Madness in France

[ocelot]

Paris riots need calm but firm response: Chirac
Last Updated Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:07:46 EST
CBC News
French President Jacques Chirac says nightly clashes between youth gangs and Paris police must be dealt with calmly but firmly.

"The law must be applied firmly and in a spirit of dialogue and respect. The absence of dialogue and an escalation of a lack of respect will lead to a dangerous situation," said Chirac after a cabinet meeting.


French police and youth gangs clashed overnight Tuesday, the sixth night of violence in the poor suburbs ringing the eastern side of Paris.

Hundreds of police patrolled Clichy-sous-Bois, where the riots broke out, after two teenagers of African origin were electrocuted and a third critically injured while reportedly hiding from police within the walls of an electrical sub-station last Thursday. Police deny the allegation.

About 60 vehicles were set on fire and 34 people were arrested as the fighting spread to other parts of the suburbs, which are mostly populated by poor immigrants.

France's prime minister postponed a planned visit to Canada on Wednesday to deal with continuing riots in a Paris suburb.

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin had initially delayed his visit to Canada so he could meet with the families of the two dead teens on Tuesday evening. He pleaded for calm after the meeting.

On Wednesday, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Paul Martin said de Villepin's dinner with the prime minister would be postponed.

Suburbs home to poverty

On Monday night, young people had thrown crudely made Molotov cocktails and set fire to cars and garbage cans. The police fired tear gas.

An officer was slightly hurt and 12 people were arrested.

Suburbs like Clichy are home to many immigrant families from France's former colonies in Africa. Poverty and unemployment rates are high and the unrest has revealed the frustration with police and the authorities.

The violence has highlighted the government's difficulty in improving opportunities in these areas and exposed a rift in Chirac's government.

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who may run for president in 2007, has been criticized for his tough "zero-tolerance" approach to suburban crime. He has called the rioters "scum."

He has ordered police to focus on 25 problem neighbourhoods in various French cities and promised to investigate allegations that police fired tear gas into a mosque, which has angered many immigrants.




Paris suburbs hit with more violence
Last Updated Thu, 03 Nov 2005 11:31:27 EST
CBC News
Youth gangs set fire to dozens of vehicles, fired on police and pelted a commuter train with rocks in the seventh straight night of violence in poor Paris suburbs.

Police poured into 10 Parisian suburbs but were unable to stop youths from setting more than 300 vehicles and two buses on fire. Nine people were injured overnight.

Traffic on a train line linking Paris to Charles de Gaulle airport was halted early Thursday after young gangs attacked two trains at Le Blanc-Mesnil station. They smashed windows and forced one conductor from a train, said rail officials.

In Aulnay-sous-Bois, rioters briefly laid siege to a police detachment, while rioters also damaged a school, a shopping centre and a Renault car dealership.

French radio reported that shots were fired at police in La Courneuve.

The suburbs are home to mostly poor immigrants from North Africa who are frustrated at high unemployment, poverty and a feeling that they are not embraced by French society.

Rioting started one week ago when two teenagers from the suburbs were electrocuted while running from police. Police deny the claim.

The riots have created a crisis for the government, with French President Jacques Chirac pleading for calm. French leaders are promising law and order, but are split over how to deal with poverty and crime in the affected areas.

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who cancelled a visit to Canada to deal with the violence, has called a number of meetings with government officials throughout the day.



He told the Senate his government won't "give in" to violence.

"The return to calm and the restoration of public order are the priority – our absolute priority," said de Villepin.

He'll also meet with his political rival Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who has called the youth gangs "scum."




No injuries during fiery night in French suburbs
Last Updated Fri, 04 Nov 2005 06:11:23 EST
CBC News
Some French officials say clashes between suburban youth and police are abating, though another night of unrest resulted in the torching of 400 cars and more than two dozen municipal buses.

No injuries were reported.


Police officers investigate the wreckage of some of the 27 city buses burned by youths, Trappes, west of Paris, Friday, Nov. 4.(AP Photo/Remy de la Mauviniere)
"The peak is now behind us," Aulnay-sous-Bois Mayor Gerard Gaudron said in an interview carried on France-Info radio Friday. "People have had enough."

Riots broke out in some of the poorest suburbs of northern Paris after two youths died while running away from police last Thursday in Clichy-sous-Bois.

The unrest has continued every night for a week, fed by a combination of poverty and anger over high unemployment rates and low job prospects for second-generation immigrants, most of them African and Muslim.

Thursday night saw fewer direct confrontations between rampaging youths and about 1,300 riot police deployed to the trouble spots.

However, arson attacks escalated sharply.

As well as the 400 cars that were burned, a carpet warehouse was torched in Aulnay-sous-Bois early Friday, a bus depot holding 27 buses was set alight in Trappes, and a city bus and a school classroom were burned in Stains.

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin cancelled a planned visit to Canada this week because of the continuing violence.

[shavonfan]

"French President Jacques Chirac says nightly clashes between youth gangs and Paris police must be dealt with calmly but firmly.

"The law must be applied firmly and in a spirit of dialogue and respect. The absence of dialogue and an escalation of a lack of respect will lead to a dangerous situation," said Chirac after a cabinet meeting."
Well, I guess I might be misunderstanding this quote, but I have to say that I completely disagree with it at face value. In my opinion, this situation deserves nothing less than the full extent of the law, with as much force as necessary! I am not one to agree with the opinion that all things are to be negotiated or discussed. Dialogue is not the answer here. Upholding laws, and maintaining civil order is what is needed. If people who go to this extent to do violence do not know the difference between right and wrong at this point in their lives, then they need to learn it not from dialogue but rather punishment! It's kind of ironic to me that there may well be more peace in Baghdad tonight than in Paris.

[ocelot]

I'm thinking that he doesn't want to, in any way, give these youths (or other youths that haven't joined in yet)anymore hatred than they already have. I think what he means is that it's not a time to panic, but that they have lay down the law with firmness. I don't think he wants anymore problems then they have with dealing with the main problem at hand. I agree with what you said but the last thing you want to do is get other people mad and have the numbers doing the damage increasing.

[shavonfan]

Well, I respect that opinion, but still disagree with it. I have zero tolerance for such things as murder, rape, racsicm, terrorism, and violence. And this is the same argument that many in America as well as the rest of the world are saying about US handling of 9/11. Somehow, we are suppose to engage in dialogue with these terrorists (Hilary Clinton's solution.) WRONG! Leona, these people do not like us. They have made up their minds about that. Talking with them, or trying to educate them is not going to change how they feel about us. Our responsibilty is to stop them. Period. In the world, when disaster strikes...like a hurricane or earthquake, the world should pull together and help the victims. When violence errupts, the world SHOULD come together as one and stop it in its tracks. The key word in the UN is UNITED! But we are not. The best way I can put it is like this: I have no more interest in engaging or discussing with a terrorist to better understand why he does what he does and why he hates us so much any more than I care to do so with a rapist. It doesn't interest me one bit to figure out why he would rather hurt a woman than maybe take her out for dinner and a movie. But for the love of her, I would stand ready to protect against any and all such harm. Same goes with this situation. Everyday people are the ones to consider here. Crush the enemy of civilty, or they will crush you. It's the responsibilty of governments, military and police forces to do so.

[ocelot]

I was not trying to say we shouldn't lay down the law on these people but we should do it in a way that doesn't create hatred. For instance, if you know there are terrorists attending at a wedding I think you should go to the wedding and force the surrender of the terrorists rather than bombing the church or house at which the wedding is being held. I agree with what you have said, but in situations like these I think you need to be careful how you approach it because you don't want to in any way encourage a person's hatred of you. I think that's why he used the word respect, he's still going to lay down the law on these youths but he doesn't want to do it in a way that will anger other people into the decision to join the youths in what they are doing. Alot of terrorists are recruited by the injustice sparked by political acts (bombings of churches & schools), feeling of hatred because of something being done to a friend or family member (example: family member killed in a bombing), and etc. But in this situation the law has to be laid down firmly with as little violence as possible on both ends.

[shavonfan]

Well, for the victim who was electrocuted and all the others so needlessly harmed and killed, it seems that there was not a whole lot of care and concern about what others might think when they were having their lives ended by these people. My heart goes out to them, and their loved ones. I have little concern or care for anybody who wants to join ranks with those who have killed them!!

[shavonfan]

Compassion: sympathetic conciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it. Distress: 1. to subject to great strain or difficulties 2. to force or overcome by inflicting pain... Leona, with all respect to your opinion, here is what I struggle with in regards to what you are saying; that good people are somehow responsible for the actions of bad people if they should do something that just might tick them off and cause them to violate others. That is something that I feel very strongly about and completely disagree with. It's like saying that a woman deserves to get raped if she wears certain clothes, or that a religious person deserves to get beaten for practicing his faith in plain sight of others. Look, I may be against homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that I feel compelled to crush the skulls of two guys holding hands in front of me! Leona, unlike the Rolling Stones, I have no "sympathy for the devil." Satan has been trying to enlist people with that crap since the beginning! It's a lie!

[S.C.]

Shall I referee this?! lol

[shavonfan]

LOL! I don't think so. I think we are just having a great discussion about some very serious issues. I completely respect Leona's opinion, and benefit greatly from all of her sharing.

[ocelot]

I guess what I'm trying to say is there is no reason to incite hatred. If there are ways to prevent hatred I think those ways should be used. Sometimes there is no other way and in those situations sometimes you have to deal with the hatred that comes back. I have found that when both sides seem to treat violence with violence the hatred builds in the people who weren't in the battle to begin with because innnocent people end up being hurt. I don't think good people are responsible for what bad people do but I do think we are responsible for our own actions and if those actions incite hatred we should be honest enough to take a sliver of the blame. There are many "wars" that would have stopped if one of the sides would have taken the approach of not fighting violence with violence but with love and forgiveness. I think as long as there are very few innocent people who are hurt from the law's side there won't be any problems (as far as inciting hatred). I'm not concerned at all about the criminals in this, it's about (for me) the innocent people who could be hurt if the problem is handled wrong.

For instance, you know there are terrorists in a house so you (a government regulated army) bomb the house ignoring the fact that beside the house there is a playground and there are a bunch of children playing there, some who die because of the bomb. And then afterwards the family of a couple of the children who died are so furious about the death of their family members that they retaliate in some form that like a suicide bomb or a car bomb. I feel that in a case like that you should have done it differently so the children won't get hurt. In a situation like this the people hurt in the bombing could have been prevented by the army taking another approach.

[shavonfan]

"I don't think good people are responsible for what bad people do but I do think we are responsible for our own actions and if those actions incite hatred we should be honest enough to take a sliver of the blame." You see, this is my point! Why am I responsible for my actions and they are not? You are saying that I have to be careful because if I do not treat the situation with sensitivity then they are going to get really mad and do something bad. But, they already have! I'm not to blame for their treating of others, no matter what I say or do. They are responsible for their own actions. Those actions are coming from what is in their heart of hearts, and it's wrong! I'm not suggesting that we shouls blow everybody up in order to get rid of the bad guys here. I'm saying that we should use all force necessary with precision to get them, without regard for how they might feel about it!

[ocelot]

What I'm trying to say is to make sure you don't hurt innocent people (unless absolutely necessary)in your way to punish the criminals. I'm not talking about the people who have already committed the crimes, I'm talking about the innocent people who could get hurt with you making rushed decisions that aren't thought through. There are people who will make terrible decisions in their grief and you don't want to be the cause of them making those terrible decisions.

[shavonfan]

Well, that is a very good point, and I am sorry for misunderstanding you for all of this time. Here in the USA, there are those who believe that if we somehow change who we are, it will change who they are in effect. But we are just living our lives. They are out to obliterate us out of hatred! I thought you were following that thought process, and for that I am sorry. What you say is true, and we do have to go about it the right way in order to ensure that no innocent person is taken out in an attempt to get the true criminal.

[ocelot]

It's okay. It's one thing I feel very strongly about. I think there are a lot of lives that have been lost because armies haven't given situations enough thought, and those situations make me very sad because it didn't have to be like that.

[shavonfan]

Well, just so you know, the other side of that is a long drawn out war, because the only reason this struggle in Iraq is taking as long as it is is because we are doing EXACTLY what you are hoping for! I agree.