids occur, so on the surface, getting rid of all guns seems like a good idea. But the fact is, it isn't and the global stats prove it - but the liberals keep fighting for it anyway. Until they learn that everything is not as simple as it appears, they will remain for the large part, a destructive element of society.
I would have stuck hypocritical in there somewhere as well, but we all know that and I'm feeling lazy.
Posted by: Graeme at November 09, 2005 10:45 AM (+Cchv)
4
With the spread of rioting to almost 300 cities across France, its Government faces the biggest challenge to state authority since the student uprising in 1968. Whatever the grievances in the ghettos, the priority is clear: restore order and reclaim the angry streets of the suburbs.
The decision to give mayors the right to impose curfews is suitable - though it is unclear how such a measure could be enforced when the police seem powerless to stop the nightly outbreaks of arson and violence. The Government, sensitive to the danger of escalation, has ruled out the use of troops, a move that could lead to shots, deaths and further confrontation. But unless there is a sudden cold spell, it may be some time before the flames of burning cars are doused. A period of relative calm could be followed quickly by further unrest.
Already, the costs are evident. Not only has France suffered a terrible setback to what it had naively thought, at the height of World Cup (Soccer) euphoria in 1998, was a successful policy of intergrating its minorities as equal citizens; but President Chirac's own political legacy has been damaged severely. Critics have pointed to the irony of a man who came to power 12 years ago with a promise to heal France's "social fracture" having to invoke emergency measures dating back to the Algerian war. His failure to speak out early in clear support of his Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, is seen as a blunder inspired by feuding and rivalry within the Government. And his vigorous opposition to involvement in Iraq in an attempt to court the Arab and Muslims vote now seems like a profound misunderstanding of the real issues troubling France's six million Muslims.
Neighbouring countries cannot feel smug about the riots, however. Already there have been some copycat incidents in Belgium. Although France has a tradition of confrontation and political violence, especially by farmers, students and striking trade unionists, many of the underlying tensions that have sustained the uprisings in the suburbs are common across Europe: high concentrations of ethnic minorities, very high unemployment - in some French ghettos up to 40 per cent - widespread grievances at discrimination and percieved racism, and the influence of criminal gangs, drug dealers and religious extremists.
The Government has announced measures that are long overdue - and which have until now been championed mainly by M Sarkozy: funding to housing and education groups, recently cut, is to be restored, scholarships tripled and new apprenticeship schemes offered to troubled teenagers. But the most urgent need is for jobs. Unemployment is the single greatest cause of alienation, poverty and disaffection. The rigidities of the French labour market shut out the young and less qualified, deny jobs of temporary workers and protect institutionalised elites. In the essential rethinking of attitudes to citizenship, opportunity and the integration of minorities, a new approach to work, taxes and mobility must be a priority.
Posted by: Otocon at November 09, 2005 11:50 AM (PM/BC)
5
It's funny how people never expect the chickens they've so carefully hatched and fledged to come home to roost, and they're really shocked when the chickens are using molotov cocktails to burn down the coop. We reap what we have sown, as it were.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 09, 2005 12:11 PM (0yYS2)
6
Good one improbulus maximus,
Posted by: thirdee at November 09, 2005 12:50 PM (7uo45)
7
Actually if you see the CNN news coverage it explicitly states that in the 5 districts that imposed a curfew (penalty two months in jail) there were no riots.
Riots did occur outside areas with the curfew.
The reason riots occured is because some prefects were too much pussies to impose curfews.
Posted by: Maobi at November 09, 2005 02:34 PM (hTP4J)
8
And you implicitly take CNN's word for it, Maobi. I do not, nor would I take the French media's word for it, either. There are and have been attacks against churches in France that have never been memtioned in these riots. CNN hasn't mentioned that either, although they are certainly aware of the attacks. Wouldn't want to bring religion into any of this, now would we?
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 09, 2005 03:54 PM (rUyw4)
9
It's funny that you talk about Chirac being a liberal. He is actually right wing. The fact that he was against the Irak invasion doesn't make him a leftist.
About every media available talked about the molotov coktails thrown against 2 churches so I don't understand why some people state the contrary. You just have to read. The church have been only slightly damaged not set ablaze as some media reported. So I guess it's not so important for news people.
The french model of integration actually works much better with the girls of immigrant origin. You don't see any of them participating in the riot. Why ? because their parents watch their girls closely and don't let them hang out. These girls have understood that their only way to be free and independant (from parents and traditions) is to study at school and get a situation. These same parents let their boys do all what they want. A lot of them fail at school and are frustrated. That's why besides cars they mainly burn schools.
Right now the riots are not religious minded. The main french muslim organisation has even issued a fatwa against the rioters.
There is a possible threat that it could get recuperated by fondamentalists and that is the reason why police is showing some restraint (no deads yet) in order not to create "martyrs" that will fuel more serious trouble.
Improbulus maximus hides behind a latin name but seems to me to be an ignorant jerk.
Posted by: Michel Meyer at November 09, 2005 05:11 PM (ZKAFj)
10
It doesn't matter how one defines Chirac, he is inept, incompetent, corrupt, and harmful to his nation. The French deserve what they're getting right now because they're the ones who elected the government.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 09, 2005 06:03 PM (0yYS2)
11
but
the Communist hate the new law and stand shoulder to shoulder with the 'poor youths'. Islamo-fascism is Islamo-marxism too.
Posted by: here and there at November 09, 2005 10:00 PM (ywZa8)
12
Your guys are hopeless...
Islamo-marxism ?
For those who don't know or have short memory, marxism is a strickly atheist ideology incompatible with islam.
When in the 80's the CIA choose to use the fondamentalist against marxist soviet aghfanistan even Osama was on the pay roll. At the time they were your best friends because they helped you got rid of the marxists !
The rioteers are more a by products of a certain thug culture (gangsta rap, ultraviolence and so on) that is partly imported from the US. They don't want charia rule but SUV's, nice clothes, gold chains and bitchy girls... as in rap music videos.
Chirac may be inept, incompetent, corrupt and harmful to his nation as G.W. Bush is to the world.
Posted by: Michel Meyer at November 10, 2005 04:38 AM (ZKAFj)
13
You all have far too much time on your hands. Remember not to waken the sleeping giant.
Posted by: Jolly Green at November 10, 2005 10:13 AM (BtNfK)
14
Michael Meyer,
Any relation to the Halloween guy?
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 10, 2005 10:23 AM (rUyw4)
15
Tomorrows headlines "French Fry" How would you like YOUR Muslims??
Posted by: couldbyomama at November 10, 2005 10:44 AM (IqOf7)
16
Tomorrows headlines "French Fry" How would you like YOUR Muslim Extremists
Posted by: couldbyomama at November 10, 2005 10:46 AM (IqOf7)
17
Okay Michael Meyer, how about "Islamo-Nazis"? You like that one better? I want to hear you deny that one. Chirac may be right-wing by France's standards, but over here he's considered "left". And the "liberals" in Australia are, by our standards, "centrists". So we can argue semantics all day and no one is really wrong. So quit acting like you're "educating" us.
The rioters may be a product partly of the "thug culture", but the numerous accounts of their battle cry, "Allahu Akbar" while torching other people's property indicates that the male-dominant Islamic culture is part of it as well. You said yourself the girls were carefully constrained which, is also indicative of the culture.
Posted by: Oyster at November 10, 2005 10:50 AM (fl6E1)
18
Yer wrong Mikey boy, islam is perfectly compatible with Marxism, because Marxism's only aim is to destroy Western civilization and the free-market economy that it relies upon. Marxism isn't actually atheistic, it's a statist religion, and the way islam is structured, it fits hand in glove.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 10, 2005 01:33 PM (0yYS2)
19
No islamo marxists, no islamo nazis, just islam extremists or salafists. No need to tag another label on them. You just confuse everything and make a fun of yourself.
About the riots.
They scream "Allahu akbar" more to scare people and to provoque. Personnally I'm not afraid. It's a game to attract attention.
Rioting is actually one aspect of french history : the revolution, the commune, may 68... If you are not happy with the government or society you go to the street...
The real danger is about terrorists that stay at home nice and quiet waiting for the good moment to strike like in London.
Posted by: Michel Meyer at November 10, 2005 06:47 PM (ZKAFj)
20
Until you're willing to read a little history on Islam and the Nazis, I won't waste my time with you, MM.
Posted by: Oyster at November 11, 2005 06:25 AM (YudAC)
21
Provoque? Whatever, le dude.
No islamo-nazis? So, I guess the fact that Mein Kampf is the best selling book in the muslim world is just for a mass book report, right?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 12, 2005 09:26 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment