A bad thing? Colour Blind state + restrictions of freedom of speech.

Just hunting out the views of my fellow Orgah's here, given that some of you have very pronounced views on societal intervention especially when considered against the back drop of mass immigration into europe.

This story sparked my interest:

Quote:

---

A French journalist has become the latest victim of Europe's racism witch trials

By Ed West World Last updated: April 7th, 2010

It’s a strange paradox that, now that Britain is tied to France in the Republican marriage that is the EU, we’re less interested than ever in what happens next door (with the exception of stories that involve Carla Bruni and Nicolas Sarkozy, or for that matter any adultery-related gossip that reminds us Brits just how sexually inadequate we are).
Which is a shame, because France is the future, and I mean that in the worst possible way. Mark Steyn might have been exaggerating when he said that France will be the world’s third Islamic nuclear power, but I’m certainly not sure whether I should bother teaching my kids French, or if Arabic may be more handy on their trips across the channel.

But if Steyn’s prediction does turn out to be true it will be because of the French habit of sticking their heads in the sand. France was, after all, the first country in Western Europe to ban opinions when it passed its ridiculous Holocaust Denial law, which set the ball rolling for restrictions on free speech across Europe. And laws once used against Nazi-loving cranks are now used to criticise any opponents of mass immigration.

This is a country that, as anyone who’s visited its seedy cities in recent years can testify, has undergone enormous immigration from North and sub-Saharan Africa, and not all of it has been “enriching”. Not that we can know exactly what the downsides are, because France bans statistics on ethnicity and crime.

Now a French journalist called Éric Zemmour is being tormented by the establishment in a sinister witch-hunt for speaking the truth. On March 6 Zemmour said on a Canal+ talkshow, Salut les terriens, that “French immigrants were more closely monitored than other Frenchmen because most of the drug traffickers were black or Arab… It’s a fact.”
We don’t know for sure whether this is a fact because official statistics are, of course, impossible to find, but there are various studies that suggest that what Zemmour said is broadly true – the nature of the prison population, for example. However, a few days later the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA) announced it would take action against him – strange, since Zemmour is Jewish and from a Berber family himself, and certainly does not come from the Catholic-fascist de Maistre tradition of French politics.

The following week, MRAP (Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples, a Communist Resistance group which has morphed into a familiar-sounding “anti-racism” body) and the Club Averroès, which “defends diversity in the media”, took their case to the CSA, the TV regulation authorities, because Zemmour’s remarks “have racist tones.”
And on March 17, CRAN (Representative Council of Black Associations)) announced that it had protested to the CSA, and to France Télévisions, concerning remarks by Zemmour that he considers discrimination in hiring practices to be a “right”. On that day SOS-Racism, yet another anti-racism group, also lodged a complaint for “racial defamation” against Zemmour’s drug dealer comments, summoning him to appear before a criminal court.

The group said: “Éric Zemmour has been spreading his disgusting ideology on popular television programs for too long. He will have to answer for his statements before the judge.” Scared by all this controversy, Zemmour was sacked by his main employers, the Right-wing newspaper, Le Figaro, who then relented after an internet campaign and 100-strong demonstration outside their office.

It’s all very strange. Zemmour is not a “racist’, rather he’s an integrationist who thinks immigration has gone too far – but he’s come up against a political establishment that increasingly uses the law to enforce the popularity of its utopian vision. They’re determined to make Europe a carnival of cultures and anyone seen not enjoying themselves will be arrested.

And it will affect all of Europe, because in the area of state tyranny, when France sneezes, England soon catches un rhume.

---

More info here and here:
http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2010...reedom-of.html
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/20...es-we-can.html

On the one hand I have always admired France's colour-blind state on simple principle, on the other it would seem to be creating a problem when combined with bad laws which restrict freedom of speech, as anyone who espouses a view which goes against the wishes of the state on race-politics has no information with which to defend himself.

On balance would be better off without the silly restrictions on freedom of speech, but if they have to remain in place then the colour blind state would appear to be a critical liability for the citizen.

What do you think?

The context needs to be considered. Sure this guy says that non-white Frenchmen are more likely to commit crimes, which may or may not be true. If he followed the sentence with something like "And that is why we need to kick all them all out of France", then obviously a ban would be justified. However, if he followed it with something like "This shows how badly France is failing to integrate it's non-white population into French society", then the nature of the ban is cloudy. There's a danger here that France may be dedicated to protecting fairytale integration, where there are a few black celebrities on TV and everyone agrees that racism is bad yes very bad, whilst real discrimination and economic injustice carries on unabated. Real integration into French society is only going to come about when the economic opportunities that are available to white Frenchmen are also available to beurs.

i don't think the context should matter at all, as that is just a method for the state to allow freedom of speech when it wants, and not when it doesn't.

i don't think your example would even cross the bounds of incitement to racial hatred, which is in itself a very bad law, and it certainly doesn't meet the criteria for incitement to violence, so i find it hard to see how there is justification in this case specifically, and in any case more generally...........

it would seem that the french state does not want to admit that it initiates surveillance on blacks more than whites, because it is not allowed to under its constitutionally colour-blind set-up, so it uses its own bad laws to pursue the whistle-blower.

Being of dual nationality (British and French), I've grown up with a view on both "worlds" -as the French see it and as the British see it.

This article betrays a fantastic misunderstanding of the background to this event and how France views integration, compared to Britain. I'm not talking about a simple multi-culturalism vs integration debate either.

Quote:

---

Not that we can know exactly what the downsides are, because France bans statistics on ethnicity and crime.

---

The hack should have asked the following question before charging off down his well worn rut of "OMG it's 1984 and that's teh ministry of truth":

Why does France ban statistics on ethnicity and crime?
Because being "French" is independant of colour or background. Where a French person originated from or where their parents where born should have no bearing on them as a French individual -so there is no need to collect statistics on that.

From a practical (and also Anglo-Saxon) perspective, this makes no sense -there are uncountable demographic, social and economic factors which transcend nationality. But, the French establishment's view is that to be French is itself a transcendental status (above demography etc), aquired by immigration and assimilation or birth. I'd go as far as to say that the French are suppremely arrogant about the superiority of their brand of liberty over the rest of the world's (read Anglo-saxon concepts of it).

Back to the stats and figures. Given what the pragmatic/Anglosaxon view as an intractable falacy: that all French are French and equal in their liberty, it would seem natural to collect evidence on how demographic, social or economic conditions might condition a French persons' existence. However, to some in France (I think they are more than a little over sensitive here -being part Anglo and all), collecting stats on French people in less than glorious social condition (banged up, poor or unemployed) could only be, or runs the risk of, portraying them as less than equals: less than French.

Hence the NGO uproar with its apparent disingenious resistance to investigation of the condition of France's immigrants. Investigation which, in Britain for example, would (hopefully!) be used as a basis for addressing a disproportinately disadvantaged group's malaises. But in France, the findings would be viewed as a denial of the equality of being French, so the establishment opposes it and prefers to continue blinkered.

Well that's my view, no doubt I'll now be told I'm not French (or British) and have no right to speak as though I were :)

Quote:

---

Why does France ban statistics on ethnicity and crime?
Because being "French" is independant of colour or background. Where a French person originated from or where their parents where born should have no bearing on them as a French individual -so there is no need to collect statistics on that.

From a practical (and also Anglo-Saxon) perspective, this makes no sense -there are uncountable demographic, social and economic factors which transcend nationality. But, the French establishment's view is that to be French is itself a transcendental status (above demography etc), aquired by immigration and assimilation or birth. I'd go as far as to say that the French are suppremely arrogant about the superiority of their brand of liberty over the rest of the world's (read Anglo-saxon concepts of it).

---

That's kind of absurdly funny, but distressing at the same time. They don't check and see if immigrant groups are committing more crimes because...they are proud of their brand of liberty and don't want to "soil" it? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

That's kind of absurdly funny, but distressing at the same time. They don't check and see if immigrant groups are committing more crimes because...they are proud of their brand of liberty and don't want to "soil" it? :dizzy2:

---

From the point of view of the NGO's, in singling out particular ethnicities or groups it also runs the risk of problematising them.

The sticking point is the acceptance that all are not equal, even if French. If the establishment/social consensus could get over that and inject a little pragmatism, then there might be room for a better appraisal of the underlying conditions -and action to overcome them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Being of dual nationality (British and French), I've grown up with a view on both "worlds" -as the French see it and as the British see it.

This article betrays a fantastic misunderstanding of the background to this event and how France views integration, compared to Britain. I'm not talking about a simple multi-culturalism vs integration debate either.



The hack should have asked the following question before charging off down his well worn rut of "OMG it's 1984 and that's teh ministry of truth":

Why does France ban statistics on ethnicity and crime?
Because being "French" is independant of colour or background. Where a French person originated from or where their parents where born should have no bearing on them as a French individual -so there is no need to collect statistics on that.

From a practical (and also Anglo-Saxon) perspective, this makes no sense -there are uncountable demographic, social and economic factors which transcend nationality. But, the French establishment's view is that to be French is itself a transcendental status (above demography etc), aquired by immigration and assimilation or birth. I'd go as far as to say that the French are suppremely arrogant about the superiority of their brand of liberty over the rest of the world's (read Anglo-saxon concepts of it).

Back to the stats and figures. Given what the pragmatic/Anglosaxon view as an intractable falacy: that all French are French and equal in their liberty, it would seem natural to collect evidence on how demographic, social or economic conditions might condition a French persons' existence. However, to some in France (I think they are more than a little over sensitive here -being part Anglo and all), collecting stats on French people in less than glorious social condition (banged up, poor or unemployed) could only be, or runs the risk of, portraying them as less than equals: less than French.

Hence the NGO uproar with its apparent disingenious resistance to investigation of the condition of France's immigrants. Investigation which, in Britain for example, would (hopefully!) be used as a basis for addressing a disproportinately disadvantaged group's malaises. But in France, the findings would be viewed as a denial of the equality of being French, so the establishment opposes it and prefers to continue blinkered.

Well that's my view, no doubt I'll now be told I'm not French (or British) and have no right to speak as though I were :)

---

your explanation is very interesting, and i am grateful for it, but i am still left considering that the colour-blind state and freedom of speech restrictions regarding ethnicity are incompatible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

your explanation is very interesting, and i am grateful for it, but i am still left considering that the colour-blind state and freedom of speech restrictions regarding ethnicity are incompatible.

---

:bow: Indeed, my comment was no answer to the question but i felt the context offered by the article merited a bit of caution.

I agree it's extremely tough.

Considering a topic I am familiar with, in Medicine of course doctors are not ageist / sexist / racist.

But in another way we of course are.

We review patients on their gender (pregnancy tests for men? No; prostate cancer in women? No), race (affects test results and treatment options) age (test results, treatment options and likely diseases). Even socio-economic class is a factor. I've probably forgotten a vast number of other variables that we are "blind" to in one sense, but not in another.

I guess we discriminate in a pragmatic or possibly benign / way

Similarly I feel the same should be true of the police: forcing a 90 year old in a wheelchair through a scanner is insanity merely so all categories are equally searched is madness for example; there is no need for a task force to address Pensioner on Pensioner crime, but there has been found the need / it has been found useful to have a black on black crime unit (in London).

This shows where what is in practice easy to see, but to write down as legislation is far more difficult; conversely merely the existence of legislation does not guarantee fairness.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I agree it's extremely tough.

This shows where what is in practice easy to see, but to write down as legislation is far more difficult; conversely merely the existence of legislation does not guarantee fairness.

---

:balloon2:

"the existence of legislation does not guarantee fairness." This is exactly the case in France, where non-French (or more specificaly, North African) sounding names put one at a significant disadvantage when it comes to employment. Legislation cannot overcome latent racism single-handedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

:balloon2:

"the existence of legislation does not guarantee fairness." This is exactly the case in France, where non-French (or more specificaly, North African) sounding names put one at a significant disadvantage when it comes to employment. Legislation cannot overcome latent racism single-handedly.

---

The find that even with like third-generation families?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

The context needs to be considered. Sure this guy says that non-white Frenchmen are more likely to commit crimes, which may or may not be true. If he followed the sentence with something like "And that is why we need to kick all them all out of France", then obviously a ban would be justified.

---

Why would a ban be justified?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Why would a ban be justified?

---

Because when brown people get enraged they turn into superman and that hurts our little white senesiblities

GET WITH THE PROGRAM, BOHICA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Why would a ban be justified?

---

You don't kick everyone out just because they are in a higher risk group. That would be like not allowing men to drive because they are more likely to have a car crash.

I don't think a ban is justified in that case though. If someone's views are not worth broadcasting, then they just won't get asked in for interviews...well ok...I had to laugh after typing that out. But I don't think legal action is justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You don't kick everyone out just because they are in a higher risk group. That would be like not allowing men to drive because they are more likely to have a car crash.

I don't think a ban is justified in that case though. If someone's views are not worth broadcasting, then they just won't get asked in for interviews...well ok...I had to laugh after typing that out. But I don't think legal action is justified.

---

My question has nothing to do with my opinions about immigrants, one way or another. I'm just wondering why he feels any opinion should be banned.

I follow the case on the French Media.

The fact is most of the people in jail are from Foreign origin, from Africa mainly… So is it racism? No.
As he didn’t say to kick them all out, he just mentioned a fact, to avoid what happened in UK about the search of Muslim is seen by some as discrimination in ignoring that the suicide-bomber were Muslim. So in UK better to waist you time in searching equal number of Muslims and non-Muslims than to focus on the potential murderers.
Not that I am convince of the success of such search things anyway…

Now, you can research why these French from African Emigration are in jail and not the French from Asian Emigration? So you will need more social-cultural studies and then pull together some efforts in favour of the ones who go for easy money instead of studying at school… But again, that is statistic…
But do you need to segregate the different French by origin, religion, sexuality and others skins colours? No.

What is the use in UK of such data: None. Perhaps it can be use to marketing food and clothes? More pork meat needed as more Polish? But in term of political action?

Now, why the French are allergic to Ethnicity/religious statistic?
As mentioned, the French Ideology: You are French, so equal so no need of such data.
Second, can you imagine if such statistic and data would have been available to Petain/Laval//Hitler with the Jews? They did a pretty good job with the Communist folder…
The Anglo-Saxon model (know in France as Communautaire) is not what French Ideology wants to produce.
The French see it as divers communities living side-by-side but not together…
The French model is the one from the Birth of the Republic, French because you have the French values… It is far more demanding than the Anglo-Saxon one which just request a good neighbourhood…
Is the French ideal? No. Is it idealistic? Yes.
That is why I prefer it, but as a French, I am not really fair.

In this case, it was not an attack on freedom of speech but a politically correct attack on somebody controversial.

By the way, all complain were withdrawn, excepted one…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The find that even with like third-generation families?

---

This is a good question. in the USA, the immigrant story was almost always a hard one and assimilation was often a very grudign process. On the other hand, after two or three generations, a good deal of integration DID occur. Sasaki is, therefore, pointing up the possibility that this is a "normal" transition for these relatively recent immigrants by asking if discrimination is still being experienced by groups that have been there a bit. Can anyone speak to this?

It shows what a geek I am, but I was most interested by this ambiguous modifier.

Quote:

---

Scared by all this controversy, Zemmour was sacked by his main employers, the Right-wing newspaper, Le Figaro, who then relented after an internet campaign and 100-strong demonstration outside their office

---

Zemmour was scared, and so he was sacked? Makes no sense. Surely they must mean his employers were scared, and so sacked him. Putting it in passive voice lines the modifier up with the wrong nominal phrase. On the other hand, just switching it to active doesn't really fix it, as then you'd have

Quote:

---

Scared by all this controversy, Zemmour's employers, the Right-wing newspaper, Le Figaro, who then relented after an internet campaign and 100-strong demonstration outside their office, sacked him

---

Which is obviously bad, and for two reasons: first, it saves the main verb till almost the end of the sentence as the reader struggles through the very dense and complex subject noun phrase, forcing them to store a great deal of structure and information in short-term memory while waiting to find out what the sentence is about; second, the relative clause [who then relented . . .], doesn't even make sense preceding the sacking.

This sentence has serious problems. IMO the writer should have scrapped it entirely and started over expressing that information another way.

Ajax

edit: another reason not to put it in active voice is that this is the first mention of Zemmour's employers. It makes for much smoother reading if you introduce a sentence with known information, such as Zemmour or the controversy, and only then introduce new material. I'd probably end up going with
"This controversy frightened Zemmour's employers, the Right-wing newspaper, Le Figaro, who sacked Zemmour, though they relented after an internet campaign and 100-strong demonstration outside their office"

Zemmour is a bit of a Fragony.

Not that all the provocations by this raving madman are without merit, mind. And neither are those by Zemmour.


As for the quastion raised in the OP - I can't make up my mind. There are clear reasons for the state not to gather etnic statistics etc, touching on the heart of Republican ideology, the foundation of French liberty and equality. It can not be discarded.
Even so, public opinion, even professionals in the field, are sometimes as a result oblivious of what I consider some basic truths, not hidden for those who wish to see.
I struggle to know what wisdom is in this matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OP article

Fdesouche started as a grassroots anti-immigration, anti-Islam and anti-globalisation blog. (Also, at times, rather anti-American, anti-capitalist and anti-Semitic, I’m sorry to report; but it’s doing a terrific job nonetheless.) It’s close to the far-right Front National (unconfirmed reports allege that its anonymous leader, “François”, is, or was, the Front national webmaster). However, there’s nothing to prove an organic link. François, in the past, has described himself as “Gaullist” and “center-left”.

---

*giggles at reporter for thinking there is an actual far right Frenchman with a first name 'François', and surname 'De Souche' *

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

That's kind of absurdly funny, but distressing at the same time. They don't check and see if immigrant groups are committing more crimes because...they are proud of their brand of liberty and don't want to "soil" it? :dizzy2:

---

Not pride, a different concept of what it means to be 'French'. See Brenus' and allh_p's posts above. Let me try with an example:

Are you, Sakaki:
A) A member of the Second Estate
B) A settled agrarian, or a nomadic
C) A member of Caste X
D) An American national

The first three strike you no doubt as odd. Perhaps backwards. Yet in other places, identities run along these lines. The American is simply an American citizen, an American national. Identities in other nations may differ. In Europe, the classic division is between the German and the French model. A German is a German by bloodline, a Frenchman is French by soil and legal status as citizen. America is somewhere in between.

In French Republicanism - the only true freedom, you slaves and serfs - all embellishments of public identity are done away with. To the state, publicly, you are only a citizen, and nothing else. No race, no religion, no birth. You are a citizen, or you are not, and if you are, you are nothing else. There is nothing below or above the citizen.



For examples where this can lead to, I should link to the 'Napoléon is a Corsican', or the 'Secularism is threatened' threads, but I'm too lazy. Or I could link to the many stories of Americans ordering their drinks or their meals unaware of the sensitivities of maintaining absolute equality when adressing a waiter or shop assistant, a breach of which inevitably deteriorates into ensuing drama (if American) or comedy (if French).

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Of course, all of the above is ideological bollox and in practise, at heart, every Frenchmen dislikes anything non-Catholic of non-French stock. :beam:

A leftover from when life was more brutal and tough, and the strange people with their strange language and customs in the next village were to be mistrusted, and you could only count on your own. Once turned into Frenchmen, the attitude was transposed to 'France'. 'Beyond the Alps, Pyrénées and Rhine, savagery lies. Of which altogether too much has crept into the hexagon already'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

This is a good question. in the USA, the immigrant story was almost always a hard one and assimilation was often a very grudign process. On the other hand, after two or three generations, a good deal of integration DID occur. Sasaki is, therefore, pointing up the possibility that this is a "normal" transition for these relatively recent immigrants by asking if discrimination is still being experienced by groups that have been there a bit. Can anyone speak to this?

---

Modern France has had massive immigration for two centuries now. French women simply do not want to spoil their figure by procreating. French demography is very different from the European standard. There has been massive immigration, including a large non-white population since the days the Three Musketeers was written by a Black Frenchman in the early 19th century.

Most European immigrant groups have been assimilated. (Those who couldn't afford a ticket to the Americas went to France - Poles, Belgians, Germans, Savoyans in the 19th century. Romanians, Jews fleeing to the most philo-Semitic country in Europe, Armenians fleeing after the genocide of 1915, a million refugees each from the Portuguese and Spanish dictatorships. Italians beyond numbers throughout the last two centuries, or millenia. Plus the enitre legacy that comes from having been a dominant linguistic and cultural centre for a long time).

Blacks and Beurs have a long history too. There are large numbers of fourth, fifth generation Blacks and Beurs. There is also a large beurgeoisie. A middle class of educated, thriving Muslims. Exogamy is very high - a third of Algerian women marry Frenchmen. (Frenchwomen are less prone to marry Muslim men. The gap is offset by Frenchwomen marrying Black men. The final pieces are solved by the surplus of Muslim men importing brides, and the surplus of Black women having to endure polygamous relationships - their Black boyfriend will have another black girlfriend on the side)

I digress.

Job application forms with Arabic sounding names are very prone to not receive an invitation. There are several studies, and the conclusions are rather discomforting.

Assimilation of West and North Africans has largely failed. I am tempted to ascibe this to the impossibility of physically assimilating. A Black person is always immediately recognisable as of immigrant origin, a Romanian not.
Oh well, for better or for worse, France is rapidly turning into a Brazil. Mixed-race is by far the fastest growing etnic group.
I said 'tempted', because there are also large numbers of Vietnamese, Chinese and Indian (mostly through Islands in the Indian Ocean). While of different levels of assimilation, all these groups are thriving and are doing well.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Sure this guy says that non-white Frenchmen are more likely to commit crimes, which may or may not be true.

---

Métro line 13. It takes you from the centre of Paris to the northern suburbs. You'll have to take a bus further northeast for even more fun in 'interesting' neighbourhoods.

Good luck!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

real discrimination and economic injustice carries on unabated. Real integration into French society is only going to come about when the economic opportunities that are available to white Frenchmen are also available to beurs.

---

There is widespread racism in France. As the example of job application letters with Arabic names shows.


Yet, three appartment buildings, one in the 13th/southeast of Paris, the other in the East, the third in the North. The first is inhabited by Chinese and Vietnamese, the second by North Africans, the third by West Africans. Each enjoys some of Europe's best and generous healthcare, education, housing and social benefits.
In a decade, the first looks like a mini thriving Asian town. Clean and bustling. The second is troubled, restless, unsafe even for police or medics. The third looks like a warzone, crime infested, drugs-ridden, completely run down.

Le Monde, this Monday, ran a special about drugs in a northeast suburb. Shocking, shocking, shocking.

There are Russian, Serbian, Indian, Jewish, American neighbourhoods in Paris too. They look just like the neighbourhoods inhabited by these cultures in any other cities in the world, from capitalist North American cities, to the brutal Latin American cities, to the socialist paradises of Northern Europe. One would be tempted to think that the social and political system of the host country is not the most determining variable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Zemmour is a bit of a Fragony.

Not that all the provocations by this raving madman are without merit, mind. And neither are those by Zemmour.

---

Ba-da-BOOM! Thank you, thank you, I'll be playing here all week! Tip your waitress, don't tip her over! Try the veal!

cheers guys, particularly to Louis and Brenus.

I am quite happy with the colour-blind state, i just think that it can be abused by politically correct nazi'ness when combined with laws that restrict freedom of speech.

Now a French journalist called Éric Zemmour is being tormented by the establishment in a sinister witch-hunt for speaking the truth. On March 6 Zemmour said on a Canal+ talkshow, Salut les terriens, that “French immigrants were more closely monitored than other Frenchmen because most of the drug traffickers were black or Arab… It’s a fact.”

So in the end he is prosecuted because he reports on racist policy, I guess that makes sense somewhere somehow. The inquisition of the multichurch in action, not even a shred of doubt is to be allowed.

Quote:

---

Métro line 13. It takes you from the centre of Paris to the northern suburbs. You'll have to take a bus further northeast for even more fun in 'interesting' neighbourhoods.

Good luck!

---

Do they commit crime because they are black, or because they are living in poverty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

cheers guys, particularly to Louis and Brenus.

I am quite happy with the colour-blind state, i just think that it can be abused by politically correct nazi'ness when combined with laws that restrict freedom of speech.

---

What does political correctness mean? It's a easy term to throw around but there are situations where it is justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

What does political correctness mean? It's a easy term to throw around but there are situations where it is justified.

---

it certainly doesn't seem justified in this situation, and has been instigated because of political correctness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

it certainly doesn't seem justified in this situation, and has been instigated because of political correctness.

---

But, interestingly (to me anyway -don't want to labor the point too much), in France they think quite the opposite.

no wait, i thought we were all the same......................?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

no wait, i thought we were all the same......................?

---

Well you're not, cos you're not French. :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Now a French journalist called Éric Zemmour is being tormented by the establishment in a sinister witch-hunt for speaking the truth. On March 6 Zemmour said on a Canal+ talkshow, Salut les terriens, that “French immigrants were more closely monitored than other Frenchmen because most of the drug traffickers were black or Arab… It’s a fact.”

So in the end he is prosecuted because he reports on racist policy, I guess that makes sense somewhere somehow. The inquisition of the multichurch in action, not even a shred of doubt is to be allowed.

---

Actually, from what our French posters seem to be saying about France and religion, you would probably have been more accurate had you phrased that as "inquisition of the a-religious."


Others:

Vis-a-vis "political correctness," it is important to remember that language is a slippery thing. Attempting to prohibit certain thoughts by banning the common labels used to express them is rather silly. On the other hand, encouraging (not legislating!) a new set of labels with different connotations CAN augment other efforts to make a cultural attitude shift towards some subject.

In short, words do matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Actually, from what our French posters seem to be saying about France and religion, you would probably have been more accurate had you phrased that as "inquisition of the a-religious."

---

These zealots only think they aren't religious, no church is as devout as the leftist church. Believing is not enough you must know that there is only one culture and it's multi ES MUSS SEIN