Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

French expulsion of Roma to begin Thursday

Options
1…4567810»

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Fair play to sarokzy for taking the correct attitude to 'THE EU' interference in French internal affairs.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11332189?
    16 September 2010 Last updated at 16:00 GMT

    Sarkozy denounces EU commissioner's Roma remarks


    . . .

    French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said comments by an EU commissioner criticising Roma deportations from France were "outrageous".

    EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding appeared to compare France's actions to persecutions in Nazi-occupied France.

    "The disgusting and shameful words that were used - World War II, the evocation of the Jews - was something that shocked us deeply," Mr Sarkozy said.

    France would continue to dismantle Roma camps, he said.
    Continue reading the main story
    French Roma row

    * 19 July: A French Roma mob riots in the Loire Valley town of Saint Aignan after police shoot a Roma man dead
    * 29 July: President Sarkozy orders the clearing of 300 illegal Roma and traveller camps within three months
    * 9 September: With about 1,000 foreign Roma already deported from France, the European Parliament demands an end to the policy; France vows to continue
    * 14 September: EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding draws parallels with WWII
    * 16 September: President Sarkozy tells EU summit Reding's words were 'disgusting and shameful'

    "I am the French president and I cannot allow my country to be insulted," Mr Sarkozy told a news conference at an EU summit in Brussels.

    He confirmed he had had a heated exchange with the Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso.

    The BBC's Oana Lungescu, who is at the summit, says this is an unprecedented row between Brussels and Paris.

    Ms Reding, who represents Luxembourg on the EU Commission, said on Tuesday: "This is a situation I had thought Europe would not have to witness again after the Second World War."

    She also urged the European Commission to take legal action against France over the deportations.

    Ms Reding later said she regretted interpretations of her statement.

    Although France has deported thousands of Romanian and Bulgarian Roma over the past few years, it began accelerating the process last month, as part of a high-profile crackdown on illegal camps in the country.

    Mr Sarkozy said 199 Roma settlements which had housed some 5,400 people had been dismantled.

    Last week, Euro MPs accused the commission of failing to protect the Roma deported from France.


  • Options
    #273
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    gurramok wrote: »
    Whats the difference setting up an illegal camp at the M50 and one at a motorway outside a French city?:confused:



    Roma was mentioned by Lenihan and when Roma was mentioned by a French official, you only failed to condemn the French.

    Perhaps you are giving priority in your distaste towards the French when failing to condemn the Irish?:confused:

    ....because theres a memo in one state that says to prioritise Roma camps within 300 illegal ones, whereas in the other theres only one camp, and thats 100% Roma. This has been explained before. It will doubtless have to be explained again.


  • Options
    #274
    Degsy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,397 ✭✭✭✭Degsy


    France is doing the right thing..our government should follow suit..deport any roma convicted of any crime and take thier children into care.


  • Options
    #275
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Degsy wrote: »
    France is doing the right thing..our government should follow suit..deport any roma convicted of any crime and take thier children into care.

    Were you on strike? 19 pages in, man....


  • Options
    #276
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    Degsy wrote: »
    France is doing the right thing..our government should follow suit..deport any roma convicted of any crime and take thier children into care.

    Are you trolling?
    Seems a little extreme...:confused:.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Degsy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,397 ✭✭✭✭Degsy


    Nodin wrote: »
    Were you on strike? 19 pages in, man....


    Good to hear you support the deportations too!

    Romas dont get on too well with muslims from what i hear,was in greece recently and they're always murdering each other apparantly.


  • Options
    #278
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....because theres a memo in one state that says to prioritise Roma camps within 300 illegal ones, whereas in the other theres only one camp, and thats 100% Roma. This has been explained before. It will doubtless have to be explained again.
    Perhaps the Roma ones were the largest? So instead of saying "we'll start with the largest of the 300", they said "we'll start with the Roma ones"?


  • Options
    #279
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    gizmo wrote: »
    Perhaps the Roma ones were the largest? So instead of saying "we'll start with the largest of the 300", they said "we'll start with the Roma ones"?

    No, not really.
    Three hundred camps or illegal settlements must be evacuated within three months; Roma camps are a priority," the memo reads. "It is down to the préfect [state representative] in each department to begin a systematic dismantling of the illegal camps, particularly those of the Roma."
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/13/france-deportation-roma-illegal-memo
    degsy wrote:
    Good to hear you support the deportations too!

    Deporting illegals is one thing, targeting one ethnic group above all others is another.


  • Options
    #280
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, not really.
    Any evidence to the contrary?


  • Options
    #281
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    gizmo wrote: »
    Any evidence to the contrary?

    Theres no evidence to suggest that it was due to size. At all. That Roma are to be prioritised within 300 illegal camps is mentioned twice. The wording is suggestive of the targeting of a specific ethnicity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    Theres no evidence to suggest that it was due to size. At all.

    There is however evidence that it was due to numbers and logistics re facilitating transportation. That section however is conveniently over-looked.


  • Options
    #283
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Nodin wrote: »
    Theres no evidence to suggest that it was due to size. At all. That Roma are to be prioritised within 300 illegal camps is mentioned twice. The wording is suggestive of the targeting of a specific ethnicity.
    But surely in an operation such as this the first thing that would need to be considered is the size of the camps and the logistics in moving them? Surely that would supersede "suggestive wording" in this case?


  • Options
    #284
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


  • Options
    #285
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Terry wrote: »
    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    Populist xenohobe!!! Ethnic discrimination!!! :pac:


  • Options
    #286
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    prinz wrote: »
    There is however evidence that it was due to numbers and logistics re facilitating transportation. That section however is conveniently over-looked.

    ...and this evidence is where?
    gizmo wrote:
    But surely in an operation such as this the first thing that would need to be considered is the size of the camps and the logistics in moving them? .

    Theres no mention of that whatsoever. Theres no indication that theres any differentiation to be made except in the case of "Roma" nor is there a suggestion to prioritise anything except on the grounds that the camps are "Roma". Also suspicously absent are references to public hazard, health risks or crime, hence my rather firm belief that its targeted at Roma, primarily for electoral purposes.


  • Options
    #287
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...and this evidence is where?

    In the same memo if you care to read it all.. see post #256
    In particular, the actions taken since 28th of July against illicit Roma encampments have have only given rise to a limited number (of illegally present individuals)* unsuitable for deportation.

    ()* clarification by me.

    Seems to me the numbers of illegal Roma need to be sufficient to begin repatriation proceedings. To facilitate repatriation effectively you actually need sufficient numbers of illegal Roma to deport together, hence the priority on Roma camps. The repatriation had already been coordinated with the Romanian and Bulgarian authorities in particular..what happens then is you actually need to fill the seats.


  • Options
    #288
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Nodin wrote: »
    Theres no mention of that whatsoever. Theres no indication that theres any differentiation to be made except in the case of "Roma" nor is there a suggestion to prioritise anything except on the grounds that the camps are "Roma". Also suspicously absent are references to public hazard, health risks or crime, hence my rather firm belief that its targeted at Roma, primarily for electoral purposes.
    That is not to say that it has not been detailed in information which has not leaked surely though? You seem to be basing your belief solely on the leaked memo which, as prinz has pointed out, does indeed indicated it is logistics-based.


  • Options
    #289
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    gizmo wrote: »
    That is not to say that it has not been detailed in information which has not leaked surely though? You seem to be basing your belief solely on the leaked memo which, as prinz has pointed out, does indeed indicated it is logistics-based.

    I'm basing it on the evidence, yes.

    His quote says that actions targeting Roma camps have only given limited numbers suitable for deportation.

    Where does it say "more needed"?

    Where does it say 'insufficient for deporation purposes'.....?

    Where is the link with the passage indicating that Roma are to be prioritised?
    Prinz wrote:
    Seems to me.....

    If the document actually meant "we need more Roma to fill the planes" it wouldn't need your rather clumsy editorialising to spell it out now, would it.


  • Options
    #290
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    Where does it say 'insufficient for deporation purposes'.....? .
    ....un nombre trop limité de reconduites à la frontière.

    ....a number too limited to deport. Heance the need for more bums on seats.
    Nodin wrote: »
    If the document actually meant "we need more Roma to fill the planes" it wouldn't need your rather clumsy editorialising to spell it out now, would it.

    Rather clumsy? Lol. Obviously you cannot understand the memo yourself.


  • Options
    #291
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Nodin wrote: »
    I'm basing it on the evidence, yes.

    His quote says that actions targeting Roma camps have only given limited numbers suitable for deportation.

    Where does it say "more needed"?

    Where does it say 'insufficient for deporation purposes'.....?

    Where is the link with the passage indicating that Roma are to be prioritised?
    Actually the memo said unsuitable.
    In particular, the actions taken since 28th of July against illicit Roma encampments have have only given rise to a limited number (of illegally present individuals) unsuitable for deportation.
    Meaning the majority were suitable. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Degsy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,397 ✭✭✭✭Degsy


    Nodin wrote: »

    Deporting illegals is one thing, targeting one ethnic group above all others is another.

    When the ethnic group is proving,almost to a man to be lawless then action must be taken.


  • Options
    #293
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Degsy wrote: »
    When the ethnic group is proving,almost to a man to be lawless then action must be taken.

    If you're advocating stringing up everyone because most of them are guilty, I'll take a pass. Its bad enough to have to do that kind of thinking in a war. Theres no excuse for it in peace time.


  • Options
    #294
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    gizmo wrote: »
    Actually the memo said unsuitable.


    Meaning the majority were suitable. :)

    True, its my fault for reading Prinz and not being careful to read the wording itself.

    However it still doesn't connect the targeting of Roma with the deportations. Where does it say "other camps have rendered insufficient numbers" or words to that effect.


  • Options
    #295
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Nodin wrote: »
    True, its my fault for reading Prinz and not being careful to read the wording itself.

    However it still doesn't connect the targeting of Roma with the deportations. Where does it say "other camps have rendered insufficient numbers" or words to that effect.
    Well rather than the suggestive wording of the memo, come at it from a different way. There are 300 illegal camps in France right, and an estimated 400,000 Roma in France. Now what other ethnic group would make up those camps which would be there illegally? If you can think of another group, do you think they'd outnumber the Roma population?


  • Options
    #296
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Africans - from Senegal, Cameroon. However whether they'd outnumber the Roma I've no idea.

    Are you saying all of those 400,000 are illegally resident?


  • Options
    #297
    not yet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,008 ✭✭✭not yet


    biko wrote: »
    Ha, I banned him so fast it didn't even mention my name on the post :D

    Well ain't you the clever little thing........


  • Options
    #298
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Nodin wrote: »
    Africans - from Senegal, Cameroon. However whether they'd outnumber the Roma I've no idea.

    Are you saying all of those 400,000 are illegally resident?
    Nope, that's just the overall figure for Roma in France, many of whom are French nationals with Roma origins. These people will have gotten jobs, have places of legal residence and contribute to French society, all perfectly legal. It is the percentage of these who are there illegally who are being targeted in this move and, given the numbers involved, it is quite likely that they are being given priority because they are the largest group.

    Do bear in mind that after 2014 these people will have free movement within the EU but until then, if they want to stay in France for longer than 3 months, they must have a work permit.


Advertisement