CAN OVERTOLERANCE CAUSE XENOPHOBIA

The problem of Romanies living in Europe has suddenly hit the world media's headlines. It all began with Paris' decision to deport numbers of this nomadic people to their native Romania and Bulgaria - countries with the largest Romany populations in the EU. Romany citizens of these countries have the right to enter France without visas but, in order to stay in the country legally, they need work permits and rights of abode. When Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union in 2007, France and nine other EU members insisted on special rules of work and residence for their citizens, and these will expire only in 2014.

In August, the French authorities toughened their approach to this problem, which naturally drew criticism from Brussels. Moreover, many rights campaigners believe that the methods Paris used against illegal immigrants could be called "fascistic", saying that national and ethnic discrimination is banned by EU law. Further, several politicians suspect that with this "approach" to the Romanies, Sarkozy is trying to win support from far right voters of whom, as evidenced in each election, there are quite a few in France.

The Vice-President of the European Commission for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, Viviane Reding, was especially tough in calling Paris to account. In her remarks, Reding was straightforward and not very European. Specifically, the European commissioner called extradition on ethnic grounds "disgraceful". She believes that by its actions, Paris is breaking EU law on freedom of travel. Reding also compared the actions of the French authorities with the deportations carried out in Europe by Nazis during World War II, and threatened to take France to the European Court. In response, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon cautioned the European Commission not to jump to conclusions, while Minister of Immigration and Integration Eric Besson stated that the European Parliament had exceeded its authority. After all, the French authorities say, the repatriations are taking place with Romanian consent and it is quite a well-planned process. French Minister for European Affairs Pierre Lellouche also caustically remarked that an air ticket to Romania or Bulgaria is a long way from being put on a train to a concentration camp. Moreover, Lellouche demanded that Bucharest provide a plan to integrate the Romanies into public life. France also announced its readiness to give Romania money for the integration of returning Romanies at home, so that they stop thinking of "wandering" to their neighbours' territory. The media suddenly reported that Romania had accepted the conditions as France threatened to veto its accession to the Schengen agreement…

On 22 September, the BBC reported that Romanian President Traian Basescu had appealed to French President Nicolas Sarkozy to stop deporting the Romanies. Basescu said that during a friendly conversation at a high-level EU meeting last week, he asked his French counterpart to try to find a solution to the problem, but did not get a clear answer. Sarkozy promised to discuss the issue during their next meeting in Paris, probably in a few weeks' time.

Sarkozy is more strident than anyone in defending his point of view - he had an argument on the matter with European Commission President Barroso and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But he was especially tough with Reding. Speaking about her, the French leader did not even call Reding by her name, saying only "cette femme" (this woman). According to Sarkozy, "this woman insulted and hurt France" with her criticism and added in a fit of temper, "let her take these Romanies to her own country".

The French president also demanded an official apology from the EU Commission which stood up for the European Commissioner for Justice. But Barroso said in response that "the commission is a keeper of treaties, and not only does it have the right, it is also obliged to intervene when these treaties are violated, especially on such delicate and explosive issues as the protection of minorities".

There also seems to be a serious lack of understanding between Paris and Berlin. For example, Sarkozy alleged at a news conference that Merkel had told him that Berlin also planned to close Romany camps in Germany. However, Berlin denied these statements: "Merkel has never spoken about Romany camps in Germany, never mind their evacuation." Although it is known that Berlin did not like Reding's sharp tone either. Meanwhile, it is reported that Barroso is trying his best not to be too emotional. The Romany issue has caused very heated debates. "The working breakfast, which was supposed to close the incident between Paris and Berlin, turned into a kind of psychological drama. About 10 heads of government took the floor. They all criticized Reding's remarks with varying degrees of severity. In essence, however, only Berlusconi and the Czech prime minister fully accepted that Sarkozy was right," reports La Repubblica.

Indeed, unlike Merkel, Berlusconi totally supported "his friend Sarkozy", which aroused serious suspicions about him. For example, La Repubblica writes that the European Commission is against collective Romany deportations and is trying to delay the formation of a France-Italy axis on the issue. Experts fear that other countries might follow France's example.

In this situation, La Stampa reports that the speaker of the Italian parliament, Gianfranco Fini, also supported and approved of Paris' burka ban. From 2011, the wearing of the burka in public places will be regarded as a criminal offence in France. Also, a law is in the pipeline against those who force women to cover their faces.

This means that the Romany problem once again underlines the contradictions (social, cultural etc.) between indigenous populations and immigrants, no matter where they come from, and these contradictions are now typical of many European countries.

For example, at the end of September, it became known that radical nationalists - members of Sweden's anti-immigration Swedish Democrats - had been elected to the Swedish parliament for the first time. The radicals, who propose many provocative ideas, including a 90-per-cent cut in immigration to Europe from Muslim countries and banning the reunification of immigrant families, were supported by 5.7 per cent of voters, which gave them 20 seats in parliament.

Although the nationalists will stand proudly alone (the majority right-of-centre Alliance for Sweden led by Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and the red-green coalition led by Social Democrat Mona Sahlin have already stated that they will not cooperate with the far right politicians), it is still a certain indicator of sentiments reigning in Swedish society. So what did the Swedish radicals bank on in their election campaign? They released a scandalous campaign video indicating more than eloquently that the average Swedish granny is forced to share her welfare (provided from the budget) with a crowd of brisk Muslim women in hijabs who receive money from the Swedish government for maintenance and integration.

The video clearly shows the logical connection - how and why the indigenous population is suffering from "aliens". As a result, we can clearly say that nationalist ideas in Europe are based on the same economic platform, because people are not interested in anything other than their own health and welfare and everyone is angry with those who try to disrupt their usual lifestyle. We are talking about Sweden here - a country with one of the highest living standards in the world. In any event, the recent economic crisis and the abundance of labour migrants have not made anyone kinder.

For example, French Minister of Immigration and Integration Eric Besson has said that it is planned to amend the immigration law and substantiate the deportation of foreigners who "abuse their right to the short stay" granted to all Europeans and serve as "an unreasonable burden" on the social insurance system.

Immigrants to Europe, mainly from Muslim countries, comprise 14 per cent of the population. Often, these people barely integrate into the European community and sometimes definitely do not want to do so. They live in closed societies regulated by their own rules and thus become "mini-states" within states.

For instance, as far as the burka is concerned, the French police already have a presentiment that there will be difficulties in arresting offenders, reports La Croix. They understand that they will have even greater difficulties in the suburbs, where the appearance of a police officer is already regarded as a provocation. Therefore, according to the author of the article, "it is not difficult to imagine what will happen if you try to make someone's wife, daughter or sister take off the burka".

But "indigenous Europeans" are also becoming increasingly intolerant of such communities. They believe that it is one thing to give immigrants money, knowing that they will try to assimilate as soon as possible, and something else when that is not happening.

Moreover, many media report that such closed immigrant communities are often fertile ground for all sorts of crime. The French authorities' main argument in favour of deportations was the high crime rate in Romany settlements. The reason was a clash between Romanies and police in southern France in July. The French authorities claim that the Romany settlements and camps are "a paradise" for all sorts of criminals who engage in smuggling, distribute drugs and keep brothels where even children are subjected to sexual violence. For example, talking about the Romany problem, Le Figaro reports that in calling for 'overtolerance', the European Commission is in fact playing into the hands of xenophobes. "If the institutions of the European Union were a little concerned about the fate of the 10-12 million people roaming Europe, this would not have happened. It is easy to protest if you sit in Brussels and pretend that you understand the crux of the issue. Echoing the views of those who draw absurd parallels with the humiliation of Jews by the Nazis, the European Commission will hardly enhance its already tarnished reputation with the French people. Whether we want it or not, the closure of the illegal camps that accommodate nomadic people who have come to live off the generosity of the French government is welcomed by the overwhelming majority of our compatriots. Why should they be happy about these slums, where smuggling flourishes, appearing outside their houses?" writes the French newspaper. Moreover, Muslim immigrants with a high birth rate pose a special danger to the swiftly ageing population of Europe, where the birth rate is no longer high.

This is why Europeans vote for politicians who promise to put an end to ethnic crime and to return to a traditional European lifestyle. At the same time, the French forget that their President, Nicolas Sarkozy, also hails from an immigrant family.

It is difficult to ignore the sometimes illogical behaviour of people in the European countries that ban the construction of minarets and the wearing of the hijab. After all, many immigrants, including some from Muslim countries, found themselves in Europe after getting refugee status. Thus, Europe wanted to show its tolerance and care for human rights. But when they encounter certain difficulties, a number of European politicians suddenly speak in completely different terms…

There is sometimes an impression that European politicians, lawmakers and rights campaigners have been playing at tolerance too long. In oriental Muslim countries and in the post-Soviet area, people are openly puzzled at best by news that the Council of Europe, concerned about the problem of sexism - sexual discrimination, intends to root out sexist language, at least in official language to start with.

According to MPs, the presentation of women in a traditional role model undermines their equality with men, which runs counter to the resolution by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the equality of the sexes. Switzerland, for example, has taken the first step to get rid of the words "mother" and "father". Instead, they will use "gender-neutral terms" such as "parent" or "parents". The reason is a recent appeal from Doris Stump (a Swiss MP) not to present women as "passive and second-class creatures, mothers or sexual objects". That is to say the Europeans have already reached the point when their initiatives begin to contradict their own principles. If they believe that someone may be offended by the most beautiful word in the world, "mummy", how can they fail to understand that asking people not to wear something they have put on for religious reasons also appears offensive?

Many European countries have committed themselves to standards of tolerance in all spheres of life, and now that the Europeans are doing something that runs counter to their own "commandments", this causes well-founded surprise. Although their motivation is clear, how else can we understand the reasons that prompted the French authorities to close Romany settlements in their "pastoral" suburbs?

Anyway, in fairness we should say that Europeans are themselves increasingly outraged by the violation of European precepts of tolerance, while the rest of the world looks on with irony.

It is clear that wherever people live, they love to blame their failures on those whose origin, skin colour, religion or way of life are different from their own. However, in the matter of "friends and foes", where it is difficult to tell right from wrong, not least due to the abundance of nuances, it is still necessary to find a balance, because a distortion in one direction may have unpredictable consequences. If this is not done, a serious blow will be dealt to European unity. Returning to the Romany issue, we can only say that the problem of nomadic people cannot be resolved by the simple expulsion of Romanies from one country to another.