So here we are welcoming you to France

Before we start, a quick question: in which country was the secretary of State accused of and charged with racism, having said that "when there is one Arab, it's ok, but when there are many it's a problem"? Where, and when, would it be considered the norm to invent statistics linked to a particular ethnic group? And where in the world would these stats then be used to formulate and justify policies, such as deportatation?

Welcome to France 2010.

A few evenings ago on a Saturday night I met up with a few friends for a drink in Paris. Two, out of the six of us, work for the Police; both are located in commissariats in shitty towns in the worst suburbs of Paris- nobody's dream destination, but where they put the green policemen. Both answer to the Ministre de L'Intérieur, Brice Hortefeux, a long term buddy of Sarkozy's and, as mentioned above, guilty of the most ridiculous statement about Arabs (which he gracefully coined during a filmed political meeting where Arabs -or maybe just one?- were present, which also gives you an idea of his IQ. Potentially, the funniest thing about this was that he defended himself by saying that he didn't mean the Arabs, but the Auvergnats, the people who live in the region in central France! much better).

During the conversation, one of the two casually mentioned that a few weeks previously, in the middle of the "Roma crisis", they had received a call from head office, asking all the commissariats in France to give that year's criminality rate for the Romas. Problem is, it is unconstitutional in France- in the name of the indivisible and unified Republic- to gather statistics based on race, colour or religion. The answer to that was: make them up, which the policemen in every police station dutifully did. A while later this figure appeared in the newspapers: 80% increase in Roma criminality! And this led to not very much noise being made when the Roma camps were dismantled and people, including women and children, being loaded on to coaches and deported back to Romania and Bulgaria (mainly). For more information on this and its absurd application, read here.

This left me gobsmacked but nobody really seemed to react. When I pressed my friend- a decent, honest, left winger who joined the police force in order to be useful to society- why on earth the fuck was he thinking?? he answered: we didn't have a choice. When I put on a German accent (I was admittedly a little drunk) and mentioned "vee vere just obeying orders" all hell broke loose, I was accused of French bashing and became friendless.

This is what I would like to analyse: where does the statistical problem stem from and why does it matter, but also on a more personal level why am I so profoundly shocked by this whereas my friends are not or, rather, have already declared defeat?

On the question of statistics. As said, France does not allow any kind of information gathering when it comes to ethnic origin, though this can of course be grossly estimated with name (dixit the police) and address. This is why a huge amount of discrimination occurs on the job market, where, ceteris paribus, Jean-Benoit Dupont from Paris will have less trouble finding a job than Mohammed Abdel Bouna from Argenteuil. The logic behind the lack of stats dates back from the collaborationist France, which denounced and deported hundreds of thousands of Jews (and Romas!) during WW2 and the Algeria fiasco. From after the war, France had no colour, no religion and no overseas origins; you were born and/or became French: republican, secular, invested in meritcracv, democracy and brotherly love.

Absolutely fabulous on paper, and one of the reasons why I am devoutely francophile, but one should not lose sight of a little Realpolitik here. If it's a question using of stats when it comes to internal police affairs or making up the figures randomly, I think the former is closer to what the original republic had in mind. If there are stats and it turns out the Romas are illegally settled and criminally surviving, then policies could, and should be formulated. While we're at it we could turn back the clock and find out if it really was the "French with Arab origin-muslim" youths that rioted around Paris in 2005 (as opposed to a much more varied population of poor and desperate). And we could also check out whether wealth in Guadeloupe is correlated to colour (a massive yes there). The fact is, stats reveal the truth, which may be uncomfortable. It is then up to politicians to find solutions and for everyone, especially the media to make sure that the stats are calculated scientifically and independently, and not manipulated.

This coming from a person who can see the philosophical point in not having statistiques ethniques. My point is, simply, that if one needs them one could have them implemented which would always be better than simply plucking them out of thin air.

On the second point I must be careful with what I say. I have been told that I am a French basher and a hypocrite and that I am far too critical. I can see where the first two points come from, but I refuse to not be critical of such news. I think this betrays a fundemental difference between our views on personal responsability and how this has changed the course of history.

Though I am fully aware of the cliché and the weight of the term, I am convinced this goes back to when France collaborated with the nazis. When Maréchal Pétain decided it was better for France as a nation to cut its losses and give in to Hitler. All over the country people complained, but it was a million little wrists stamping the deportation documents, a million ankles pedalling over the place delivering food and documents and a million hands making the weapons and all the body of the nation working actively, though minutely, to animate the occupied monster. I have no doubt whatsoever that Britain would have fared much better. We will never know, only that being an island has its advantages. But no matter: the fact is the Brits are in the comfortable position of knowing that it never happened to them and can build on values such as stiff uper lipness, Blitz courage and the belief in bulldogs.

In France however, there hasn't been anything very positive to milk from the war experience, except for the Resistance, the underground network of opposition that the bravest took part in, at the risk of their lives. From to Gaulle to Guy Moquet to Jean Moulin, the heroes of the Resistance are the heroes of France. The issue is that only a minute part of the population resisted. Fear, despair, defeat, pessimism, indifference and approval of the new régime made 98% of occupied France go along with things, i.e. everybody, people like you and me and all the people we know. Your only link to resistance would be a teacher you once knew, or the communist freak from high school.

But that's not how it's taught in history class, or at least wasn't when I was at school (like Algeria and colonialism). My experience of the lessons are that the Maréchal Pétain was a senile 80 year old who didn't have a clue about what was going on, and that he was hoping to make a deal with Hitler which totally backfired. The population bravely resisted. History books focus on the bravery of a few (Guy Moquet who was executed at 17 wrote a gut-wrenching letter, which is read out every year), the danger of the occupier and the late arrival of the US in the war.

Only when I arrived at University, in the UK I might add, did I read serious books on the subject and discovered in one analysis an interesting portrait of post-Vichy France. Henry Rousso describes le syndrome de vichy and describes four phases. The first, le deuil inachevé, "the unfinished mourning", until the mid fifties where france woke up from the bad dream and saw the steaming remains of war. Hundreds of officials and high-level fonctionnaires were condemned (people looked upwards when it was time to name the guilty), but faced with the need to rebuild, France couldn't charge all who were guilty! The second phase, refoulement, "blocking out" lasted until the early 70s, and was when the heroes were named (including the communists) and myth of widespread resistance appeared. From 1971 to 1974 Rousso talks of the "broken mirror" where a new post-war generation comes into politics and contests the power of De Gaulle. Finally, the Vichy syndrom which lasts until today and is characterised by a national uneasy feeling of shame and frequent (though less so these last few years) bursts of mass media sensationnalisme (finding octogeneraian collaborators, discovering president Mittérand's role in the war and the Vichy government, trials).

Henry Rousso concludes that all this led to a lack of action, shoving dust under the carpet, a general feeling of guilt but without any clear distinction between those who actively took part, or whose parents did, and how much they invested themselves in it. Chirac recognising the French State's guilt in 1995 was a symbolic measure but, in my opinion simply added to the vagueness of it all. After all, what is the State- including-especially!- the police, if not each and every one of us who takes part in it? My belief is that France has never had the comfortable position of Britain saying "look! we defeated those fritzy bastards", but has never been able to look inward and ask, but how did we get to that? what was the tipping point? and could I be the drop of water that made France capitulate?

This all gets dramatic when brought back to the original concept, but the idea is: if you are wearing a uniform, or represent the State, do you not have the obligation to refuse when you are asked to do something illegal?

In the shorter run, as I have immense faith in the French nation and do not think it will topple into fascisme any time soon, it will be interesting to see what this does to the National Front's 2012 presidential elction score. "A 8O% increase in Roma criminality, eh? Told you we should kick the thieving gipsies out. And Europe too while we're at it. 10 million immigrants (including yours truly) and 5 million unemployed, you know". Marine le Pen said that on tv. And one French in 4 agrees with her.