The ban prohibits "all meetings likely to start or fuel disorder" and comes after police reports of e-mails and text messages calling for "violent acts" in the city on Saturday.
Unless I'm mistaken...this is in reference to the temporary emergency powers bestowed on the police for something like 10 days or something along those lines. To further extend the emergency situation, the French parliament has to go to a vote again. So while I don't completely understand the situation, I don't see this as a serious breech of civil rights as its temporary and has a built in limit (in theory).QuoteThe ban prohibits "all meetings likely to start or fuel disorder" and comes after police reports of e-mails and text messages calling for "violent acts" in the city on Saturday.
Well, if this isn't a statement that is open to interpretation, I don't know what is. As soon as these riots are over, this has to go. I agree that meetings shouldn't grow violent--a similar phrase exists in the US Constitution--but banning "all meetings likely to start or fuel disorder" leaves the entire situation up to the government as to what may or may not cause a disruption.
Which is a bad thing.
I think the whole situation is worrying...these sorts of things spread. They already have to Belgium and Germany. But I see this as a "it takes two to tango" sort of situation. The minorities tend to not want to or seemingly make no effort to integrate into society and society is just as bad at preventing attempts to integrate. Basically, neither side is interested in the other and you get natural segregation as minority groups settle into ghetto like atmosphere's. As they aren't integrated into the culture its hard to find jobs and then it spirals out of control from there.
Well it's not exactly the French who are rioting. Have you seen pictures of the dead teen's mother? I can't find them right now, but French she certainly is not.
Thank you, I realize that. But it is possible for one to be legally French (which entitles them to the same treatment as every other citizen, something I am not disputing) while not being culturally French.
No, but the cultural seperation was a bilateral process. The northern-african immigrants didn't adapt to the French culture, and the French in turn treat them like 2nd class citizens.I'm not disputing that. But either way, better integration is needed, if these people are to accept France and France is to accept them. It seems a reasonable way to avoid further problems in the future.
Burning cars and shops won't change the miserable conditions in the suburbs, but neither will calling the immigrants scum that needs to be washed away (as Sarkozy put it)
Yes, and I was reffering to the mother (who, in the picture I saw, looked like this (http://www.africastyles.com/images/dec03/sen-2010l.jpg")).
erm, try here (http://kabiza.com/images/dress.jpg")
The page you were looking for - has been changed, or does not exist
you can always take a look around...
Thank you, I realize that. But it is possible for one to be legally French (which entitles them to the same treatment as every other citizen, something I am not disputing) while not being culturally French. If you intentionally and systematically seperate yourself from French customs and beliefs, sorry, but you're not really French. In any case, do you think it would have made any difference if the rioters had been white? Would that excuse the massive arson and lawlesness?
kazan: riots are always 1 part cause, 3 parts assholer
From what I understand the those culturally french haven't made much attempt to change and incorporate there immagrants and foreigners into their country and culture. Not that is should be forced, but simply encouraged. In some respects this is their fault. The French Gov't and culture is directly and enthusiastically adverse to change. And this is a widely known fact. Most obvious are the laws requiring cinemas to show a certain percantage of French films. Or how they refuse to allow muslim children to wear head scarfs in school. NONE of this justifies the lawlessness and general disregaurd for others property or these muslim communities not realizing that these young teenage punks had it coming when they:
A. Tried stealing auto parts IIRC
B. Jumped the fence of a power subsystem to evade police.
Yep. That's pretty much what I'm on about. Yet English speakers have been quite happy to use terms like deja vu, laissez faire etc for ages.
Yeah but we've been using those words before that happened. We haven't had an institute for the last 400 years who's sole purpose was to make sure that all our words were proper English.
*Looks at America*
Hmmmm. Maybe we should have had one :D
Yeah but we've been using those words before that happened. We haven't had an institute for the last 400 years who's sole purpose was to make sure that all our words were proper English.
*Looks at America*
Hmmmm. Maybe we should have had one :D
That's actually the source of some of American English's more unusual spellings. Webster didn't like matching the British, so he made up new spellings.Yeah but we've been using those words before that happened. We haven't had an institute for the last 400 years who's sole purpose was to make sure that all our words were proper English.
*Looks at America*
Hmmmm. Maybe we should have had one :D
Wouldn't have done you any good, we would have thrown it out along with old George and all that silly tea :p
Yeah but we've been using those words before that happened. We haven't had an institute for the last 400 years who's sole purpose was to make sure that all our words were proper English.
*Looks at America*
Hmmmm. Maybe we should have had one :D
Wouldn't have done you any good, we would have thrown it out along with old George and all that silly tea :p