the parasitic roma

UPDATED

Letter to MD
MD reply (1)
My reply (1)
MD reply (2)
My reply (2)

There are whole [Roma] families living without sanitation, without utilities, working in the black economy if at all, whose life in France is nonetheless more pleasant and profitable than it probably was, or ever would be, where they came from. There is no reason for them to return. As it is, though, they are parasites on a state of civilisation, material and cultural, they have done nothing to build and could not reproduce for themselves.

Mary Dejevsky in the Independent, Sarkozy is right about the Roma

Now where have I seen something similar... ?

Because the Gypsies have manifestly a heavily tainted heredity and because they are inveterate criminals who constitute parasites in the bosom of our people, it is fitting in the first place to watch them closely, to prevent them from reproducing themselves...

From a memorandum by Tobias Portschy, the Nazi leader in Steiermark (Burgenland) to Dr Lammers, Chief of the Chancellery (1938)

And this, also vaguely reminiscent...

The Gypsies, especially in the district of the lower court of Oberwarth where about 4,000 of them live, are a danger, less from the political than from the racial and economic point of view. Among them the pure bred (black) Gypsies probably constitute the majority. They subsist almost exclusively by begging and stealing. Their activities as musicians represent more a camouflage than a means of earning a living. Their existence is an extraordinarily great burden for the honest working population, especially the farmers whose fields they plunder, a burden growing from year to year. The mass of the Gypsies still resemble externally primitive African or Asiatic peoples...

Part of a letter from Dr Meissner, General Public Prosecutor in Graz, in 1940, recommended sterilisation of all Gypsies in the Burgenland.

And one more:

The Decree on the Fight to prevent Crime, passed in 1937, bore particularly upon Gypsies and others classed as 'asocials'. The instructions for carrying out the decree clarified the definition of asocials as including 'those who by antisocial behaviour, even if they have committed no crime, have shown that they do not wish to fit into society, for example, beggars, tramps (Gypsies), prostitutes, and persons with infectious diseases who do not follow treatment.

(My emphasis)

That Decree provided a pretext for police to arrest and incarcerate Roma, and led to major deportations of Roma in 1938 to the concentration camps at Buchenwald, Dachau, Sachsenhausen, and the women's camp at Lichtenburg.

(All quotes taken from The Destiny of Europe's Gypsies. Emphasis mine.)

Letter to Mary Dejevsky:

Dear Mary Dejevsky
You have obviously spent a great deal of time speaking with the Roma populations of France, in order to know that they are all mere parasites, incapable of building or developing a civilisation.

I know you have also spent some time in Russia, if not in other Eastern European countries, so you must also be aware of the way the Roma are treated there. It is not dissimilar to the way they are treated in our own very 'civilised' society, but worse, because (as you know) there are fewer checks on the abuse of power, and the negative attitudes are more open, more acceptable than they are in our 'politically correct' society. A friend of mine (non-Roma) who fought for Roma rights was forced to flee Russia in 2007, with his family, because he received death threats from nationalist communities, and the police refused to offer any protection or prosecute those responsible for the threats. The case is the same in Romania and most of the other countries from which the Roma have fled, and to which you would have them returned.

Why should a rich country assist a people who were, even before the Jews, and in greater numbers proportionate to their population, the victims of gross, violent and vile ethnic cleansing under the 3rd Reich?

Why, indeed, should human beings make any space for those less fortunate than themselves - including those who went through the gas chambers, victims of trauma who received no reparations, a stateless people with no government of their own to stand up for them, a people despised (misunderstood?), and the targets of racist violence throughout the 'civilised' and uncivilised world?

Why indeed. Perhaps we are only 'civilised', not moral beings.

As a civilised being, may I suggest that you read a little about the rich Roma culture, their history of victimisation, and even speak to one or two. This article (http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=13&archiv=1) ends with the words:

"The fascists destroyed our lives, so that even today we are unable to forget. Today we wander through the whole of Europe, searching for what the fascists took from us. Among us there are children who have Romani mothers and German fathers – children whose mothers were raped and came into the world that way children like J.S. and A. who wander with us as Roma and not as Germans. They also are seeking a place where they can stay and lead meaningful, dignified lives."

Are such sentiments of no concern or relevance to you?

*

top

Her reply (1)

sorry for the delay in replying. but you deserve an answer.

as i made clear in the piece, i was not making any racial point, but one about culture and living standards that was nothing to do with france's established gypsy/roma communities, but with those who have come from east and central europe and founded illegal and insanitary settlements on the edge of french towns and cities. france is being expected to assume responsibility for a large number of people who have been failed by their own governments. it presents the french government and french taxpayers with an enormous additional bill, and i think there should at least be a discussion about who should pay and what outcome would be acceptable, because the status quo clearly is not.

top
My reply (1)

Dear Mary Dejevsky
I am grateful for your response - not all journalists bother to do so.

I do believe the article was racist, whether or not that was your intention. The International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination defines racial discrimination as 'any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.'

It is simply not open to dispute that wholesale deportation of a people is racial discrimination - yet that is what you are supporting. Nor is it open to dispute that sentences such as the following are racist: 'they are parasites on a state of civilisation, material and cultural, they have done nothing to build and could not reproduce for themselves.'

(Why could 'they' not, and how do you know that?)

It is not open to dispute that the notion that Roma families need to be 'yanked up' to French living standards is a racist one, as is the underlying assumption that we could simply leave them in their 'undeveloped state' (because they are Roma?)

There was a letter in your paper which proposed a useful test: if you had made any of these statements about Jewish immigrants, would we regard the sentiments as racist?

The point of my initial complaint to you was not just that I found the racism objectionable, but that I found it doubly so for being directed against the Roma, who have suffered more than most as a people, and are almost certainly Europe's most victimised (and least understood) minority. If their lives are indeed 'more pleasant and profitable' in a shanty town in France, than they were being targetted by nationalist groups in Romania, Bulgaria, or somewhere else - should we, as 'civilised people' begrudge them some improvement?

You ask what other solution there is, besides deportation. Simple:

1. Assess these people individually, and not on the basis of their ethnic background or national point of origin.
2. Treat them (each, individually) as you would treat people of your own ethnic or national background - and as you would wish to be treated yourself
3. Educate the public - through the media, as well as through the educational institutions - on what happened to the Roma in the Nazi years, and how they have been treated since
4. 'Yank them up', if need be. At least make sure that they can lead civilised (in the sense of dignified) lives

Isn't that what civilised people (or nations) should do? We, and France, are very, very rich, despite what anyone says.

top

Her reply (2)

thank you for your detailed response. obviously, we agree to differ. i appreciate the alternatives you suggest - indeed, i suggested that this attitude was admirable, but i doubt it is practicable for a government , while retaining the support of the voters (education or no).

as for the jewish point. i did, as i was writing, mentally try replacing roma with jewish, muslim etc, and i was satisfied that the equivalence was not there. i was not referring to a whole people, but to those who had travelled to france and settled there in shanty-towns without permission and in insanitary conditions. whether france can, or should, provide satisfactory accommodation and conditions for them is the conundrum, and i think we find ourselves on opposite sides of the fence.

top

My reply (2)

Thanks again.

The human rights treaties drawn up after WW2 - including the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination - are already a compromise, accepted by governments around the world, between what is practicable and what is beyond the bounds of humanity and should not be tolerated. They outline minimum standards, and in many respects (in my view) they don't go far enough.

Deportation on grounds of 'race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin' violates these minimum standards. So does permitting the 'dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority', which is what I felt that certain sentences in your column were doing. So indeed does failing to ensure a minimum standard of sanitation, housing, healthcare etc - particularly when this too is grounded in discrimination.

As the UN Committee has said that this is a European problem, requiring a European solution, as well as being a problem for France - which I think is partly your point. But Sarkozy's solution, which you support, is no solution while the treaties still stand (and no solution for the families and individuals concerned).

Unless it is time to rewrite the treaties?

We are indeed 'on opposite sides of the fence', but there were other ways for Sarkozy to address the problem which may not have gone as far as I believe is necessary (and possible), but which would nevertheless have remained within international law. I would entreat you to reconsider the meaning - and impact - of branding anyone, let alone a group of people, as 'parasites', and of making a judgement about them that they could never 'reproduce [a state of civilisation] for themselves'. It fails to appreciate where they have come from, what they are in fact doing as individuals, and what they are undoubtedly capable of doing, if only we in the rest of society would allow them to do. And it is dangerous.

With thanks,

top