Why do you find it relevant that it is a gypsy community?

I'm not disclaiming it as fact (although I haven't checked the truth of it or not), I am questioning why it is a relevant fact.

In some strange infantile defensive move you have asked why I think it relevant to question the relevance. I will answer your question, because I'm a grown up. Consistently both the media or individuals such as yourself highlight certain aspects of stories which do not make a difference to the story but which alter the thinking of those reading/listening/watching to propogate negative stereotypes about certain groups.

The example here is your use of the word "gypsy". To take your opening sentence "Unbelievable, a gang of gypsies raided..." the meaning of the sentence and the content of the story would not be altered if the sentence was changed to "Unbelievable, a gang has raided..."

The reason that this is significant is that the extra ethnic detail is not added to these type of stories completely evenly. If the rioting was in a largely black area of town, we would be told, if the rioting was in an asian part of town, we would be told, and if the rioting was in a Muslim part of town, we would definitely be told. But if a largely white (non-gypsy) group were to riot the sentence would be the non specific "a gang has raided...." one. Negative stories are non-race (or distinguishing group) specific when they are about the majority group, however if a negative story can be written about a minority group then they will make sure to include to mention the ethnicity of the rioters.

The significant details of the story are that there was a riot, a policeman opened fire and someone was killed. The ethnicity of those involved is not important, drawing attention to it propogates negative stereotypes, leading to more community tension.

p.s. "What's this, the PC brownshirt brigade"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10618638

They aren't gypsies.  They're 'travellers' or 'travelling people', aka hippies.  Is this about race or ethnicity?  I don't think so.  It's the equivalent to North America's rednecks vs. hippies fiasco.

that's a bet

get running

Yes, I did understand that the thread was about slow police response times, which is exactly why I questioned you repeatedly referring to the gypsy connection, because it is not relevant to a discussion about police response times. That was exactly my point.

I didn't have and still don't have any notions that you are a racist, or not least anymore racist than the next person, or anymore racist than society has made you. I think there are elements of racism in the way news is reported which you have propagated, though I never claimed that was any conscious or malicious decision.

Don't start with personal attacks, either respond like a grown up or don't bother. You've blown a challenge to something minor in one post out of all proportion.

Xeno, I don't think it matters whether you would call gypsies or travellers an ethnicity or not. The point is that they are a group who are in some way different to the majority. I intentionally put Muslims into my list of examples as another self defining group which media coverage may attach negative stereotypes to.

Fokker makes a good point that in the context of this story the actions of the mob were due to a shared identity, but then isn't that the definition of any mob? I'll have a think about it, but I think you might be right.

um don't think it's Romany yutes burning cars in the banueils

@ Sitting Duck

"I don't think it matters whether you would call gypsies or travellers an ethnicity or not."

Oh, but it does matter.  Q: What's the difference between hippies and Gypsies? A: the fact that the Gypsies are equivocal to the Romani ethnicity (among other differences).   Hippies are not considered a racial identity.  If they were, they'd receive special status, protections under the law.  And, moreover, if they were considered of an ethnicity which had been traditionally oppressed in the past, they'd receive even more special status and protections under the law. 

The Gypsies, on the other hand, should receive special status and protections under the law beyond those received by most ethnicities, because the Romani people have been 'traditionally oppressed ethnicity".

Now, ironically, certainly, gypsies who have been traditionally oppressed must be differentiated from tourists or travelers for God's sake!  The French calling them 'travelers' is essentially a hate crime, merely another way to negate the gypsies' ethnic identity.  The fact that it is a legal term just makes the French Legal System a perpetrator of hate crimes and institutionalized racism.

Now, Sitting Duck, your point seemed to suggest that any group should receive special status and protections under the law; that hippies, as an example, should receive just as mu status and protections as Gypsies, or for that matter, Native American peoples.  Is that where your argument was leading, Sitting Duck?

I think the difference here is SD's assertion that the fact they were gypsies (or whatever) has no point to he concept of slow police response time (something we haven't even discussed here) however in the context of the original news story the fact of it being a gypsy group would of been relevant, because the whole reason this sad incident happened was due to the shared community feeling within this specific group. The story would of been less complete with this fact left out.

However the original news story was not quoted in here, so the requirement for the label to be used is less needed, the ambiguity of 'a gang' did this in response the death  of 'a member' would of been as fine as using the word gypsy to identify the gang and member.

East is right in that he is using the terms used in the original news story, however he possibly should have made it clear that this had nothing to do with his topic for debate, or linked/copy+pasted the story here and then discussed his point about the police reaction time, which would of made SD's post off topic as the definitions used would of been obviously defined elsewhere and the complaint would not be  with the OP but with the source/media as a whole, which is a separate topic  and would therefore be off-topic spam in this thread...

damn Euros oughta go back to Hindustan

@You_Fool

"police reaction time"

Come on, now.  This was never going to be about police reaction time.  Are you kidding me?  A Gypsy gets shot and killed, the Gypsies in the town torch some cars and cut down trees in retaliation, and you think the discussion should actually be able how long it took the police to respond?  Are you kidding me?  You don't think that perhaps, just maybe, the issue of bigotry of the French police, the traditional, historical suffering of Gypsies in Europe, and whether or not their retaliation might not be justifiable is mere spam?  I'll tell you what.  Discussing police response time here would be spamming this thread.

Now, the following post is what we should be discussing.

> Firewing wrote:

> Civil disorder is a growing problem throughout western and central europe. decades of wrong politics for the (in-)tolerance of minor ethnic groups result in fast growing numbers of crimes and civil unrest. This adds to a new problem of civil violence in great urban areas where bored teenagers and radical leftists started a guerilla war agianst the police by firing hundreds of cars and demoltion of other private property. These violent groups are more like anarchists and the result of decades of support for left crime against rightwing (Nazi) persons and property, leading to an atmosphere of rightful use of violence against everything.

"If you're going to argue that a certain ethnic group has every right to engage in random violence against innocent people because of a grudge against their bureaucracy, you're making the case for ethnic cleansing."

The American Revolution was ethnic cleansing against the British, then, right Chris Balz?  The French Revolution was 'ethnic' cleansing against the nobility, right? The Hungarian Revolution ethnic cleansing against the Soviets, right?  Or, perhaps you would even say a revolt by the Jews in the ghettos of Nazi-controlled Warsaw against their Nazi captors was unjustified ethnic cleansing against the Nazi Germans, right?

We're talking about a traditionally oppressed people, the Gypsies.  It is absurd to say the violence committed by Gypsies against people or property associated with ethnically French majority in response to perceived ethnic violence against Gypsies is ethnic cleansing because the French ethnicity is the majority in that society, an ethnic majority represented in the institutions of authority which is known to have conducted violent oppression of the Romani Gypsies in the past.

Moreover, if the French majority have benefited financially or otherwise from their institutions oppressing the Romani Gypsies, who is to say that some level of compensation isn't due to be paid to (or extracted by) the Romani Gypsies.  If they have indeed suffered disadvantaged economic opportunity and suffered physically or emotionally at the hands of predominantly French-controlled institutions, and compensation for that suffering has not been paid, not paid in full, nor successfully extracted, who is to say a certain amount of violence / vandalism is not justifiable?

How did most revolts for freedom and liberty get ignited into a full-fledged rebellions, usually by soldiers firing upon protesters.  This is what happened to the Gypsies in that community, and, I believe if I had been there, and had I been  Romani Gypsy, and it had been my brother who had been killed, and killed merely because he had stolen a loaf of bread and was fleeing the scene, would I not have been justified in seeking revenge?

Why is this such a concern to me?  Well, I hear of police killing civilians all the time, protesters killed everyday in one part of the world or another, and nothing ever seems to come of it anymore.  People seem to have lost touch with the seriousness of the police killing civilians.  It is such a heinous act, I cannot believe it happens in our day and age, especially in France, the historical cradle of liberty.

It's a shame, really - an utter shame.

Warning flag, You_Fool: Your interpretation of off-topic spam means we can't indict assumptions of the OP.  For example, if I created a thread asking how we should go about getting xeno kicked out of IC... it would be off topic to ask me why we should try to kick xeno out of IC, because that's not my intent.