In France, Prisons Filled With Muslims

SEQUEDIN, France -- Samia El Alaoui Talibi walks her beat in a cream-colored head scarf and an ink-black robe with sunset-orange piping, an outfit she picked up at a yard sale.

After passing a bulletproof window, El Alaoui Talibi trudges through half a dozen heavy, locked doors to reach the Muslim faithful to whom she ministers in the women's cellblock of the Lille-Sequedin Detention Center in far northern France.

It took her years to earn this access, said El Alaoui Talibi, one of only four Muslim holy women allowed to work in French prisons. "Everyone has the same prejudices and negative image of Muslims and Islam," said Moroccan-born El Alaoui Talibi, 47, the mother of seven children. "When some guards see you, they see an Arab; they see you the same as if you were a prisoner."

This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Is France racist? Would they just arbitrarily throw a muslim woman in jail when they see one, or do the Muslim women commit crimes that deserve punishment?

Hell we have our own problems here at home.......

reply to post by Master_Wii


Another reason countries shouldn't follow Amerca's lead as "Super Aggressors" in the world. You create of enemies!

I would argue that the problem lays with Muslim society more than French society. Police have a duty to enforce the law, so clearly they aren't arresting people with no cause. If you knew anything about France and the problems they have there with Muslim youth, you wouldn't be so surprised at these high numbers. Does nobody remember the riots in Paris and all those cars that got burnt? It was Muslim youth. Calling France racist diverts from the real problem.

I think a lot of france is prejudice to the poorer areas of france, it just happens that a lot of muslims, black people and others live in these areas, the pressure of this seperate society cause problems.

Originally posted by Master_Wii
Is France racist? Would they just arbitrarily throw a muslim woman in jail when they see one, or do the Muslim women commit crimes that deserve punishment?

Excuse me:
How is imprisoning Muslims "racist"? Last time I checked I thought "Islam" was a religion, not a race!

But why does everyone assume that - if more non-whites (or, for the PC term, "minorities") are imprisoned than whites - the justice system is 'racist'?

Do you guys believe that white cops throughout Europe, America, Canada etc swarm "minority" neighbourhoods, waiting for a hapless minority person to kick a can five times in a row?

But what you're doing is only going to worsen the situation:
You are coddling them.

By telling them that the crimes they commit "aren't they're fault" you're effectively removing them from any blame attained for the crime, and instead placing it on a conveniently-intangible scapegoat like "racism" or "poverty".

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
I think a lot of france is prejudice to the poorer areas of france, it just happens that a lot of muslims, black people and others live in these areas, the pressure of this seperate society cause problems.

It's because they don't want to "integrate".
Sarkozy has tried "social initiatives" to improve the conditions of such areas, but I predict that things will only worsen in France.

The Muslims in France ought to be glad they live in France...if they were still in the middle east or their countries of origin breaking laws, they could have had their hands lopped off, or their heads, or been stoned to death.

More muslims commit crime as a proportion of their population ergo more muslims are in prison.

Similar to the position of black people in America. 1/3 of all black males are in prison at any one point.

Its not state racism, its not institutional racism from the police... its endemic criminality amongst certain groups for whatever reason.

reply to post by Master_Wii


I'd wager it works exactly like the US prison system, with different sentencing standards for different ethnic or social groups, even if the crime is the same.

Originally posted by Master_Wii

SEQUEDIN, France --

... This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population.

well, France might want to study over the American's prison system,

especially during the 1970's when the 'Black Muslim' population was still in its ascendancy & power within the prison system ---
American Prisons which are Still the largest incarcerated population in the Free-World...are no longer 'dominated' by legions of radical black muslims.

France should try to see how we addressed the criminal & muslim adherents. We may have just been lucky instead of having a rigiorous program that reduced that segment of the population (notice i exclude the radical element from the quantified term of "Society')


thanks,

It's merely one system of society not harmonizing with western diplomacy.

Punishment for not following a certain countries law system is perfectly agreeable.

What would happen if I went on a marathon beer bender over in Saudi Arabia??

It would be the worst hangover in my history that's for sure!!

It's all about compliance...

Most people in prisons are poor.

Most immigrant minorities in western countries are poor, disproportionately so.

These people are not in prison because they're Muslim, but because they're poor. Correlation does not equal causation.

Originally posted by dave420
Most people in prisons are poor.

Most immigrant minorities in western countries are poor, disproportionately so.

These people are not in prison because they're Muslim, but because they're poor. Correlation does not equal causation.

Everybody is in prison because they are poor. It is not because they have committed crimes repeatedly and ignored the warnings of the courts, police, and social workers along the way as their crimes escalated until the only thing left for society to do is put them away. Everybody knows the government wants poor people in prison so they can pay to feed and house them instead of having them on the outside holding a job and paying taxes.



[edit on 5-5-2008 by groingrinder]

reply to post by groingrinder


Put away the naive affectation - it's not helping you in this debate.

In case you're incapable of putting two and two together, let me spell it out for you: Poor people sometimes resort to crime to either escape the reality that is their lives (say, drug using, alcohol abuse), and they often use crime to get enough money to try to live their lives (selling drugs, burglaries, car crime, mugging, theft, etc.). Many poor people don't, and that's why there are poor people not in prison. However, human psychology being what it is, everyone's affected differently, resulting in the split.

Of course "being poor" isn't a criminal offense, but the circumstances of being poor lessen the difference between freedom and incarceration, which makes it a far more acceptable risk.

But I guess it's far easier to just ignore the complicated answers and focus on the media-friendly sound-bytes I'm sure you've heard FNC flapping-heads spout every chance they get.

Originally posted by dave420
Most people in prisons are poor.

Most immigrant minorities in western countries are poor, disproportionately so.

These people are not in prison because they're Muslim, but because they're poor. Correlation does not equal causation.

I wonder if you would care to apply your own theory to other minorities then.

Why are Chinese, Indian, Korean or Japanese immigrants not disproportionately poor and prone to incarceration?

Why is it the black and islamic immigrant communities around the world that are almost always below the national level of household income and always above the national level of incarceration by ethnic group?

There is correlation on the basis that the immigrant communities who are poor, are poor because of their own intrinsic failings which additionally results in increased criminality.

It startles me how far some people will go to ignore an inconvenient truth.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


Because not all waves of immigration come at the same time in a country's development, and not all waves end up in the same wealth bracket. The US is a great example. Black people first, then asians, etc. Saying all immigrants arrive at the same country, and that all immigration waves bring the same money and skills over, is fantastically naive.

Black people started off as slaves, for crying out loud. How you think that their descendents will be in the exact same boat as, say, a more recent immigration wave (south-east Asian, for example) who mainly immigrated over and took available jobs without having to be slaves, is beyond me. An overly-simplistic view of the problems immigrants have will only serve to ensure this rubbish keeps happening.

reply to post by dave420


OK, point taken for the USA.

But consider the UK:

The majority of black immigrants came voluntarily from the West Indes.

The majority of indian immigrants came by force from Uganda under persecution by Idi Amin whereby their personal wealth was all confiscated by the Ugandan police when they were leaving at the airports.

Yet if you consider the rates of incarceration and affluence of these two different immigrant groups, it is easy to see that there is a correlation based on race.


The same trend is also seen in South Africa, where all the Chinese and Indian immigrants were brought over as slaves, yet are now amongst the most affluent and lest incarcerated groups there. Whereas the immigrants from Nigeria arrived with more money, and are yet disproportionately involved in criminal activity (notably carjacking). This is all happening in a black country- institutional racism is therefore ruled out as the prevailing factor.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


The first major influx of black immigrants in the UK happened in 1948 when the Empire Windrush brought back just under 500 people. They did come voluntarily, but they were poor and given the opportunity to work in the UK rebuilding the country after the war. They were not wealthy, they were not even above poverty. One doesn't leave one's country to work for a pittance because one is independently wealthy. Working to rebuild London, they were housed in the deep-level shelters along the Victoria line in London. That's why, to this day, around the locations of those deep-level shelters (and the Victoria line, under which it is built), you find historically-large black populations. Clapham, Stockwell, Brixton, etc. The race riots of the early 80s are a staggering testament to the poverty many black immigrants found themselves in, as it festered in the community for decades.

Indian immigration kicked-off after India gained independence, and chose to leave India to work in the UK. The 90,000 people ejected from Uganda paled into comparison to the numbers of Indians who migrated to the UK in order to work. Heck, 60,000 arrived before 1955 (according to Wikipedia).

The difference between the black and Indian immigrant populations are many - the black immigrants were desperately poor, the Indian immigrants were definitely better off. The black people moved over in the late 40s, during periods of massive racism and xenophobia, whereas the Indian population moved in with some racism, but the tide was already turning against widespread racism, and so they were not greeted with the "No Niggers" signs when they arrived (as many of the black folks were).

The fact that the circumstances of the immigration were so massively different means any direct comparison between the two is destined to fail before it's even begun.

As for South Africa, again, you're not seeing the whole picture. An immigrant is not just a person - their future, as people and a group, depends on their skills and experience. If a particular population has skills that are needed, then that population gets a boost of money and stability other groups might not get. Asian immigrants have historically bought many skills to western countries (often gained at the hands of western "masters", such as Cambodian bakers who learned their skill from French colonialists, Indian and Chinese tailors who learned from the Brits, etc.), and as such Asian immigration and integration has been less difficult (but still not easy) than most other groups. Bringing money alone is not enough - if you can't get work, you're going to be poor awfully quick. A (relatively) unskilled Nigerian with money will wind up being a poor Nigerian with no job. Take the Taiwanese immigration to the US, especially in eastern LA (Alhambra, etc.). They bought lots of money to the area, and the know-how to start trading (as they were traders before they left Taiwan), not to mention the already-not-too-poor Asian communities that existed, helping both to improve - the Taiwanese immigrants got richer, and the already-existing Asian community got cheaper food, both helping to get the Asian population in that part of the world higher up the proverbial food-chain.

Obviously this post is full of generalisations - it's very difficult (if not impossible) to discuss this subject without doing so. I don't mean to lump everyone together - there have been highly successful groups of black immigration around the world, and terrible Asian immigration (San Francisco in the late 1800s springs to mind). I don't mean to offend anyone with this post, just to have a discussion.

reply to post by dave420


I do enjoy reading your posts, Dave.

Your views on poverty and incarceration are exactly how I feel.

For your great posts, insighful opinions and good research I give you a star!

Poor people sometimes resort to crime to either escape the reality that is their lives (say, drug using, alcohol abuse), and they often use crime to get enough money to try to live their lives (selling drugs, burglaries, car crime, mugging, theft, etc.). Many poor people don't, and that's why there are poor people not in prison. However, human psychology being what it is, everyone's affected differently, resulting in the split.

That IS the bottom line truth.

Wow, I never expected France to have any prisons whatsoever.
From everything that was ever reported and everything I've heard before I, thought France had a Utopian society.

reply to post by dave420


All historically very valid points, I agree.

However for the last two generations, there has been no widespread racism to speak of. I am dealing with the current situation on the ground, and while I acknowledge a historical influence on the social status of certain racial groups, I am of the opinion that at present there is every opportunity available to every stratum of society.

For the last decade, there has been a parity in the accessibility of education to all ethnic groups. This is evidenced by the presence of black students at Oxford and Cambridge- considered some of the best universities in the country if not in the world!

Does this not lend credence to the idea that there is nothing stopping black children from academic achievement? Yet why do a significant number lapse into criminality? Skill set is patently not an issue, because the people we are talking about now are 3rd generation immigrants in many cases, and mainly born in the UK.

I agree with your assessment that the poor tend to be disproportionately involved with criminal activities- however I posit a different reason:

People are given two options to choose from, and two paths to tread. One path is education, followed by employment and a place in society. The other path is to drop out and become poor(er), and to be exposed to the influences of the less affluent areas in the country (such as drugs, gangs etc).

In essence, I see no barrier preventing people who are born into a tolerant society from achieving what they are capable of. The only barrier is their own unwillingness or incapability to work, and their subsequent lapse in criminality.