Paris burning

[kryszcztov]

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.

I hope that people here now get the idea that understanding their reasons to riot doesn't equal to agreeing with them, that the explanation isn't the justification. Is that clear for everyone here ? People ? You're sure ? Hullo, anyone here ? Please this, here, just above ^^. Thanks. Now, we're continueing our post...

I agree with Akka that those people also have their share of responsability, otherwise that means that we consider them as just objects that can't react to their environment. Surely not the truth, and surely not what we should think. If a little part of those people is able to get away from this environment (and it's not just 2-3 people, come on !), or at least improve their living conditions a bit, it means that the failing ones have some responsability in their lives. But if you ever believed in stats, it's time to use this knowledge. Unemployment, for example, is at least twice more important in the cités than in the rest of France. There should be some responsability somewhere, then, this couldn't be that otherwise... On the whole : French policies these past decades, but also how we react to those people in everyday life. Of course this is a beast feeding itself, so you're already scared when they come at you and can't welcome them properly.

Now, one question : does it make us happy to live in a country with such a situation ? Said situation isn't today's riots, it's the way this part of the French population lives. If yes, well pass your way, thanks for answering. If no, then we must accept that we have done something wrong. Not too hard for me, as I wasn't born when it started, and I'm too young to have any impact on this yet. Ashamed of my nation ? Well, I reckon my nation failed, but no shame of anything, properly speaking. This "origin's sin" thing is something I don't believe in. No I won't live with being ashamed of what happened in the past. And yes, I'll reckon that France sucked/sucks in those policies, just like she sucked in the Algeria War, the Indochina War, and many more things... But what do I personally care about those ?

 

[kronic]

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".

I like that.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I like that.

If instead of burning illegally GM food, he would steal the goods of jews, would you also like that ?

Breaking the law isn't a way to express yourself. The fact we agree or not with those breaking the law doesn't matter. On which ground would you protest against people stealing jews because jews are evil if you support people marrying gay people even if this is also outlawed ?

When you're a representative at the French assembly and you support gay wedding, you shouldn't have to illegally marry gay people to express your point of view. This is destructive.

 

[kronic]

I would reject killing jews for moral and not for legal reasons.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Is that clear for everyone here ? People ? You're sure ? Hullo, anyone here ? Please this, here, just above ^^. Thanks. Now, we're continueing our post...

What do you mean about my post ? That the jerks saying that it's not that bad to burn cars since there are insurance for that after all are not excusing the rioters ? I'm sorry but this is crap !

That kind of speech does no good to those neighbourhoods. Actually, considering that as someone is black, he has no other mean than to burn cars to express himself is racist.

Furthermore, saying that respecting law is should be mandatory in this country doesn't prevent anyone to try to understand the behaviour of anyone. It's not because you ask police to do its job that it means you don't want to understand people burning cars. It simply means that breaking the law must not be considering as an acceptable solution to express yourself.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I would reject killing jews for moral and not for legal reasons.

Law represents the moral of the society as a whole. In saying so, you simply say that only your individualist moral matters and that moral of other people doesn't matter. That's a very selfish point of view which simply means that you don't care of people thinking differently than you, despite having to live among them.

 

[kryszcztov]

Marla, what kind of leftists was it on France3 ? Because I consider socialists to be better than communists in many ways for a start... Though by what you're saying, I'm not a leftist as Curt 'Black & White' Sibling said, and I'm never a rightist. I'm a nothingist.

I have a different view of the Law. For me the Law is the reference to observe. Just transgress the law and watch the punition falls on your head. Furthermore, I think the Law isn't perfect. Sometimes I disagree with the Law, I think it isn't right. When this is the case, I don't disagree with those who transgress it (you should check my current sig at that site listed in my sig here... ). As much as I don't agree with people destroying transgenic fields but find them funny to watch, I don't disapprove Noël Mamère when he marries two men. I don't care if he wants to "express himself", I just see that he does what he deeply thinks should be legal (and me too). All the more as said Law was obscure (apparently never was it mentionned that the 2 individuals should me man and woman, but is it very true ?).

This is just the beginning to show you that the fact I don't vote is a really thought process.

 

[Sophie 378]

Jass's long post is a must-read for everyone who doesn't know much about France (ie. almost everyone here )

I was confused (haven't been keeping up with this thread) until I scanned the last few pages. For anyone in a similar situation, Jass's Long Post: no 471 back on page 24.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Marla, what kind of leftists was it on France3 ? Because I consider socialists to be better than communists in many ways for a start... Though by what you're saying, I'm not a leftist as Curt 'Black & White' Sibling said, and I'm never a rightist. I'm a nothingist.

I have a different view of the Law. For me the Law is the reference to observe. Just transgress the law and watch the punition falls on your head. Furthermore, I think the Law isn't perfect. Sometimes I disagree with the Law, I think it isn't right. When this is the case, I don't disagree with those who transgress it (you should check my current sig at that site listed in my sig here... ). As much as I don't agree with people destroying transgenic fields but find them funny to watch, I don't disapprove Noël Mamère when he marries two men. I don't care if he wants to "express himself", I just see that he does what he deeply think should be legal (and me too). All the more as said Law was obscure (apparently never was it mentionned that the 2 individuals should me man and woman, but is it very true ?).

This is just the beginning to show you that the fact I don't vote is a really thought process.

This behaviour is totally irresponsible. To put it in a nutshell, you respect only the laws you agree with. If everyone behave like this, there's no more law.

It shouldn't be considered as right wing to consider that law has to be respected. If you disagree with the law, there are legal means to change the law. That's the whole point of democracy. If there's no more law, there's no more civilization.

By the way, it's not Philippe Pétain who told so, but Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

 

[eyrei]

It is my understanding that it was common for police to harrass young men in the neighborhood where the initial incident occurred by asking to review their 'papers'. If you want to sow discontent against the government, one of the best ways is to have police harrass people from certain groups to show them that they really aren't part of the society because they cannot be trusted to get along without police supervision.

Is this policy common to all of the areas in Paris where there are large numbers of immigrants?

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

 

[kronic]

Law represents the moral of the society as a whole.

I tend to disagree. At least, they do not necessarily represent them. They certainly don't do that when they're designed on the basis of legal positivism.

The law doesn't stand above all.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It is my understanding that it was common for police to harrass young men in the neighborhood where the initial incident occurred by asking to review their 'papers'. If you want to sow discontent against the government, one of the best ways is to have police harrass people from certain groups to show them that they really aren't part of the society because they cannot be trusted to get along without police supervision.

Is this policy common to all of the areas in Paris where there are large numbers of immigrants?

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

Indeed it is. And that's why I disagree with cops being allowed to control papers to people for no reason.

I have a friend which works since 3 weeks near Saint-Lazare. In 3 weeks, cops have checked 4 times her paper at the train station of Saint-Lazare. In my whole life, cops have never checked my papers. The only difference between her and me is that I'm white and she's black.

That's clearly a big problem since the main effect of this is to make people from different skin colour feel they will never be fully considered as French. As such, it's totally counter-productive.

All French people from black, arab or asian origins have their papers being constantly checked by cops in France. This is really a big problem... and of course, no one talks about this in France.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I tend to disagree. At least, they do not necessarily represent them. They certainly don't do that when they're designed on the basis of legal positivism.

The law doesn't stand above all.

The law protects all citizens and should be respected by all citizens.

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


In France today (and obviously Germany is contaminated), law is optional, and we can disrespect it if we disagree with it. 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.

 

[kryszcztov]

What do you mean about my post ?

[un gros blah blah, comme d'hab ]

You misunderstood my post. My "^^" was pointing at 2 lines above, ie. the beginning of my stanza. It was just a way to attract people's attention because in 3 pages we're off to hear that again.

Law represents the moral of the society as a whole.

Fortunately you didn't say "is". Sometimes this representation isn't right (to me at least, but for many people as well).

This behaviour is totally irresponsible. To put it in a nutshell, you respect only the laws you agree with. If everyone behave like this, there's no more law.

It shouldn't be considered as right wing to consider that law has to be respected. If you disagree with the law, there are legal means to change the law. That's the whole point of democracy. If there's no more law, there's no more civilization.

I totally disagree with you about the inner concepts hidding in this issue. People not respecting the law doesn't mean there is no law anymore, get it or go back to your logics classes.

And no, I sometimes respect the laws I don't agree with. Sometimes because it isn't worth the effort, sometimes because the punition is too high.

And let me laugh at you about your point regarding Democracy, the Goddess of everything modern. But that is for another thread (as well)...

"Code of Laws" is a tech in Civ... You shouldn't make such assumptions like this. Not saying you're wrong. Not saying you're right either. Would need some debate (other thread).

 

[eyrei]

Indeed it is. And that's why I disagree with cops being allowed to control papers to people for no reason.

I have a friend which works since 3 weeks near Saint-Lazare. In 3 weeks, cops have checked 4 times her paper at the train station of Saint-Lazare. In my whole life, cops have never checked my papers. The only difference between her and me is that I'm white and she's black.

That's clearly a big problem since the main effect of this is to make people from different skin colour feel they will never be fully considered as French. As such, it's totally counter-productive.

All French people from black, arab or asian origins have their papers being constantly checked by cops in France. This is really a big problem... and of course, no one talks about this in France.

So there is no recognition that such a policy is counterproductive if the goal is to have immigrants assimilate effectively?

A very good first step to resolving this situation might be to lift the policy...

 

[Marla_Singer]

"Code of Law" is a tech in Civ... You shouldn't make such assumptions like this. Not saying you're wrong. Not saying you're right either. Would need some debate (other thread).

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.

I totally disagree with you about the inner concepts hidding in this issue. People not respecting the law doesn't mean there is no law anymore, get it or go back to your logics classes.

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

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

marla, i beg to differ on your absolute deference to law

Rosa Parks had no "legal" means to change the law.

Having said that, burning cars is for thugs and english football victories

 

[Marla_Singer]

So there is no recognition that such a policy is counterproductive if the goal is to have immigrants assimilate effectively?

A very good first step to resolving this situation might be to lift the policy...

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.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Rosa Parks had no "legal" means to change the law.

Rosa Parks was elected at the US congress ?

Noël Mamère is a member of the French parliament.

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

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