Just some definitions to make sure that I'm not misunderstood:

Ethnic Cleansing: "a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas"

Gypsy: "the Romani People, the largest ethnic group popularly referred to as gypsies"

The reason for this topic being created now is due to the eviction of an illegal gypsy camp taking place in Essex on the 19th September. Over 600 people are due to be evicted in the largest case of its kind in Europe. 

By the definitions that I've posted above, this is definitely a form of ethnic cleansing. Some people are supporting the gypsy community, stating that such a large group of people should never have to be forcefully split apart, whereas others insist that justice must be done to punish those that have broken the law by building illegally on the land. 

Full story: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3790891/Bailiffs-to-lay-siege-to-gypsy-camp.html (I know it's the Sun, but the information is still valid :P)

The point is, if it's for a good purpose (ie. upholding the law), is it acceptable to commit these acts? Are there some communities that should not be supported even in this time of general acceptance of other cultures?

If they break the law, then justice should be done. Fuck hiding behind the shield of ethnicity.

It depends on the circumstances.

In this case absolutely

It's not ethnic cleansing (if you're removing people who broke the law) JUST because they all happen to be the same ethnic group. The reason for the action is because they broke the law, not because of who they are as people.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Either way, they are not going without a fight

You're not wrong. The law doesn't particuarily target Romani, thus it's not ethnic cleansing.

Actual ethnic cleansing is always wrong.

This does not qualify as ethnic cleansing in that the persons are free to stay granted that they conduct themselves in a lawful manner. They are not required to convert to a specific religion, adopt specific customs, or even speak the same language. What they are required to do is respect the law. Which was established for the common good of all regardless of race, sex, and creed. Once a ethnic group decides to engage in unlawful conduct wholesale that very community becomes a criminal conspiracy.

Criminal conspiracies are not entitled to any group protection. The mafia after all cannot claim that incarceration is a form of ethnic cleansing. Street gangs cannot argue that they are of a right to convert condemned buildings into crack houses. Motorcycle gangs are not allowed to break in and squat in private residences. What you must not overlook is that this community has decided to be a bad neighbor, and I am sorry if you are a criminal you have no right to be a neighbor.

I refuse to believe any transient population is of a right to be unlawful. Especially when those laws are not exactly cruel of unjust. There just isn't much being asked of them. They are abusing public property, and should be gladly contributing. They are stealing from the local communities, and taking advantage of their good nature. Even if we have a prejudice at play in this situation. There need be no excuse beyond a group of criminals openly flaunting the law.

I refuse to feel sympathetic to the plight of these people, because it is a plight of their own making. They are not victims of circumstances, but victims of their own criminality. No I do not for one moment believe that whatever their culture says they are unable to act appropriately. I highly doubt that their culture itself openly promotes the act of committing crimes. Nobody else seems to be having a problem paying rent, or paying taxes. Damn it I have met retarded people that can manage that.

That doesn't seem particularly violent and terror-inspiring.

What the fuck kind of thread is this?
Come on Nintendo, release Wii U to save us from bullshit threads.