France: Roma's hunting is opened

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Yes, you have to know it, we have to know it, it's opened.

It opened in the middle of July, one day, a guy from a Gipsy community of the small city of Saint-Aignan, Loir-et-Cher, forced a police barrage, dunno yet exactly what happened, but the guy has been shot by police, dead. The 2 days that followed, the Gipsy community of this little city have put a big mess in it and attacked the local Gendarmerie. Oh, and after the 1st day of 'riots' those little community had the privilege to face 300 military personals for the day after.

Well, it was clear now, this clearly showed that  there is a Roma problem in France (iirc that would have been the exact words from the govt). You don't have to care of the fact that were Gipsies here, ok? No, no, it's clear there is a Roma problem in France. Yes, come on, Romas, Gipsies, Travelling people, that are all the same, you have to get this point.

So, in the very few days that followed, emergency meeting between the President and some appropriate ministers to solve this problem. Solution quickly found: we have to expel Romas from France, and we will do it.

So, since the beginning of August, that's what we live, we live with the fact that day by day, a new Romas camp is found in France and is announced to be expelled.

Although, look, nothing really new here, organizations in charge of these questions clearly say that the numbers the govt planned to expel are more or less the same as what is expelled every year in France for a while now. The point being that, so far, they expel people and give them 300€ to incite them to leave France. Then people accept. Then people come back. They accept 300€ again. Then leave again. And so it goes. And so we are more or less every year with the same populations in France, which are free to travel all over Europe since they come from Romania, but not as free as people from other European country, they have to leave France after 3 months, and they can't work here, or under very unachievable conditions.

But, the Romas are highly discriminated in Romania, then they go in other European countries, like France, in which they can make more money than in Romania by not declared jobs. If more of that they are given 300€ and a plane ticket to go back in Romania each time they come, why wouldn't they come back.

So, here Romas live illegally in camps they build themselves, that are shanty towns of which wretchedness transpires, and are seen as ugly thieves and problems carriers, which they can sometimes be, but well, as such problems can occur in every community which meets poor social conditions. Anyhow, they are not very well seen from the average French.

So, when Gipsies, which are guys who are from close southern Europe descent, and which remained mainly nomads, unlike Romas who are Romanian citizens and who settle somewhere after having immigrating, but you know, all those guys are the same, that are weird people, so when Gipsies have put the mess in that neat French city, we, French, we had to clearly know, we won't let all those weird people put our neat France upside down, and people have to know that now, we expel the nasties. Otherwise, as this lovely Jacques Myard, a UMP deputy who should sometimes wonder before speaking, said: we would face a 'clash of civilization' if we didn't take such measures, we have no problems with foreigners as long as they stay in their country (too bad nobody reminded him that it was Le Pen's rhetoric in his glorious days).

So, besides the fact that the expelled ones will now be part of a biometric file in order they don't take 300€ more than once instead of trying to give them same rights than other European citizens so that they could travel and work all over Europe and have more chances to have a decent social life with less social problems, nothing really new about the treatment of Romas in France technically, but now they have to know that hunting is officially opened. And really, opening news every day with a new expulsion of camp, it makes a kinda, weird, climate.

The Romanian Foreign Minister called it populist and xenophobic, but, as the French Minister of  Interior replied, you know, France hasn't lessons to receive about Human Rights, indeed, that's part of our genes since the Révolution, so that f**king Romanian should just STFU now, or something like that...

Enjoy the climate, and that is just about the Roma question...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

//sorry, had to do that...

Yeah, and that's what was kinda in the background of my mind too. Luckily it doesn't reach such a point, but the psychological climate that is going on can give a bit of this taste, yes. Especially the fact to target an ethnic group as a whole. And especially after the fact that this glorious president made a speech after riots in a rough district of a French city this summer, Grenoble, in which he said that the problems we are facing now are clearly the result of...immigration. .k boy. And I had spoken about it in 'France General Discussion', but for those who didn't follow, the guy plans to revoke French nationality of naturalized French who would threaten life of a policeman, or make stuffs incompatible with 'French republic', such as polygamy or excision. That's the climate we live in since the middle of July, not to speak of other glorious securitarist ideas that popped up in brains of members of the majority since then, some of which I also spoke in FGD. It's the rightist fest nowadays! Carry your tough rightist ideas! You're welcome! Yeah, people free their mind nowadays here...

Anyhow, about Romas, yeah, the hunt to an ethnic group, and designating an ethnic group as a problem, that's kinda, weird, yes.

A nation must defend it's borders and control who comes into it.

Indeed, but one more time pointing out an ethnic group, and leading a kind of hunt against it, it's particular, and here it's about some Romanian citizens, then some European citizens who live in a kind of double standards compared to other European citizens in regard to immigration. And it's not really as if there was a problem with Romas, they do low jobs and the Roma community of France is smaller than the one of...Belgium.

No, no, you know, a f**king community of weird people, Gipsies or whatever, some weird ones made some troubles, then we had to act, and to expel a f**king weird ethnic group to show that such weird people can go f**k themselves, we won't let France being threatened by them.

No immigration problem here. Psychological problem. From a weak government, with a weak president, who has been politically weak so far, who can't bear being seen as a weak person, then screws around and hit on all easy targets he can hit on. It doesn't go further than that.

A 'fun' example of the depth of such a policy?

In March 2011, Romania and Bulgaria (the 2 countries from which Romas come) will enter the Schengen area, then citizens of these countries, then Roms, could travel and settle all over Europe as they want. So, in March 2011, all of this would have been pretty...useless technically. But, meanwhile, the govt would have shown how strong it is, and that we won't let foreigners f**king the neat France...

Oh, and, what I just read, the minister of Interior now, answers to criticisms from the left (what?? there have been some?? why nobody told me??), by saying that criticisms come from Parisian elites and from the 'billionaire left' that are cut from reality...wow wow wow...besides the classical anti-intellectualism populism now the left is billionaire...wow wow wow, one wonders who is really cut from reality...

Enjoy...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I hope that now France will stop lecturing Bulgaria and Romania how to deal with their Gypsies.

But, the Romas are highly discriminated in Romania, then they go in other European countries, like France, in which they can make more money than in Romania by not declared jobs. If more of that they are given 300€ and a plane ticket to go back in Romania each time they come, why wouldn't they come back.

In Bulgaria, Gypsies are a privileged minority and I doubt it's any different in Romania.

Well, can't say much for Bulgaria, since the focus has always been on Romania here, from which come by far the biggest majority of Romas who immigrate, but, unless we've been victim of a massive media conspiracy for years now, Romas in Romania, are far to be a privileged minority, to say the least. Hope you're sincere about Bulgaria.

About the 'lecturing' point, since France, and Europe iirc, gave some money, one more time especially to Romania, to help Romas to have a better integration in their country, well, maybe they can say a few words. Especially when you have concrete examples which show how poorly this help is managed. A guy in charge of these questions in an organizations which deal with Romas speak about the famous example of this couple of Romas who received an help to breed sheep...while they were living in a flat of Bucarest. And since people go in other countries because fleeing massive discrimination, maybe the destination countries can say a few words too.

Anyhow, when Shengen area will be open for everybody, and everybody will be officially considered an European citizen afforded the same rights, it will rule some of these questions.

Also, Gypsies and Romas are 2 different communities. And the latter only travels in order to settle in a good place for itself, while the former overly stayed nomads, and have a Southern European culture, while Romas have an Eastern European one.



Oh, and, about the political developments of it in France:

Then the Left has stayed literally dumb about it, not the slightest big voice disturbed its vacations in order to speak about that ethnicisation of problems, not to say of creation of ethnic problems, orchestrated by the govt to hide its global political weakness. We only had a few organizations who bother these questions to try to hold some criticisms about it.

So, when politics is down, remains God, right?

So, yeah, the biggest voice to protest it has been a Catholic priest today who have been very active to help the Roma community along his life, saying in front of TV cameras that this govt was cut from reality, and that now he referred to God since this govt hadn't the slightest project and only did stuffs like that. Also wishing an heart attack to Sarkozy, well, a matter of time after, he said that he wished that 'The Lord' spoke to the heart of Sarkozy, but what has been filmed has been the 1st intervention, which is more 'shock'. And, as a matter of fact, he gave back its medal of Chevalier à l'Ordre National du Mérite, a medal of honor which he received 4 years ago from the govt, which is high enough since it has a grade of Chevalier.

Oh, and apparently, since there have been nobody to politically oppose it in the country except a few organizations in charge of these questions, and, ironically, a bunch of UMP deputies, but that are some which would be part of a political faction which takes distance with Sarkozy in order to follow an other leader, Dominique de Villepin, seems it really only remains 'God'. Yeah, beside this priest, today Benedict XVI spoke about it in his public prier from Castel Gondolfo, and did it in French.

What a glorious political situation, xenophobia to hide weakness, nobody to strongly oppose it, and religion coming as a political opposition...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Then the Left has stayed literally dumb about it, not the slightest big voice disturbed its vacations in order to speak about that ethnicisation of problems, not to say of creation of ethnic problems, orchestrated by the govt to hide its global political weakness. We only had a few organizations who bother these questions to try to hold some criticisms about it.

The left staying silent is the best it can do. I don't doubt that a good number of old white working-class voters in the north, east and Parisian region are quite happy that the scary evil Romas are leaving, or at the least ambivalent about it. I think that if the left tried to act scandalized and make a big shazam out of it, a few of its old white working-class voters would flirt with the FN like they did in 2002.

Well, sometimes braveness wins over electoralism.

Mitterand opposed death penalty against all polls in 1981, and won.

And anyhow, just for a matter of conscious, the govt actually ethnicized the problem here.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, they don't have to pay for public amenities, they can build their shacks wherever they want, they are targets of multiple integration programs, their children receive free food so they can stay at school and there are dozens of NGOV whose only purpose is to defend their rights.
As I said above, I don't know that much about the situation in Bulgaria. Then again, if you adjust for education level and the number of Gypsies who actually apply for work, I'm rather doubtful that you would find much evidence of discrimination even in Romania.

Well, discrimination is simple to me, people don't let them work, and they are confined in ghettos, and unless we have been victim of a massive conspiracy during years from all kinds of media, this is not a fairy tale. One more time, I can mainly speak about Romania, but reports use to say that it wouldn't be much different in Bulgaria.

I don't really trust those kind of organizations because it's very convenient for them to make victims out of the gypsies. I've heard of many examples of Gypsies in my country being offered appropriate work by these programs and refusing to take it, so you can't exactly blame Romania and Bulgaria for this.

Well, the organizations I refer too are constructive ones, not those of the kind of which, yeah, the main work would be to make victims and to say how awful it is. No, I don't take sources from those. And my job isn't to make poor victims out of Romas as well, I don't doubt some would play with money given for help, they remain humans, but here I spoke of how money is used and distributed by administrations.

Outside of the fact that Romania and Bulgaria haven't shown the best proofs that corruption was out of question there, at least according to international surveys, it seems that a better control of the money given to them for integration should appear, in order to avoid waste and abuse. And this not only from Romanian and Bulgarian administrations, from France too. Outside of the 300€ they give to those who accept to be sent back in their the country, France affords 3,600€ to Romas they send back there who have a project and who present it, in order they integrate themselves there. Everybody should be more careful with money there.

I meant with my remarks about the lecturing by France that France and other Western European countries are always accusing Romania and Bulgaria of discriminating the Gypsies and not integrating them, but at the first sign of trouble - and such kind of things happen very frequently here - France simply sends them back, instead of trying to integrate them. This is rank hypocrisy, at least in my opinion.

Well, sorry but that are citizens of those countries, which they flee and come here, since we receive them because they meet troubles there (one more time most reports would say it for years now, and they don't flee their country by random, they are not nomads, they settle when they find something better for them), I see it as normal that we tell a bunch of words to the countries of origin, and the fact that we could send them back there would be normal too technically, since they are not citizens of this country.

But in this thread I'm speaking of the fact that what remains a very tiny minority here (less than 20,000 Romas) suddenly became a national target, using it as one of other securitarist measures in order to hide home political weakness, boasting xenophobic sentiments. That's my concern here, but technically the fact that a country of origin would have to make more efforts to integrate its citizens than the country in which those immigrate shouldn't be that shocking.

Anyhow, as I said, luckily the Shengen area will give same rights to everybody here, which is what I prefer.

I use Gypsies for the ethnic group as whole, mainly because I don't like the racist PC term Roma. Why are they gypsies so special that everybody should call them by their endonym?

So, I don't know the subtleties in Bulgarian and English languages, but in French Gypsies is the translation of 'Gitans', and this is not the generic term, this, as I said before refers to people who adopted a Southern European culture, who remained nomads for a big part of them in France, and who for a part of them have French citizenship.

Romas, became a single community descending from the global nomad ones which came from India in the Middle-Age, not sure what would be the generic term of the global community, maybe 'Tziganes' in French but I'm not sure. What I'm sure is that Gypsies and Romas are words which refers to 2 different communities here, and the govt indeed enjoyed mixing everything after what happened in the middle of July which involved Gypsies, then not Romanian citizens. Romas clearly refer to the descendants from this Indian people who settled in Romania, and who know are not nomads anymore, they only travel to settle somewhere. I can't say whether it would be a PC invention, but that's how it is today.

France hardly needs any more unintegratable minorities with a high birth rate.
By the way, what's this myth about Gypsies committing petty crimes? In fact, they also disproportionaly involved in serious crimes as well.

Hmm, please, if as you say you're not French don't invent what's going on here. As I said they are less than 20,000 people here, for, as reminded opebo a country of about 60 millions people (about 65 according to last census). So, I don't really see a threat here, in case foreign cultures can be seen as a threat, but that's an other debate.

Oh, and please, be sure that they are not very well seen here, thus the govt playing on this, but actually, most of those remain in petty crimes and begging according to reports, yes. Of course some can be involved in bigger things, yes, but that would be far to be the majority, and even less than in other discriminated groups here I'd say.

You are a racist.  Are you French?

Hmm, the xenophobia which can exist in France is ambiguous, but yeah, it exists some. But, for example, what's going on right now wouldn't be so well seen by French, analysts begin to speak about bad strategy from Sarkozy. The point being that it was effectively blatant. I would think and hope people would make up their mind about it.

Then the Left has stayed literally dumb about it, not the slightest big voice disturbed its vacations in order to speak about that ethnicisation of problems, not to say of creation of ethnic problems, orchestrated by the govt to hide its global political weakness. We only had a few organizations who bother these questions to try to hold some criticisms about it.

The left staying silent is the best it can do. I don't doubt that a good number of old white working-class voters in the north, east and Parisian region are quite happy that the scary evil Romas are leaving, or at the least ambivalent about it. I think that if the left tried to act scandalized and make a big shazam out of it, a few of its old white working-class voters would flirt with the FN like they did in 2002.

Well, sometimes braveness wins over electoralism.

Mitterand opposed death penalty against all polls in 1981, and won.

And anyhow, just for a matter of conscious, the govt actually ethnicized the problem here.

Maybe in lala land, but in 2010 politics-land; electoralism beats all, especially two years out from the biggest election in the country. Few politicians these days actually do what's morally right.

I don't care about what they do, I see they act like electoralist cowards, the situation here pretty much shows it. I just say that, outside of the fact that this is morally coward, this is not necessarily a good tactic. As I just said the boasted xenophobia is rather blatant here, and it would be very easy to demonstrate it and to emphasize it to show how Sarkozy acts poor and unfair here. Clearly showing that Sarkozy is making a national problem out of less than 20,000 people and this out of a 'fait divers' isn't very hard to show how it is pointless and blatant populism.

Plus, French can have their good old xenophobia at home, but in political speeches they like to see French as a generous country, and especially not like a xenophobic one. It would be very easy to play on this story telling.

Add to this that, cowardice is one of the last electoralist thing, and one of the things the people feel the best. PS is wrong on the whole line here.

And well, I spoke of the Left. Outside of Greenies who enjoyed wondering whether they should be more on the left or on the center left, which can be interesting but they didn't have the slightest big word for what was going on here, while they represent the part of  the electorate which would be the most inclined to defend Romas, along with who? Where have been the bloody commies here?? And the funky Mélenchon?? Media didn't give a penny to their voice or they just didn't care much here?? Someone like Mélenchon knows very well how to make noise, I didn't hear him here, and the far-left hasn't electoralist problems here.

Nah, the only big voice, outside of Villepin who suddenly woke up today, that have been this prist and the Pope, so glorious.

And so? And so Brice Hortefeux, the Minister of Interior, will receive the opposition to speak about this issue. Yeah, he will receive the Cardinal of France to speak about those criticisms.

Glorious, very glorious...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

lol, besides religion and some fringes of the UMP, now it is the police which would come into 'opposition', saying the objectives here wouldn't be realistic...

A few words from PS spokesman though finally, wow. That's the beginning of the last week of August, so had to go back to work...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I'm trying to convince myself that this will just make Sarkozy's defeat more epic, but sadly my guts tell me that there are enough stupid f**king racist pieces of human trash in France to get him elected.

One would think it's just a 'passage', but if the left continues to be that coward, which as I said is of of things electors like the less and detect the most easily, then yeah, he still has chances.

Actually, the only opposition that the govt met has been things which use to represent the right. A fringe of the right, Catholicism, and...police.

About the police 'opposition', the fact they come to say that the objectives of govt are not realistic pretty much how Sarkozy has a way to fail on everything, he can't achieve the slightest, even blatant populism he can't achieve that, like each time he throws ideas to impress people, like each time he doesn't care of reality, and as in this example, it fails.

Well, anyhow, one would think people will make up their mind about it, but the attitude of the left will be important. Catholicism actually became the only strong voice against such policy so far, and we're in France...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

So, about the names first, that is not easy since it varies according to languages apparently, and since it apparently has been something up to a lot of debates in the Roma communities as well, so what I had after looking up:

It's too bad most people don't read French here, because the French Wikipedia article is clear and provides good references:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In short, the term Rom, meaning 'man' yes, 'woman' being Romni, and Roma being the plural (my bad, it's a 'Talib/Taliban case'), has been claimed to be the name of all those people from Middle-Age Indian descent in 1971 in London during the first international congress of Roma.

Thus this term is used by the International Romani Union, Romani being the name of their language.

But, as I kept saying, some parts of these people from the same descent who accepts fully the IRU and its flag as theirs, don't recognize themselves in this name, saying this name is for the populations which stayed in Eastern Europe.

Yes, there is the double 'r' issue, but that is more something of convenience of understanding, not to mix between several words, than an issue of sense. And yes, apparently most of Roms would prefer the double 'r', but international publications use only one.

And tziganologists in France effectively divide these populations from same old descent in three cultural groups:

Roms in which they cast those from Eastern Europe, Close East, America, Australia.

Gypsies or Iberian Kale (Gitans in French): South of France, Spain, Portugal.

Sintis or Manuches: Rest of France, Italy, Benelux, Germany.

Here it goes, those who study the question and populations themselves make differences between them.

But, now there is also the English Wikipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, in order to try to sum it up, the word that would designate them as a whole would be 'Rom/Roma'. Though most of the time it uses to refer to those from Eastern Europe, and anyhow concerned populations themselves, such as Gitans in French (let's use the French word for less confusion, maybe less!), don't take this name and prefer keeping other names for their community which also refers to cultural differences, pas and present, such as those I already described in my posts here.

And given that moreover we're in France in that thread, and that in France differences of culture and of citizenship and rights are clearly present, using the different names make plain sense.

And anyways, according to all of this, in English, 'Gypsy' would refer more to a lifestyle, and is not used to refer to the global ethnic group anymore, at least officially. A lifestyle which doesn't apply to describe the diversity of all the cultures from the same ethnic group.

Wow. This is done. Enjoy.

And I cut here because the initial message was too long for one post.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

So, now, about those social issues.

First, no matter all the programs that can be set for them here or there, by such or such, when there is a cultural discrimination in a country, programs can help but it hardly fights it. When people hardly find jobs or just low ones, when they hardly find better accommodations than some social ghettoized places, when they are regularly maintained in contempt by the majority of the population because of their ethnic origin, then I call it discrimination. And since that's pretty much the case with Roma in Eastern Europe. Or I live in a conspiracy for years, from any political and journalistic wing.

And when you have this situation, don't be surprised people try to immigrate over there, they might still be discriminated here, but all the low stuffs they could do here would make them more money than the low stuffs in Romania.

About some NGOs, one more time, a lot are constructive here, and don't care about victimizing, they just point out problems that this populations encounter, and one more time big discrimination in the country of which they have the citizenship doesn't seem to be a fairy tale.

After, ok, some Roma might play with limits of the system and some go in more or less heavy form of criminality, most of in light ones though, yeah, those who already control the heavier forms of criminality here won't give them a place. But here it goes for most of discriminated groups, when they hardly can leave legally, and hardly have consideration, then don't be surprised at one point they don't care about being nice with others. You know, we speak about humans here. As a random it's most of the time in discriminated groups that you meet abuse of systems and criminal problems...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

EU has been the 1st to criticize France about that, while the Left here enjoyed vacations and stayed silent...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, not that I would mind to try to integrate them, but hey, that would be to the origin country to make efforts first, the countries from which, you know, they have citizenship.

Anyhow, as I kept saying I would like they got the same rights anywhere in Europe so that they can settle and work the way they want anywhere here, if a 500 millions people area can't bear a 9 millions minority settling here or there, maybe ones should begin to wonder...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'lol'. Italians run against any minority nowadays, and Roma are always easy targets, because small community and living in shanty towns which make them looking weird and not likable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One more time, 'lol', 9 millions in a more than 500 millions area, a lot of them remaining in their citizenship country, and 20,000 in 65 millions in France, no matter the birth rate, do you really wanna look ridiculous about speaking about a threat? And what's the problem if they make a lot of baby? And what's the problem if they go here or there and in case even they would, 'lol', 'significantly' grow, what's the problem? This culture hasn't the right to spread? Some cultures have to be bared from spreading?

I don't see different cultures as problems, problems come with contempt toward them.

Thus I don't see half my house in fire, but I see how some people could stupidly start fires, yes, and I don't see the other minorities as small fires, but I also see how some people could pretend it is and use it to divert the attention from actual fires which belong to other realms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too bad there aren't stats to precisely show it is far above their numbers. Too bad. But anyhow, one more time the fact that criminality is more present in groups which are maintained in cultural and concrete contempt in a society is nothing new, and wouldn't belong to this minority in particular...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

And, about the last political developments:

So, after the first who protested this which have been, iirc 1st, EU, then, some fringes of the UMP, then UN, then Catholics till the Pope, then police, saying the objectives were not realistic, then a bunch of stuffs from the Left after they finished their vacations, Villepin himself having strong words against it, but while it remains a big voice, he's seen as a theatrical hater of Sarkozy, then not much weight, though that's better than nothing.

So, after all of this with also had the French Protestant Federation which joined Catholics (not something big in France, Prots are tiny, but that's something more, shows an alliance against something beyond some traditional splits), then we also had Jean-Pierre Raffarin, former Prime Minister in France and who, unlike Villepin, isn't seen as an opportunist and isn't one, he always try to make the right gather itself in order it follows to policies of the govt, and sometimes turns into a hack for it, but here said that he disagreed with what was going on and called a 'rightist excess', and that the govt should change from the securitarist direction it took this summer.

So, after all of this, the 'Prime Minister' decided to organize an emergency meeting with ministers to speak about this situation in which everybody (almost except the Left) was criticizing. Result of the reunion? Immigration shouldn't be used as a political tool by any part, from François Fillon himself. Wow, .k, it's not like if it was the govt using it as a tool here...

Day after, 1st Council of Ministers post summer, words from Sarkozy, same: immigration shouldn't be used as a tool for polemics. .k...

More voices came from police officials saying that this was not realistic, costly, and pointless, since people will come back anyhow. Elysée: don't care, we continue, we have to reach objectives.

Then in one month 50 camps have been evacuated and planes began to send people back there. Objectives is 300 camps in 3 months.

And on the Left, after a few words from a spokesman after the vacations, since vacations are over we finally also had a bunch of words from several guys, most of them saying what Martine Aubry came to say to finally explain her silence: 'what's happening is awful, that's not what we want, that is blatant securitarist populism, but hehe! we're smart! while Sarkozy was doing it we didn't react! we didn't fall in his populist trap! we haven't run in the topics he chose!'. .k boys, wow, good, but meanwhile the silence was heavy, you have been absent of an important political moment, and has let the opportunity to others, like Religion, to embody a political opposition...

Anyhow, would seem that French would rather see the blatantness of this, the guy remains massively unpopular in polls. On the other hand, still according to polls a good proportion close to a majority, and according to securitarist measures it can be a majority, would also not disagree with such policies, Sarkozy measures would effectively match casual xenophobia and security problems concerns, but polls aren't clear and sometimes contradict each other, and anyhow show a clear victory of Left in next presidential elections and sometimes by big margins. This plus the fact that the majority could begin to crumble, the good old French right that Raffarin would embody, and that Villepin could try to gain, don't like such policies.

I would think his positions on immigration symbolized by what's happening with Roma will fail for him.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Isn't the irony here that Sarkozy is some kind of dirty Slav himself?

Funny you should say that, I just heard a few days ago that, haha, the representative of the Rom community in Austria is Rudolf...Sarközy. And this Saközy to say that 'Sarközy' is a typical Rom name!

But by the way, Roma have nothing to do with Slavs, except maybe the fact that, yes, in the mind of the average French Romanians/Romas/Gitans, all of this are annoying foreigners...

For the record, most Hungarians hate the Roms with a passion, so in a way it isn't ironic that an Hungarian aristocrat like Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa hates Roms. All his ancestors likely did.

Nah, he doesn't give a penny about Roma. That was just a super easy target.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Nah, he doesn't give a penny about Roma. That was just a super easy target.

I wouldn't be surprised if an Hungarian hated Roms. Would you?

While I would think most of Europeans see Roma as weird people of which they are not fond, not sure 'hate' would be the right word, maybe they are still less liked in Eastern Europe but I would reserve hate to groups who actually cultivate hatred, that ones use to be fringes of societies.

And, really, in the case of Nicolas, I really think that's the last thing that busies his mind. An impressive event happened (Saint-Aignan), made by people that are seen as weird foreigners by most people, it was an easy target, then a perfect one for Sarkozy to show his 'muscles', because showing muscles is the only thing he's still able to do. And here it went, such guys haven't hatred, pure low pragmatism.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Nah, he doesn't give a penny about Roma. That was just a super easy target.

I wouldn't be surprised if an Hungarian hated Roms. Would you?

While I would think most of Europeans see Roma as weird people of which they are not fond, not sure 'hate' would be the right word, maybe they are still less liked in Eastern Europe but I would reserve hate to groups who actually cultivate hatred, that ones use to be fringes of societies.

You don't know Hungarians well then.

I would have expected you could answer something like that seeing your previous posts. I still think while some big resentment can exist toward groups of people, like maybe in Hungary toward Roma, a difference between the words 'hate' and 'resentment' should exist. Hating is actively cultivating a sentiment for me, a resentment is just a basic disliking more or less strong according to situations. That's why I would reserve 'hate' to those who actively spread 'hatred' which use to remain fringes anywhere in the world.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Nah, he doesn't give a penny about Roma. That was just a super easy target.

I wouldn't be surprised if an Hungarian hated Roms. Would you?

While I would think most of Europeans see Roma as weird people of which they are not fond, not sure 'hate' would be the right word, maybe they are still less liked in Eastern Europe but I would reserve hate to groups who actually cultivate hatred, that ones use to be fringes of societies.

You don't know Hungarians well then.

I would have expected you could answer something like that seeing your previous posts. I still think while some big resentment can exist toward groups of people, like maybe in Hungary toward Roma, a difference between the words 'hate' and 'resentment' should exist. Hating is actively cultivating a sentiment for me, a resentment is just a basic disliking more or less strong according to situations. That's why I would reserve 'hate' to those who actively spread 'hatred' which use to remain fringes anywhere in the world.

Really? Reading Hungarian history and looking at contemporary Hungarian politics does suggest otherwise. Hungary has been the most nationalist, irredentist nation in eastern Europe ever since Trianon; and they always seem to be picking fights with other nations and especially the Romas. They not only resent them, they borderline hate them. Mere 'resentment' doesn't explain why neo-Nazis poll nearly 20% in the country.

Then 20% of the population would 'hate'. That doesn't make a whole nation. 'Essentialiser' as we say French, meaning seriously applying a characteristic to someone because that one belongs to a group, in this case a nation, is rarely relevant.

I only know a bit about the rightist feelings in Hungary, but, .k, if as you say there are so big figures for groups that would be neo-nazis, we can say that globally the resentment toward minorities/foreign would be strong, to very strong in significant fringes, but still, I've troubles seriously using the word 'hate' to refer to an entire population. 

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Then 20% of the population would 'hate'. That doesn't make a whole nation. 'Essentialiser' as we say French, meaning seriously applying a characteristic to someone because that one belongs to a group, in this case a nation, is rarely relevant.

I only know a bit about the rightist feelings in Hungary, but, .k, if as you say there are so big figures for groups that would be neo-nazis, we can say that globally the resentment toward minorities/foreign would be strong, to very strong in significant fringes, but still, I've troubles seriously using the word 'hate' to refer to an entire population. 

20% + 60% for the right which isn't extremely fond of non-Magyars, it adds up. I'm not saying Magyars are racist sh**ts, far from it, I love Magyar culture and I'm the first to find Trianon a load of crap. But undeniably anti-Roma feelings are stronger in Hungary than practically anywhere else. It's a little issue of semantics which I don't care much for whether they hate them, strongly dislike them, strong resentment or whatevsky.

btw, I suppose it isn't a mere coincidence that the neo-Nazis poll nearly 35-40% in areas with the biggest concentration of Romas (which is, ftr, merely 2% at tops). I think that's a little nugget which suggests that it isn't mere resentment that you have going on.

I prefer this post.

Well, yeah, I don't doubt the resentment can be very big, especially if as you say it polls 35-40% to neo-nazi-like stuffs in Roma areas, I don't doubt at all the contempt and the resentment might be very big there, or anywhere, I don't need such polls to be convinced Roma are really disliked here or there in Europe. Just had troubles seriously using the word 'hate' here, since for me it's reserved for those actively preach hatred, not for a population who have a feeling toward an other one even if a very negative one, I would reserve it for active groups. See, I wouldn't even apply it to the German population during Nazi Germany, but only to actual Nazi groups and organizations.

On the other hand, I wonder about Flemish, generally, toward Wallons, if that's not hatred that could be a big hint of that...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

On the other hand, I wonder about Flemish, generally, toward Wallons, if that's not hatred that could be a big hint of that...

It isn't. In general what we have going on round here are just some 'ordinary' political problems which are not driven by racial tensions. If there is electoral gain to be found in nationalism, that finds its origin in the media and mainstream parties blaming the 'unworkable' structure of the Belgian state. Racial hatred plays no role whatsoever in the Flemish Mainstream.

Well, we can use the word 'hate' very easily to describe a feeling of strong disliking, but as I tried to write here, if we wanna be serious, I think it should be reserved to those who actively preach hatred, by one way or an other.

Still if we wanna speak seriously about the use of this word, I would think we can less speak of hatred when it is about a majority toward a minority seen as a nuisance, you don't hate someone you find inferior to yourself, you despise him, you loathe him, but you don't hate.

I would think you develop a feeling as strong as hatred mainly toward someone you see as a competitor, someone who is, or that you see as, annoying and as a big enough challenger to develop a big feeling such as hatred.

Which could kinda be the case for Flemish toward Wallons, and in this case especially because of the historical record, in which it was Wallons who dominated during a long while, possibly making born hatred amongst Flemish, and one which has been cultivated and which can now express itself with Flemish having an economical, then social, advantage on Wallons. And well, I've seen and heard several Flemish in media and a bit of anecdotes in my life, some behaviors, some words, which if it wouldn't be hatred, it wouldn't be far. That being said, in any case, if we speak seriously we can't generalize, indeed.

I think generally you would only hate someone you find superior to you or competing with you. Which would be the case about Jews in the 30s when they were seen as dominating the world by some people, or nowadays still with Jews seen as manipulating the Western World by some Westerners, which can give New World Order, or still some hatred by some Palestinians toward Jews seen as all-permit oppressors, but there is no hatred from those who dominate, Jews, toward Palestinians, seen as a nuisance by them, or some hatred from some Muslims toward Western World, seen as awful dominators responsible of all problems, possibly giving hatred as big as some leading to terrorism, but the only hatred you can find in West toward Muslims is amongst those who think Muslims are an actual threat for the 'Christian civilizations' (and we all know the nuts it can give...), then it's when they are seen as a competitor.

In short you wouldn't hate someone you find inferior to you, hate would be reserved to someone you see as a dominator or a challenger.

On topic: I am really angry abouth both these deportations and the way the Member of the European Commission for Luxemburg was handled by the French the utter idiot who currently (but not for long) governs France.

Fixed.

Well, they are our official representants, and we even elected them, by 53% of a 85% turnout. But yeah, France wouldn't be summed up to them.

About this affair with Viviane Reding, I think both would have faulted here. First, Reding, she should have paid more attention with her criticism, when a criticism is too excessive it disqualifies the criticism, and then, look, she feel forced to present apologies, then awakening herself and the criticisms she could hold toward this, and there are some. Seems that France respected the European laws more over, it was far more a psychological politician problem than a technical judiciary problem, then criticisms should have been mainly hold in the former realm, and without useless counter-productive inaccuracy.

That being said, yeah, some French reactions have been totally stupid and blamable, I think of a glorious French UMP senator, Mr Philippe Marini saying that he 'would have preferred that Luxembourg doesn't exist'.

But, if the so loved European Commission wanna hold some criticisms and not being back fired, then words must be chosen, in order to well, being effective. That being said, if France broke some European laws in this affair, then it has indeed to be condemned, and that could be an interesting affair, giving a bit of a political importance to what's happening in EU institutions. Though, wouldn't make EU more popular...