Paris burning

[Marla_Singer]

Rosa Parks had no political power, she simply took a nonviolent approach to unjust laws.

I know this. I simply ask you how this is relevant for someone who's member of the french parliament, and still break the law constantly...

In France, it's the mayors who marry people. He has married two gay people in his town despite French law making it illegal. I support personally gay wedding, however it was a total disservice to the legalization of same sex weddings in this country to do such a thing. Instead of marrying them, he should have proposed a law to start a debate in the parliament and in the media. Same for genetically modified food, instead of destroying experimentary fields, he should propose law banning research on GM food.

When politicians representing the state, consider it's fine to not respect the law to defend a point of view, despite having the power to propose a change in the parliament, it means law is worthless.

 

[kronic]

The law protects all citizens

Obviously only in theory. Otherwise European societies wouldn't have created the mess they're experiencing now.

If you disagree with the law, there are legal means to change the law.

Ah, come on. That's a theoretical concept. How many energy would you need to invest to change anything in our societies? And since when are politicians doing what their voters want? Wanna compare what the new German coalition partners campaigned for and what they'll actually do? (I certainly doubt that's just a German disease) Where are the legal means of the (majority of the) people who get betrayed after every election against all these measures and new laws?
I surely prefer democracies over the existing alternatives but I don't buy your enthusiasm about our systems.

In a civilized society, we shouldn't be able to win over the law, if we disagree with the law, we change the law through our representatives who determine the law.

And what if laws are simply unacceptable? What if (to bring up a more contemporary example than killed Jews) German state parliaments decide to solely ban headscarves in schools but have no problem with any kind of Christian symbols? Should we (the Muslims respectively) accept open discrimination just because our beloved representatives and maybe the Federal Constitutional Court say so? I doubt it. Civil disobedience is not all that bad.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I've never expected I would be assaulted on CFC in saying that law is something which has to be respected. I thought it was common sense. At the first point we shouldn't even have the choice, as the government should dissuade you from breaking the law in the first place.

What's revolutionnary in the fact that if it's illegal to kill someone else, we shouldn't be able to do it ?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Nothing will change in France. Thinking about changing something like this is in the agenda of no one.

I am sorry about the trouble in France, but there is still time for good to come of it.

On the other hand...

"And Bonaparte is coming
With his army from the south"

See the spoiler for the rest of the lyrics.

Spoiler :

Palace of Versailles
Al Stewart

The wands of smoke are rising
From the walls of the Bastille
And through the streets of Paris
Runs a sense of the unreal

The Kings have all departed
There servants are nowhere
We burned out their mansions
In the name of Robespierre

And still we wait
To see the day begin
Our time is wasting in the wind
Wondering why
Wondering why, it echoes
Through the lonely palace of Versailles

Inside the midnight councils
The lamps are burning low
On you sit and talk all through the night
But there's just no place to go

And Bonaparte is coming
With his army from the south
Marat your days are numbered
And we live hand to mouth

While we wait
To see the day begin
Our time is wasting in the wind
Wondering why
Wondering why, it echoes
Through the lonely palace of Versailles

The ghost of revolution
Still prowls the Paris streets
Down all the restless centuries
It wonders incomplete

It speaks inside the cheap red wine
Of cafe summer nights
Its red and amber voices
Call the cars at traffic lights

Why do you wait
To see the day begin
Your time is wasting in the wind
Wondering why
Wondering why, it echoes
Through the lonely palace of Versailles

Wondering why, it echoes
Through the lonely palace of Versailles

 

[eyrei]

Leftwing politicians are too busy to say to the right wing it's evil to enforce the law in this country, and right wing politicians are too buy to say to the left wing they've made law irrelevant in this country.

Nothing will change in France. Thinking about changing something like this is in the agenda of no one.

You may believe my point of view is pessimistic eyrei. But honnestly there's no more hope left in France. This country is getting nowhere. The only hope would be unemployment to disappear, but that will never happen.

Yes, I think it is a little pessimistic.

Maybe you should start another propaganda campaign.

 

[kryszcztov]

Code of law is one of the earliest tech in civilization ? Right after hunting and fishing. That's because it's the basic of the civilization. Or to use less serious words, it's the basic rule to live together.

In Civ4 I don't know (don't have it yet). But in Civ3 for example, it's a rather expensive tech in the 2nd part of the Ancient Times. Of course when I have the opportunity to do it, I try the Republic slingshot, and so get my way to Code of Laws asap. But that's certainly not because it's a "basic of the civilization" (would need some serious debate), nor because I need courthouses in my games at that point at all.

When people consider it's scandalous to prosecute people who disrespected the law, the law becomes worthless. That was my whole point.

Not mine. You changed from "there is no law" to "the law becomes worthless", that's a good start. José Bové has haunted courthouses for years, don't worry, the law exists and is still applied...

 

[Marla_Singer]

Kryszcztov, I'm too old to still enjoy the game about people distorting my words.

 

[kryszcztov]

Kryszcztov, I'm too old to still enjoy the game about people distorting my words.

Prove me wrong then, instead of making assumptions of the like, please Marla ! Maybe I overlooked something in this off-topic general shifting, but I can't find what right now.

BTW, just checked the Civ4 PDF file that I had downloaded, which shows the tech tree there. Even when accounting the semi-mandatory tech concept, it's a long way to the top, err... to Code of Laws, after Fishing and Hunting. HAHAHAHA !

 

[Marla_Singer]

I've seen two things on TV tonight.

The first thing was a 5 minutes interview from Thuram at the TV News on TF1. He has said everything, and insisted in the fact there will never be any socialization in those specified districts as long as there won't be any job. He also said that he was sad because those youngsters burning cars to protest against Sarkozy weren't realizing these violence will return against them, and that they'll pay later the high price for these events.

Afterwards, I've listened several experts in a show of 2 hours dedicated to those events on France 3. They've said an insane amount of crap. All the clichés about the left had been said. Actually, they weren't even realizing how racist were their words : "They don't have any other mean to express themselves, we must listen their message and remove Sarkozy from his office, cops should get out of those neighbourhoods, etc..."

To sum it up. It's fine to have cops in white neighbourhoods to defend ourselves, but when you're black you don't have the right to be protected, because you're too stupid to express yourself in an other way then being violent. This is deeply racist. Actually, those leftist don't even realize they hold a position which is similar to the one which was held during the Apartheid in South Africa.

In another thread, people were saying that law was necessary to capitalism as it was the only way to protect private property. In France, today, leftists consider that respecting the law is not mandatory, that breaking the law is understandable if the purpose is to express yourself. The worst of all is Noël Mamère, that guy illegally destroys fields of genetically modified food to "express himself", and this despite being elected as mayor of the city of Bègles. In that city of Bègles, he has married two homosexuals, despite the French law saying it's illegal. That was also to "express himself".

Being against GM food, supporting gay marriage or understanding that it's the mess in the cités don't really matter. The thing is that every citizens have to respect the law. If we consider that law is something optionnal, as it's obviously today the case in France, we bomb the society from the inside. We destroy everything.

As long as there will be people as irresponsible in the French left wing, I'll continue to vote for the right wing, even if that means voting for Sarkozy.

Here's my initial point, and that's the thing I would like to discuss.

 

[kronic]

What's revolutionnary in the fact that if it's illegal to kill someone else, we shouldn't be able to do it ?

Nothing but I doubt that question reflects all aspects of your previous statements.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Nothing but I doubt that question reflects all aspects of your previous statements.

Statements that I've just post above. Obviously you've understood from my post that law shouldn't be discussed (which is absurd and fascistic), when my point was that breaking the law (specifically in burning cars and buildings) shouldn't be considered as a normal mean to express yourself.

My question is : should we or shouldn't we prosecute the people burning vehicles and buildings ?

That was the debate on France 3 tonight.

 

[brachy-pride]

are there still problems tonight?

 

[Akka]

Jass's long post is a must-read for everyone who doesn't know much about France (ie. almost everyone here ), and that was a fair summary for me as well. I on the whole agree with everything he wrote.

Could someone answer my question? I'm really pretty curious...

Well, I'm scratching my heads about these two parts, to be frank.

I'm a bit of a naive airhead when it comes to such things, and I've never lived in harsh suburbs like these we talk about here. And though I did encounter a fair share of non-white people, most of my friends are still rather like me.
All in all, I mean that what I'll say next is only my own, personnal experience, and part of the experience of the few arabs and black people I know, and that it's a very specific and particular picture, and may very well be wrong.


And this experience makes me scratch my head when hearing all about these "repressive police", "rampant racism" and the like. I'm quite white, so it's no surprise here that police always left me alone. I've had my papers checked only a handful of times in my life, all when I was driving and it was probably routine control. No surprise here.

I've never, ever, ever, witnessed a blatant racist act in my life. Be it a spoken word or act. Never. The worst I've ever noticed was the kind of "well, when you see the names of the criminals, they're more often than not 'Mohammed' and the like, he ?". This was clearly hiding some racism, but somehow mild.
For a country which is supposedly so racist, I must have a knack for avoiding the FN voters.

Same for the police. I've never witnessed any "harassment" from the police. Of course, I try to precisely AVOID the suburbs where the police supposedly harass these people, so... I've a few friends from there, though. They never told me anything about police bothering them, despite being arabs and blacks themselves.
But anyway, we were NEVER annoyed (or even talked to) by a policeman when I hanged with them.

I don't want to say there isn't racism (I know there is, I'm just lucky to have only witenessed very tame expression of it) nor that there is absolutely no police harassment (I simply don't know enough on the subject).
But what I KNOW too, is that in the day-to-day live, the group of young kids with the typical "banlieue" style are the one constantly annoying people and looking for trouble, not the cops.
One thing to understand, is that these "banlieues" ("banlieues" => suburbs, often used to describe precisely the poor ones with lots of immigrants) have a very specific "subculture", with common behavioural and clothing codes.
And though, of course, not all (and even most) of the people living here doesn't bother anybody, the reality is that, when you're being attacked/agressed/annoyed/disrespected by someone, it's easily 80 % of the time (probably more) by someone from here.
If being segregated against, if having no hope, if being massively unemployed, if being harrassed by the police, is certainly no fun and can understandably lead to anger, frustration, resentment and failed integration, it's also understandable that when 90 % of the problems comes from a very recognizable and loud minority, for tens of years, people finally lose patience and ask for repression against them, and becomes prejudiciated against them.

In fact, you'll find very few defenders of these "racailles" ("rabble", which is the own word of the banlieue's typical speech for describing the people causing trouble, and is often used as in a semi-glorious title), even inside the very districts where they're from. I've some friends from the 92 and 94 (two of the most agitated departements), and they have for these "racailles" a dislike confining to hatred.
What is actually telling, is that while actually two of them are Arabs, and one is Black, they were themselves the ones talking about how it's "always the same kind of people who cause troubles".
Themselves had no particular problems with the police either, AFAIK.

So, is this "harassment" really a "racial" thing, targetted at arabs and blacks, or is it rather a "behavioural" thing, targetted at the typical troublemakers, which are detected not just because of their skin colour, but even more because of their typical banlieue-like codes ?

 

[cegman]

Marla... Your not joking about that are you? They were actually debating whether or not to prosecute people breaking the law. Some of them may have a reason but that doesn't give you the right to take away another persons right.

I know people here in America that would say if you take away a persons rights of "Life, Liberty, and Property" you should loose all three yourself. I may not completely support that but I would definately get rid of there property or Liberty.

I know I am preaching to the converted but mabye some other person who reads this will become better informed about a different point of view.

 

[kryszcztov]

Statements that I've just post above. Obviously you've understood from my post that law shouldn't be discussed (which is absurd and fascistic), when my point was that breaking the law (specifically in burning cars and buildings) shouldn't be considered as a normal mean to express yourself.

Nobody said it was a normal mean to express oneself. Maybe 'logical' was the word (me).

My question is : should we or shouldn't we prosecute the people burning vehicles and buildings ?

Of course. They share some responsability for that. And they are 100% guilty in the end. What a dumb question. Don't worry : "Laissez la police faire son travail..." And that doesn't mean we shouldn't find out what caused this situation, all the more if society has a role in it (which is rather, err... likely ).

That was the debate on France 3 tonight.

I'm glad I didn't watch it then. Just a stupid theme...

 

[eyrei]

Statements that I've just post above.

My question is : should we or shouldn't we prosecute the people burning vehicles and buildings ?

That was the debate on France 3 tonight.

Of course they should be prosecuted, but leniently. It must be remembered that noone will ever face justice for the stupid policy that led to the accidental deaths of two boys. The appearance of compassion will be necessary to keep this from increasing the level of resentment.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Akka, thanks for your post.

I'll try to add comments about my personal experiments about it.

Well, I'm scratching my heads about these two parts, to be frank.

I'm a bit of a naive airhead when it comes to such things, and I've never lived in harsh suburbs like these we talk about here. And though I did encounter a fair share of non-white people, most of my friends are still rather like me.
All in all, I mean that what I'll say next is only my own, personnal experience, and part of the experience of the few arabs and black people I know, and that it's a very specific and particular picture, and may very well be wrong.

And this experience makes me scratch my head when hearing all about these "repressive police", "rampant racism" and the like. I'm quite white, so it's no surprise here that police always left me alone. I've had my papers checked only a handful of times in my life, all when I was driving and it was probably routine control. No surprise here.

Checking papers in cars is another matter. However, I guess people have never checked your papers for no reason in the streets or in the subway. That's what people from darker skin then you or me are experiencing.

I consider it would be fine if everyone would see their paper checked, but the fact it never happens to white people make this utterly counter-productive. And yes, I know that they are looking for illegal immigrants and there are few chance those will be white but still, when we ask this to people who are actually French, I can understand it's seen as questionning their nationality.

I've never, ever, ever, witnessed a blatant racist act in my life. Be it a spoken word or act. Never. The worst I've ever noticed was the kind of "well, when you see the names of the criminals, they're more often than not 'Mohammed' and the like, he ?". This was clearly hiding some racism, but somehow mild.
For a country which is supposedly so racist, I must have a knack for avoiding the FN voters.

You've met many FN voters like everyone I guess. When there are 6 million people voting for that party, it's impossible to never meet any of them. The thing is that FN voters are usually people hiding their view, they'll never say openly they vote for the FN.

There's only one guy I've met who I know was voting FN, I knew it because he told me : "Jean-Marie Le Pen is a fool and I don't like him at all, but honnesly, between you and me, he doesn't say only crap "

Of course I've also met Marine Le Pen during a debate, but that's not really the same thing.

Same for the police. I've never witnessed any "harassment" from the police. Of course, I try to precisely AVOID the suburbs where the police supposedly harass these people, so... I've a few friends from there, though. They never told me anything about police bothering them, despite being arabs and blacks themselves.
But anyway, we were NEVER annoyed (or even talked to) by a policeman when I hanged with them.

I don't want to say there isn't racism (I know there is, I'm just lucky to have only witenessed very tame expression of it) nor that there is absolutely no police harassment (I simply don't know enough on the subject).
But what I KNOW too, is that in the day-to-day live, the group of young kids with the typical "banlieue" style are the one constantly annoying people and looking for trouble, not the cops.
One thing to understand, is that these "banlieues" ("banlieues" => suburbs, often used to describe precisely the poor ones with lots of immigrants) have a very specific "subculture", with common behavioural and clothing codes.
And though, of course, not all (and even most) of the people living here doesn't bother anybody, the reality is that, when you're being attacked/agressed/annoyed/disrespected by someone, it's easily 80 % of the time (probably more) by someone from here.

Well we should make a thread about this, but actually, banlieue isn't the exact translation to suburb. Both words don't mean the same thing.

A suburb means an area which is sub-urbanized... which is less urbanized than the center... it designate houses spreading at the horizon. St-Denis or Aubervilliers aren't suburbs, since they are densely urbanized, as much as Paris actually.

In France, banlieues designate the development of the city out of its historical borders. Banlieue is a word from medieval roots... it designate "le lieu du ban" (the location of the ban), that's because in the Middle Age, people who were banished of the city usually moved at the periphery of it. If I find that ethimology interesting, it's because somewhere, banlieues are still the same today, it's the location where live those who are banished from the city, those who aren't enough wealthy to live in the city.

If being segregated against, if having no hope, if being massively unemployed, if being harrassed by the police, is certainly no fun and can understandably lead to anger, frustration, resentment and failed integration, it's also understandable that when 90 % of the problems comes from a very recognizable and loud minority, for tens of years, people finally lose patience and ask for repression against them, and becomes prejudiciated against them.

In fact, you'll find very few defenders of these "racailles" ("rabble", which is the own word of the banlieue's typical speech for describing the people causing trouble, and is often used as in a semi-glorious title), even inside the very districts where they're from. I've some friends from the 92 and 94 (two of the most agitated departements), and they have for these "racailles" a dislike confining to hatred.
What is actually telling, is that while actually two of them are Arabs, and one is Black, they were themselves the ones talking about how it's "always the same kind of people who cause troubles".
Themselves had no particular problems with the police either, AFAIK.

You're right to say so. The word said by Nicolas Sarkozy "racaille" (scum) is actually the way people are actually calling themselves. More precisely it's "caille-ra" which is the same word in verlan, a slang consisting in reverting the syllables.

During an interview tonight on TV, Lilian Thuram has said precisely what had to be said on this topic. Of course Nicolas Sarkozy was designating a minority of criminals in using this vocabulary, but actually he understood that people who have grown up in the specific environment of French "cités" (inner cities/city projects) felt targetted by those words, even those who aren't criminals (Note to French posters, criminals mean délinquants in French, it doesn't mean criminels). As such, he's perfectly aware that Nicolas Sarkozy didn't mean this, but with all the fuss which had been made in the media about this, even him, a thirty year-old football player, felt insulted by this word.

So, is this "harassment" really a "racial" thing, targetted at arabs and blacks, or is it rather a "behavioural" thing, targetted at the typical troublemakers, which are detected not just because of their skin colour, but even more because of their typical banlieue-like codes ?

Of course it's a banlieue-like kind of character, as much as there are gothic people, there are cailles-ra... by there are also white skinned "cailles-ra".

 

[aneeshm]

While I am not one to condone violence I do not agree that Gandhian type of non-violent activism is of much use. At best it is of use in very special situations (none of which I see around me in teh world). If you read India's independence movement/history critically you would be hard pressed not to come to the conclusion that the Gandhian movement hurt India much more than it benefited it. Most contemporary Indians agree with this (although out of respect for someone who was once respected it is usually not brought up). In fact I would go as far as to say that had it not been for Gandhi India would have been independent much earlier than 1947 (and also India and Pakistan would have been one country). So it is not really a very logical approach. In fact if you are up against a callous opposition I wonder what Gandhian/MLK type non-violence would do. Your opponent would just ignore you (or worse exploit you against you as the British did to Gandhi).

But you forget - India never had to suffer the depredations of violent revolution . We regained independence relatively painlessly - something which is a very great feat .

 

[Marla_Singer]

All this make me thing of an old hip hop song from 1995.

The song is called "qu'est-ce qu'on attend ?" and is performed by NTM, a band from St-Denis (Northern Paris, 93 department) where there has been riots recently.

Qu'est-ce qu'on attend ?
Original lyrics (French)

Mais qu'est-ce, mais qu'est-ce qu'on attend pour foutre le feu ?

Les année passent, pourtant tout est toujours à sa place
Plus de bitume donc encore moins d'espace
Vital et nécessaire à l'équilibre de l'homme
Non personne n'est séquestré, mais s'est tout comme
C'est comme de nous dire que la France avance alors qu'elle pense
Par la répression stopper net la délinquance
S'il vous plaît, un peu de bon sens
Les coups ne régleront pas l'état d'urgence
A coup sûr...
Ce qui m'amène à me demander
Combien de temps tout ceci va encore durer
Ca fait déjà des années que tout aurait dû péter
Dommage que l'unité n'ait été de notre côté
Mais vous savez que ça va finir mal, tout ça
La guerre des mondes vous l'avez voulue, la voilà
Mais qu'est-ce, mais qu'est-ce qu'on attend pour foutre le feu ?
Mais qu'est-ce qu'on attend pour ne plus suivre les règles du jeu ?

[...]

Dorénavant la rue ne pardonne plus
Nous n'avons rien à perdre, car nous n'avons jamais rien eu ...
A votre place je ne dormirais pas tranquille
La bourgeoisie peut trembler, les cailleras sont dans la ville
Pas pour faire la fête, qu'est-ce qu'on attend pour foutre le feu
Allons à l'Elysée, brûler les vieux
Et les vieilles, faut bien qu'un jour ils paient
Le psychopathe qui sommeil en moi se réveille
Où sont nos repères ?
Qui sont nos modèles ?
De toute une jeunesse, vous avez brûlé les ailes
Brisé les rêves, tari la sève de l'espérance.
Oh ! quand j'y pense
Il est temps qu'on y pense, il est temps que la France
Daigne prendre conscience de toutes ces offenses
Fasse de ces hontes des leçons à bon compte
Mais quand bien même, la coupe est pleine
L'histoire l'enseigne, nos chances sont vaines
Alors arrêtons tout, plutôt que cela traîne
Ou ne draine même, encore plus de haine
Unissons-nous pour incinérer ce système

What are we waiting for ?
English translation (by me)

But what, but what are we waiting for to burn the whole thing ?

Years are passing, but everything is still as it’s always been
More concrete and as such less vital space
Necessary for the sanity of Humans
No one is sequestrated, but it doesn't really makes a difference
It’s like saying France is going forward when she thinks
By repression stopping criminality
Please, a bit of common sense
Knockings have never solved cases of emergency
That’s obvious…
Which leads me to wonder
How many time, all this will still go on
It’s been years everything should have burst
It’s so sad unity wasn’t on our side
But you know it will end badly, everything
You wanted the war of the worlds, and here it comes
But what, but what are we waiting for to burn the whole thing ?
But what are we waiting for to not follow anymore the rules of the game ?

[...]

Now streets don’t forgive anymore
We have nothing too lose, since we have never possessed
If I were you, I wouldn’t sleep peacefully
Bourgeois can shiver, "cailleras" [scums] are in the city
And this for serious matters, what are we waiting for to burn the whole thing ?
Let’s go the the Elysée to burn the old jerks
And the old hoars, one day they must pay
The psycho who’s in me is waking up
Where is our moral frame ?
Who are our models ?
From a whole youth you’ve burn the wings
Broken the dreams, drought up all hopes
Oh ! When I think about it
It’s time to think about it, it’s time France
Starts to be aware of all her crimes
Grow something meaningful from her own shame
But even if it’s the case, this is too late
History teaches it, our opportunities are gone
So let’s stop this now instead of making it survive
And make grow anything but even more hatred
Let’s unite in order to incinerate the system !

 

[kryszcztov]

You've met many FN voters like everyone I guess. When there are 6 million people voting for that party, it's impossible to never meet any of them. The thing is that FN voters are usually people hiding their view, they'll never say openly they vote for the FN.

My "colocataire" (joint tenant ? (Babelfish) well, the guy living in the same flat as me) in my school a few years ago once told me he would vote FN. I think I remember he said it like he would say he was gay (which he was absolutely not ). I said "no problem" and that was fine, to the point that I would sometimes forget he said that. The nice part was later on, when he once argued about the Algeria War with... an Algerian student (not even French), who happened to have come here to complete his degrees. Man, that was quite some fun to watch (my "colocataire" was in a rather military family ).

There's only one guy I've met who I know was voting FN, I knew it because he told me : "Jean-Marie Le Pen is a fool and I don't like him at all, but honnesly, between you and me, he doesn't say only crap "

Florent Brunel ???
Enter the magic world of French humour...
[BTW the hyperlink script is broken...]

Of course I've also met Marine Le Pen during a debate, but that's not really the same thing.

Yeah, she doesn't have a pirate eye, for a start.


Woah, they have nice girls at the FN too (here, FNJ) !! Beware, a nice blond can hide extremism !

Well we should make a thread about this, but actually, banlieue isn't the exact translation to suburb. Both words don't mean the same thing.

A suburb means an area which is sub-urbanized... which is less urbanized than the center... it designate houses spreading at the horizon. St-Denis or Aubervilliers aren't suburbs, since they are densely urbanized, as much as Paris actually.

In France, banlieues designate the development of the city out of its historical borders. Banlieue is a word from medieval roots... it designate "le lieu du ban" (the location of the ban), that's because in the Middle Age, people who were banished of the city usually moved at the periphery of it. If I find that ethimology interesting, it's because somewhere, banlieues are still the same today, it's the location where live those who are banished from the city, those who aren't enough wealthy to live in the city.

For me, "banlieues" ("suburbs") are all the urban areas around a city and depending on that city. As to what "depending" means, it can be various, but a quick look at the transportation system may help. Especially in France (centralization). Suburbs for me start at Neuilly-sur-Seine (Porte Maillot), Sarkozy's very own town, and goes as far as Mantes-la-Jolie... Otherwise I refer to "locked suburbs" as "téci's" ("cités" in Verlan).

Thanks for the explanation of where "banlieues" come from.