Gypsy Rondo

As far as I can tell there are three basic lines of thought on the presence and/or expulsion of Rumanian gypsies in France: 1) They are the victims of French racism, 2) They are illegals and should be expelled, 3) They are simply being used by Sarkozy as a convenient scapegoat to obtain votes in the next presidential election, while the real threats to French security and identity - the Muslims and blacks - remain untouchable.

I think I go along with the third hypothesis, and to a lesser degree with the second. If they are illegal, of course they should be expelled, but is this the priority France wants and needs? If they commit crimes, they should be jailed and/or deported back to Rumania, but the laws of the EU allow them to walk back into France with little hassle.

Sarkozy needs to convince people he is tough on crime and tough on illegal immigrants, but we know he cannot be tough on blacks or Muslims, so this leaves the Rumanian gypsies as the obvious scapegoat of choice. However, this does not mean I favor any sort of special indulgence for them or any form of racial blackmail designed to make the French feel guiltier than they already feel.


These are excerpts from an article by Dominique de Villepin (left), former prime minister under Jacques Chirac and now a presidential candidate for 2012. Villepin espouses completely the multi-cultural point of view that denounces France as racist and cruel towards the gypsies. The irony here is too blatant - he is denouncing the same multi-cultural, politically correct, racially mixed France created by his opponent Nicolas Sarkozy and his former boss Jacques Chirac simply because of a feigned expulsion of gypsies from French territory. Anyway... here is his denunciation, from Le Monde, via François Desouche:

"All it took was one speech in Grenoble, one summer, just one summer, and everything tipped over, everything from the fight against crime to national indignity," stresses Villepin. "I say 'national' because the President of the Republic represents all of us. If you have any doubts, you have only to read the foreign press, from the United States to India (...) to measure the shock people felt when they saw the land of human rights - France, show an unrecognizable face."

Note: This is in reference to the speech Sarkozy made in Grenoble after the riots there this past July (see my post). He stated that he would expel from France those criminals who threatened or harmed policemen. The world (including American publications such as Newsweek) joined in a collective knee-jerk reaction of indignation at such extreme racist measures. While Sarkozy was no doubt bluffing, the rest of the world was merely expressing the standard, predictable anti-racist dogma.

Villepin himself acknowledges that Sarkozy's plans could not result in anything concrete, since there already are laws on the books that cover the revocation of citizenship for criminals.

"And yet there are solutions. We must come together, especially the mayors and the associations, we must mobilize with reason and determination all the instruments of prevention and punishment, as we recognize the scope of the social, economic, and educational questions."

Note: He means that the standard of living and the level of education of Roma and other immigrants has to improve. As if France has not wasted millions on welfare and assistance.

Then then launches into a cry of despair:

"Nothing has changed, and yet everything has changed. Changed the way we see others - Roma, nomads, immigrants, Muslims. Changed, the way France is perceived, a country that used to have values and principles. Changed, the way we see ourselves, divided between French citizens and 'citizens of foreign origin', even though the first article of our Constitution ensures 'equality before the law for all citizens without distinction of origin, race or religion.'

"These are not just small details, for we cannot forget, over and beyond the indignity, where these games can lead us. The philosopher calls it 'an error'... No! It is a failing. A moral failing, a collective fault committed in our name, against the Republic and against France. Today there is a shameful stain on our flag." (...)

His essay is a rather comical example of guilt and self-flagellation. It is not possible for me to say if he truly believes what he says, or if he is playing the race and guilt cards in order to garner sympathy and votes. His words encapsulate the bleeding heart mentality of both Left and Establishment Right, but it is unlikely it will win him any votes. It is even unlikely he will get to the first round of the 2012 election, much less the second.


Besides Dominique de Villepin, Jean-Pierre Raffarin (left), also a former prime minister, and currently an official of the UMP party stigmatized what he called "absurd proposals" on crime prevention, adding that the majority UMP was on a "right-wing slippery slope that had to be corrected". He called on Prime Minister François Fillon to speak out and "reaffirm the values of equilibrium of a majority that must move forward with the left side of its brain also."

Note: He is as delusional as Villepin. Or, more likely, all of this has some electoral strategy behind it.

Diametrically opposed to Villepin is Bruno Gollnisch, vice-president of the Front National, quoted by Le Salon Beige:

"A majority of Frenchmen regard the dismantling of improvised gypsy camps and the expulsion of a certain number of Roma favorably. But these great Sarkozian maneuvers have, essentially, an electoral purpose. For these costly 'voluntary expulsions' (sic) serve no purpose: the interested parties, as the police and gendarmes have admitted, have no qualms about coming right back, since the French government has seen to it that there is no way of preventing them from coming back. Some, eternally naïve and future cuckolds, are enthusiastic again, as they were in 2007, over the 'crime-fighting' posture of Nicolas Sarkozy, whose record on fighting crime and immigration is simply catastrophic.

"It was he who, by promoting the Treaty of Lisbon, opened the borders to all nationals of Central Europe. As the association Terre d'Asile (Land of Asylum) never tires of saying: by virtue of this treaty millions of Roma from Rumania, Hungary, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia have, like the other citizens of these countries, acquired the right to enter France without a visa or authorization, just like Belgians, Italians, etc... And what we are seeing is just the beginning of this transhumance! The conclusion is obvious: nothing can be done until we re-negotiate the European treaties and restore our sovereignty on our own territory. All the rest is just a smokescreen for the near-sighted and amnesiac voter of the Right."

One Salon Beige reader submitted these thoughts:

- The gypsies are being used to demonstrate the supposed "firmness" of the immigration policy. That's normal. It's easier: not only are the Roma mostly Christian (a scapegoat par excellence), but above all they don't have powerful international lobbies behind them or terrorist networks that can intervene if need be. You can hit on them without any risk and pretend to be taking drastic measures. Nonetheless, the gypsies are Christians and European citizens, which makes all this hubbub seem ridiculous and absurd.

Meanwhile the "racaille" (ghetto dwellers) are still at it.

Note: This post has taken me longer than anticipated. There is much more to say - about Sarkozy's speech in Grenoble, the reaction to the so-called expulsions, the remarks of Pope Benedict, etc... Much of the commentary indicates that everyone knows Sarkozy is merely priming himself for the 2012 election. Everyone knows too that the gypsies are a very convenient pretext for a show of force that will amount to very little substantively. Some are saying that Sarkozy wants the Left to win the upcoming senatorial election. With a Socialist Senate, Sarkozy will be better placed to win the presidential, as the population usually tries to "balance" the parties in power - as if it makes any difference at this point.

With this post I have changed from "Roms" to "Roma" as a designation of Rumanian gypsies. I see that most of the English-speaking press uses Roma. According to Wikipedia there are several different designations including Romanis, Romanies, etc...

More later...