That's a pretty funny article, a thousand or so words when the whole intent was in the last line.
Open Australia's borders and don't talk about ethnic or immigrant crime.
Why not just post one line?
This is what's called "Wordism", he's suggesting that because Gypsies have it tough in Europe it's okay for non White criminals to come to all White countries and only White countries.
Sounds silly when I phrase it that way doesn't it?
Trouble is since we have no figures available to us on ethnic and immigrant crime how does the author come to his conclusion that such crime shouldn't matter when we're talking about immigration?

I suspect that if we move the gypsies to Western Sydney many will lose their hands if the Muslims get Sharia like many of them would like.

What do you get when you cross one vicious racial stereotype with another vicious racial stereotype? Runner.

Aaaah the French! Once such an easy target for soft ridicule but now one of the few Countries with enough backbone and political will to actually enact policies to rid their Society of non-citizens who choose to break their laws and/or refuse to compromise imported customs to conform to French culture .... Vive la France!

Australian Politicians take a leaf ..... The consensus is already clear. Multiculturalism only works if there is similar level of respect and co-operation between the various cultural interests under the common umbrella of law and acceptable social mores. We are now far past the point of realisation this is often not the case here in Australia.

Come here as a new citizen, obey our laws, refrain from cultural practices that are illegal or offensive in our society, contribute to the health and wealth of the Nation through economic and social pursuits and be welcome. Otherwise go back to wherever you came from.

Rhian, what you get is a blithering idiot, who thinks they have some divine right to tell others what to think, how to act, & who to throw out.

It gets worse when you let then into a Uni, & they get some reflected authority behind their words. They then think they have some right to tell the public, their employers who to let in, & who not to throw out.

Sounds like you prefer the latter.

What would that make you?

It shows the state of our tertiary sector that such rubbish could be written by an academic, a professor no less, at a university like Sydney.

Academics who live in their trendy suburbs don't feel the effects of crime like the great majority of ordinary people.

Perhaps we should import the Gypsies instead. Then when they bring their crime with them and attack foreign students, the same professors could appear on TV lamenting how 'intolerant' Australia is. They could then go home with a warm fuzzy feeling and sip lattes and talk with their friends about how good they are and how uncivilized the great unwashed are.

Hasbeen
I’m not sure I understand you’re point, but if you’re asking whether I give more weight on demographic issues to the views of a professor of population than an uneducated racist, the answer is yes – although I quite often disagree with professors too. I’m not sure what that makes me.

I recall an incident in Italy about 3 years ago when the Camora (Naples Mafia) torched an entire Roma settlement on the outskirts of the city.

Several people were injured but the local Police just stood back and watched.

It's interesting how justice and protection under the law can be so selective, even in the most enlightened and civilised countries.

The French writer, Gustave Flaubert, once came upon an encampment of gypsies. He wrote of it thus:

"A week ago I was enraptured by an encampment of gypsies who had stopped in Rouen. This is the third time I've seen them, each time with new pleasure. The wonderful thing is that they are arousing the "Hatred" of the "Bourgeois", even though they were harmless as lambs. The crowd looked its great disapproval when I gave them a few sous....This kind of hatred stems from something very deep and complex. It is to be found in all "champions of law and order". It's the hatred felt for the Bedouin, the Heretic, the philosopher, the hermit, the Poet. And there is fear in the hatred."

Sorry, but the Roma they're targeting are NOT French citizens and are illegally squatting on the land (and not even touching the generally high crime rates associated with Roma).

The French are well within their rights to boot them out.

Dear King Hazza,

Absolument! - your solution is representative of the Bourgeois way. Those who are bound within society's chains will always resent and exclude those who are free and who do not "play the game".....

No Poirot, I'd say it has more to do with the amount of 'freedom' the rest of the French people would have at the expense of Roma around than not- as they have a considerable reputation for criminal activity across Europe.
And the fact is, they have no right to actually be there, and are taking up space that could be used for something else by people who actually do (freely!).

Dear King Hazza,

The point is that they do have every right to be there.

The European Union has urged France to suspend the deportations. France may be infringing upon its EU obligations. Legal analysis is pending, and may lead to legal action.

The European Union's top justice official, Viviane Reding spoke out on the issue saying, "This is not a minor matter - this is a disgrace."

Many are drawing parallels between the removal of Roma during the Second World War.

My main point was that "society" in whatever form it finds itself, will always expect everyone to participate - and if they don't, they will be vilified with whatever conveniently paints them in the darkest light.

I'm afraid that's not convincing Piorot- as far as I'm concerned, if these people are not citizens of France, and they are occupying the ground illegally (that is, against France's residential, loitering etc laws), then France deserves the right to 'freely' take back what property belongs to them, and no amount of complaining by an unelected court representing a wing of a multinational union with limited authority, nor invoking Godwin is enough.

And no, I don't care if they're not welcomed elsewhere. Not France's problem. And no country's obligation to shoulder people who only reward it with abuse (or 'not participating fully- including refusing to work and instead electing to generate funds through unethical processes against the people of the society they're occupying).

As far as I'm concerned, France is complying enough with its own constitutional requirements for me not to have a problem with it.

Dear King Hazza,

France is quite happy to receive the economic benefits of being a member of the EU. Yet, in targeting a minority for deportation, appears to be flouting the spirit if not the laws set down by that union.
Why are one set of laws (France's domestic) seen as worth upholding while the laws governing conduct by nations within the European Union are not?

Simple, maybe because France has reevaluated the importance or role of the union as an organization itself.
Or maybe watched the Swiss adopt a better approach of simply signing up for Schengen (really the only reason to be there) without sacrificing anything worthwhile to uphold all the baggage of the union?
Especially considering when France actually joined the EU, it was little more than a trade agreement.