Slashdot Mirror
French Riots Lead to Crackdown on Blogs
Browncoat writes "Wired reports that because of the recent riots in France, authorities have shut down a blog called Hardcore, whose participants have allegedly violating a French law concerning violent speech. Many bloggers fear there will be consequences for them if they are outspoken, even if it is in a nonviolent way. From the article: 'Ahmed Meguinia, a political activist who saw some of the Paris region's hardest-hit areas during the past week, said many bloggers feared prosecution for publishing even nonviolent content. While not condoning blogs that incited violence, he said that there was a lack of media coverage explaining why ethnically segregated inhabitants of some of France's poorest cities have been driven to riot. Instead, the world repeatedly sees CNN images of burning cars and shops, he said.'"
That's a loaded term. Show me where France forced ethnicities into certain parts of the city, Warsaw Ghetto style. People live wherever they can afford to. Guess what? Beverly Hills is 'ethnically segregated' too.
... we have laws against inciting violence here, and most other places have the same deal.
If some American blog advocated setting fire to police stations and lynching Dick & George, it would also be "cracked down" upon.
Let's not get all hypocritical here.
Of course, the free speach should weigh heavy, but they should dampen the ones that try to fuel the fire.
Bullshit! There is no valid reason to restrict speech unless it presents an immediate danger and serves no valid point of discussion (yelling fire in a movie theater).
Simply banning all speech that might be "violent" is a very slippery slope. It would probably have made it illegal for me to encourage people to take to the streets to protest the Florida fiasco in 2000. They might do better by looking at the reason why these people are rioting in the first place. Perhaps because they feel cheated by the system? Perhaps because they aren't even allowed to wear their religious headwear to school anymore?
As a sidenote: I don't ever want to hear people slime the United States again. It's rather interesting that Muslim youth over here aren't rioting -- even though we are the ones "at war" with certain followers of that faith. Perhaps that's because we have better religious freedom?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That's like saying Osama Bin Laden was "driven" to attack the WTC. Or the people who attacked London in July were "driven" to it by the victims.
Many ( but centainly not all) of these rioters are racists. The difference between them and other disillusioned youths in their North African homecountries is that they're living close enough to the hated group to actually attack them, in this case their property and the police.
Let's examine this statement:
>>he said that there was a lack of media coverage explaining why ethnically segregated inhabitants of some of France's poorest cities have been driven to riot.
>>lack of media coverage explaining
No doubt. From the media, one would think it was just random collections of poor "youth" on a little spree, releasing youthful energy by burning a car or two (thousand). The reality is that it's a well-defined group of people which I'll get to in a moment.
>>ethnically segregated inhabitants
Do you mean the "muslim immigrants (many of whom are illegal aliens), primarily male aged 14-26, who, by choice, are poorly integrated into France's culture (read: hates France, doesn't speak French, disdain for Europeans, etc.) and thus more likely to be unemployed (and living off of France's generous welfare system, placing a burden on the French)?" It's hard to tell, with all those PC buzzwords in the media.
Look, it's what happens when a culture doesn't insist that immigrants conform. They hate their host country and are using this as an excuse to terrorize, burn, loot, and generally express their disdain and hatred for France.
Anything else I can clear up for you?
Denmark has had really severe problems with that, but so far the groups fight eachother. None of the European countries have faced up to the transmigration problem and still handle them and immigrants alike under antiquated immigration laws designed to handle a slow trickle of individuals back in the 1950's. No system is really in place to get the people new job skills for those that need it, proper language skills, and an acceptance or appreciation of existing values and mores.
As a result, you get situations like in the Netherlands where each of the 4 largest cities in the country have a first generation immigrant/transmigration populations of over 40% each. Or in Malmö, Sweden where Swedes are now the single largest ethnic minority, even counting second generation immigrants/transmigrants as Swedes, regardless of assimilation.
There is also the problem of double standards. Any questioning or criticism of the system results in personal verbal attacks and accusations of intolerance. Any criticism of the behaviour of the new comers is likewise attacked with accusations of intolerance and racism. In contrast, newcomers can get away with statements and actions that would put a 'native' in serious legal trouble, resulting in jail or fines. That has to stop and the reality of the situation be looked at as well as the intended goals.
How does importing 5 million transmigrants into a country of 5 million or even 60 million help the situation for either the people (both new and old) in the new country or those left in the country they have escaped from? We all know what happens to a business if there is high turn over, what about whole cities or countries?
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
1. I think by dampen the ones that try to fuel the fire he probably meant the ones that were explicitly inciting further violence. So we're (you, me and parent) are probably in agreement that those specific guys could have their free speech rights truncated in interests of greater public safety.
2. Perhaps that's because we have better religious freedom? I think more than just religious freedom it might have to do with the fact that the French state is a secular one. When they beheaded their king back in the French Revolution they were not just doing away with the monarchy, they were also symbolically dethroning God. Ever since they have had an aggressively secular government. So it's no wonder that a minority group that is extremely religious feels at odds with a government that borders on anti-religious.
This is in contrast with American government, which was not founded as a secular state. People who say it was are misreading the Constitution and ignoring history. I'm not saying it was Christian, but it was at least fundamentally theist. Just read the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, certainly not a Christian by any conventional standard, began attending a Christian church when he was president. Why? He explained that he felt that the Christian faith tended towards the betterment of society and thus it was up to him to set a good example and attent. The "seperation of church and state" was really only intended to be a seperation between the state and any specific establishment of religion - not to set the state against religion or expel God from the state.
There are dangers in giving into the demands of the religious right - ID and all the nonesense. But by the same token, if we allow America to continue to be secularized (ala banning the Pledge of Allegiance and essentially declaring the Declaration of Independence itself to be ruled "unconstitutional") we are perhaps setting the stage to follow France towards an inevitable confrontation between the forces of religion and atheism.
I'm not saying that it is only religious tension that has resulted in the French violence, but it is certainly an exacerbating element.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
There's a difference. See if you can spot it:
Anita Coney is a smelly poopy-head.
That's opinion.
Anita Coney should be shoved through a meat-grinder because he's such an idiot.
That's a threat.
Understand? You can state opinions ("France sucks!") but you can't try and get people to attack France.
By the way, the US works in exactly the same way. It's often refered to as "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" but you can bet that the same blogs would be shut down by US authorities.
Some people are saying "It's all economics, they're poor / unemployed so they are fighting against the Man the only way they can", while others are saying "It's all religion, they're all middle-eastern, its what they do".... but those are just the talking points of the far Left and far Right. The issue, as always, is more complicated.
What you have are immigrant population from French colonies in North Africa (who happen to be of middle-eastern and african descent) who have entered France through their weaker immigration laws. The French are traditionally very nationalistic (see their Language boards), and the immigrants were discriminated against and were not assimilated into mainstream cultures. Secondly, the middle-eastern culture itself is very prideful, mainly becase of their religious practices and family customs. The net result was that the immigrants self-segretated themselves into comminities of like-minded peoples.
So, the dominant european ethnics (through prejudice) resisted their assimilation, which had the net result of limiting the earning potential of the middle-eastern ethnics. The immigrants resist learning the French language and culture, and because of French law, are denied representation in their governments. When the government does try to "help" them with social programs, their culture see it as insulting / condescending. The net result of this is a hatred of a government that is constantly trying to patronize them and force them to give up their heritage.
So, these neighborhoods tend to have less governmental police prescence than other suburbs of Paris, which tends to lead to more criminal elements. It had gotten so bad, representatives of the federal government of France were claiming that they would "clean up the scum", which didn't go so well with the locals. In the latest chain of events, there were two youths who were fleeing police, hid in a utility station and accidentally electrocuted themselves. The immigrant cultures see this as police brutality & oppression, something denied by the authorities.
Finally, there are now criminal elemnts in the immigrant culture that are rising up and causing damage around the suburbs, fighting their "battle" against the government for making them the way they are... Yet, these people do not see that a share of that responsibility is theirs.
Since I live in Paris and I used to live in one of those poor suburbs, my humble opinion might be worth more than 2 cents, so here it comes: ... They were not just discussing the problems.
1. There is no country in Europe that does not struggle with immigrants and children from immigrants from African origin. France has the largest number of them, hence the biggest problems. (This is also correlated to the anti-semitism problem in France: the largest arabic and the largest jewish populations of Europe are in France and anti semitism in France comes overwhelmingly from this arabic population)
2. Many of those rioters are simply criminals that do not want the police to be present in these suburbs and are demonstrating that it is their territory.
3. Islam has nothing to do with these rioters. If they were white, would we say it's because of christianity? These criminals are not muslim.
4. These bloggers were calling for physically hurting policemen, burning cars, schools,
5. What is this bullshit about journalists not talking about the causes of the social problems? All French newspapers, TV and radio news are just talking about that!
6. These riots happen almost exclusively in the poor suburbs of France, 99% of the French population has only seen burning cars on TV.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
No system is really in place to get the people new job skills for those that need it, proper language skills, and an acceptance or appreciation of existing values and mores.
Asians never seem to need assistance from the "state" nor do Eastern European immigrants. They adopt and are often the most successful members of society.
"'Driven to riot' implies a lack of accountability on the part of the people looting and burning one of history's great civilizations."
:)
Truer words have seldom been posted here... except that part about history's great civilizations, of course
Think of how many violent acts are carried out here in the USA because someone was "driven" to it? People seem to be "driven" by everything these days; alcohol, work stress, abusive parents, rap music, video games... everything except the most important element: CHARACTER FLAWS.
Maybe if people stopped blaming society for all of their personal shortcomings, we'd be able to fix some of our problems. Until that happens, though, prepare yourself for more of the same.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
It was not intended to strip ones liberty of faith, but rather put everybody on the same level : no religion (quite) no differences. See it like the UK uniform tradition. Religion being an important matter, it aims not to bring possible 'tensions' at school.
It doesn't strip your liberty of faith to not be able to wear the items of that faith when you attend public school? I presume that school is mandatory for all children in France the way it is in the United States?
Such a law would never survive a court challenge over here. It would never even get passed in the first place.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The problem in a nutshell is Islam is not just a religion, it is also a political force that denies the legitimacy of other belief systems and other political orientations.
What utter tripe.
I lived in two predominantly Muslim countries when I was a kid, (Malaysia and Indonesia), and they were just as tolerant of other religions as any other country in the world. For most Indonesians, Islam is about like Christianity is in the USA: something you pay lip service to when your grandma is listening, but you don't let it get in the way of having a good time.
There's a problem of Saudi-bankrolled Wahabbis finding the assholes in every Muslim community and inciting them to cause trouble. It's about the same problem you'd find in the Christian world if somebody dropped a couple billion dollars on that clown with the "god hates fags" web site.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They really do mean that everyone is equal, and everyone is the same, and everyone will learn the same curriculum in every school in France at the same time of day. And there will be no special treatment for anyone in respect of membership of any group. And no mark of religious observance will be allowed in any school. This is why headscarves are banned. That's why there can be no equal opportunities programs, and no quotas based on ethnicity. There can of course be massive social programs directed at the poor and at deprived areas, and there are. It is not usually realised what an enormous proportion of the French budget goes on social spending. This is what is keeping the suburbs and their housing projects going. But no-one is being forced to live anywhere, except by individual choices of lots of people.
And, incidentally, if you live in a colonial possession, you are French. You are represented in the legislature just as if you were a departement of geographical France, you have the same government, the same schools. You are a citizen, that's all anyone needs to know. The rest is personal
Of course, the problem is, that neither the immigrants nor the native population actually feels this way, and the 18th century is a long time ago. Hence there is indeed widespread discrimination, widespread isolationism and separatism, radical Islam is a real factor. Participation in politics is minimal - though the French electoral system would make it quite easy for immigrant groups to elect representatives, there are almost none.
Its a mess all right. But it is not quite the mess it looks from the US. Its a kind of unfamiliar mess, and Lord knows how you straighten it out, now.
I will have to discount the "nanny-state" part, because everything else you've said perfectly describes the race ghettos of the United States. No jobs, check. Entrenched racism, check. The US Government "telling" people where to live through economics....check (although I feel this point in particular is nothing more than a semantic game).
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.