Sarkozy’s contentious bill has been passed:
Lawmakers on Tuesday approved a bill to strip foreign-born criminals of their French nationality and expel EU citizens for certain crimes, part of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s law and order crackdown.
Members of the lower house of parliament, the National Assembly, passed the measure after a first reading by 294 votes to 239 in a vote overshadowed by mass strikes and demonstrations against Sarkozy’s pensions reforms.
The law would strip French nationality from foreigners who had acquired citizenship and who were convicted of violent crimes against police and other officials.
So much for the fundamental human right to immigrate to another country and assault police officers.
Does this mean we can go back to calling them “French” fries again? I need a ruling…
It appears this law was brought in to deal with Gypsies but I assume it will be used in the future to deal with Muslims. Could get interesting over there.
I’d love to see a law like that in Canada but make it broader. Any naturilized Canadian that commits any criminal act gets the boot back to the shat hole he or she came from.
I would settle for seeing criminals, native born or not, spending a little more time in jail.
as a corollary to “different bob”…and any Canadian lawyer that wants to represent the criminal has to do it from the asshat’s original country…none of the expenses can be claimable from the Crown it must be solely born by his/her client.
I guess we can hold France in esteem now.
bring the same law to Canada . I recommend dealing with the Khadr family first
As my Grandma used to say; “don’t count your chickens before they hatch”. http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=25929703
“The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that the victim of an alleged sexual assault may not have to remove her niqab while testifying as long as the fairness of a trial is not compromised.
In the 3-0 ruling Wednesday, the court upheld an earlier decision by the Superior Court. ”
So there it is; boys and girls! As usual, the top court does the legislating for the Liberals. Only in Canader; you say?
Thanks for this thread EBD.
cal2, I second that motion.
There seems to be an awaking of sorts occurring in various parts of Europe. During a recent visit to countries bordering the Baltic, the people we talked to seem to be fearfully concerned about the future. Hopefully the trend to confront the danger to Europe escalates. Hopefully, also, Canadians begin to confront the dangers, but do not look to the Liberals or the NDP.
The “angry french youths” will not be pleased. More car-b-ques au citroen are expected, doubtless.
mhb23re at gmail d0t calm
Canada loses a seat in the UN – Portugal gets it. Now supporting the State of Israel is taboo in this crazy world.
Good for France. It is about time they put their foot down – now let’s see if the foot lands.
While control of immigrant criminals is necessary, sending them back is immensely difficult as most of them have a) destroyed their mother country’s passeport and legal documents (especially popular amongst those that face possible deportation) or b) been here so long that they have no renewed said documents from the home country. Try to enter a country without a passeport.
Home countries have learned to lose the paperwork for these people, not wanting them back for obvious reasons (Ahmed who?)and letting Canada absorb all legal costs for their defence and our deportation efforts, which we seem to be more than willing to do. We just end up paying their way through jail and welfare.
Welcome to Canada.
So from the sounds of it naturalized Frenchies can still able to rape, murder and maybe sack a few cities so long as *gasp* no cop was hurt! Faith and Begora the thought of that is too horrible to imagine! Phew, I thought something big was underway but I can go back to eating midnight pop tarts.
Never the less I still applaud Sarkozy for taking too-little-too-late measures though, I really do, but this just seems like another burqa/minaret ban. It’s just this mildly annoying law the Euros are scribbling down while pockets of land are being wrested from their hands. Maybe they should be more concerned about le Zones Urbaines Sensibles? I mean pretty soon Joe Biden will be stomping around saying that France should be split in two. Those Euros have been so smug about all their liberal projects I’m so curious as to see their reaction when a majority muslim state sweeps their decades long utopia project away in a fortnight. >:]
Although I applaud the cajones to bring forward a law along this vein, I have a huge problem of protecting only the police and government officials. WHAT?
As you have said M, when the criminals are tossed for attacking any national with any form of violence, they should be sent back to the land of their forefathers and hopefully they have a very harsh and terrifying experience when they land there. Too bad, so sad!!!
Step 2: Bring back the guillotine! Nothing can throw more fear into the heart of the potential wrongdoer than the “thud” of the blade when it hits bottom!!
NOW I know why all the unions in fwaaance are in panic mod: If this law is expanded to include ALL crimes against natural-born Frenchmen,whose gonna run the now defuncy white flag factories???.OTOH,,,Canuckistan needs even this minor start Terriably!
Sounds like Europe has figured out finally they don’t have immigrants per say, but Colonists.
JMO
LOLLOLLOLROTFLMAO!!!!
I suppose NATO will be the ones that gotta kick the bad guys out for them next 😉
If France kicks out violent murderous criminal thugs I guess they will have to flee to Canada and request refugee status because their way of life is being outlawed by the racist Europeans.
Why am I not laughing at this ironic comment….?
In Frauunce, where “colons” are considered with contempt down every high-held nose gaulic nose, this law will make them feel tres bon.
But good luck making it work. Lets face it, we will always have some bad apples in the bunch (in this case from franco-colonies), but there is no choice is there? They must expand their populations of croakers.
A strategic stone in the upcoming expulsion of “disaffected youths.”
was in the mesquita in Cordoba last week….wonderful to see how the Spaniards had utilized it as a foundation as it were for the magnificent cathedral above…i felt reassured somehow…
then next day was out in the country at a truck stop having a coffee and witnessed a couple of gents get out of their van…decamp to the field behind with their carpets and do the prayer thing…my Spanish friends kept silent but i didn’t…..and before you could say St. Theresa of Avila they were unburdening themselves at great length of their indignation…
“I recommend dealing with the Khadr family first.”
~cal2
Laws cannot be applied retroactively.
Goodonya France.
If France can do it, we can too.
And no, not just police and government officials should be protected by such a law, it fosters elitism and raises them above the circumstances of ordinary citizens.
One law for all.
Maple stump;
The missing ID problem is solved very easily. Fly them back to their former home, open plane door at 5000 feet and shove. Depending on what crime was committed in France, parachute optional.
What happens if you are not a citizen and assault a police officer? Are you deported? And if you’ve torn up your passport and IDs?
What happens if you are born in France and assault a police officer?
I continue to think that the Australian ‘Values Document’ which all visa entrants to Australia must sign, is a key strategy for dealing with incomers to a country in this new globally networked world of ours. This gives the government the legal weight, if they consider the felony serious, to deport anyone who breaches the laws, never mind the one law of assaulting a police officer.
France also has the niqab (veil) ban. Why is this important? Because the veil is a clear statement of a refusal to integrate, of an insistence on isolation from other members of the society. You can’t function as a nation if your population refuses to acknowledge others as members of ‘your group’.
But a major reformation has to come, not only by the West’s refusal to accomodate Islamists (for they are the primary group in this immigration problem in Europe)…but within the Islamic nations. They must modernize; this means moving out of tribalism and allowing a middle class to move into economic and political power. The Arab and Persian oil elites of the ME don’t want to do this – and that’s a basic problem.
“Laws cannot be applied retroactively.”
Unless it’s the gun registry or some other POS from Liberals.
Two things occur to me at hearing this good news.
First, I am reminded that the Paris salon crowd represents France the same way the Toronto coffeehouse crowd represents Canada. That is to say, not at all.
Second, I am reminded that our present multi-culti death cult policies are based on the scribblings of FRENCH intellectuals. It seems that outside the trendy salons and the Ivory Tower of Paris, Frenchmen are even more tired of these pretentious jackasses than we are.
Here’s a fun little field guide to French PoMo scribblers. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.06/pomo.html?topic=&topic_set=
Nice to see some of their damn-fool ideas being rejected, finally. And at home, too. Bonus!
ET, welcome back! I missed you. 🙂
I must ever so slightly disagree with you on a small point. You said: “But a major reformation has to come, not only by the West’s refusal to accomodate Islamists [snip]…but within the Islamic nations.”
In my humble opinion, it doesn’t really matter a damn what they do in Islamic nations so far as we are concerned. What matters, as you say, is what WE do here in Canada.
As I say above, the French today have begun the process of rejecting the multiculturalism that allows Islamists and other such idiots to be a problem. Islamists were never a problem, previously. They are non-technological barbarians, they can’t threaten the West unless we all lay down on the ground and stretch out our necks for them. Which we are currently doing, as others have noted above.
The re-birth of common sense and the rejection of the Ruling Class scams currently running Western countries is what’s important. If the Pakistanis and the Persians want to descend into tribalistic barbarism and live in tents, I’m all for letting them go to it. Its no skin off my nose.
However, most likely that return to barbarism won’t happen IF we in the West return to the things that made our countries great in the first place, that being JudeoChristian morality and individual liberty/responsibility. Because the Muslims will see all the fun we’re having and want to have some too.
I vote we arrange a tax cut as the fastest way to get that done. 50% reduction in government income, ASAP. Just to start, y’unnerstand. Hard to keep up the PoMo policies on zero budget.
Thanks, Phantom. I’ll continue to ‘agree with myself’. ah well.
The reason that I strongly suggest that the push back against Islamism, a primitive tribal mentality of the 7th c, has to be done both by the ‘immigration-receiving-countries’ AND by the ‘exporting-countries of the ME and Africa’..is because the reason for the primitive tribalism rests within the political/economic power elite of those ME and African countries.
Islam, as an ideology, is focused around a militant take-over of peoples and lands. I suggest it emerged in the 7th c as a reaction of a pastoral people against the spread of the settled market trade economy of the late Roman/early Christian era. Then it exploded in the 9th-12th c as the Mediterranean moved from a local sustenance economy into a trade market economy. Islamism lost – because it is innately anti-individual, anti-reason, anti-entrepreneurial and couldn’t provide solutions to the increasing population pressures of the era. It went dormant. Until the world wars and the switch from coal to oil fossil fuel.
Then – the ME, which remained tribal, well, those tribes-in-power got very wealthy; and the people moved to the urban centres. BUT, they didn’t get any economic or political power. No middle class was allowed to form. Instead, the tribe-in-power repressed the people via a movement to a fundamentalist Islamism..and military repression. (see Saudi Arabia, Iran, pre-US Iraq, Taliban as examples). The people have become deranged, the elites have become more corrupt..and we have Islamism, Al Qaeda etc.
Tribalism has to be ended; democracy has to emerge; the full population not a tribal elite, has to be in economic and political power.
So- it’s vital that the West refuse to accomodate this unreformed Islamism and insist that the Islamic nations reform their ideology. It’s difficult because Islam is primarily a political and social system. Not a religion. But that political and social system is cloaked as an ‘untouchable religion’!!! Neat tactic to prevent change.
But it’s vital for the West to refuse to accomodate this dysfunctional ‘religion’ and insist on change both in the religion and in the islamic nations.
I’d say place immigration priority according to needs of the labour force.
And, concentrate on European heritage, who have a better understanding of Canadian values.
P.S. Who gives a crap what the United Nations think.
Just got back from a month in France. Every French person I spoke with is very conflicted on the expulsion issue. On the one hand they don’t like the idea of taking away citizenship but on the other hand they are REALLY tired of dealing with the Roma (Gypsies) who are like a plague of locusts. One of my friends joked that the next time the US Military shows up in France it will be to protect the minorities as they are expelled.
[…….the victim of an alleged sexual assault may not have to remove her niqab while testifying as long as the fairness of a trial is not compromised…..]
Defining what constitutes that compromise is the key factor…in that it can be argued that with the niqab it is not only difficult to read the deponents facial expressions, but also to establish gender even identity.
Currently and for some years now, in civil practice, it has become common to attempt to limit attendance at cross-examinations for discovery to counsels and the deponent. It is usually the deponent counsel who trys this….
A party to the action may not participate but has the RIGHT to be present.
Let me try this for a comment. The difficulty with Islamic society starts with polygamy. No I am not moving toward the “who marries another person” dialogue, I do not care how a person gets their jollieson an individual basis.
I am saying however the need for a woman to be unattractive to male, especially otherwise attractive women, is to maintain the benefit of wealthy/influential Islamic males having access to a continuing cadre of younger women.
This leaves a larger contingent of unwealthy/ordinary males with reduced access to heterosexual union than would normally happen with the usual gender mix of births.
The result; testosterone driven and albeit somewhat ignorant males looking for release and/or increased status/influence. This somewhat crazed grouping will quickly follow the current Islamic power structure directions.
While they wait for the opportunity to find heterosexual union they are either easily convinced to seek other word satisfaction in a “heroic” bomb blast or find a younger male to hold hands with as they wander through their unfulfilled existance. Cheers;
The judicious application of Eddie Teller’s formidable invention is likely the only reset option for this mass reality distortion cult.
And will result in a lower the body count compared to letting this tribal madness fester exponentially.
Please excuse the last paragraph other word should be other world; apologetic cheers;
There’s a nice article by Conrad Black on Islam and the West;
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249704/islam-and-west-conrad-black?page=2
For example:
A question: “how long Muslim provocations can cascade down on others without incurring a general containment policy directed at Islam, or an internecine Muslim conflict in which non-Muslims will heavily intervene.”
“Apart from breaking the Iraqi-Iranian shared antipathy to the West, which makes any political activity in the Persian Gulf area practically impossible, the main argument for the Iraq War was to promote a power-sharing regime in a major Arab country. ”
By ‘power-sharing’ – this means the elite tribal rulers ‘sharing’ power with the people.
“Non-Muslim countries and regions should make it clear that we are not prepared to be condescended to as infidels, that the Judeo-Christian traditions of the West antedate those of Islam ”
The point is – the West has to fight back against fundamentalist Islam trying to take power in the West – and insist on the reform of Islam in the Islamic countries.
Not an armed host this time….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna
…Oh wait…
as you were….
“But it’s vital for the West to refuse to accommodate this dysfunctional ‘religion’ and insist on change both in the religion and in the Islamic nations.”
But ET, it seems more than likely that our(the west’s) “insistence” that Islam reform (or Change) is in a large part the fuel driving the populace sentiment towards the west, enabling the Ruling Class. Now I’m not saying I disagree with you, but I see Phantom’s point. Sometimes it’s best to ignore the children. Eventually, as Phantom said, they’ll get curious and want a pair of Blue Jeans.
The analogy might not be sound, but during the Cold War our focus was not on reforming the Commies, but defending ourselves. For the most part, the people of the Soviet Union were ignored by us (except during hockey tournys) and the non existent middle class eventually demanded a piece of the “fun” us westerners were having, and it started with something as simple as a desire for a pair of jeans.
What seems contrary to how we handled our enemies of old, is today we seem to pander to our enemies and their temper-tantrums. If you give a child what they want as a result of a temper-tantrum, you will most definitely get another temper-tantrum after that. And please, don’t get me started on corporal punishment… because some of that is good too. One other difference, is today we are unable or unwilling to define exactly who our enemy is, but I digress.
Too little too late. The horses left the barn long ago.
France doesn’t have the courage to save itself.
Indiana Homez – I see your point but I think your Cold War/Communist analogy is weak.
We didn’t have hordes of radical communists immigrating to the West, with their ideology held sacred, beyond debate and critique by its being defined as a ‘religion’.
We thus didn’t have radical communists demanding special treatment, including dietary rules, prayer days and rooms, special clothing (niqab) and insisting on their own rule of law (Sharia) as dominant over our own.
We didn’t have radical communists insisting on building mosques/temples, and on their ‘free speech rights’ to hatred rants against all ‘infidels’.
We have all of that now. In the Cold War, you couldn’t readily escape from a communist country. You can migrate from an Islamic country as an ‘immigrant’ or (spare us) a refugee to most western countries. And once there, the Islamist sets up His Way – which includes constant accusations of ‘feeling slighted and religiously insulted’ if, for example, the chocolate squiggles on an ice cream cone ‘look like the arabic for Allah’. And so on.
Plus, at the time of the Cold War, we didn’t have the moral and intellectual sickness, the disease, of multiculturalism. This arose (heh, in France) as a postWWII disease (PTSD???? for their Vichy???) and paved the way for the West’s insane capitulation to the demands of any and all special interest groups. That is, postmodernism rejects the individual and privileges the group; the group is always right because it is outside of comparative evaluation; it just ‘is’.
So- I think we in the West have to reject multiculturalism, we have to insist on integration and we have to insist that the ME nations modernize and enable a middle class ..and get over the two-class straight-jacket of tribalism….the base cause of Islamic fascism. Enable a middle class in the Islamic nations and you’ll enable the modernization of that distortion of religion that is Islam.
Harper snubbing Sarkozy for racism in 3-2-1…
I think we have to adopt a similar law in Canada,but in deference to multiculturalism, we should exempt riots and car burning during Ramadan,in the name of “cultural sensitivity”.
Never in the history of the west has one religion demanded that the host submit to their religious tenets or else violence shall ensue. I for one think the only solution to Islamic Supremacist is to hold fast and to tell the race/religious baters to shove off and move to Saudi Arabia if they can’t assimilate or shun and mock their inferior cultural/religious norms. Say No to Sharia Law, light or otherwise. Italy has the right approach, they have not sanctioned Islam as a reconized religion because of it’s backward misogynistic teachings and until it evolves into a religion that can co-exists with 21st century values and cultural norms it should be taxed as political lobbyests.
Allowing women to wear a full face veil is an abomanation to our legal norms, it’s the right of the accused to face their accuser and to allow the accuser to hide behind a face veil negates 200 years of British Commonlaw.
Congratulations, EBD on a title worthy of Kate, herself.
ET
The point is – the West has to fight back against fundamentalist Islam trying to take power in the West – and insist on the reform of Islam in the Islamic countries.
Why?
In the words of Conrad Black “ the debate should not be between ourselves about how to deal with Muslims, it should be between Muslims about the unwisdom of provoking us all.”
The anti-western, anti-american attitudes in majority of muslim countries (like Turkey and Indonesia) are evidence for not insisting on the reform of Islam. Islam should be reformed by muslims themselves, not by infidels.
For me, your insistence on western-driven reform of Islam is similar to hypothetical insistence of PRC to change western democracy into Chinese-like political system or the insistence of Israelis to change the scriptures of New Testament.
We wouldn’t like it if they tried to do it to us, would we?
We didn’t have radical communists insisting on building mosques/temples, and on their ‘free speech rights’ to hatred rants against all ‘infidels’.
But we don’t want them to change basis of their religion, we want them to comply with Western law and Western behaviour. We want them to assimilate.
If they do not like it they can get out.
Immigrate.
It is as simple as that.
They believe that they need to have sharia law, follow salafi Islamic scriptures and are slighted by westerners. Fine. If they feel like that they may go somewhere else. They do not need to change their religious view-point. They have the choice and should choose. On the other hand you want to impose your choice on them. There is a big difference between the two.
I think we in the West have to reject multiculturalism,
Yes, we should reject multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is in the words of Amartya Sen “plural monoculturalism” And according to Kennan Malik “It creates rifts between communities where none had previously existed and exacerbates divisions that had previously been managed. It is description of society and a prescription for managing it. It is both problem and a solution – and when the problem and the solution are one and the same we can only be dealing with political snake oil.” But rejecting multiculturalism does not mean insisting on our views outside our countries. Or rather, insisting, but if and only if other people want this change. If not – it is their choice and they, themselves, choose the consequences of that choice.
ella – I don’t know what you mean by ‘PRC’.
I don’t see why anti-Americanism is ‘evidence’ for not insisting on the reform of Islam. Of course Islam should be reformed by the Muslim people; who is saying otherwise? But, since no criticism of Islam is allowed within the religion (because the texts are defined as ‘straight from the mouth of god), then, the criticism has to be external.
There is no such thing as ‘western-style democracy’. Democracy is..democracy, i.e., rule by the people. That’s its definition; nothing to do with ‘west’ or ‘east’.
What’s a ‘Chinese-like political system”? What insistence of the Israelis to change the New Testament?
Of course we want them to change the basis of their religion! After all, the basics of their religion deny individualism, deny that man has the right to use reason (instead, man must submit without question); deny science; define women as unequal to men, support killing all ‘infidels’; reject getting along with other peoples! Have you ever read the Qur’an? It’s all in there.
No, it isn’t as simple as ‘getting out’. The world is now a global world; people are economically, politically, socially networked with each other. You cannot any longer have one part of the world ‘out of sync’ with the other parts. You cannot have an ideology devoted to conquering all other peoples, killing all infidels and so on…without that ideology harming this global world. So – telling them to ‘immigrate’ is useless.
No, democracy is not a choice. It is the only political method that works in large multimillion size populations. Just as capitalism is not a choice; it is the only economic system capable of innovation and rapid adaptation to new situations. These are not cultural choices; they are basic economic and political infrastructural realities.
So – your opinion that it’s all about ‘us having ‘chosen’ democracy…while ‘they’ have chosen ..what, tribalism’..is incorrect. Neither system is a choice. Tribalism was the functional mode in a no-growth, small population society. Democracy is the functional mode in a growth large population society. Nothing to do with choice.
ET, “PRC” is the proper acronym for the People’s Republic of China – mainland China cf. ROC – the “Republic of China” -Taiwan
“Posted by: Maple stump at October 14, 2010 12:48 AM ”
Fly over the country in question and shove them out of the door….with suitable landing gear.