Paris riots aftermath
So, we've seen the comments made by those with differing opinions on the causes of the Paris riots.A week on from my post expressing my alarm at the anti-Muslim (or anti-Islamist as they seem to prefer) blogs, I found a very good roundup of the situation at Open Democracy.
Patrice de Beer's main point is to say French society needs to really take these riots seriously and respond to them with imaginative solutions which go further than usual; 'fresh, persuasive proposals' that will do something to counter the harm resulting from decades of 'ghettoism, pauperisation and expensive policies ... that only postponed the current explosion.'
He explains very clearly how the government, and indeed opposition parties, have so far failed to respond with what is needed, being too tied up with presidential candidacies and rivalries. This has left a space for Le Pen's extreme-right voice to be heard and xenophobic sentiment to grow. As de Beer states, if the violence is to stop however, 'the primary need is to douse the flames not pour petrol on them.'
He quotes police figures as indicating that only 6-8% of the rioters are not French, with the violence centering around second-, third- or fourth-generation frustrated, unemployed youngsters.
The central problem according to de Beer is the fact that France has a long-established framework of integration which has stoppped working. The implication is that instead of expecting 'them' to conform, society in general has to start being a bit more flexible ensuring 'we' and 'they' start feeling part of one big group, with differences respected. The headscarf issue has shown the kinds of tensions that refusing to change French society's approach can result in.
This is an issue about housing, employment and education, but more broadly it is an issue of exclusion and alienation. Until there is a more balanced society, de Beer suggests positive discrimination as a worthy tool to readjust the prospects of these abandoned youths.
"Young people need a social escalator that works rather than a police van."
posted by Becca @ 8:45 am
4 Comments:
you are alarmed over anti-muslim movement? What stone has you been hiding under? are you just now finding this out?
what about anti-semitism, where are you thoughts on that?
No offense, but you are ignorant over the fact that Anti-Islamist and Anti-Muslim have very different meanings.
Anti-Muslim - can be portrayed as bigotry.
Anti-Islamic - same deal.
Anti-Islamist - Anti-terrorist; the Islamists, aka the extremists, the fundamentalists, the Wahhabists, are extremely dangerous in today's world.
For me, I am anti-Islamist, NOT a bigot.
You really should read up more on this. If you'd like, I will give you some sources. Google the name Daniel Pipes and please visit his site. Daniel presents a very intelligent approach to the Islamist problem.
I asked an anti-Islamist to explain the difference to me on a previous comment and she declined the invitation.
I understand the concept, I can even conceive that an anti-Islamist is not necessarily a bigot. My point was that the Paris riots were highjacked by anti-Muslims and anti-Islamists alike to support their arguments, when the problem lies elsewhere.
I didn't take offense. Being called ignorant by an anonymous comment-maker ranks pretty low.
The link you included in your comment Bill, links to a story about an Islamic militant group in Paris.
I never said there are no extremist Muslims in Paris, they are everywhere. I said the riots were highjacked by such groups rather then being directly caused by them.
We are talking past each other now, not addressing the same point from different perspectives.
The subtleties of the situation seem to pass you by and I keep hearing the same phrases being repeated about political correctness vs. the right wing.
Of course the truth matters. The problem we have is that both of us think the other is jumping to the wrong conclusions based on the wrong 'evidence'.
Post a Comment
<< Home