France Burning

[daniel h.]

Daniel and Brad both have excellent points, which lead to the (my) solution for the disturbances that france is now experiencing.

There can be no identifiable cultures within any sort of government that relies on mass participation. To truly be a "nation" as opposed to a "state", there must be a measure of cultural homogenity. In other words, newcomers must be assimilated, not encouraged to keep their cultural idiosyncraties with them in a new geographic area. By marginalising themselves, the minorities become, by definition, inward looking, and neglect to participate (or seek to participate) in the state that they are a part of.

Given that many of these migrants are migrating due to uncomfortable conditions at their points of origin, why would any sane state permit these conditions to be re-created in a new geographical location? The same people, with the same attitudes bring --- SURPRISE! the same problems. In the case of the french migrants - poverty, violence and crime.

If these migrants were 1) cleared for entry into the country before being permitted to work, drive, obtain basic health care services, rent a dwelling or obtain credit (Australia is a leader in this area) 2) Settled in a manner which would prevent ghettoization (Canada has this policy, but it is not enforced) 3) forced to integrate, with a concentration on employment, knowledge of and participation in their assigned comunities, payment of taxes and confirm it all with ongoing citizenship tests over a period of years. Confirm the works of it with a "3 strikes your deported" policy, and we will successfully integrate all who really want to live here.

There is no excuse for the illegal immigration that has taken place, it is a testament to the laziness and apathy of us, the voters, to inspire governmnet.

The problems france has are not here yet. We have a strong economy, everyone willing to work (or move to find work) has a job which will feed them. Economics are cyclical though, and we will find ourselves in the "french predicament" soon enough.

Thoughts?

I think it is becoming quite obvious (and is even admitted b y many elites) that massive open immigration was not about "creating great nations", it was about eliminating them. Of course it is bad to emphasize differences, but our government is paying groups to even pretend to be different. This is no accident. Most polls for over 30 years opposed immigration.

I agree with much of what you siay, but race mixing is the inevitable result of integration. How many self-respecting Europeans would support this? Of course convincing Europeans they don't exist as a distinct people was probably the whole point. That we are born "racist" (as opposed to who? :) and we are racist if we want to preserve ourselves.

Don't get me started on Toronto or Vancouver.

 

[daniel h.]

France has some other problems
Bit of a caste system that these North African immigrants are having an impossible time busting out of... they've been encouraged to live in these suburban communities that have become, in many respects, ghettos of the poor, the immigrants and their kin with no prospect for the future.

Kind of like the countries they came from.

 

[daniel h.]

All I know is that we had better attain our immigration goal of 1% of our population annually (as per Liberal policy) or our economy will soon collapse. Why, just look at Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland with their 0% population growth.

Sarcasm aside, the requirement for increased immigration quotas is a fraud.

Does anyone wonder why we as a society are so keen on granting full licences to third-world doctors now working in Canada as taxi drivers? A better effort would be to pay them and send them back to their country of origin so that they may provide desperately needed medical care in the countries that paid to train them. I can think of no greater arrogance than for a country like Canada to rape developing countries of their best and brightest trained professionals so that our waiting times for a family doctor may be shortened.

Recently, the Toronto Star ran an article about preparing the Greater Toronto Area for millions of new immigrants over the next few decades. Ever been to Mexico City? Bangkok? Two words comes to mind: pollution and slums. I don't live in Toronto, but I've been there during the endless smog alerts. Now try adding five million more people. Oh, they'll fit all right....but.....Why?

The Liberals confuse me so. On one hand, Canada's most famous, least funny comic, Rick Mercer, beats us over the head with the infamous One Ton Challenge. Tells us how we must all conserve. How, pray tell, can composting my orange peels and driving a Smart Car counteract millions of new immigrants?

The apologists state that we're all immigrants. Does that mean we therefore lack the intelligence to know when enough is enough? Examples of excessive immigration without integration leads to riots like in France, and years ago in Great Britain. But I say it is the environment that trumps all other arguments.

(And for the record, I fully support reasonable, pre-screened refugee immigration)

I should add there were riots even in the 1980s in France, and Britain had some not years ago, but a few weeks ago. Belgium, Germany, Holland and Denmark have also had riots. Norway and Sweden have gang rape. Canada has not much so far, but the United States had rape and murder in the aftrermath of Hurricane Katrina. Australia, New Zealand have there share of problems. South Africa and Zimbabwe have rape and murder.

Draw your own conclusions as to the pattern here.

 

[winchable]

Putting a lock on this for tonight,
Issues here..

 

[Infanteer]

Okay, this one is getting reopened.

First things first:

Kind of like the countries they came from.

If there is anymore comments like this which don't add any value to the thread and take swipes at other people(s), you'll find yourself climbing up the warning ladder real quick.

 

[Infanteer]

It is not a matter of simply being a riot, is it?

That's all I've seen so for.   Burning vehicles, destruction of public property, and confrontations with police isn't really treason, is it?   We've seen it before in Canada (remember Vancouver after the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup?) - maybe not to the extent of France, but definately within the same order of magnitude (general unrest).   Unless you're going to prove thier is some sort of AQ generated plot to destroy France from the inside, spare us the conspiracy theories.

For the record, I am not chanting "dirty Muslim" anything.

For the record, you will notice I said "Daniel H" and not "Dare".

I would say the difference is that you identifty yourself as Canadian and are not violently hostile to what Canada is.   For instance, the Kadr family. I certainly think is a candidate for dissolution of citizenship. They certainly bare no loyalty to this country, and only come to destroy it. Why must we suffer the Kadr's of the world? Just so we can claim multicultural tolerance? There are many peaceful Muslims who live in Canada that don't want these extremists here either.

Well, being violently hostile to the Canadian government is covered under the CCC; Section 46 to be exact.   If I or any other Canadian citizen commits the offence, then it is Canada's duty to deal with it.   I do not see the logic in your differentiation and you seem to have sidestepped an answer - if I, who am now loyal to Canada and identify myself as a Canadian suddenly become violently hostile to it, do I as second generation deserve deportation for my crimes?   How about the other side of my family which happens to be 5th generation?   What is appropriate for deporting people who really have nowhere legally to be deported to?   1st?   2nd?   5th generation?   If you are born in Canada and are a Canadian citizen, you are Canada's problem - it is not like the American government figured they should deport John Walker Lind when they captured him.   They tried, convicted, and imprisoned him within America because he was an American citizen; his time or "generation" in America was irrelevent to the case.

Besides, do we really want to send them back to Pakistan or where ever they happen to be from?   If you are an enemy to Canada, sending you back to the arms of your enemies isn't the best thing to do, no?   Keep your friends close and your enemies closer seems apt.   If the Khadr children (if they are Canadian) are indeed guilty (we should let due process and not the National Post decide that) then I'm more than happy of giving them cold cells and letting Mr Monkhouse take care of them.   If the parent, as a naturalized Canadian, is indicted of treason then I see good cause to revoke citizenship - Ms Khadr can head back to Palestine at any time.

Well, you seem very hostile to the idea of deportation, but shooting them is a much better solution? We both know that there will be many resisters. I am sure that France will attempt to be as non lethal as possible before choosing that line. Remember that France has been close to electing (along with other European nations) those that wish to put far more extreme clamps on immigration. I would say this could weigh heavily on the electorates choices.

It seems that martial law has been declared in some parts of France and the police have stepped it up a notch.   I'm against the idea of deportation because it seems foolhardy to deport somebody when their birthplace and legal residence has been Canada.   Backing up martial law with lethal force, if required, is appropriate to me in order to preserve Peace, Order and Good Government.   It is up to Canada to deal with Canadian citizens in a manner consistent with the rule of law.

By the way, "France Burning" seems to be an overstatement.   They had some footage on the news at the Eiffel Tower that showed tourists doing the tourist thing and all things normal in metro Paris.   "France Burning" seems to be the same as "America Drowning" during Hurricane Katrina - it's probably a bit of an overstatement of what's going on on the ground.

 

[Infanteer]

Crap - sorry guys.  I re-opened this one, fired away and forgot to hit the unlock button.

 

[clasper]

By the way, "France Burning" seems to be an overstatement.   They had some footage on the news at the Eiffel Tower that showed tourists doing the tourist thing and all things normal in metro Paris.   "France Burning" seems to be the same as "America Drowning" during Hurricane Katrina - it's probably a bit of an overstatement of what's going on on the ground.

I can certainly attest to that.  I live in the 15th arrondissement, and I work in the suburbs south of town.  I haven't seen any evidence of the riots personally.  A buddy of mine (who doesn't pay too much attention to the news) didn't know there were riots going on until his Mum phoned him last weekend from Saskatoon to ask if he was OK.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>We've seen it before in Canada (remember Vancouver after the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup?) - maybe not to the extent of France, but definately within the same order of magnitude (general unrest).


"Order of magnitude" = "factor of 10".  Did Canucks fans really burn over 500 cars?

 

[Infanteer]

No, but they didn't just march in protest (an order less) but they didn't overthrow the government and send the aristocracy to the guillotine either (an order more).  Maybe greater in order on a scale of "rioting" but not when going across the entire spectrum of "unruly public".  Like I guessed (and Clasper backed up from the ground) I think the riots have been blown out of context.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Out of context?

Try to imagine the downtown east side as a "no-go" area for police and anyone who doesn't look like a resident.

I don't see any comparison, within several orders of magnitude, with one evening of alcohol- and testosterone-fuelled hooliganism within a few city blocks.

[Also: "problems" reported in 300 cities/communities in France.  Maybe some people think: "Oh, France is a populous nation.  That's probably not a lot of disruption."  But France has not quite twice the population of Canada.  I can't imagine disruptions in 150 cities/communities/neighbourhoods across Canada.]

 

[Infanteer]

Out of context?

Just like New Orleans became a war-zone - but America wasn't "Burning", was it?

Okay, you win on the magnitude debate - us snarly Canucks fan's don't quite hold the candle to the impoverished French - maybe the Guns'n'Roses fans in Vancouver would be a better example? 

 

[Brad Sallows]

The New Orleans flooding isn't really a good comparison either.  Although some of the commentary on what has been happening in France might be hyperbolic, the numbers of vehicles and buildings burnt seem to be based on official figures.  Much of what came out of New Orleans through the media was just pulled out of someone's fundament.

 

[Infanteer]

Is burning buses the only measure of the magnitude though?  How about "number of human fatalities?".  If that is so, then I think it brings the French Riots back down to Earth (and out of the realm of a nation ready to tear itself apart)

 

[teddy49]

http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html

This is a pretty decent if long article that takes a look at some of the problems that seemed to lead into all these troubles.  Note that the article was written in 2002.  After reading it I'm surprised that this didn't happen a few years ago.

 

[a_majoor]

An exerpt from National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200511110818.asp

The Islamic leadership in France would clearly and dearly love this to be a Muslim riot. They could then stop it and become true Left Bank Arafats, able to fire up a rent-a-mob whenever convenient and thereby shake down the government for one concession after another. That's why the French government is so desperate to prevent the imams from becoming middlemen. If the riots are stopped by Islamic clerics, they will become Islamic riots â ” even though they didn't start as that. And once the conflict is Islamified, the conservative Nostradamus scenarios kick in and we can all get ready for talk of "two-state solutions," the need to make Paris an "international city," and so forth.

Their being Muslim surely contributes to these kids' invisibility, but French racism and snobbery is more sweeping. Unlike in America, where snobbery, racism and anti-Muslim bigotry can all operate independently of each other, in France they're always linked in a menage a trios. If a resume arrives at the patisserie with the name Hamid on it, it gets trashed without the recipient wondering whether he was unfair to a Muslim, a black, an immigrant or even a French citizen.

But this type of young person is invisible for another reason. The French "social model" which pays wealthy, educated people not to work much â ” and prevents poor and desperate ones from working at all â ” simply has no solution for what to do with these surplus Frenchmen. So they get shunted off to the Islamic Bantustans surrounding the capital, where social pathologies fester.

Unfortunately, France is more likely to embrace Velveeta as the national cheese than to fix this system, and that spells long-term disaster for the country. Sarkozy had the right idea calling the rioters scum â ” not only because rioters tend to be exactly that, but also because calling them much of anything else would have politicized the rioters into "rebels." The long-term problem is that if you treat people like scum long enough, they'll become rebels. And that's when the battle for Gaulistan will truly begin.

â ” (c) 2005 Tribune Media Services

 

[Kirkhill]

This may explain why Clasper and the other chaps in France aren't seeing too many troubles:

France faces tough choices and, unlike Baghdad, in Paris you can't even talk about them honestly. As Jean-Claude Dassier, director-general of the French news station LCI, told a broadcasters' conference in Amsterdam, he has been playing down the riots on the following grounds: "Politics in France is heading to the Right and I don't want Right-wing politicians back in second or even first place because we showed burning cars on television."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/15/do1502.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/15/ixnewstop.html

Courtesy of Mark Steyn and the Daily Telegraph.

I wonder how many other News Directors see the world in similar terms?

 

[clasper]

This may explain why Clasper and the other chaps in France aren't seeing too many troubles:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/15/do1502.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/15/ixnewstop.html

Courtesy of Mark Steyn and the Daily Telegraph.

I wonder how many other News Directors see the world in similar terms?

Just to see how much LCI is downplaying the riots, here's the website: http://www.lci.fr/  At the moment, there's a burning car front and center, and the first headline is about de Villepin's first visit to les banlieues.  So they're certainly not ignoring the story- they're just not amping it up as much as FoxNews and their jihadist conspiracy theories (it's actually become something of a game at work over the lunch table- how many worried relatives from North America have asked you if you're OK?)

The fact that journalism today is no longer the paragon of objectivity that they once claimed to be should be no surprise to anyone.  This is why it's important to read Le Monde and Figaro (as well as Libération occasionally for a good chuckle...)

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Looks like Kirkhill beat me to the admission by the French Media czar.

The only additional piece of information that is interesting is that they believe the German media is doing the exact same thing.  Next door in their biggest trading partner they have a declared state of emergency and there has been almost zero coverage.




M.  ???

 

[TCBF]

I can't help thinking that if somebody tried burning 5,000 cars in Alberta, every tenth car would have it's owner standing on the roof holding a fine piece of craftsmanship designed by John Moses Browning.

But, I suppose collaboration takes many forms.

Tom