I am quite upset today, so, well... I'll start off this whole blogg untraditionally angrily considering it being me.
I am just thinking about how very stupid Sarkozy is and that everyone who tolerates what he's doing should really think over how Hitler started his "carreer". Often we ask "how could that happen?" and "how could an entire nation accept it?". Of course H just did the same thing as Z do now: Talking to the emotions of the majority - "our culture is threatened" and "our safety is threatened".
No matter if a certain characteristic is distinctively more abundant in a specific group - you must never, NEVER judge or punish the whole group for that characteristic. Any kind of punishment must come after disorder. If disorder is expected, then preventive action - one that is not a punishment - shall take place instead. An action that not just prevents the presumed offender from being able to break the law, but makes her/him NOT WANTING TO and NOT NEEDING TO.
And even when a crime has actually been committed, however right it may be to expel the criminal, it can never be a valid reason "to be a criminal AND a gypsy" (as in this case). The reason is that you are criminal and the severity of your action is the base for decision. Period.
Shape up, Sarkozy!!
http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/sarkozy-summons-ministers-over-gypsy-problem-0
----
Artikel på svenska:
http://www.dagen.se/dagen/article.aspx?id=220388
I fortsättningen kommer jag vanligtvis att skriva på svenska! Det råkade bara bli engelska idag.
Well, what can I say? I completely agree with the points you're making here. It is obvious collective punishment to force these camps to be torn down as a response to the rioting that took place. Sure, they should be torn down and the people relocated if the squatting is illegal, as the laws of the land should be enforced - unless they are to be changed, which could be considered - but tolerating them until you get a reason to throw a shot for the anti-immigrant vote is just so transparent and silly.
SvaraRaderaIt is a sweeping measure which is not going to curb any unrest or violence, nor hit the people who are actually responsible for the riots very hard. At any time when the administration declares "war" on something, that means that they are going to be butting their heads against a wall. No such wars on anything have ever been very successful. War on drugs, war on crime, war on whatever... it's a history of failure.
However, I think you need to be a little bit careful about how you implement so-called preventive or preemptive measures. Social/community reach-outs are alright, but for example tailored treatment and allowing otherwise illegal camps and such is a bad move. The authorities should never, ever cuddle up to any minorities, but treat everyone equally. No exceptions, no special rules.