As Anniversary of Riots Nears, Suburban Youths March on Paris


Fears of new riots in Paris as mob turns on police


Tense anniversary in French suburbs


One year on...

Has enough been done by French authorities to address the causes of last years riots?

Has enough been done by the communities from which the rioters originated to achieve the same end?

If not, what more should be done?

Can France expect repeats of last year's violence?

Has enough been done by French authorities to address the causes of last years riots?
If you mean "root causes" then probably no. France's economy just isn't going to grow fast enough to absorb their immigrant population into the work force.

France is trying to paper this over by directing the news media to emphasize the positive "social programs" that they have for "suburban youths." It is not going to work. Link is in French, but to summarize, Sarkozy has met with the networks, and they have met with each other, and they are not going to give "car counts" or show burning busses, but rather they are going to minimize the coverage of the violence. This is typically shortsighted, as is often the case in France and I suppose elsewhere in Europe. It's going to be hard to cover this stuff up though, when you have things like firebombings at soccer matches.

Well, at least they finished the game.

If you mean the direct cause then perhaps. Here is the caption of the photo I just linked.

When you click the photo, you see the bright unmistakeable "don't touch" and "danger - electrocution" signs on the station where the "youths" hid. They should win a Darwin award, not be memorialized in public.

A serious problem for France is that their army is from 10 - 20% muslim, primarily of north african origin, just like the "youths" that are rioting. Their loyalty is enough of a question that they haven't been deployed to stem the violence yet.

Has enough been done by the communities from which the rioters originated to achieve the same end?
No, they have been conducting low-level warfare against the French authorities non-stop for a year.

If not, what more should be done?
Stop building soviet-style ghettos of public housing for immigrants. Liberalize your economy. Reduce social programs. Lower taxes. That sort of thing.

Can France expect repeats of last year's violence?
Yup. Here's a report of 4 buses torched last night. And one was hijacked and driven around by an armed gang. Nice. (link is in french)

These rioters are now openly trying to kill people. Both the police and civilians. They did not force people off the bus in Marseille, but rather just left them in there and burned them. The French police have reported thousands of attacks over the past year. It's pretty out of control.

although I do agree with your first point, I am really curious how you think the situation in France will improve if you liberalize the economy, reduce social programs and lower taxes. I for one do not see how your solutions could fix the social / economic problems / tensions that France is currently facing. Perhaps you would be so kind to eloborate on this?

France has high unemployment, although to be fair, at least it's down below 10% these days. The labor market in France is growing at the slowest rate in the EU 25, a paltry 0.6% growth rate. This is half the paltry 1.2% growth rate in the EU total. France is one of the only countries in Europe whose population is projected to grow, and this growth is completely due to immigration.

The culture of France is one of dependence on the government. I can't remember where I saw it, but something like 75% of young people would prefer to work for the government, rather than the private sector. That's mostly because the benefits are so good, and the work is so little - 35 hours a week, for 37 years, then you retire on full pension. If you retire early, you only lose 20% or so of your pay (vs. private sector 50%). This is not sustainable long-term. Fonctionnaire's do not grow the economy and create jobs, rather they require an ever-expanding tax base merely to exist.

50 years ago, France and Germany understood that liberalizing the economy would lead to expansion. Today, at least France is in denial, and the economic malaise is hurting the country, and driving a wedge between the "french" and their immigrants. Every economic crisis is going to find a scapegoat, and the Muslims will pay for this one, even though it's not their doing.

Here is a good article written after the riots last year.


It's obviously not just economic, but that is a huge part of the problem. Given the recent history of Europe, everyone should be very afraid that the only people currently being honest about the problems of muslim immigrant integration are the far-right parties. When the leftist parties continue to deny this and hope for muslim votes, and the problem becomes out of control (like France is becoming), Europe is in danger of once again turning to right-wing strongmen. It's gone beyond extremists like LePen and we see right-wing parties making gains right across Europe. This is not a good sign.

To start off, I would like to point out to some misconceptions in the above mentioned text: firstly, the growth of labor market in France is not the lowest in Europe. The statistics you provided show that Germany actually has the slowest growth rates in this sector. Secondly your statement that France is one of the only countries in Europe whose population is projected to grow is not really precise. The majority of European countries show growth estimates (U.K., Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Switserland, The Netherlands etc *). Thirdly your claim that the population growth is completely due to immigration is also not accurate. Although immigration will affect the population growth, it is not the main factor. For France the estimates point out that the birth rate (11.99 births/1,000 population or app. 729.905 births) is still higher than the death rate (9.14 deaths/1,000 population or app. 556.408 deaths). Which translates into a natural population increase of 173.497 people for 2006. In 2005 there were 42580 asylum applications , even if all these people would be permitted to stay in France (which is very doubtfull) one can still see that the population growth can not be completely due to immigration.

* a remarkable exception is Germany were a decrease in population size is estimated.



The big question is of course, how many of these young people will eventually end up working for the government?



I agree that the poor economic situation are an important cause for the problems in the banlieux, another factor is probably lower educational standards, cultural differences, and perhaps a certain degree of discrimination / prejudice from the side of employers and or a certain part of the indigenous French population. But at the end of your story I still cannot see how liberalizing the economy, reducing social programs and lower taxes could fix these problems. You have still not really answered my questions.

BTW I do not agree that far-right parties in various European states are the only ones who are honest about the immigration/intergration problems. Often they use there populistic views to instill fear into peoples hearts and polarize society instead of tackling the social problems in all their complexity. As a matter of fact I have yet to see one far-right party that really did anything to solve this social conflict. Luckily in Holland, after a short rise of Pim Fortuyn and his populistic / polarizing politics, we see now that the far-right is already in a freefall and will probably not play any substantial role in national politics anymore. (people are getting tired of fear-mongering and negativism)

Fine, but having a growth rate "higher than Germany" is not much to brag about these days...
You are being very shortsighted here. The average fertility rate for all of the EU is 1.47 children / woman. The replacement rate for industrial nations is generally agreed to be 2.1. France's rate is probably the highest at 1.94, so you are right I was exageratting a bit there. This is because of the government's generous subsidies to have children. They have always had a culture that reveres women who have children - probably a legacy of their Roman Catholic past.


No, the big question is when are the people of France going to embrace free market economics and growth rather than a "culture of dependence on the government?" When farm subsidies are cut, the farmers block the roadways. When the pension scheme is re-visited, the people go on strike. In 20 years, there will be less than two workers to support each retiree in France. That is not sustainable.

.
With due respect to the bureaucracy in brussels and the economic policies in l'hexagon, take a look at economic growth in the United States. Take a look at how well our immigrants do after one or two generations, and then compare to France. There you will find your answer.


What people are getting tired of is being told that their culture needs to change to accomodate medieval thugs who oppress women and spread their religion by force. Do you deny the gains made by the Vlaams Belang in Belgium or the BNP in the UK? Between these and the National Front in france, there will be soon be enough far-right parties to form a coalition in the European Parliament in Brussels (I think that you have to have 20 members?) This will give them power to sit on committees and such.

France, like many European countries, has already embraced free market economics and growth, the only difference is that they will not go as far as the U.S. Because although liberalization has its economic merits, it is many times also accompanied by negative social developments. The "culture of dependece on the government", although it will sound strange in the ears of many Americans, is cherished by many Europeans because it guarantees important social securities that they have paid for through high taxes. Many people see in unbridled liberalization a threath to these social securities that have been built up throughout the decades after WWII and many political parties are very cautious to promote a liberalized economy.



France, like many other countries in Europe, is going to face in the near future an obsolescence of the workforce. In the 15 - 20 years after the end of WWII Europe saw a sharp increase in the birthrates; this people born in this period are known as the babyboom generation. This generation provides a large part of the entire workforce, but many of them are nearing their retirement age (app. 65 years) in the coming years. This does presents a economic problem for many European countries and almost everyone of them are trying hard to find a fitting solution. But liberalization is not perse the only option in tackling this future problem.



For one the history, mentality, economy and social structures in the U.S. are not the same as in Europe. Solutions that might work in the U.S. do not necessarily work in Europe. Liberalizing the economy completely will destabilize many European societies and will threathen social securities. And even if the economy is liberalized, the question remains if this will have any positive influence on the social tension in the banlieux. Cutting social programs will surely not lead to an improvement. Part of the problem lies within poor education and poor carreer options, within the concentration of poor families in certain parts of the bigger cities and cultural differences, which include religious aspects. Social programs are an intergral part of solving these problems. Cutting taxes is also not an effective solution. Many people living in these banlieux belong to the poorest class with the French society. A 5% or 10% decrease of taxes will hardly result in any real improvement of their situation.



First of all who says people need to change their culture to accomodate immigrants? Up till now I have not seen one politician that argues this, because it would be a stupid and unrealistic point to make. I have listened to many far-right politicians about the problems of, especially, Muslim intergration. I agree with most of the problems they point out, but I have strong doubts about the way they want to solve them. Especially their beloved "muslims should assimilate" stance seems pretty simplistic and practically undoable in my eyes. The far-right movement in Europe has grown since 9/11 and the bombings in Madrid and London, but I am still not impressed by their views. Up till now I have only seen simplistic and unrealistic solutions for a complex and difficult problem from that side. I am hopefull that in time more and more people will see that the extreme approach of the far-right is not the answer.

(as a sidenote: my criticism on the far-right does not mean that I automatically support the soft approach or unrealistic ideas of some leftwing parties)

France ranks just about the lowest in Europe in terms of economic freedom, right in the middle of "mostly free." Taking a quick look, I see only Greece and Bulgaria ranking lower. As far as "embracing growth," we are discussing a country (France) that mandated a 35 hour workweek, a country with economic growth so anemic that they, in all of Europe, can only outperform post-reunification Germany with 1.2% growth during a global economic upturn.


They are right to see a threat, because it is not a model that appears viable long-term. I hope you don't think I'm being too forward in asking this, but what good is the world's most cherished welfare system, if that system can only last one generation? It's fine for you, and if you are extremely lucky, your children. Then what? 40 years ago, economics were so in love with the "Swedish model" that it became a given that all of the Western world would embrace higher taxes, ever-growing public sectors, 6 weeks of holiday, and cradle-to-grave welfare and health care. Now, those systems are shown to be significantly less dynamic than other, more open systems. You can say that liberalization isn't the answer, but believe me, growth is. How one drives growth is a matter for debate.


OK. How about a 50% decrease in taxes, coupled with a 33% decrease in public sector spending? How about stopping the import of citizens that will not work, and instead having babies, whom you expect to work?

Half of the first immigrants to Norway in the first half of the 1970s are now living on state payments. The study focused on 2,500 immigrants from Pakistan, India, Turkey and Morocco born between 1936 and 1955, and compared with a control group of Norwegians of the same age. In their first ten years the immigrants were actively employed, and as many were employed as Norwegians. But after this period their activity declined sharply, and by 2000 half of the immigrants were unemployed, compared to 13 percent of their Norwegian peers.


As for the benlieux, look beyond the immigrants. Youth unemployment is not just an immigrant problem, socialism destroys more than just economies. Depending on the state for everything contributes to more problems than you have considered. In the UK, no one would think to stop a vandal or grafitti artist. Churches and other community links are weakened and disappearing. Families no longer exist as families, moving tolong-term relationships that may result in a child. You cannot reproduce at a rate to sustain your very existence. These are serious European problems, and these riots are but a symptom.



That's a fair question. And a good one to ask, given that the Netherlands has more people moving OUT than it has people moving IN, and the people moving in are, let's say, culturally different. Or do you think that conservative Muslim immigrants like the liberal dutch culture, and do not wish to change it? I have my doubts...


Imam Fawaz calls Theo van Gogh a 'criminal bastard' and beseeches Allah to visit an incurable disease upon the filmmaker...two weeks later, van Gogh is murdered.

Leading UK Imam says "it's ok to kill gays"

Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci sued for "insulting Islam"

Swiss immigrant man bludgeons his 20-year-old wife to death with a hammer because she refused to wear a headscarf

Muslim teacher obeys fatwa to wear veil in class (UK)

John Prescott travels to Malaysia (!) to observe how different faiths can live together

German Opera cancelled rather than offend Muslims

Suspect wears burqa to escape police (UK)

French officials erect monument to immigrant youths killed while fleeing from police

Swedish girls so afraid of muslim immigrant rapists, they are wearing a kind of chastity belt

I think this is an interesting discussion. It is obvious you are looking at social and economic structures from an American perspective, while I look at it from an European / Dutch perspective. Perhaps it is interesting to explore these differences further in a new thread, but in regard to this particular thread it is not very usefull. In order to look at the economic changes that could or should be made, it is important to realize the social and economic structures of France. It is within this context that we should try to find realistic solutions. (You can argue that France should turn 180 degrees and liberalize its entire economy, make tax cuts of 50% and reduce governmental spending on social programs by 33%, but that is as unfeasible as arguing i.e. that the entire U.S. healthcare should be socialized, that U.S. minimal wage should be raised by 50 - 60% or that the U.S. government should play a bigger role in society.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There are two important addition to make in regard to these statistics. First of all its important to note that almost half of the immigrants that come to Holland are from Western countries. Secondly, although many non-Western immigrants come from North-African, Middle East countries, there is also a large percentage that comes from countries that have historical ties with Holland (like Suriname and the Dutch Antilles). Then there are some questions concerning the people who leave Holland. What is there cultural background? (I haven't yet found statistics for 2006, but the numbers of 2004 (tabel 1) reveal that Dutch emmigrants make only up less than half the number.) For what reason do they leave the country? (note the emmigration statistics are based on the number of people who will be absence for 8 months or more. Besides people who decide to permantently move to a foreign country, the numbers also include people who will be working abroad for a certain time, students who will study in a different country etc.)



Although the words of Imam Fawaz are despicable, you should not forget that Theo van Gogh deliberately challenged and insulted the Islamic belief to the extreme. There are both sides to this issue and Van Gogh was certainly not innocent himself. I could write down some things he said and wrote but these things will probably not pass the profanity filter of




Look, let me be very clear. I fully understand and acknowledge the fact that there are serious problems within the Muslim communities in various different European countries. This small percentage of the population (in Holland it is around 6%) do create a lot of social tensions. I will support any initiative to eradicate the most unacceptable cultural behaviours, but this should be accompanied by efforts to make sure we do not alienate ourselves too much from our fellow countrymen. Polarization will not be the solution to this problem, not in The Netherlands, not in France, not in Britain, or any other country in Europe.

And pray tell, what is this supposed to mean?

'Van Gogh was certainly not innocent himself'

...so was he then guilty? Guilty of what? Insulting Islam? Since when, and how is that a crime?

To the best of my knowledge, guilt in a secular society is something a court of law decides upon, and no one else. Certainly not some Imam. The fact that an Imam can actually do so, and a man can be then murdered as a result, demonstrates the weakness of Dutch society.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


One year on...

Has enough been done by French authorities to address the causes of last years riots?

Enough what? What exactly is it the French government is supposed to do? What authority does the French government exersize that it can use to address the problems unchecked immigration into Europe has caused?

What power is granted to any European state that it might defend itself against this form of attack?


Has enough been done by the communities from which the rioters originated to achieve the same end?

Again, what is meant by enough? Enough what? What have these 'communities' ever done to acheive any end other than the cul-de-sac into which they've freely walked...?


If not, what more should be done?

Forced integration and forced deportation for all illegal immigrants.


Can France expect repeats of last year's violence?

Without a doubt. Its already happening, all over Europe. Since the start of this years Ramadan, there have been riots and fighting in near every European nation. Unreported. Unnoticed. Out of sight, out of mind. Lets all pretend it isn't happening...

The multitude of the 'multiculture' will sleep safe in their ignorance this night, but for how long? How long before Europe slides into the same nightmare as Africa, South America, Asia, the Middle East...?

Van Gogh was walking a very thin line between the freedom to express your opinion, deliberately insulting people to the point that it almost touched preaching hate (which is btw illegal in Holland). He knew very well that he was crossing lines and he knew his statements would lead to immense hatred. Many close friends tried to warn him, but he just didn't listen and kept pushing it further and further. This is what I meant by saying that he wasn't innocent himself. I just wanted to provide some important background information in regard to this particular case, because this part of the story is often overlooked by many people outside of Holland.



Just for your information Moif, what the imam said was not known before. This information has come to surface during the interrogation of Soumaya S. yesterday and is part of a trial against 7 people accused of plotting terrorist acts. I didn't hear of this information untill today when I read the newspaper.

Editted to add before confusion can occur:

I do not and will not ever try to defend the hideous actions of Mohammed B.. What he did was despicable, and I hope he will never be released from jail. Neither will I ever defend the cruel and hideous statements of radical imams like Sjeich Fawaz Jneid.

Actually, the Democratic party is arguing just about that very thing for America - universal health care and raising the minimum wage significantly are quite popular ideas. And we don't look at it as "unfeasible" or against our culture. We just evaluate and debate the ideas. This seems very much unlike the French (and other Europeans), who are quite insulated from the idea that different economic ideas may be superior.


I have not forgotten that. And I have not forgotten that he was murdered for this. In Holland, a secular Western democracy.


The pornography in Holland would not pass the profanity filter either, and is quite repulsive to many Dutch Jews and Christians. Yet Dutch pornographers are not targeted for killing. An interesting cultural contrast. Only those who dare offend Islam seem to be on the hit list.

This is a very good point, but unfortunately European governments are afraid to tell these radical imams not to preach hate and murder every Friday. This stuff is not secret, we are choosing not to know about it. Look at Britian in the story I linked, where the imam in the Finesbury mosque said "it's ok to kill gays." That is a hate crime, and incitement to violence, but it will not be prosecuted. One, because it's a muslim holiday, and Two because the British are afraid. This is not the first time, they just refuse to do anything about it. Fear, pure and simple, and justifyably so. The gays aren't going around cutting off heads, after all.

I know this, and am glad to hear you say it. The problem is not that you are defending them, it's waking people up to take some action before it is too late. What that action is, I do not know, but I worry that a cultural enemy in Europe could create a problem as Europeans choose leaders and policies in the future.

Perhaps the reason why this particular aspect of the story is often overlooked by so many people outside of Holland is because in western art, it is not unusual for artists to push boundaries further and further. Indeed, in this day and age its almost a prerequisite to being considered an artist!

The horrible irony is that even as this great, modern, western civilisation has become more open minded and 'multi cultural', even as it has pushed boundaries further and further bringing freedom, security and rights to minorities, ethnic and religious, to women and children, to artists and journalists, it is becoming ever more oppressive.

Its no coincidence that Van Gogh was murdered in Holland which had long been a pioneer of European tolerance for it is that same open minded, free thinking tolerance that has allowed Holland to become what it is today. A nation gripped by fear.

The same can be said about France with its grand aspirations of egalité, fraternité and liberté. Today, France is filled with over crowded ghetto's where the police are so often and heavily attacked that they themselves describe the situation as a civil war.


Right... so how did any one know that he'd said it then?

Obviously this imam didn't broadcast his death sentence to the nation, he merely told the faithful, but thats all it takes Renger. All it takes to subvert a weak nation is for organized criminals to attack and destroy its laws. The next thing you know, its the Dutch who are integrating into Muslim society.


...but what will you defend?

What measure of defence are you prepared to employ against people who will resort to violence against your nation?

You just say that so you can get away with foisting Rammstein videos on unsuspecting victims.

Renger, van Gogh’s murder has greater implications than tasteless art. It is a matter of free speech. His murder and the idiotic reaction in the Mid East to the Mohammed cartoons moved me further left when it comes to speech rights. A wobbly self-confidence camouflaged with aggression does not give European Muslims a right to limit what others can and can’t say about them and their religion. The only prior restraint the government should enforce is speech that incites violence or yelling fire in a theater. And by inciting violence I don’t mean restraining speech that could bruise the most fragile ego among you to keep him from declaring jihad on Europe and the United States or taking revenge on an unarmed artist. Van Gogh wasn’t the one with a problem. France isn't the one with the problem. European states need to realize their governments are some of the most equitable on the planet and worth supporting. It’s time for someone else to second-guess themselves.

Before I answer or discuss the points being made I want to take this opportunity to explain what my stance is on this important issue. I hope this will decrease the chance of confusion.

1. It is well known that, especially, muslim communities in the bigger cities are, considering their numbers, disproportionately causing problems in almost every European country. It is all well documented and known to everyone who reads the newspaper or watches the television. Imams who are preaching intolerance and hate to their community: muslim youth doing despicable acts of agression: fundamental muslims who do not wish to live in a respectfull and civil way and are willing to commit terroristic acts in the name of Allah: Muslim men who are treating their wives like garbage etc etc. All these things I abhor and they should be acted upon as soon as possible!

2. Although I am a defender of the social democratic cause, I agree with the fact that the, so called, "soft"-approach of the eighties and nineties did fail in stimulating specifically the intergration process of Muslims. (I used the word specifically because I believe that in regard to the intergration of non-Muslim immigrants it did have possitive effects.) But at the same time I do not believe in the reactionary and radical solutions of the far-right. (I believe it is sheer impossible to forcefully change the cultural background, character and opinions of social groups. I believe forced intergration as a solution to these problems is an utopian view). Besides that I fear that the populistic and we-against-them approach of many far-right parties will only result in polarization, and will create a schism between groups within society. This, I believe, is something that should be avoided at all cost.

3. I believe that real intergration is only possible through direct contact between people. The government only plays a secundary role.

4. I support a two way political approach to this problem. Harsh punishments for any radical muslims that undermines intergrity of our society. Imams that are preaching hatred and intolerance should be expelled from their positions and should be prosecuted: Radical young muslims who are preparing terrorist activities should receive harsh sentences: people who commit honour killings should receive the maximum penalties etc etc. BUT at the same time we should work on improving our ties with the moderate majority of the Muslim communities. Social programs to help undereducated young muslims in finding suitable jobs: encouragement of the slow emancipation process of Muslim women: financially support organizations and institutions that organize meetings where people from different cultural backgrounds can meet, talk and get acquaintant with eachother in an informal setting: create national imam schools, while at the same time banning imams from outside. These is just a selection of many things that could be done to improve the conditions. The underlying idea is harsh action against unacceptable Islamic / cultural extremes, while at the same time we should invest in the relations between the muslim minority and the national majority in order to depolarize society.

Ok, now that I am done with this I hope it will clear any possible misunderstandings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think you probably misunderstood me. What Mohammed B. did is despicable and completely unjustifiable. Today it has been two years since Van Gogh was brutally murdered and many people, including myself, are still shocked by what happened that day. But this isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to the understandable anger and humiliation that was felt by many people, including muslims, because of his actions. If you write articles and appear in many interviews and eachtime you have the chance to talk about Muslims in general you use the word goatf*****, you are actively insulting an entire group of people and you are crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed.



Imams who are preaching that it is ok to kill gays are indeed, at least in my opinion, guilty of hate crimes and incitement of crimes. I agree with you that it is astonishing that this imam wasn't prosecuted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree with you that artists push boundaries further and further and should be doing so without any fear of reprisals. But you have to understand that Van Gogh was more than an artist, he was also a social critic, writing weekly articles and doing many interviews in which he constantly insulted the Islam and its followers. We are not talking about a normal critical attitude here, but an highly inflammatory stance. This side of van Gogh is often overlooked, it does not in any way justify the actions of Mohammed B. or Imam Fawaz, but it needs to be taken into consideration.



I agree that imams have great influences over their faithful, this could be used for good or for bad. In this case it was used in a bad way. Our government is already busy with filing a lawsuit against this radical and wicked imam.



There was great commotion when our minister of justice, Piet Hein Donner, said this. What he actually said was: if the majority of the people in Holland would become muslim and if this majority would should to introduce the sharia, then within our democratic system, as we know it today, it could be possible. Immediately afterwards he clearly stated that he would never approve of this. Furthermore politicians are busy trying to ammend our constitution so that this theoretical chance can never occur.



I will defend the Dutch constitution, culture and society, like you would defend your Danish constitution culture and society. We do not have fundamentally different ideas on this issue Moif, the only difference is the way we choose to take to solve this problem / threat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What can I say ... I agree with everything you said here.
The only thing we could perhaps argue about is this line



but that would be an topic worthy of a nice discussion about the boundaries of the freedom of speech (should continuous slander and insults aimed at a specific social group be tolerated even if it doesn't fall into the bracket of inciting hatred?)


Phewwww.... all that reading, all that typing ... I am going to take a beer and relax a bit.

A lot has been written, and as usual, strong opinions are being voiced on AD. I'm not going to reply to everyone regarding their answers about France, but I'll just give my take on things as a Frenchman living overseas.

There is nothing to do. Years after years have our governments and administrations tried to embrace the problem and nothing has improved. The one thing I am seeing now is the the rise of Radicalism in Europe, in response to the fear of Europeans and the islamic radicalism. 9/11 and what ensued was the trigger to an explosive situation that has stirred in Europe for the last 30 years.

If you add to that the problem of competitiveness of our economies and the huge taxation that French taxpayers have to bear to sustain a dying welfare system, you end up with a population that is widely disgruntled and that doesn't believe that their situation will improve anytime soon.

Free market, free economy... one can debate at length on their merits in creating growth and wealth. But it also creates job insecurity and widens social inequities. There is not one system that's better than the other, they all have pros and cons. It's a give and take type of thing.

Finally, I'm going to add three more thoughts which hopefully will give the readers more insight into the French current situation:

1. Taxation:

When I added every tax (retirement tax, healthcare tax, social support tax, unemployment tax, disabled tax, income tax, county tax, sales tax, recycling tax, gas tax, etc.), I discovered that my gross income was amputated by 45%. My revenues were just enough to consider myself entry-level middle-class. Since middle class is the bulk of the population, perhaps you can understand why people feel so poor, powerless and ALSO why they rely so heavily on a government that takes SO MUCH of their money to make the right decisons for their future.

2. Children:

Because of the level of taxation and because life in general is so expensive, having children has become more and more of a financial hassle. Wanna-be parents usually think twice and over before throwing themselves in with baby burden these days. You may think that the welfare system will be the safety net that would save the day - after all, this is what we're paying for, right? Well, think again... the money or subsides you get from the system cannot help you much at all, because its contribution doesn't match today's cost of living. But maybe this tiny amount could explain why France is ahead of European countries for birthrate.

3. Living & Employment:

Finding a job in France is not a joyride these days, that's a given. Most jobs that pays a decent salary are located in and around the big cities, which means soaring prices for houses and apartments. Around Paris, 1000 euros a month ($1300 US) is common for a 20 sq.m / 180 sq.ft apartment. And you need to prove that you are making at least three or four times this amount per month before they let you in. And still they'll ask for a co-warrant. And if you want to buy a small apartment on the outskirts, on the 5th floor without an elevator, a total surface of 12 sq.m / 108 sq.ft, get ready to spend 80,000 euros ($104,000 US) for it. This is ACTUAL (Century 21 website).

So, if you plan on living and working near and in Paris, "you need to be rich to get rich". Or you can live a little cheaper in the slums with the immigrants that have been parked there for the last 35 years, along with people who barely make a living.

Unemployment for foreigners tops 40% in France. Reasons range from racist prejudice to poor economic growth perspectives. My American wife and I are a good example of the whole situation. I was making 3000 euros a month, but I had to drive 3 hours in commute each day to go to work and back because we couldn't afford an apartment near Paris. My boss expected me to work from 8:00AM til 7:30PM and sometimes more. Meanwhile, my wife was literally grounded at home in a town where there was a job shortage and NO job for her. Her American diplomas would not grant her access to a decent French job, only to some part-time English teacher position with the minimal wage.


There are millions French born couples that are struggling right now, trying to make a living in a system on the verge of implosion. The 2007 presidential elections campaign is the reflection of the situation; on the one hand, you have Sarkozy, Minister of the Interior, French Republican with a strong advocacy for control over immigration, fight against terrorism, reform of the administration and turning society into a copycat of America 'à la francaise'. On the other hand, you have Royal, a Woman, Socialist, President of the region of Charentes, who claims to bring a new type of democracy based on "Direct Consultation" of the People to bring a new order and carry the country forward. In a nutshell, her program is basically what the people will decide for their society. Beyond and between is a galaxy of candidates who reflect France complexity (http://www.presidentielle-2007.net/candidats-2007.php).

If the French government cannot even improve the lives of their average citizens, how can they do anything about outcasts?

What really worries me is not Sarkozy, who is all talk and won't really do anything, nor the socialism of Royal, but rather Le Pen. It's going to be his last chance probably in 2007, and let's not forget he made it to the second round last time. Now he may have odd collaborators with the rioting "youths." Dieudonné attended the FN national conference, and they supposedly have activists out canvassing the banlieux for the FN. It sounds really strange, but Dieudonné needs the attention, and the mainstream won't talk to him, so he co-opts the extremists via support of Le Pen. Plus, Le Pen actually ran a Muslim candidate when he was with the FNC. The one thing binding them together is their hatred of Jews. Between this political development and the thousands of car burnings, and the latest gang attack against the jewish soccer fan, expect Jews to continue to emigrate from France. This is the worst of all worlds, the racists and far-right hooligans teaming together with the muslim youths who riot against france.

Just an update for those who may not be aware of this Le Pen campaign. He is now openly courting the Muslim youth, casting the riots as a backdrop, blaming everything on the "left and right" of the establishment. This poster is appearing in the Muslim ghettos, courting their vote for the "anti-establishment" Le Pen.