animist wrote: Nick wrote:
animist wrote:I have to say this is a cheap and unworthy shot
Just noticed this... Care to explain?
it was a bit OTT, but you seemed to be making some sort of political capital over this dreadful issue.
Oh. Not really.
Even assuming that it's accurate to call France "socialist" (which it scarcely is even if the government goes by that name), there is no reason that a leftwing government should be more obliged to help refugees than a liberal capitalist one
Well, yes, I'm not France's greatest fan, and yes, France is not wholly socialist, even, as you say, the President puts himself forward as socialist, but it does seem to belie the idea of socialism, by ignoring the poor and wretched. Maybe governments of any shade are equally morally obliged to help refugees, but not to do so if you set out to claim to care for the people is more hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
This seems to be exposed by stories in the press of orphans wandering around Calais, seemingly ignored by the French authorities, to the extent that British charities were operating in France to cover that deficiency. Of course, it may be an unbalanced picture, I don't know, but I would think it rather strange if groups of French charities started, say, setting up soup kitchens in London. ISTM that the French authorities were much more interested in allowing refugees to pass through, than in following the Dublin convention. I really don't see the UK government allowing "jungles" to exist in Britain for months on end.
So yes, the Syrian crisis is desperate, but that doesn't mean that France gets a free pass to ignore them to avoid "making political capital" (which I don't think I have anyway...)
OTT? No worries.