Expulsion of Roma Gypsies From France

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

Please provide sme stats or source to substantiate the claim that illegal Roma make up a minority of illegal camps (which is the issue) or indeed illegals as a whole

Your demand for evidence is, to put it at its kindest, disingenuous. I have just shown that the French government is working on a figure of 441 camps, and is targeting 300, with Roma camps being prioritised. That's the issue: discrimination based on ethnicity.

I love the pattern of people who post claims without adducing any evidence then making demands for evidence, frequently for evidence that isn't very relevant. It doesn't matter what percentage of those illegally camped are Roma, or what percentage of illegal camps are Roma. What matters is that one ethnic group is being targeted more than others in the application of the law.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote:

It doesn't matter what percentage of those illegally camped are Roma, or what percentage of illegal camps are Roma. What matters is that one ethnic group is being targeted more than others in the application of the law.

that's as ludicrous as suggesting that it doesn't matter the number or activities of the IRA in Britain, if they are prioritised it's only because they are Irish because there are plenty of other paramilitary organisations out there (just as there are plenty of camps of illegals) but prioritising can only be seen as ethnic targeting

BlaasForRafa

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So they HAVE targetted the Roma.

So why are we arguing this? We agree that that is what happened, but the difference is you don't care about ethnic targetting and I do.

I don't give a flying f*** about whether its ethnic targeting or not. The roma bring a wave of begging and criminality any where they go and the french are right to send them packing back to their own country. I guess its no surprise that a number of the people that support the Roma on this board also support the PIRA and the palestinians, perhaps its an anti-authoritarian mindset or something.

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

that's as ludicrous as suggesting that it doesn't matter the number or activities of the IRA in Britain, if they are prioritised it's only because they are Irish because there are plenty of other paramilitary organisations out there (just as there are plenty of camps of illegals) but prioritising can only be seen as ethnic targeting

I might understand your meaning better (but still probably disagree with it) if you refrained from using analogies that didn't match very well with whatever it is they are intended to illustrate.

OhNoYouDidn't

digme wrote: »

They broke French law.

Thats up to the courts to decide.

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

So prioritising the IRA in an anti terrorist strategy is only ever done on an ethnic anti Irish basis and never based on other important factors like pervasiveness, level of threat, likelihood of escalation of activities?

But if the IRA are way down the list on all scores and are prioritised anyway, there is clearly something else going on.

Laminations wrote: »

Illegals are being targeted, Roma are being prioritised not because they are Roma but because they make up the bulk and are perceived to contribute more to crime. The same way the IRA could be prioritised based on public perception of them and that wouldn't be treating them harshly because afterall they are still members of the IRA. The illegal Roma even if they are not contributing to crime are still illegal

But by definition so are all the African illegal immigrants, but they aren't being 'targetted' in this operation, despite being many times more in number and dwarfing the Roma in crime stats.

The Roma are an easy target and people like you are foaming at the mouth for the French to carry out your xenephobic dirty work, despite the fact that all sorts of laws and human rights are being discarded.

P. Breathnach

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I don't give a flying f*** about whether its ethnic targeting or not. The roma bring a wave of begging and criminality any where they go and the french are right to send them packing back to their own country.

Ugly, but honest.

I guess its no surprise that a number of the people that support the Roma on this board also support the PIRA and the palestinians, perhaps its an anti-authoritarian mindset or something.

Ugly and dishonest.

BlaasForRafa

Ugly, but honest.

I would call supporting the PIRA ugly but there you go. Being against criminality is possibly something that the republican mindset is not comfortable with.

Ugly and dishonest

Too close to the truth for comfort I'd say.

OhNoYouDidn't

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I would call supporting the PIRA ugly but there you go. Being against criminality is possibly something that the republican mindset is not comfortable with. .

No-one has argued the French aren't entitled to deport criminals who are there illegally. What they are arguing is due process as it currently stands should not be suspended to allow the deportation of an entire ethnic group.

As a staunch supporter of Israel I thought this sort of activity might resonate negatively with you....

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Too close to the truth for comfort I'd say.

What happens if the French go mental and emboldended by this and decide that Jews are responsible for the banking crisis and round them up and deport them to Israel. Political decree. No court intervention.

At that point would it become alarming?

P. Breathnach

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I would call supporting the PIRA ugly but there you go. Being against criminality is possibly something that the republican mindset is not comfortable with.

Too close to the truth for comfort I'd say.

That is an outrageous slur, entirely without foundation.

OhNoYouDidn't

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is an outrageous slur, entirely without foundation.

He has completely missed the irony that these so called criminal masterminds are actually arguing FOR the courts to be involved.

Can't argue with thinly veiled racists, can you?

opo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats up to the courts to decide.

No it's not.

For the fifth time - can you link to the laws and legal processes you are banging on about.

OhNoYouDidn't

opo wrote: »

No it's not.

For the fifth time - can you link to the laws and legal processes you are banging on about.

The EXISTING French deportation process. How they deported the Roma in 2008.

opo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The EXISTING French deportation process. How they deported the Roma in 2008.

What??????

Not UN law - French law or martian laws this time??

I asked for links - now for the sixth time.

OhNoYouDidn't

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

That the state is targetting an ethnic group and removing them, en masse, from the country and sending them east, suspending the rule of law in the process.

The French are targeting roughly 300 illegal camps within their domestic borders, and deporting those people to the country of their origin.

Did you even bother to read the points I made? Where are the comparisons, beyond the deportations? Why not draw a comparison with the Italian deportations of immigrants a few years back or even the French ones the year previously. Why does this attempt of deporting illegals correspond with that of the Holocaust? Stop being dramatic.

As for suspending the rule of the Law, you have yet to show up any proof of such, despite my asking previously for it.

You might not agree that's whats happening, but its the perception in the EU (who ultimatly are the referee here) that that is the case and thats all that matters.

Well, no, since entry of the EU did not require a country to give up its sovereign powers to operate its own country. France has historically come down hard on illegal immigration, and has consistently deported large numbers of those that don't meet the requirements of their laws. Oddly enough, the EU has had its own harsh laws regarding illegal immigration, and that's likely to come back to the top before this is all done.

Ultimately, I wouldn't be suprised if the French decided to leave the EU, rather than have these sort of terms forced upon them. The perception of the majority of French citizens show that the government has support for these initiatives, and they'll also resist EU interference of something that they perceive to be within the controls of the French themselves.

The French population see's major problems with illegal immigration, and it's likely that they'll continue to seek the deportation angle since nothing else has worked for them previously.

OhNoYouDidn't

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats up to the courts to decide.

Actually, the fact that they don't have legal authorisation (Visa and other documentation) to prove that they're entitled to stay in the country is all the proof that is needed. There is no need for courts or "due process". The lack of a Visa (or the application in progress under certain circumstances) is what is needed to show that you are entitled to stay.

And under the laws of most western countries (although admittedly not well enforced) any alien with a visa can be stopped and asked to show that Visa. In China, I got stopped regularly, and if I didn't have it on me, they would come to my apartment with me to check. If I didn't have the Visa, then I didn't have the right to stay in the country, and I should leave. Promptly.

I don't really know why you believe that the courts should be involved in this. This is already French Law. Its not the case, that these people already have Visa's, and the French are operating illegally.

** All they're doing is enforcing the existing law towards illegal immigrants.

P. Breathnach

Let's check back over the facts.

In June, the French government initiated a programme for dealing with illegal encampments in accordance with French law. The directive to police was general, not distinguishing between the camps on the basis of who might be in them. There was no great objection to this. Normal law enforcement.

In August a directive was issued communicating targets set by the President of the Republic. This directive identified the Roma as a priority target. All hell broke loose, and the French government got into an unedifying row with the EU, and Sarkozy and Merkel had a big falling out.

In September a further circular was issued by the French Ministry of the Interior that looks a bit like back-pedalling on the August directive.

So what's behind it all? To me, it looks simple. Sarkozy was engaged in populist political posturing, was challenged on it, and has reacted badly. Populism combined with vanity is a bad mix in a politician.

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Let's check back over the facts.

In June, the French government initiated a programme for dealing with illegal encampments in accordance with French law. .

Let's gloss over why and let's pretend the directive was a press release.

It all honesty, it doesn't matter why. France has long had a history regarding illegal immigration, and the last ten years has seen a lot of initiatives with the aim of reducing those numbers.

The point that is continually being glossed over is that the French Government has done this with the backing of the general population. The people themselves see a problem with the illegal population in the country and see the need for deportations to occur.

And I can't see why the Roma should be a special case for stopping the deportations of Illegal immigrants. They're still there illegally regardless of all the rhetoric.

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, I'm a bit suprised at this. The posters that are arguing that the deportations are fine, because this whole thing is about illegal immigrants living in illegal camps. I have yet to see any proof from any of the anti-deportation crowd to show that there are legal (regardless of numbers) residents that are being affected by this deportation.

I, and others, have said that the ethnic background is irrelevant. It is only due to the higher numbers of the Roma camps (which will consist mostly of Roma in those camps due to their own culture) that the priority was placed on them. Personally, I've kept away from the allegations of crime/violence by the Roma, but this is also a reason of some pro-deportation posters and the French government.

But Mainly it is their legal status that is the problem.



I have to wonder about this comparison. Very much less malign. No tearing families apart from each other. No rapes. No object torture or object killings. No labor or death camps at the end. No extremists medical testings. Sterilisation experimentation. Mass executions. Nope. In fact, what is the only possible comparison? Yup, that they're being deported. In fact I don't remember the Nazi's offering money to every illegal man, woman and Child to leave the country..... UNLESS you're going to be able to show me some evidence that the above is happening today?

And I note you still haven't answered my question about your method of deporting these camp inhabitants. Is that because you can't, or just because you don't want to? - I thought it was a reasonable question to ask considering the way you have answered previously...

It's because it's entirely irrelevant, as is the legal status of the Roma, or the details of French law. The only issue that's being objected to is the specific targeting of a single ethnic group for priority treatment on the basis of ethnicity, something detailed in a government directive and not denied. So far the "defence" has consisted of straw men about the general right of France to deport illegal immigrants, which is not being argued, and the weak notion that "prioritising" isn't really the same as "targeting".

That's all that's being objected to, because it's fundamentally wrong to target a specific ethnic group, whether that's by giving them priority or exclusivity. It's being defended because people dislike the Roma - racism defending racism. Blaas is at least honest about his feelings.

To come back to my earlier point - if there are some 450 camps of illegal immigrants, of which 200 are Roma, and the French expect to be able to clear 300, then prioritising the Roma is clearly going to remove close to 100% of the Roma,and somewhat less than half of the other illegal immigrants. That's targeting by ethnicity, which is illegal, and likely to be collective expulsion too. That's really inarguable, and defensible only by those who reckon that it's OK to do it because it's Roma who are the target.

The analogy with the acceptance of Jewish deportation by the German population is exact - it's generally accepted that the German population didn't know the Jews (and Roma) were being eliminated (they mostly believed they were being resettled), so the behaviour of the German population in respect of Jewish deportation is exactly the same as the behaviour of those here and elsewhere who support collective deportation on ethnic grounds.

Justify it to yourselves any way you like, it remains exactly the same in principle as any previous instance.

regards,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

opo wrote: »

Let's gloss over why.

Facts:

• In June, the French government set out to apply the law in an even-handed way, and nobody saw a problem with that.
• In August, the approach was no longer even-handed, and many people saw a problem with that.

I can see no other point in your post other than to stir trouble. If you want to stir up anti-Roma sentiment, then you should be straightforward about it and do so openly.

[I see that you edited your post as I was responding. I can't make sense of your suggestion that we pretend that a government directive was a press release.]

BlaasForRafa

No-one has argued the French aren't entitled to deport criminals who are there illegally. What they are arguing is due process as it currently stands should not be suspended to allow the deportation of an entire ethnic group.

As a staunch supporter of Israel I thought this sort of activity might resonate negatively with you....

The french are dealing with criminals. The fact that a large proportion of Roma seem to be thus guilty of criminality tells you more about the Roma than it does about the french state. The fact that some groups and posters here are crying that its rascism or ethnic targeting is the usual pc defence that lets the Roma get away with their criminality.

What happens if the French go mental and emboldended by this and decide that Jews are responsible for the banking crisis and round them up and deport them to Israel. Political decree. No court intervention.

At that point would it become alarming?

Now theres a strawman argument, well done.

OhNoYouDidn't

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The french are dealing with criminals. The fact that a large proportion of Roma seem to be thus guilty of criminality tells you more about the Roma than it does about the french state. The fact that some groups and posters here are crying that its rascism or ethnic targeting is the usual pc defence that lets the Roma get away with their criminality.

It has been spelt out a thousand times. There is no objection to the French deporting those it considers to be illegal. The issue here IS that its racist / ethnic targetting and that is both illegal, immoral and harks back to a time Europe really should have moved on from. The fact that its the Roma is entirely irrelevant to that, unless you take your position that they deserve it, which is at least honest.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Now theres a strawman argument, well done.

Its fundametally not. If this was other ethnic groups being targetted you would not support it, so the old adage of 'who will speak up for me' is relevant here.

While I don't think its likely, there is the potential for a slippery slope.

OhNoYouDidn't

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Facts:

• In June, the French government set out to apply the law in an even-handed way, and nobody saw a problem with that.
• In August, the approach was no longer even-handed, and many people saw a problem with that.

When all is said and done, its that simple.

I have asked a few times from the 'nothing to see here' brigade why there is a fuss being made over this specific operation versus previous ones and the silence is deafening.

OhNoYouDidn't

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

When all is said and done, its that simple.

I have asked a few times from the 'nothing to see here' brigade why there is a fuss being made over this specific operation versus previous ones and the silence is deafening.

Silence? I answered saying that I didn't see anything different, and then asked you why....

OhNoYouDidn't

Deleted User wrote: »

Silence? I answered saying that I didn't see anything different, and then asked you why....

Then you aren't looking very hard. The reality is that large sections of the French population, media, the EU and Angela Merkel see a difference in approach and have an objection.

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

Silence? I answered saying that I didn't see anything different, and then asked you why....

There are none so blind ...

So what is to be made of the Directive issued of the French Ministry of the Interior on 5 August? You know, the one that sets Roma encampments as a priority? What was wrong with the earlier directive of 24 June that referred to all illegal encampments? No difference?

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There are none so blind ...

So what is to be made of the Directive issued of the French Ministry of the Interior on 5 August? You know, the one that sets Roma encampments as a priority? What was wrong with the earlier directive of 24 June that referred to all illegal encampments? No difference?

Was that directive an internal document or a press release?

Was there any significant event that happened between the issuing of the two directives that might have given an indication as to why prioritisation was mentioned? (Big clue - a Roma related event).

OhNoYouDidn't

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Then you aren't looking very hard. The reality is that large sections of the French population, media, the EU and Angela Merkel see a difference in approach and have an objection.

You asked if we saw a difference. I answered. Its not a matter of looking very hard. I just don't see it. Just as I don't see why placing a priority on the Roma is discrimination or racist.

It's interesting though that you can't tell me the difference yourself, but rather I have to check these other places. Funny.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There are none so blind ...

Oh, the irony for you to tell that to me. :rolleyes:

I'd prefer that you didn't quote me. I've already established that there's no point talking to you.