Marseilles, Tunisia

I’ve already posted today about experiences in France in the early 90s, so this is pushing it. But I note: even then, I noticed great trepidation building among the French regarding the numbers of Muslim North Africans (Tunisians, Algerians, Moroccans) immigrating to the south of France. There was an area in Toulon, where I lived, that you would swear was an an enclave of Tunis. Marseilles? Forget it; hugely Tunisian and Algerian.

On a very side note, this did make for some unbelievably interesting late-night (early morning, actually) excursions to African nightclubs frequented by the more secular Africans. The music, both Arab and African "rock", has a rhythm and beat unlike that to which we’re accustomed. I can really appreciate it, though I digress.

France is getting tougher. To all those libertarians who have trouble with distinctions: if you can peremptorily kill them for issuing a verbal threat on your life (assault), you certainly can expel them from your midst and it hasn’t a thing in the world to do with "free speech."

(link: McQ)

Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. The cost of two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance the travel to write, photo, and film from interesting places and share the experiences with you.


  1. Richard Nikoley on August 5, 2005 at 15:30

    OK, Loomis, but I will point out that when an Islamist extremist tells me that they are going to kill me if they can get the chance, or get someone else to do it, or assist someone else to do it, or talk someone else into doing it, then _right_there_ have my rights been violated. A threat of force is still an act of force, and since it involves a threat to kill you, and if the person has reasonable capacity to carry out the threat, then you are perfectly justified in blowing the bastard away in that very instant.

    The UK, or anyone else is simply being overly merciful in deporting them.

    Let me be clear on this. Anyone, anywhere, at any time who issues a serious death threat against another and has reasonable means to carry it out is fair game for killing, right then and there, on the spot.

    This is why one ought to be very careful about issuing threats of any kind. They can, and where appropriate, should be taken seriously.

  2. Richard Nikoley on August 5, 2005 at 21:13

    I'm not sure I follow, John. If you're talking in the context of terrorism, I don't see the West _initiating_ threats of violence, just responding to those already initiated by the Islamists. Of course, outside that context, there are threats by the state wall-to-wall.

  3. Richard Nikoley on August 5, 2005 at 23:27

    Ok, got'cha, and I agree.

  4. loomis on August 5, 2005 at 14:04

    You sold me! I am a big fan of blair's latest policy in the UK regarding deportation of any violent extremist. I think that this "minor" =) invasion of civil rights is greatly outweighed by the benefits of a safe and secure society!

  5. John Lopez on August 5, 2005 at 20:16

    Problem is that the folks who're issuing the most credible threats are the ones who're pretending to protect everyone.

  6. John Lopez on August 5, 2005 at 23:19

    I'm talking about the state in general. I find the federal government far more credible of a threat to me than "terrorists".

  7. loomis on August 6, 2005 at 14:10

    Ah! You are taking it to the extreme. I agree a threat of force is enough for a person to use self defense as justification for a violent action.

    However, I think realistically, this would be a little to open for abuse by the powers that be. We apply racial profiling already, even tho we are not suppose to, in our law enforcement. I have no problems with racial profiling. However, if you are saying that law enforcement would have the right to kill on spot someone who poses a potential threat, then I would see a problem.

  8. Richard Nikoley on August 7, 2005 at 07:42


    I was stating a principle, which you appear to agree with, at least in part.

    I recommend using extreme caution in exercising it, especially in the specific context of death threats. For one, I'd never have anyone excercise such a thing in my name, unless I was fully appraised of the facts and had yea or nay authority in the matter.

    It's a very serious matter and should always be approached that way.

    On the specific question of the state, unless those officers specifically involved have been personally threatened, then they have no such authority. I really misspoke when I said that they were being easy on these guys for deporting them. In reality, that should be about the total extent of the state's "authority" in such matters.

    These are always difficult questions, because the state is not an entity in itself, and I don't consider threats against the state, itself, to be actionable–only threats agaist individuals.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.