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.

So here we are on the 15th of July

One Day by David Nicholls

In a nutshell: this is the story of the friendship between Emma and Dexter which starts on their last day of university and spans the following twenty years with all the ups, downs, highs and lows that passionate friendship inspires.

The blurb: this book is called One Day because every chapter takes place on the 15th of July, starting in 1988 and ending in 2007. First and foremost a story about friendship, it is also an clever, satirical study of becoming an adult in 1990s and early 2000s England, against a backdrop of cool Britannia. Emma and Dexter being very different- she the serially single and talented girl who doesn't know where she's going, he the happy-go-lucky-stud who burns the candle at both ends, this is a wonderful, yet realistic, ode to friendship. As every chapter is set on a 15th of July, years fly by, yet the pace of the book doesn't feel too fast as you evolve and follow these characters through their early adult years.

IMHO this is the funniest and most moving book I have read this year (so far!). The dialogues are fantastic- incredibly funny and witty like the female protagonist, and as I switched between the two characters' points of view I felt I was starting to know these people better than a lot of my own friends. Despite the laugh out loud parts, the book is also incredible touching (yes, i wept) as one tries to define with the characters what defines true friendship, happiness and love. Very highly recommended, any place, any time.

So here we are giving in to teen vampirism

Twilight by Stephanie Meyer

In a nutshell: All-American teen Isabella Swan, rebelliously known as Bella, moves away from Mom and dusty Phoenix to Dad and Forks, rainiest town in America. At school, she falls head over heels with Edward, a mysterious and uber-handsome young man... or is he???

The blurb: Ok, he's not, he's a vampire (don't worry he's not androphage) as one blatantly knows as one opens the book. As a result, the two-hundred plus pages it takes Bella to figure this out are a little frustrating. But this of course is not the point. It's all about the massive electric chemistry and huge sexual attraction between them and the impossibility for them to even do a wet kiss without Edward instincts taking over and eating the luscious Bella. As a result this is a innocent book, more about their blossoming, fusional relationship and aching hormones than a fruity inter-species essay. It was clearly written with a dictionary of synonyms nearby, to describe the irresisitible, compelling, handsome, beautiful, mesmerising, unnerving, surreal strange, seductive, unwordly, marble Edward and his yellow, onyx, golden eyes. Oddly, other than the semi-obsessive relationship there is really little plot or twist except right at the end.

IMHO this was surprisingly addictive given how objectively bad it is. The writing is straightforward, the wet and cloudy atmosphere of Forks and the high school are conveyed and the sexual tension keeps the book together like a tight corset. It's all a bit soppy and stars-in-eyes though which to be fair is the entire point I imagine. A good, light, easy read for breathless crush-ridden teenage girls, i.e. most females between 12 and 70.

So here we are gourmet cooking

Doing without Delia by Michael Booth

In a nutshell: food crazy Brit who is tired of Jamie Oliver style 20 minute feasts decides to move to Paris and join the Cordon Bleu school of super classic French cookery. Trials, tears and some excellent foodie hints.

The blurb: written in a personal, blog-ish style, mister nice-mike the bumbling brit, joins one of the most prestigious cookery schools in the world. There is a lot of "me me me" here, how well he intergrates with the market folk, how good he is at school, how upset he is at boiling lobster when pregnant and alive (the lobster, needless to add...). That said, it is full of behind-the-scenes funny anecdotes and this book is well worth reading if you are a serious food and cook fan as it is packed full of useful hints (from how to make a decent stock reduction to how to chop, from great recipes to a lot of "cutting the bullshit" explanations). On a more serious level it also deals with the central issue of whether a career in food is adapted to all gastronomes/gluttons.

IMHO this book has its place between Bourdain's "kitchen confidential" and Reichl's "comfort me with apples". Less abrasive and hilarious (and probably honest) than the former, less openly sentimental than the latter, it has its good moments and more to the point some great food and cooking advice. Want to know how to make a good nantua sauce while reading about the ultimate cookery course (without paying the 8000 euro fee)? This is the book for you.

So here we are looking strangely similar

Laurel & Hardy reincarnated as Xavier Bertrand and Nicolas Sarkozy!

So here we are being a francophobe cretin

This article appeared on the Guardian's comment is free page. I have no idea who James Bennet is, but I would certainly piss in his drink at a party.

Below is his incredible article, as found on http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/23/french-holiday-lazy-work; below that is my response, found on page 4 of the comments if you're interested. Happy reading.... cocksucker....

"Every day's a holiday, if you're French" by J Bennet.
"I love France. I'm half French and bilingual, have a French mother and dual nationality. Every summer we travelled across the channel on the ferry to France to see my relatives in a beautiful time-forgotten Burgundy village, where everyone knew each other and life tasted as a sweet as the freshly baked bread my grandmother sent me to collect every morning. It was the best childhood anyone could ever imagine. As I said, I love everything French.
Or rather I did. A week after coming back from my first holiday in Normandy with my wife, her two sisters and their four children, my affection for the country has been forever tarnished. Why? Because the French almost ruined it for us all, that's why.
Despite the country posting a slight recovery last quarter, France is still well and truly mired in recession. Its unemployment rate is currently running at 8.2%, one of the highest in western Europe, and is expected to go above 10% by the end of this year. And yet among all this financial misery and economic turmoil is a country in which people have rapidly descended into a state of supreme bone idleness but who equally demand second-to-none social welfare, lower taxes, benefits and a high standard of living.
Ever since the 35-hour working week was adopted in February 2000 under prime minister Lionel Jospin's socialist government, France has become a nation of languid retailers, invisible tourism employees and workshy shopkeepers. Try and find a cafe open in peak tourist season on a Monday, Wednesday or Sunday in Normandy and I'll break into the Louvre and deliver the Mona Lisa to you by hand. Even if you do manage to catch someone selling something in a shop or restaurant in France, they'll probably turn you away as they shirk off for a two-and-a-half hour lunch break.
Since the turn of the millennium, France has been on permanent vacances. So much for the 35-hour-week plan devised as a means to reduce unemployment and yield a better division of labour. It had more holes in it than a slab of Gruyere cheese. The then government had envisaged that a 10% reduction in the hours extracted from each worker would theoretically require businesses to hire more workers, and that as a result productivity would rise in line with more personal and family time for workers and an enhanced quality of life. In late March 2005, a glimmer of hope appeared when French MPs voted to relax the 35-hour limit, allowing private firms to increase working hours. But employers at the time all too quietly murmured that it had failed to create jobs and was uncompetitive and the new law failed to destroy what had now become a way of life.
But this was before world markets collapsed, previously resilient global currencies plunged and many thousands across the continent faced mass redundancies. Instead recruitment has fallen faster than the Maginot Line, per-hour production quotas have risen and many firms have in general avoided hiring new workers because French workforce regulations make it difficult to lay off workers during a poor economic period.
Only one man and a handful of his party faithful appear to have tried to shake the French from their slumber. Ever since becoming president, Nicholas Sarkozy's slogan of "work more to earn more" has earned him more enemies than admirers. The Catholic church is forever calling for the preservation of the balance between weekdays, devoted to work, and Sundays, devoted to family life, sport or "cultural activities", while members of his own party, despite assurances that it would improve the economy, have fiercely resisted reform, filing thousands of amendments to the president's original version of the law.
But the battle appears to have been worth it. Following more than 100 years of somnolence, last Sunday (August 14) marked the day finally France woke up. Well, partially. Sarkozy's law narrowly squeezed through the national assembly by a vote of 282 to 238 and now permits shops, department stores and shopping malls to open on the Sabbath in 20 zones of what are called "exceptional commercial" centres in and around three of the country's largest cities, Paris, Marseilles, and Lille. Additionally, 29 areas involving about 500 cities and towns will be added to the list of tourist areas, which already allow some economic activity on Sundays.
In less than a decade France has undone more than half a century's worth of work and gone from being one of the most popular tourist destinations in Europe to a nation of comfortable and lazy individuals. Thanks to a bizarre twisted socialist-era government law coupled with a backward-looking Catholic church and a weak-willed public and private sector, a mindset of "work less but gain more" was created and influenced almost every worker in a population of more than 61 million.
If France really does want to recover it has a much longer and more painful journey ahead than the rest of us, and it only has itself to blame.

Enchanting, and highly researched. My comment:

I don't usually but today I feel compelled to answer; what a strange.... rant. You say the French are lazy but that sounds a bit rich when you condemn French society and culture just because you had a bad holiday in Normandy. Have you ever worked in France? Or lived here apart from happy summers in Burgundy? Où est votre argumentation? The plural of anecdote is not data!!
First things first: are you criticising the 35 hour week or shops not opening on Sundays? and how do either make us lazy? Concerning the former, you might be surprised to learn that the 35 hour week is not the norm, any cadre (equivalent of a managerial position) or for that matter artisan boulanger could tell you that. Equally, for those it does concern what exactly do you have against having an extra afternoon/morning off a week, or a couple of extra days off a month? There are some things money can't buy, and spending time with your kids on a wednesday afternoon or taking a long weekend to visit the family are obvious examples. It might even be because of a certain equilibrium between work and leisure that French workers have the highest hourly productivity rate in Europe, something you forgot to mention when qualifying us of lazy. It's not all about length I guess, quality does count.
As for the catholics being behind the plot against Sunday shopping I find that very strange, the main argument against it being, as far as I can tell, that it is the most vulnerable workers (women working part time, pour ne pas les nommer) who would be working that day (for no extra pay I might add), when they would normally spend it with the family.
Again, it all boils down to the question of whether a strong(er) economy, fueled by more consumption and more working hours, is really what makes a society happy and healthy. We have good, free, schools, an excellent health service, and awesome transport. Who cares if the train driver works 35 hours a week when you can go from Paris to Marseille in under 4 hours?
France has its problems, no doubt. As you say, high unemployment, sluggish economy , massive debt, (hang on a sec, aren't you also British?) crappy universities, abominable prisons, social and racial inequality, etc. But there is also much to be proud of, not least the fact that we cling to the belief that we are not just labour, but human beings.
Last but not least: waiters will never refuse you for lunch to take a two and half hour lunch break. they geneally eat at about 11.30, before the first rush, or at 3 after the second. In fact the 2 and a half hour lunch beak is a myth today, and when it does last more than an hour, it's not so bad because we usually leave the office around 8, rather than head off to the pub at 5...

So here we are eating stew

Yes, it's summer, yes it's the heatwave and the temperature in Paris hit 38°. But why not eat stew? Cos it's too hot and stodgy for such weather that's why, but god it was good.

Summer beef stew
Serves 4.

600g stewing beef (for bourguignon for example)
3 large tomatoes, 2 carrots, 2 floury potatoes
300g fresh beans in their shells (borlotti, white)
300g mushrooms
6 fat cloves of good garlic
1 large or two small red onions
3 small fresh white onions
at least half a bottle of dry white wine
a few sprigs of parsley and a bouquet garni
a bit of flour, 2tsp paprika, a sprinkle of hot chilli powder, a large pinch of saffron.

1) Heat a couple of glugs of olive oil in a big pan (low to medium heat) and add meat so that it starts to brown all over. After 5 mins or so add 2 finely chopped garlic cloves, stir and let cook for another 5 mins. Do not let garlic burn. Season with salt and pepper, and stir in 2 tsp of flour, stir in and make sure that all the flour soaks up some fat (there must be no more visible).

2) While meat is cooking prepare vegetables: put tomatoes in boiling water for 30 secs, remove skin and white stalk inside and most of the seeds. Peel garlic cloves. Peel and chop carrots and potatoes into half-thumb sized chunks. Chop mushrooms, white and red onions to same size and pod the beans.

3)When meat is ready put in this order:
a)tomatoes (stir), paprika, about half the wine, bouquet garni, chilli powder, onions, 4 whole garlic cloves. Let bubble and stir for a few minutes until the alcohol burns off.
b) Add carrots, potatoes, beans, mushrooms, parsley, saffron and enough wine to cover it all. Stir. Let some of the alcohol burn off again.

4) Leave it for at least 4 hours, simmering gently with lid on, and occasional stiring or it will stick at the bottom and burn. Add more wine if it looks to dry, or boil it up if it looks too wet.

5) Serve on bed of raw baby spinach leaves (soup plates recommended).