The New Watchdogs Page #9

---

of that housing complex

and the people living there

and portray it as a ghetto

full of the scum of the earth.

It's classic. A classic case.

When they write about La Courneuve

or Vaux-en-Velin,

that's the way

journalists describe

whole neighborhoods.

When they say "the suburbs",

that's what people think.

The "criminal class".

I think we're seeing a revival

of this kind of language.

Even if it's never said, it's implied.

In speeches, articles,

conversations...

It's never said clearly

but it's implied.

The sensitive

Madeleine district

is still controlled by rioters...

Ariane, a sensitive district in Nice,

is deserted...

At 4pm yesterday,

in the sensitive district

of Orgemont...

The Police Intelligence Service

sets the number of sensitive districts

much higher.

DRAGNE:

The areas where

the poorest classes live

have become a well of crime stories.

Day after day,

year after year,

the media have ignored

the social and economic facts

and focused entirely

on stories about drugs,

delinquency, immigration

and violence.

Soon this block will be torn down.

Meanwhile, it's the biggest

cannabis market in France.

This housing complex

in the south of Paris

has been the scene

of daily violence for months.

Burned cars, muggings,

supermarket robberies...

In a housing complex rife

with poverty, unemployment,

lawlessness,

and inward-looking communities,

the social and moral rules

are set by the majority religion

in this town, which is Islam.

Clichy-sous-Bois is ablaze again...

When revolts break out

in the se poor areas,

as in October 2005 and November 2007,

the media send in a barrage

of cameras, mikes and reporters

to film the burning cars

and flash-ball volleys.

The media have pondered

the causes of such violence.

Organized criminal gangs

or idle, uneducated youths

accustomed to poverty

and gratuitous violence.

The causes suggested

by the journalists

rarely contradict the image

that they carefully construct

of disoriented youth

and sectarian communities

breaking the law.

The call for law and order

is never far behind.

Samir Mihi,

can you say right now

to the young people of Clichy,

"Stop the burning"?

We say it every day.

Can we hear you say it?

Can you tell them, "Go home tonight

and we'll get things done later"?

The ones in the street

aren't watching TV, so what's the point?

Joking aside...

I'm not joking.

What you're asking me is...

People in Clichy will see cars burning

and have horrible experiences...

You're implying we didn't.

We already said it!

Are you afraid to call

for a state of calm?

I'm calm.

You are.

You know what I'm saying.

You seem unable to say clearly

to the kids who are probably

on the streets as we speak,

"Go home. Don't burn

the town down."

You agree it makes sense,

when young people are on the streets

and it's dangerous,

to say "Go home!"

Editorial chieftains

think and behave like elites.

They think and behave

like elites who are above the people

and have the job of educating them.

Educating the people

means teaching them to keep quiet,

teaching the status quo,

ignoring the violence

of social injustice

but condemning

such "violent" acts of revolt

as breaking a shop window.

These editorial chieftains

are the more or less efficient,

more or less convincing,

but always visible

guardians of the existing social order.

Tonight, will you repeat

your call for calm

in all the troubled neighborhoods?

Can we allow

that the illegitimate exploitation

and scorn heaped on the se people

may be matched

by a legitimate violence,

the necessary violence of revolt?

That's the crux of it.

The symbolic violence

is considered legal

and the physical group violence

is considered illegal.

The dividing line between them is drawn

by class interests,

to coin an old phrase.

Xavier Mathieu, you're a shop steward

at the Continental factory.

You're understandably upset

but aren't you going too far?

Do you regret this violence?

You must be joking!

Does the end justify the means?

The end is only 28 days away!

We hear your anger

but are you calling for calm tonight?

No way!

I'm not calling for calm.

The people are angry

and anger has to come out.

There's a marching slogan that says,

"Sow the seeds of misery

and reap the grapes of wrath."

On April 21st 2009,

the France 2 news anchor hit a snag.

The union rep

at the Continental plant in Clairoix

refused to echo his call for calm.

That year, the recession

forced hundreds of laid-off workers

to set aside

the usual means of protest.

The media quickly raised the alarm

of a workers' revolt

and decreed its limits.

It's an upward spiral.

Waving placards

in front of the National Assembly

will get you a minute of news.

Locking up the manager

gets you two minutes.

Threaten to blow up a building

and you'll be a media celebrity.

- We're fed up.

- You're angry?

Yes, and getting angrier.

What can be done

to prevent it?

Is it legitimate or is it outrageous

for workers about to be laid off

to lock their bosses or managers

in their offices,

even non-violently

and for only a short time?

It's obviously unacceptable.

"Bossnapping", as the English call it,

holding a manager hostage,

is intolerable.

Locking people into their offices

can't be allowed.

Think how scared they must feel,

and their families.

It's criminal!

Next time we'll have to hit hard.

Harder and harder!

To most, if not all journalists,

the working class

is like an Indian reservation.

They don't know them,

the y're not from there,

they don't know

their customs and concerns,

their living conditions,

their culture, or their traditions.

As soon as the workers

step out of their role

as part of the scenery,

as picturesque folk

easily labeled

with ideological clichs,

as soon as they stop being

Indians on their reservation,

they become dangerous

because they break with

the soft consensus of soft democracy.

They break the rules.

They burn tires, occupy factories

and lock up their bosses.

They're beyond the pale.

Then the ideological apparatus

bares its fangs and bites viciously

and class mockery can escalate

to ostracism or class hatred.

Has legitimate protest given way

to "mob rule", as you call it,

echoing Sartre?

Yes. Today it's the bosses,

tomorrow it will be a lawyer

who pleads an unpopular case,

and the day after that,

a teacher who's too fond

of La Princesse de Cleves

or Le Rouge et le Noir.

One day it will be you,

for airing an unpopular opinion.

I think that today,

some minority fringe groups

pose a real threat of violence

and mob rule. We can't allow it.

However poor and painful

a worker's life may be,

however bad it is to be unemployed,

there are so many ways to be heard,

so many ways to fight and protest

without resorting to mob rule

and attacking people,

even if the y're bosses.

Bernard-Henri Levy, thank you!

"The bourgeois plays at treating

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes