Expulsion of Roma Gypsies From France

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

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".

Interesting, so the deportations of the illegals is not an issue? Awesome.

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.

As I agreed with you earlier, it is possible that the initiative might run out of steam, but I also outlined reasons why its more likely that it won't. IF the initiative runs its course in its entirety, then there is no discrimination involved since all parties will be deported. IF the Roma are the only ones deported, then discrimination exists as per your argument. So wouldn't it stand to reason to support the French Government in the deportations since that would ensure that all those that should be deported, will be deported.

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.

I still can't understand why you use numbers of camps which are skewed. You decrease the number of Roma and increase the numbers of others. basically, you're changing the Ratio of numbers to make it more reasonable for your argument.

so... lemme see... - if there are some 300 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 100% of the other illegal immigrants

But then we don't know how many the French Government expects to remove... which is a rather difficult variable to remove from your example.

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.

I'm suprised that a Moderator is telling us that another persons opinion (if it runs against yours) is inarguable and defensible only by, well, racists. Whereas I have to wonder about posters who will only argue in support of the Roma, but don't care about the other illegal immigrants that are being deported. After all, you're picking up on an ethnic grouping, and ignoring all the rest.

Personally, I don't care if these illegal immigrants are Roma, or not. If they had placed a priority on red heads, I wouldn't care, as long as the whole were still to be deported. These people are to be deported because they have failed to get the required visa's. Its the law. It has been the law for ages, and nothing has changed.

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.

Rubbish. That's still only one comparison and a rather lame one. Stop and think about the points I made about the Holocaust. Now compare that with the deportations of the Roma. Completely different. Especially when you start talking about the killing.

And I find it interesting that you would support the Holocaust example, when you have already said you have no problems with the Deportations themselves, but rather just the focus on the ethnic by the French. So why draw parallels between the Holocaust deportations and these deportations, if you don't argue the right to deport illegals?

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

Completely and utterly disagree, but I won't tell you you're not entitled to have a different opinion to mine.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

so... lemme see... - if there are some 300 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 100% of the other illegal immigrants

But then we don't know how many the French Government expects to remove... which is a rather difficult variable to remove from your example.
.

For the nth time...there are - re the memo - 300 camps to be cleared in a month. Thats the target. Within that number, Roma are ordered to be prioritised.

P. Breathnach

opo wrote: »

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).

You mean the disturbances at St Aignan? Involving French Gypsies, generally referred to as gens de voyage? People who can not be deported as illegal immigrants?

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You mean the disturbances at St Aignan? Involving French Gypsies, generally referred to as gens de voyage? People who can not be deported as illegal immigrants?

Are you telling me now that no Roma were involved - French or otherwise in this or any other incident emenating from these camps?

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Tough.

Deleted User wrote: »

... I still can't understand why you use numbers of camps which are skewed. You decrease the number of Roma and increase the numbers of others. basically, you're changing the Ratio of numbers to make it more reasonable for your argument.

so... lemme see... - if there are some 300 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 100% of the other illegal immigrants

You accuse Scofflaw of using skewed numbers, and you have given us no basis at all for your numbers.

First, not all illegal camps have been set up by illegal immigrants; some have been set up by French citizens. No breakdown of numbers seems to be available.

Second, the French Ministry of the Interior documents mention 441 illegal camps, and the figure of 300 is the target set in the directive of 5 August for priority clearance.

Third, I see no basis anywhere for suggesting that there are 200 Roma illegal camps.

So let's have some citations, please. Or an admission that you are making things up.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

For the nth time...there are - re the memo - 300 camps to be cleared in a month. Thats the target. Within that number, Roma are ordered to be prioritised.

And that's different to what I said...? 300 camps, 200 of which are Roma. Roughly. So, yes, the target is 300, and the 200 Roma camps are prioritized. Better?

P. Breathnach

opo wrote: »

Are you telling me now that no Roma were involved - French or otherwise?

I have just said that French Gypsies were involved. It's a matter of convention in France that people of Roma ethnicity who are French citizens are referred to as gens de voyage in official language, a usage that is followed in everyday language; they are also referred to as tziganes. They are the French section of the Roma population that is dispersed throughout Europe, and there are some hundreds of thousands of them, not all of whom are nomadic.

[Edit: yet again your post was edited as I was responding to it!]

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

And that's different to what I said...? 300 camps, 200 of which are Roma. Roughly. So, yes, the target is 300, and the 200 Roma camps are prioritized. Better?

No. Wrong numbers and unsubstantiated numbers.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You accuse Scofflaw of using skewed numbers, and you have given us no basis at all for your numbers.

Second, the French Ministry of the Interior documents mention 441 illegal camps, and the figure of 300 is the target set in the directive of 5 August for priority clearance.

Third, I see no basis anywhere for suggesting that there are 200 Roma illegal camps.

So let's have some citations, please. Or an admission that you are making things up.

I used the numbers of camps listed in the online articles you provided a few pages back.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/14/world/la-fg-france-roma-20100914

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=120113

You should probably be feeling a wee bit silly at this stage. :rolleyes:

First, not all illegal camps have been set up by illegal immigrants; some have been set up by French citizens. No breakdown of numbers seems to be available.

Once again, I've yet to see any evidence of this, since you continue to ignore such requests every time you make this claim.

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have just said that French Gypsies were involved. It's a matter of convention in France that people of Roma ethnicity who are French citizens are referred to as gens de voyage in official language, a usage that is followed in everyday language; they are also referred to as tziganes. They are the French section of the Roma population that is dispersed throughout Europe, and there are some hundreds of thousands of them, not all of whom are nomadic.

[Edit: yet again your post was edited as I was responding to it!]

So these Roma were in illegal camps. Now we are getting somewhere. Also - was there a publicy expressed concern about other illegal activities involving Roma - in camps - in between directives?

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

And that's different to what I said...? 300 camps, 200 of which are Roma. Roughly. So, yes, the target is 300, and the 200 Roma camps are prioritized. Better?

...and thats discrimination.

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

I used the numbers of camps listed in the online articles you provided a few pages back.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/14/world/la-fg-france-roma-20100914

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=120113

You should probably be feeling a wee bit silly at this stage. :rolleyes:

Why should I feel silly when you misinterpret something? Especially as I gave further references today which show the figure of 441 as the number of illegal camps that the French Ministry of the Interior acknowledges.

I don't know where the figure of 200 comes from. Did you make it up?

Once again, I've yet to see any evidence of this, since you continue to ignore such requests every time you make this claim.

You should really do some research yourself. Or read the online sources that you have misinterpreted. This http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=120113 shows an excerpt from a circular which refers to gens de voyage; as I explained in another post just a few minutes ago, these are French citizens.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

...and thats discrimination.

So I have been told. I just can't see what the problem is with doing so, if all the camps (Roma or otherwise) are closed and the people deported.

We don't have to keep going around in circles about this. You've said its discrimination regardless of whether everyone is deported. Grand. I get that. Don't quite understand it, but I don't need to understand everything.

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

these are French citizens.

So we are really discussing French, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens and not Roma after all??

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why should I feel silly when you misinterpret something?

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/14/world/la-fg-france-roma-20100914

"In response, the Interior Ministry announced Monday night that it had rewritten the circular, which stated, "Three hundred illegal camps or sites must be evacuated in three months, in priority those of the Roma.""

As for the figure of 200 Roma camps, it was said earlier in the thread. I just assumed it was correct. My apologies.

You should really do some research yourself. Or read the online sources that you have misinterpreted. This http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=120113 shows an excerpt from a circular which refers to gens de voyage; as I explained in another post just a few minutes ago, these are French citizens.

Oddly enough, I do my own research. Hence how I knew the immigration law requirements, or information on Roma culture. Although I have to admit I've read through that link above three times now, and I still don't see anything about French citizens.. gens de voyage? Immigrants?

P. Breathnach

opo wrote: »

So these Roma were in illegal camps.

Really? I haven't seen any reports of that. Can you back it up?

Now we are getting somewhere. Also - was there a publicy expressed concern about other illegal activities involving Roma - in camps - in between directives?

I am sure there was, and I suspect that it was not confined to worries about those that lived in illegal camps. And I am equally sure that there were expressions of public concern about other groups in society or on its fringes. There are French people who see themselves as having problems with Muslims; there are French people who see themselves as having problems with blacks; there are French people who see themselves as having problems with young people; there are French people who see themselves as having problems with Jews; and so on and on. If the state were to adopt all these "problems" and act on them, it would be a horrendous prospect -- but there are politicians who are prepared to feed on popular prejudices. That's why there is a need for constitutions, laws, proper procedure, the idea of equality before the law, due process.

Sarkozy and his cohorts tried to bypass the legal protections that people have, particularly that of equality before the law. That's what this discussion is about.

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/14/world/la-fg-france-roma-20100914

"In response, the Interior Ministry announced Monday night that it had rewritten the circular, which stated, "Three hundred illegal camps or sites must be evacuated in three months, in priority those of the Roma.""

That does not say that there are 300 illegal camps; it sets a target for the number of camps to be cleared. The number targeted is less than the total number of camps.

As for the figure of 200 Roma camps, it was said earlier in the thread. I just assumed it was correct. My apologies.

I'm glad that we meet on something!

Oddly enough, I do my own research. Hence how I knew the immigration law requirements, or information on Roma culture. Although I have to admit I've read through that link above three times now, and I still don't see anything about French citizens.. gens de voyage? Immigrants?

It's there in the "snapshot" at the top of the piece.

P. Breathnach

opo wrote: »

So we are really discussing French, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens

Yes, and possibly some other nationalities, given the dispersal of Roma throughout Europe. But dominantly French, Romanian, and Bulgarian.

and not Roma after all??

And we are also discussing Roma. The ethnicity issue can be confused by labelling, because the French generally apply the word Rom to Roma from outside France and gens de voyage to Roma who are French citizens.

The priority set by the French Interior Ministry was Roms first, gens de voyage next (and, by omission, the rest nowhere).

Your suggestion that the targeting was a response to the events at St Aignan might be correct, but the group placed first in the firing line were not the group involved in the disturbances.

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes, and possibly some other nationalities, given the dispersal of Roma throughout Europe. But dominantly French, Romanian, and Bulgarian.



And we are also discussing Roma. The ethnicity issue can be confused by labelling, because the French generally apply the word Rom to Roma from outside France and gens de voyage to Roma who are French citizens.

The priority set by the French Interior Ministry was Roms first, gens de voyage next (and, by omission, the rest nowhere).

Your suggestion that the targeting was a response to the events at St Aignan might be correct, but the group placed first in the firing line were not the group involved in the disturbances.

OK but you have said that French citizens cannot be deported. So what is the plan for them?

P. Breathnach

opo wrote: »

OK but you have said that French citizens cannot be deported. So what is the plan for them?

I haven't seen one.

If you travel around France a bit, you might notice that there are quite a few sites provided for gens de voyage, many of them large and well-appointed (not all of them). Overall, I think the provision is better than we manage for Travellers. Official thinking might be that if illegal camps are broken up, they will move to some of those sites. It might be, however, that the sites available are in places where they don't want to live.

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I haven't seen one.

If you travel around France a bit, you might notice that there are quite a few sites provided for gens de voyage, many of them large and well-appointed (not all of them). Overall, I think the provision is better than we manage for Travellers. Official thinking might be that if illegal camps are broken up, they will move to some of those sites. It might be, however, that the sites available are in places where they don't want to live.

What I am asking is if there is an overall plan and neither of us know. It is clear that French citizens cannot be deported but citizens of other states can under EU (accession & other) law. This I suggest is immediately available as an option.

The issue of French Roma does mirror our own difficulties with travellers. It is a pointless excercise forever moving people on but as the M50 incident proved - it is simply not practical or reasonable to import or entertain more than you already cannot handle.

This is why I suggest prioritisation was given to those the French could practically do something about ie non-nationals in light of unsavoury incidents.

P. Breathnach

opo wrote: »

... This is why I suggest prioritisation was given to those the French could practically do something about ie non-nationals in light of unsavoury incidents.

So if your dog bites me, it's reasonable for me to kick your cat? Any quadruped will do.

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So if your dog bites me, it's reasonable for me to kick your cat? Any quadruped will do.

If both my animals come into your bedroom tonight - I suspect you will evict both.

P. Breathnach

opo wrote: »

If both my animals come into your bedroom tonight - I suspect you will evict both.

Not necessarily: I like cats and dogs.

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not necessarily: I like cats and dogs.

Keep the biter so.

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

...and thats discrimination.

no, its common sense. Get rid of the most common offenders first and then move on to the next and so on.

AlekSmart

The issue of French Roma does mirror our own difficulties with travellers. It is a pointless excercise forever moving people on but as the M50 incident proved - it is simply not practical or reasonable to import or entertain more than you already cannot handle.

I believe opo is on the ball here.

Irrespective of the depth of animosity being displayed between individual contributors to this thread,the reality remains that France has implimented a policy....a direct policy which has winners and losers...with the losers colecting €300 and a free ticket home.

It is now becoming an increasing emblem of Irish political administration that the Irish State remain transfixed by whatever elements seek to challenge it

Whilst in this hypnotic trance,the challenge continues unabated until eventually we cobble together some quick fix which addresses nothing and costs a fortune....I have no doubt that if this Deportation issue had arisen here we would now be awaiting the swearing in of some oul retired Judge to chair a Tribunal on it.

Allez Zarkozy sez I ....:)

Laminations

I still don't see what you are not understanding with my paramilitary example, so I'll map out the pairings (in parenthesis) for you to follow.

Britain (France) wants to crack down on paramilitarism (illegals). There are Irish paramilitaries (roma illegals), Spanish paramilitaries (African illegals) etc. In short there are numerous groups of paramilitaries (illegals) they'll be targeting. Now due to activity of a few Irish paramilitaries and the number as well as public perception that these paramilitaries are the worst threat the British decide to make Irish paramilitaries a priority (the French prioritise roma illegals).

So prioritisation is based on the behaviour of that cohort, not ethnicity. If you have a problem with this parallel please state where and why. I think some people doubt the Roma contribute significantly to the illegal camp problem - provide some evidence to back this up. The legal Roma or gens de voyage aren't exactly a shining example of integration, and have recently been involved in clashes with police. The roma tradition of nomadism (unless you care to deny this) also does not lend well to integration in French society. Roma traditionally are an insular people who have not integrated well. These are all behaviours that overlap with the ethnicity and while they are not typical of every Roma, the fact that many roma engage in such anti integration behaviours is a fact that cannot be ignored and has been recognised at EU level.

OhNoYouDidn't

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

no, its common sense. Get rid of the most common offenders first and then move on to the next and so on.

And your EVIDENCE that the Roma are the 'most common offenders' is?

The point is that you are targetting a whole group on the basis of an ill concieved prejudice that racial group a is responsible for b.

It was the justification for the holocaust and people are very nervous seeing racial selection at work in Europe in 2010. You are fully aware thats the issue, but you simply don't care because you are a racist.

My point then is, what racial groups would you object to this treatment being dished out to.

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

I still don't see what you are not understanding with my paramilitary example, so I'll map out the pairings (in parenthesis) for you to follow.

Britain (France) wants to crack down on paramilitarism (illegals). There are Irish paramilitaries (roma illegals), Spanish paramilitaries (African illegals) etc. In short there are numerous groups of paramilitaries (illegals) they'll be targeting. Now due to activity of a few Irish paramilitaries and the number as well as public perception that these paramilitaries are the worst threat the British decide to make Irish paramilitaries a priority (the French prioritise roma illegals).

So prioritisation is based on the behaviour of that cohort, not ethnicity. If you have a problem with this parallel please state where and why. I think some people doubt the Roma contribute significantly to the illegal camp problem - provide some evidence to back this up. The legal Roma or gens de voyage aren't exactly a shining example of integration, and have recently been involved in clashes with police. The roma tradition of nomadism (unless you care to deny this) also does not lend well to integration in French society. Roma traditionally are an insular people who have not integrated well. These are all behaviours that overlap with the ethnicity and while they are not typical of every Roma, the fact that many roma engage in such anti integration behaviours is a fact that cannot be ignored and has been recognised at EU level.

So it the Ra kick it off in England, the Brits can deport everyone they suspect of being Irish (anyone who looks Irish and lives in Kilburn for example)? Is that what you are arguing?