1/ It is designed to enforce proper domiciliation. If foreign Roms or any schengen citizen wants to live in France they will need a formal address so we can control/integrate them properly (make sure they are registered/ get electricity, water, send their kids to school etc.). It also clearly avoids the factions of Roms who traditionnally do not assimilate, you can call it racism, we call it integration.

2/ the issue of sexism you point at has nothing to do with french seduction, unless of course making fun of a woman is somehow a way of seducing - and unless you provide some statistic I can only tell you that despite being a country with anti-harrassment laws as any other country we are also one where feminism is the most advanced (FEMEN chose Paris for a reason) and we love our women of all ages and races and they love us back, rape rates are low and workplace harassment laws are regularly re-modeled, enforced, and we are studying minimum quotas of women in all parts of our political/ economical structure because yes, we are lagging a bit behind there (and only there).

3/ The sources you provide are not illustrating our racial issues as a side effect of not collecting racial statistics. They only reflect a very basic reality of urban mismanagement. When we integarted massive foreign populations we created stupidly huge and ugly buildings in new neighborhoods. And of course by creating a neighborhood of sub-average revenue you will start a snowball effect of contrast in job access and criminality to the neighbouring better ones. I live in Brussels now which did the exact opposite thing meaning mixing poor and rich neighborhoods after the French non-example and directly non-inspired by it. If you watch French media everyweek we discuss how stupid that decision was and how we need to solve it asap. Not enough efforts have been made and pretty much any frenchman/woman would aknowledge that.

Our Justice minister has been the focus of a lot of racism, after all we have racists yes. You should also consider all the reactions in her defence, the pursuits of all those who attacked her publicly and the recent marches in the street in her name. Obama didn't get much of the latter as far as I know.

That first article is actually very good and accurate. It is true that racists have either increased in number or radicalised lately in France 5still far form neighbouring countries' levels) and Sarkozy's presidency has had a huge impact. 5BTW Sarkozy was the only rench president not to be re-elected in decades and was profoundly hated for this exact issue and has divided hios own party even up to today).

The conclusion to the article is very true : “The French position on race is that you can come from anywhere and become French, as long as you speak French, adopt French customs, and act French,”

BTW we hold the world record in number of patronyms, which reflect the very high diversity of french origins. 

http://pc-quebec.com/showthread.php?t=9566

1) Yeah, i'd call that racism.

2)  Statistics are meaningless in a society that specifically pressures people to talk about it... and while the laws exist.  They don't actually give any remedy to those affected... 

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/27/world/la-fg-france-women-20110928

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/world/europe/01iht-letter01.html?pagewanted=all

http://totumfacere.blogspot.com/2010/01/rape-culture-in-france.html

Though hell...

http://www.policymic.com/articles/32421/1-in-4-french-women-are-afraid-on-the-street-due-to-sexual-harassment

As for rape rates by the way... they tend to be misleading, espeically between countries, as often times, reporting of sexual abuse is largely based on how comfortable people are with it/expect something to actually be done.  It's believed something like only 15-20% of rape is reproted in western countries.

Paradoxily high rape rates could actually be a sign of lower rape.  As people feel more comofrtable reporting rape.

Though yeah, "seduction culture" to everyone in the workplace or just walking down the street totally is sexual harassment.  

3)  That's because Obama didn't really get much of the former.  That kind of stuff is pretty unheard of in the US, and treated as the outbursts of crazy people, because it generally is, unrepresented fringe, not actual poltiicans.  

1/ then any immigration policy is racist

2/ no country comparative statistic in your favor ? ok - and if the comparative study is in favor of France then it has to be because French women are supposed to stay silent and US women are open about their rapes ? ok

lol

3/ Obama gets a lot of the former. MUCH more than Taubira does in France 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/anti-obama-racism

Sorry, it was my mistake believing you could hold a debate.

1) No, it's racist to force people to stay in specific areas in a country. 

2)    I don't know.... 1 in 4 woman afraid to walk the streets seems pretty compelling.  Outside that... so you believe that Sweden is a haven for rape... and they have far more rape then any other country including places like India?

If so... why?

Gee, if France stops taking statistics all togeter there won't be any sexism at all i guess.  Hell, they can ban health statistics too, then nobody would ever be sick!

3)  Don't see any politicians in there.

If you aren't willing to actually be intellectually honest and lok at facts, that's fine... but, the facts are pretty clear if you actually bother to work.

France needs a LOT of work, and a lot of it's culture is toxic, espeically regarding women.

I wasn't talking about liberals but the progressives who have had a history of practicing eugenics or promoting the practice of eugenics in the name of progress. 

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1220

Also one must remember that the democrats were the slavery party and the anti-civil rights party. One can argue that the parties switched, but that seems quite deceptive. It's more likely that democrats got more black and minority voters over time, and consequently hid their racist segments from their establishment. Hell, it was until recently (2010) that an open ex-KKK member (Robert Byrd) was a democratic senator (the longest running senator in history I might add.) 

Also, if you really wanted to, and had sociological journal access i probably could point you to some comparative analysis of what makes

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520237414

isn't a bad one.

This thing is a fucking libertarian recruiting tool. 

Point 1:

Re-take the test and click "Strongly Disagree" with all the questions. Instead of being in the center, you end up being skewed toward the Libertarian side.

Point 2:

This whole fucking chart. So if you're Authoratarian you're in the same quadrant as Hitler or Stalin. And if you're a Libertarian, you're not. Yeah, no fucking bias there.

Point 3:

The entire Authoratarian/Libertarian dicotomy.

Combine it with fact 1, even if you're not in the bottom right quadrant, just by being socially liberal, you're labeled as being "libertarian". Even though libertarianism is such a specific and small group of people (hence why this is a fucking recruiting tool. They're saying "Hey, you're one of us!")

You can agree or disagree, but remember this. This is a test written by some random stranger that you've never even heard of. This test isn't some kind of official test like the SAT or a medical test. There's no fucking regulation no independent attestation to the legitimacy of this test. It's a random internet test. Please, for fucks sake, don't take the test and say "Wow, I'm a libertarian!".

Actually, the authors seem REALLY Liberal if you read the scant stuff they have on their site that hints at a position.

For example... on Obama

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Some libretarian complaints sure, but even more liberal ones.  (And libretarians and liberals agree on the libretarian complaints.)

If you'll note, practically everybody in this thread has ended up far to the left of any government they've had listed in a "Nobody represents you" type way.

Libretarians are just along for the ride really.

If the poll was libretarian made you'd expect all the polticians to be clustered in the top left, not the top right.

Libretarian is just the best term they could come up with for not beign authoritarian without it sounding like anarchism... which yeah... the worst dictators in the world were Authoritarian because... to comit those crimes you need a shit ton of power.

Not really any libretarian mass dictators.  Even ones in places devoid of government control have done so by forming their own organized groups they pretty much run like a government.