Expulsion of Roma Gypsies From France

Laminations

France reiterates its position to tackle illegal camps.

Sarkozy wrote:

Sarkozy said French authorities would continue to dismantle "all illegal camps," whoever they belonged to.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

That is a response so loaded with bull it disqualifies it as a meaningful contribution.

Not at all. It's quite clearly a loaded question.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

Not at all. It's quite clearly a loaded question.

Point out the parts you disagree or take issue with so

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

Point out the parts you disagree or take issue with so

Why should anybody bother? It's an invented scenario and its connection with the subject-matter of this thread is tenuous.

Perhaps I'll demand that we discuss the velocity of raindrops, and heap scorn on those who are not interested.

walshb

Chinasea wrote: »

Klaz,

Your response is way too long winded to disect and respond. Just to reiterate BRIEFLY: The Irish Traveller and The Roma's life styles/means of living are extremely similar and you need to ask yourself in all honestly how would you feel if the English simply said we want to repatriate (not deport) all the Irish Travellers, 1st/2nd/3rd/4th generation back to Ireland as the UK welfare would save millions by doing so. How would you feel?

What have the Irish got to do with it?

And, IF the Irish in other countries are behaving like scum; robbing, thieving and sponging, then YES, they deserve to be ****ed out. There is your answer. I know you didn't specifically ask me.

If English, American, Australians, Canadians, French, Germans, Danish etc were behaving like scum here, then they too should be ****ed out.
Oh, and if illegal, yes, they should be deported.

Stick with the issue.

opo

Laminations wrote: »

France reiterates its position to tackle illegal camps.

A stunning victory for "anti-racists" everywhere.

That showed Sarkozy - he won't deport Roma on their own when their are thousands more demanding equality under the law.

Well done you all.

P. Breathnach

walshb wrote: »

... And, IF the Irish in other countries are behaving like scum; robbing, thieving and sponging, then YES, they deserve to be ****ed out....

Suppose I went to live somewhere where a group of Irish people were, as you put it, behaving like scum. Suppose also that I behaved properly. Should I be ****ed out?

walshb

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Suppose I went to live somewhere where a group of Irish people were, as you put it, behaving like scum. Suppose also that I behaved properly. Should I be ****ed out?

That is a different scenario. Roma as far as I am aware are all up to the things I listed. And, yes, if you happen to be one in a thousand, behaving
properly that is just tough. What do you expect, a country to waste millions of Euro and man-hours sifting thru each INDIVIDUAL case, just so they don't offend one or two good people? No, that isn't the way it works, and nor should it be.

Simple: Nobody can honestly say that Irish people abroad are even close to the Roma as regards being
scum, thieves and spongers on society. I would say that for every 100 Irish abroad, 5-10 are bad apples,
(same for English, American, French, Canadian and some other civilised countries).
Now, don't try and claim that this figure applies to Roma. For Roma, it is likely close to ALL as is humanly possible.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why should anybody bother? It's an invented scenario and its connection with the subject-matter of this thread is tenuous.

Perhaps I'll demand that we discuss the velocity of raindrops, and heap scorn on those who are not interested.

Students have fallen foul of the rules of an institution and are being disciplined (detention is akin to deportation in the example). The institution
is giving reasons for prioritising certain students (in my example its bad behaviour, this mirrors the reasons that the French have given, and the actual evidence that the Roma illegals make up 200 of the 300 camps). Now is your whole argument that you dont believe the French reasons? If so provide some evidence that'd suggest the Roma illegals do not make up the bulk of the illegals problem or that crime is relatively low in these camps.

Seriously, you cannot recognise the parallel, but you recognise parallels with the holocaust?

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Suppose I went to live somewhere where a group of Irish people were, as you put it, behaving like scum. Suppose also that I behaved properly. Should I be ****ed out?

You are presupposing that the other Roma illegals are innocent, the hint is in the name, they are illegal, that qualifies them for getting kicked out. If other people act the arse then even if you are not involved, you can still be prioritised

opo

Laminations wrote: »

You are presupposing that the other Roma illegals are innocent, the hint is in the name, they are illegal, that qualifies them for getting kicked out. If other people act the arse then even if you are not involved, you can still be prioritised

I'm assuming that he wants equal treatment and the whole damn lot turfed out of the country for residing illegally (citizens & legal workers excepted).

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Students have fallen foul of the rules of an institution and are being disciplined (detention is akin to deportation in the example). The institution
is giving reasons for prioritising certain students (in my example its bad behaviour, this mirrors the reasons that the French have given, and the actual evidence that the Roma illegals make up 200 of the 300 camps). Now is your whole argument that you dont believe the French reasons? If so provide some evidence that'd suggest the Roma illegals do not make up the bulk of the illegals problem or that crime is relatively low in these camps.

Seriously, you cannot recognise the parallel, but you recognise parallels with the holocaust?

Thats not an accurate analogy. They were instructed to clear 300 camps by the end of the month, all of them illegal. Orders were given to prioritise the Roma. There was no such excuse as "bad behaviour" by the French in the memo.

P. Breathnach

walshb wrote: »

That is a different scenario. Roma as far as I am aware are all up to the things I listed. And, yes, if you happen to be one in a thousand, behaving
properly that is just tough. What do you expect, a country to waste millions of Euro and man-hours sifting thru each INDIVIDUAL case, just so they don't offend one or two good people? No, that isn't the way it works, and nor should it be.

Simple: Nobody can honestly say that Irish people abroad are even close to the Roma as regards being
scum, thieves and spongers on society. I would say that for every 100 Irish abroad, 5-10 are bad apples,
(same for English, American, French, Canadian and some other civilised countries).
Now, don't try and claim that this figure applies to Roma. For Roma, t is likely close to ALL as is humanly possible.

I see. Where would you draw the line, then? If 5-10% of an identifiable ethnic group are bad apples, then you don't hold it against the rest. If nearly all of the group are bad apples, then you do. Where is the tipping point? Is it 50% or 74% or 93%?

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

You are presupposing that the other Roma illegals are innocent, the hint is in the name, they are illegal, that qualifies them for getting kicked out. If other people act the arse then even if you are not involved, you can still be prioritised

I asked a question about how one might treat an Irish person in certain circumstances. How does your response relate to my question?

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

Thats not an accurate analogy. They were instructed to clear 300 camps by the end of the month, all of them illegal. Orders were given to prioritise the Roma. There was no such excuse as "bad behaviour" by the French in the memo.

Since when do the French have to justify themselves to you? 200 of the 300 camps are Roma, this is reason to prioritise on its own, crime in the Roma camps as well as conditions also seems to justify prioritisation or do you think the French should house them to show they are really concerned about the conditions?

Nodin

walshb wrote: »

That is a different scenario. Roma as far as I am aware are all up to the things I listed. And, yes, if you happen to be one in a thousand, behaving
properly that is just tough. What do you expect, a country to waste millions of Euro and man-hours sifting thru each INDIVIDUAL case, just so they don't offend one or two good people? No, that isn't the way it works, and nor should it be.

....condemned from your own mouth, tbh.

And of course that attitude - which condemns all regardless - is perhaps the greatest factor in blocking Roma integration.

walshb

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I see. Where would you draw the line, then? If 5-10% of an identifiable ethnic group are bad apples, then you don't hold it against the rest. If nearly all of the group are bad apples, then you do. Where is the tipping point? Is it 50% or 74% or 93%?

Look, in civilised societies certain countries have agreements and friendship and diplomatic relations that ALLOW movement of their peoples from country to country. Each country KNOWS well that a certain % of these people will be problematic, but that is part of LIFE. You will alwyas get it. Now, with the Roma, this is NOT the case. The % is just far too high to ignore. And, the illegal stance comes into play as well as their behaviour.

So, America and England and Ireland and Canada and other countris with these close ties do NOT deport all foreigners (as in Irish from UK, U.S. Canada etc) just because some of these people are bad apples. The majority of the peoples from the countries I listed are hard working and decent and beneficial and wanted.

opo

Laminations wrote: »

Since when do the French have to justify themselves to you? 200 of the 300 camps are Roma, this is reason to prioritise on its own, crime in the Roma camps as well as conditions also seems to justify prioritisation or do you think the French should house them to show they are really concerned about the conditions?

Not fair. Nodin is also saying boot them ALL out - just don't prioritise. I imagine he would find much cheer in his sentiments from the French.

VIVA LA NODIN

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I asked a question about how one might treat an Irish person in certain circumstances. How does your response relate to my question?

You cant generalise onto an innocent irishman or Roma, and persecute or prosecute them for the bad behaviour of others with the same ethnicity. However, if you have self qualified for a sub group of your nationality, e.g. if you are an irishman but also a member of the IRA then you can be treated the same as other such members. The Roma involved are illegaL, the behaviour of other illegal Roma (and the number of illegal Roma) justifies the prioritisation, the same way if members of the IRA bombed London, it is not justified to deport or retain all Irish but it is justified to deport or detain other known IRA members? Get it now?

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Since when do the French have to justify themselves to you?

They have to justify themselves to the public re the principles they supposedly run their state on. And of course the contrast between the public declarations and the private commands

Laminations wrote: »

200 of the 300 camps are Roma, this is reason to prioritise on its own,

Nope.

Laminations wrote: »

crime in the Roma camps as well as conditions also seems to justify prioritisation .....

Thats a presumption on your part.

Nodin

opo wrote: »

Not fair. Nodin is also saying boot them ALL out - just don't prioritise.

Boot the illegals out. Priorities can obviously made to remove people from the most hazardous camps first.

P. Breathnach

walshb wrote: »

Look, in civilised societies certain countries have agreements and friendship and diplomatic relations that ALLOW movement of their peoples from country to country. Each country KNOWS well that a certain % of these people will be problematic, but that is part of LIFE. You will alwyas get it. Now, with the Roma, this is NOT the case. The % is just far too high to ignore. And, the illegal stance comes into play as well as their behaviour....

Why not explore the general principle without relating it to a particular situation about which people have become excited? I picked up your example of Irish people abroad so that we could minimise the emotive element in this discussion. What percentage of bad apples justifies treating all members of an identifiable population as bad people?

I was hoping to move on to another question, but I fear we will not get there: if there is a member of a group of "bad apples" who is a thoroughly good person, how is that individual to be exempted from collective condemnation?

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

Nope.

Why? Quantifying contribution to a problem usually involves quantification

Thats a presumption on your part.

And it is total presumption on your part that the operation will cease after the Roma, despite what the French have said to the contrary, and its a presumption that they are prioritising simply because they are Roma

opo

Nodin wrote: »

They have to justify themselves to the public re the principles they supposedly run their state on.

Did it ever occur to you that those principles are for French people and not for the lawless occupants of squalid crime ridden camps of illegals.

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I was hoping to move on to another question, but I fear we will not get there: if there is a member of a group of "bad apples" who is a thoroughly good person, how is that individual to be exempted from collective condemnation?

And indeed, how would they actually manage to make their way in life sepderate to said "bad apples" when they're constantly kicked back into the same barrel.......

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

Boot the illegals out. Priorities can obviously made to remove people from the most hazardous camps first.

And what if there is overlap between hazardous camps and ethnicity, you'll still complain that the focus is on ethnicity

opo

Nodin wrote: »

Boot the illegals out. Priorities can obviously made to remove people from the most hazardous camps first.

Fine by me. Next time we deport twenty (say) Nigerians illegally here, I trust you will demand the removal of equal numbers of illegals of every nation so-as not to be racist.

Nodin

opo wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that those principles are for French people and not for the lawless occupants of squalid crime ridden camps of illegals.

You have what might be called a medieval idea of things - killing fellow christians is wrong, but killing heretics/infidels/followers of the wrong Jesus is a-ok.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why not explore the general principle without relating it to a particular situation about which people have become excited? I picked up your example of Irish people abroad so that we could minimise the emotive element in this discussion. What percentage of bad apples justifies treating all members of an identifiable population as bad people?

I was hoping to move on to another question, but I fear we will not get there: if there is a member of a group of "bad apples" who is a thoroughly good person, how is that individual to be exempted from collective condemnation?

What are you waffling on about? THEY ASRE ALL ILLEGALS! Generalising from bad apples to good is not acceptable, but they are all bad apples when you consider the state of the apples corresponds with legality.

P. Breathnach

opo wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that those principles are for French people and not for the lawless occupants of squalid crime ridden camps of illegals.

Wow! Pejorative labelling combined with a suggestion that people should not be equal in the eyes of the law.