67 Comments

1. ahem:

A heartening post, Roger. And a good reminder–one we need occasionally–that ruling parties and media organizations do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the average citizen.

Nov 3, 2005 - 7:12 am 2. jedrury:

Very informative commentary.

“La Conciergerie” is where the French held Marie Antoinette before they executed her. Cold, dank and along the Seine.

Nov 3, 2005 - 7:12 am 3. Sisyphos:

The assertation according to which the individual in France is guilty until he proves his innocence is pure nonsense.

First, art. 9-1 of the (napoleonic!) Civil Code states that everybody is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Second, France is a member of the European Council whose convention on human rights clearly states in its art. 6-2 that everybody is deemed innocent until his guilt is proven. This convention is enforced and is law in France. And last but not least, there is the historic declaration of human rights (very much influenced by the US declaration of independence!) of 1789 which also provides for the presumption of innocence.

So please, France has a great many flaws – but stay to the facts.

Nov 3, 2005 - 7:22 am 4. Mike Lief:

When I studied in Paris back in ‘89 (!), I rarely encountered any overt anti-Americanism, although, to be fair, I strove to appear “French,” whatever the hell that meant.

The French were quite willing to be heavy handed even then, when it came to their military and police, with navy-blue clad troopers in black jump boots, armed with sub-machineguns on Paris street corners. I think they were members of the French equivalent of the FBI.

I raised my camera to take a picture of one grim-visaged cop; he saw me and wagged his forefinger at me. I took the picture anyhow, and he quickly strode over to me and made me open the back of the camera, exposing the film.

I was impressed by how matter of fact he was. Tough, calm, but he’d clearly kick the snot out of me if I resisted.

Nov 3, 2005 - 7:22 am 5. Sisyphos:

More about the presumption of innocence here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

regards from old Europe.

Nov 3, 2005 - 7:31 am 6. David C:

Though I do indulge from time to time, it’s a good idea to refrain from gratuitous French-bashing for a number of reasons.

First, just like Americans, they’re not all alike, and just as it’s annoying for Americans travelling abroad to have people assume you support every policy of the current U.S. government, so would it be for the French.

Another point I’ve seen made is that one should lay off the “surrender monkey” business, and making fun of the French military. Yes, most people in France seem clueless about the global war that’s raging and/or support appeasement as the way to address it. But the people in France who *don’t* see it that way, and understand the true situation, and aren’t knee-jerk anti-Americans? A lot of them are in the military and security services. So don’t gratuitously tick off the people in France who are most likely to be our allies.

Nov 3, 2005 - 7:31 am 7. jeyi:

Well it’s maybe trivial to note, but neither the French security agencies nor the French military have ever been armed with the AK-47, which to my knowledge has not yet become a generic for “automatic rifle” or “submachine gun”.

Also, La Conciergerie is on the left bank of the Seine, not quite adjacent to the gothic stained glass splendor” of Ste. Chappelle, which is on Ile St. Louis, in the same compound, however, as the Paris Police HQ.

French legal procedure is not quite that barbaric as presented, and differs most markedly from Anglosaxon jurisprudence in the prosecutory functions of the judiciary.

And yes, the French are much more pro-American than we imagine, and are plenty aggrieved by knee-jerk and stupid American anti-French prejudice and rhetoric.

Nov 3, 2005 - 7:36 am 8. In Vino Veritas:

Considering the Boy King’s approval ratings in his own country are at an all time low, perhaps he should consider running for President of France. I’m sure he’ll win!

Nov 3, 2005 - 7:42 am 9. Fausta:

On a side note,

It both amazes and frustrates me that they know I am an American before I even open my mouth!

Two words: shoes, coat.

Nov 3, 2005 - 8:08 am 10. dubhail:

As a Brit I have experienced things like this but also unfortunately some astounding rudeness. It’s reassuring to note that there are many if not a majority of French who don’t toe the state party line on the Anglosphere.

Nov 3, 2005 - 8:33 am 11. In Vino Veritas:

I guess for the new media, anecdotal evidence will always trump, you know, actual facts:

75% of French believe 2004 election results have made the world less safe.

By the way, according to CBS, the boy king’s approval rating in this country is 35%, the lowest since Nixon. I guess that makes everyone who supports him an ‘extremist…’

Nov 3, 2005 - 9:03 am 12. RogerA:

Puhleeze, In Vino–the thread is about (1) anecdotal observations of one person’s interactions with assorted French citizens (2) the French legal system; and (3) The immigrant riots in Parisian suburbs–All of which are interesting topics to discuss; approval polling numbers are both irrelevant and passe.

Nov 3, 2005 - 9:16 am 13. C.Y.:

Roger, I know I’m just picking nits, but if there are “a lot of AK-47-toting soldiers” in Paris, then our American friend Paul needs to leave quickly and quietly.

AK-47as are the favorite assault rifle of terrorists, but they are not issued to either the French police or military.

Nov 3, 2005 - 9:25 am 14. Always right:

Some previous comments for the anti-bash-French crowd is all well and good, this really showed you guys have what? Better-than-thou moral high ground?

From what I can see, the general Frech public who are not anti-anti-American are just as happy as the current government crop they have right now. As long as they don’t cut into their fair share of the government hand-outs, they don’t care if they have Chirac or Socialist left party (not much choice there). Where is the strong opposition? Oh, yeah, La Pin. C’est la vive.

Nov 3, 2005 - 9:36 am 15. Jase:

In Vino, in addition to RogerA’s comments, I’d add that for someone boasting about actual facts, you’ve misrepresented the poll. 74% of French feel less favorable about the US as a result of the 2004 election, not that the world is less safe.

I guess we can interpret that result as them having gone from feeling ecstatic about us to simply exuberant. Well that’s not so bad, is it?

Nov 3, 2005 - 9:39 am 16. chuck:

By the way, according to CBS, the boy king’s approval rating in this country is 35%, the lowest since Nixon.

CBS issues a bogus poll and you suck it up like a trusting infant at its mother’s teat. Nothing terribly surprising there, I suppose.

Nov 3, 2005 - 9:51 am 17. JohnS:

Does this mean I can start drinking French wine again?

Nov 3, 2005 - 9:57 am 18. neo-neocon:

A new French underground? The pro-Americans?

Of course, it’s impossible to know what percentage of the French people this viewpoint actually represents.

I would imagine the frustration of a French person who doesn’t swallow the anti-American party line must be very great. There are certainly people all over Europe who must feel that way. After the post-bombing election of Spain’s Zapatero, for example, I often wondered how the large percentage of people who didn’t vote for him must have felt.

Nov 3, 2005 - 9:59 am 19. elibiker:

If memory serves, the Conciergerie and Ste. Chapelle are both on the Isle de la Cite, and neither is on the left bank or the Isle St. Louis.

Nov 3, 2005 - 10:00 am 20. Professor Froward:

Is Paul Cruce real, or did Roger fall for a hoax? I’m sure some people are genuinely uninformed enough to mistake a FAMAS for an AK-47, but the thirty cheering Frenchmen anecdote is a bit of a stretch, too.

Nov 3, 2005 - 10:07 am 21. dougf:

Considering the Boy King’s approval ratings in his own country are at an all time low, perhaps he should consider running for President of France. I’m sure he’ll win!–IVV

Can you not say anything without appearing in the guise of a snide doofus? It’s amusing in a sort of childish way but you need to be more than a one-trick pony.

Is it true that you are Canadian? I vaguely recall that I happened to see that previously. If not my apologies for the insult; if so please try not to be so Mercer-like . Sophomoric ‘cleaverness’ is really not a substitute for insightful commentary, CBC programming to the contrary.

Nov 3, 2005 - 10:08 am 22. Atlanta Lawyer:

“La Conciergerie” is in fact near the Sainte Chappelle. They are both on the Ile de la Cit

Nov 3, 2005 - 10:12 am 23. Richard of Boone:

elibiker’s memory does serve. The Sainte Chapelle and the Conciergerie are both on the Ile de la Cite. Marie Antoinette’s cell in the Conciergerie has been turned into a chapel–of expiation, if my memory serves. In the museum of the Conciergerie one can see a real, but never used guillotine blade, or so the attendant said: it was “clean”

Nov 3, 2005 - 10:14 am 24. Mark Razak:

I don`t mean to rain on Mr. Cruce`s parade, but two people that I know had the opposite experience. One, a colleague of mine named Sean, obtained a 1 year post doc astrophysics position at a Parisian university from 1997-1998. (Remember Clinton was still President.) In beginning he was very excited about his French position. His experience, unfortunately, turned out to be not very pleasant. His research colleagues without exception were all anti-American. Several researchers told him this to his face after Sean was introduced to them. A couple of them refused to even talk to him after they learned he was American. Sean eventually discussed the situation with his French sponsor who basically told him that the situation was entirely his fault and therefore would do nothing about it. Sean is liberal politically, friendly and easy to get to know and I have known him since 1989 and it is inconceivable to me that he could have been the problem.

The other person that I know worked for American Power Conversion and re-located to Paris for his company. His children while in the French schools endured constant insults about America and Americans from their fellow French students. They were in France for 2 years before returning to Rhode Island shortly before 9/11.

Nov 3, 2005 - 10:17 am 25. Syl:

Mutual bashing has been the norm for a couple centuries already. why stop now.

On the other hand, if any frenchman/woman wasn’t locked in to their worldview the day Bush crossed Iraq’s borders, their shock from the OFF scandals and the joy of the purple fingers could have changed some minds.

Nov 3, 2005 - 10:25 am 26. Niko:

In light of the facts presented above I dare to say that most probably Paul Cruce’s story is fake but accurate.

Nov 3, 2005 - 10:27 am 27. Charlie (Colorado):

But I like the Pompidou!

Nov 3, 2005 - 10:33 am 28. Mark Poling:

I travel quite a bit (my new wife kids that I commute to Amsterdam) and I can attest that anti-Americanism is way overblown in the media. I just want to comment on one comment:

His research colleagues without exception were all anti-American. Several researchers told him this to his face after Sean was introduced to them. A couple of them refused to even talk to him after they learned he was American.

You can run into trouble in America with academics if you admit to supporting American policies. I think this is a symptom of the whole post-nationalist affectation that is accepted as the “correct” political stance in Academia and its periphery. And of course Academia is the most truly trans-national subculture around, so it never surprises me to read about professional writers, entertainers, academics, etc. who run into rampant anti-Americanism. It’s the old “How could (X) win? No one I know voted for him!” effect.

(I was married for 12 years to a globe-trotting Ph.D., and went to all the parties; now I work for a software company supporting Import/Export services for Banks. So I feel I have a little perspective going for me here.)

Again, I can offer nothing but anecdotes, but my experience is that the perception of America among the people I’ve worked with overseas has been overwhelmingly positive, especially in Kuwait.

(Final side point: a culinary student doesn’t necessarily know jack about what guns are carried by whom. I for one still have trouble remembering which is the fork for the fish….)

Nov 3, 2005 - 10:58 am 29. Korla Pundit:

A good history of French anti-Americanism.

Nov 3, 2005 - 11:10 am 30. Patrick:

That 30 people just doesn’t sound likely – possible, but just too many at the same time and place.

The soldiers business, sure, but they have been there for 4 years now, and of course they don’t have anything that faintly resembles AK-47s, but that’s excusable I guess.

He’s never going to blend in, either you do or you don’t.

In France you do have the presumption of innocence, but the ‘prosecutors’ have very broad discretionary powers. I believe the anti-terrorism judges/prosecutors can hold you for up 6 months without charge.

The last verdict of their full Supreme COurt (which rarely sits in full) was to order a retrial for someone convicted of rape of a minor. From my reading of the judgement:

his European human rights (different from anyone else’s believe me) were violated because he never saw the ‘advocate-general’ (an independent judge/lawyer who prepares an analysis of the evidence for the court) report, nor did his lawyer.

The witnesses were allowed to testify in front of each other.

They only proved sexual contact with the minor, they didn’t even instruct the jury on violence – the essential element of their rape offence. But they convicted him to 16 years for rape anyway.

What I mean that to demonstrate is that their procedures are theoretically sound, but rely more on human goodness than the adverserial system.

And although they are pretty anti-american, I’m an aussie rugby and football fan and I was fine !!

Nov 3, 2005 - 11:28 am 31. Synova:

The 30 people weren’t a random group but a selection of friends invited over for dinner, presumably because they have similar interests and quite likely, similar views.

We invite our obnoxious relatives to holiday dinner who are sure to go into a DU type rant or else loudly praise the intellect of Michael Savage because they are our relatives and we *have* to.

I don’t find it surprising that one commenter’s experience was that *all* the people he met were anti-American to the extent of overt rudeness or that the original letter writer may have been invited to dinner with a group of people who were predisposed to like him.

Maybe there is something about the food subculture?

Nov 3, 2005 - 11:40 am 32. Michael McNeil (Impearls):

While on the subject of French law, it’s worth considering what Winston Churchill (yes, that Churchill) had to say about Roman-law based systems vis-a-vis the Anglospheric Common Law in his superb History of the English-Speaking Peoples, in volume I of which (“The Birth of Britain”) the great Parliamentarian wrote:

It is a maxim of English law that legal memory begins with the accession of Richard I in 1189.  The date was set for a technical reason by a statute of Edward I.  It could scarcely have been more appropriately chosen however, for with the close of the reign of Henry II we are on the threshold of a new epoch in the history of English law.  With the establishment of a system of royal courts, giving the same justice all over the country, the old diversity of local law was rapidly broken down, and a law common to the whole land and to all men soon took its place.  A modern lawyer, transported to the England of Henry’s predecessor, would find himself in strange surroundings; with the system that Henry bequeathed to his son he would feel almost at home.  That is the measure of the great King’s achievement.  He had laid the foundations of the English Common Law, upon which succeeding generations would build.  Changes in the design would arise, but its main outlines were not to be altered.

It was in these fateful and formative years that the English-speaking peoples began to devise methods of determining legal disputes which survive in substance to this day.  A man can only be accused of a civil or criminal offence which is clearly defined and known to the law.  The judge is an umpire.  He adjudicates on such evidence as the parties choose to produce.  Witnesses must testify in public and on oath.  They are examined and cross-examined, not by the judge, but by the litigants themselves or their legally qualified and privately hired representatives.  The truth of their testimony is weighed not by the judge but by twelve good men and true, and it is only when this jury has determined the facts that the judge is empowered to impose sentence, punishment, or penalty according to law.

All might seem very obvious, even a platitude, until one contemplates the alternative system which still dominates a large portion of the world.  Under Roman law, and systems derived from it, a trial in those turbulent centuries, and in some countries even to-day, is often an inquisition.  The judge makes his own investigation into the civil wrong or the public crime, and such investigation is largely uncontrolled.  The suspect can be interrogated in private.  He must answer all questions put to him.  His right to be represented by a legal adviser is restricted.  The witnesses against him can testify in secret and in his absence.  And only when these processes have been accomplished is the accusation or charge against him formulated and published.  Thus often arises secret intimidation, enforced confessions, torture, and blackmailed pleas of guilty.

These sinister dangers were extinguished from the Common Law of England more than six centuries ago.  By the time Henry II’s great-grandson, Edward I had died English criminal and civil procedure had settled into a mould and tradition which in the mass govern the English-speaking peoples to-day.  In all claims and disputes, whether they concerned the grazing lands of the Middle West, the oilfields of California, the sheep-runs and gold-mines of Australia, or the territorial rights of the Maoris, these rules have obtained, at any rate in theory, according to the procedure and mode of trial evolved by the English Common Law.

Nov 3, 2005 - 11:51 am 33. Jim O'Sullivan:

My experiences in France have been similar. Anti-Americanism seems to me to be confined to the French media and the French waiters, whose antipathy is based merely on their resentment that we expect them to speak English (which they almost all can do, by the way).

Nov 3, 2005 - 12:07 pm 34. SWLiP:

It both amazes and frustrates me that they know I am an American before I even open my mouth!

Consider removing the baseball cap.

Or if you must wear one, wear it with the visor facing front

Nov 3, 2005 - 12:07 pm 35. RedDog:

Interesting perspective – I hope it is accurate of the country as a whole.

Nov 3, 2005 - 12:07 pm 36. betterred:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1501615,00.html

apparently Chirac has a 26% approval rating, in June 05-10 bucks says it is worse now…

The fact that there are a lot of French who percieve Bush to be atagonistic to Chirac may be a more compelling reason to say they like Bush, then express concern over American foreign policy.

Don’t panic Wino-

Dems in congress have a 41% approval rating by Gallup, same as Bush. They were at 57% in April 2002, and we know how well they fared in the Novemebr 2002 election.

or look at the pew numbers-32% approval for congressional dems? That’s lower than Bush! The congressional gop’ers have a 32 as well. Bush is at 40% in the same poll.

To summarize, Bush is more popular than either party’s congressional delegates by 8 pts…

Nov 3, 2005 - 12:12 pm 37. JeremyR:

To be fair, a lot of people who aren’t familiar with guns do call any non-familiar assault rifle (or sub-machine gun) an “AK-47″. Even though the Russians don’t even use those any more.

“Machine gun” is a term most people use instead (even the media), even though that is wildly inaccurate. “AK-47″ is not that uncommon, though.

I’m not sure what the French police use. The best I could find is they have used the Mat 49.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg44-e.htm

Which other than not having a banana clip, but straight, could pass off as a AK-47

I dunno if they have a newer SMG or not. Their newest rifle is bullpup, which generally means there isn’t a smg form of it.

Nov 3, 2005 - 12:25 pm 38. Mark_Belt:

While in Paris in the autumn of 1980, I entered Notre Dame cathedral on a Friday evening during Mass and saw a sign which read in English,”This is a church.”

At first I was puzzled by why the sign was necessary and why it was written in English–until an American couple walked in behind me and the husband blurted out, “Hey Ethel, look at the stained glass over here!” The wife had to remind him that Notre Dame was STILL a church and not a museum. I felt embarrassed as an American.

Most of the French outside Paris were friendly in the same way I expect people in small towns of the USA to be friendlier than those of the big cities. A few even thanked me for my dad’s service in the American Army that had liberated them in 1944.

Nov 3, 2005 - 12:44 pm 39. thibaud:

Anti-Americanism probably peaked in 1991-1992, when the French media, high and low, was full of paranoid screeds against the US hyperpower and its supposedly bankrupt economy, social system, culture, etc. Shortly after the LA riots, the centrist publication Le Nouvel Observateur devoted an issue to “How the US lost its Hegemony.”

Recall that this hallucination occurred shortly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which occurred shortly after the disintegration of the Soviet Bloc. I recall a blizzard of publications– bestsellers, comic books, weighty policy tomes, manifestoes– pouring scorn on Americans, GHW Bush, American culture, American firms, technology military prowess etc etc. Obviously, the French were scared sh*tless by the collapse of the third leg of their triangulation strategy of survival, the unchaining of the American hyperpower, before whom, as Hubert Vedrine put it, France is like a “mouse trying to avoid being trampled by an elephant.” Not to mention the French terror of the awesome military-technological show that was the first Gulf War.

The hysteria waned a bit during the Clinton era, as France’s economy expanded due to the same Telco-Media-Tech investment bonanza we saw here, but this didn’t stop Chirac from repeatly shitting on and humiliating Clinton (recall Chirac’s lovely phrase, “the free world is still waiting for its leader” ca 1995).

But nonetheless, one constant among the French, be they amerophobic or amerophiliac, is a deep fear of what all view as a large, powerful and expansionary US econo-cultural model against which French companies and cultural producers cannot compete. This has zip to do with who occupies the White House.

The more educated the Frenchman, the more likely he is to view this advantage as the result of unfair practices or, alternatively, a nefarious marketplace that prefers crap to workmanship, junk to high culture etc. (This reflects an ancient euro-theme, the displacement of the European ethos of craft by the yankee ethos of mass production). The same notion applies to the educated Frenchman’s grasp of US history– a PhD friend poured scorn on my suggestion he read the Federalist Papers, arguing that the Founders were likely dunces just as Reagan was a “dunce” (this was in 1989).

OTOH there has been growing realism in recent years, as more and more French elites recognize that to compete with the US their national champion companies need to become more like American ones, with efficient, advanced management techniques and, for multinationals, a culture so steeped in American global business practices that English is rapidly becoming the preferred language of communication for leading French multinationals.

Add to this a large increase in cross-border investment, mergers and acquisitions, and multinational hiring in Paris and elsewhere since 1990 and you have the rise of a French business and professional elite that, while it may be deeply opposed to a strong and expansionist US foreign policy, is nonetheless heavily Americanized in its professional and personal outlook. These are, as Timothy Garton Ash calls them, americanized anti-Americans (as opposed to the Dordogne and Tuscany-loving Tory euroskeptics whom he calls europeanized anti-europeans).

The $64 million question is whether ordinary Frenchmen ie those who don’t have advanced degrees, work for media companies or multinationals have become more hostile to the US and to Americans since 1990. Some argue yes– and perhaps the vicious cartoon image of Bush promulgated by the media and elite Bush-haters has succeeded here– and others argue not so, pointing out that McDonalds continues to expand in France and crush the local competition, including home-cooked food, that Hollywood has not relaxed its grip on the French imagination and that English continues to inexorably exapnd into ordinary French conversation. Who’s right? Non one really knows, and the Pew surveys are little help: crap questions, leadingly phrased, that don’t touch on whether and how people’s actual, actionable values norms and beliefs are changing or not.

Nov 3, 2005 - 12:54 pm 40. spam909:

Wow, what can I say but the self-righteous French government is getting what they deserve. Muslims will never assimilate into Western culture and this what France gets for allowing 30% of those people in their country. Fifty-years from now maybe France will be dictated by Sharia.

Nov 3, 2005 - 12:59 pm 41. thibaud:

Mark Belt – Notre Dame like most west European churches long ago ceased to be used primarily for religious services. Most churches on the continent today are used far more often for secular purposes–concerts, meetings of community organizations, civic functions such as polling places etc– than for religious services. In another twenty years or so we will see the pendulum revert back toward religion, though of course the services in question will be muslim ones. Notre Dame will look like Haga Sophia in Istanbul.

Gibbon’s fantasy will indeed come to pass http://www.hooverdigest.org/043/ferguson2.html

Nov 3, 2005 - 12:59 pm 42. thibaud:

In Vino Veritas -

You need to get a little savvier about poll interpretation. Start by asking a few simple questions– who was polled when and where, which sampling techniques were used, how the q’s were phrased etc.

For ex., the CBS poll you cite re Bush’s approval rating is completely unreliable. Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics.com has CBS’s, uh, number:

New CBS News poll out tonight. Highlights:

–Bush job approval at all time low of 35%

–Bush favorable rating at 33%

–Right track 27%, wrong track 68%

–Congress job approval 34%

–Congressional Dem favorable rating 41%,

–Congressional Republican favorable rating 35%

Now for the numbers behind the numbers. Take a look at the composition of the respondents:

Total Respondents (Unweighted) = 936

Republicans = 259 (27.67%)

Democrats = 326 (34.83%)

Independents = 351 (37.5%)

Now look at the weighted sample:

Republicans: 223 (23.80%)

Democrats: 326 (34.79%)

Independents: 388 (41.4%)

The result is a 35% job approval for the president, which is roughly 4-8 points lower than the other polls out right now

A poll of a population in which Dems outnumber Repubs 5:4 is complete horseshit. I’d love to see the sample population and phrasing of the questions for the French poll you cite, Vino.

Nov 3, 2005 - 1:15 pm 43. thibaud:

In Vino Veritas -

You need to get a little savvier about poll interpretation. Start by asking a few simple questions– who was polled when and where, which sampling techniques were used, how the q’s were phrased etc.

For ex., the CBS poll you cite re Bush’s approval rating is completely unreliable. Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics.com has CBS’s, uh, number:

New CBS News poll out tonight. Highlights:

–Bush job approval at all time low of 35%

–Bush favorable rating at 33%

–Right track 27%, wrong track 68%

–Congress job approval 34%

–Congressional Dem favorable rating 41%,

–Congressional Republican favorable rating 35%

Now for the numbers behind the numbers. Take a look at the composition of the respondents:

Total Respondents (Unweighted) = 936

Republicans = 259 (27.67%)

Democrats = 326 (34.83%)

Independents = 351 (37.5%)

Now look at the weighted sample:

Republicans: 223 (23.80%)

Democrats: 326 (34.79%)

Independents: 388 (41.4%)

The result is a 35% job approval for the president, which is roughly 4-8 points lower than the other polls out right now

A poll of a population in which Dems outnumber Repubs 5:4 is complete horseshit. I’d love to see the sample population and phrasing of the questions for the French poll you cite, Vino.

Nov 3, 2005 - 1:15 pm 44. charles austin:

Shouldn’t we be getting live on the scene reports from Anderson Cooper and Shephard Smith? The public has the right to know if thousands of bodies are floating down the Seine.

Nov 3, 2005 - 1:20 pm 45. Jack Straw:

I feel that most polls are so shallow that they show nothing but surface level responses. If someone polled me as to my opinion of the French, I would definitely give the most negative rating of the choices provided, if for no other reason than to enjoy spiting some Frenchman somewhere. If the same poll asked what I thought about, let’s say, Estonia, I would likely give it a fairly positive response since I never think about Estonia and have no reason to say anything bad. But which country would I rather be sent for a two year business assignment, where would I rather vacation, which country makes more interesting movies, food, wine, and vacation towns – no question about it.

Not to imply the French all secretly love America, but I imagine the reaction is fairly complicated. And I too have read that French European academia, journalism, and media are even more insulated, elitist, and Ivory tower liberal than in America, which is certainly a horrible thought.

Nov 3, 2005 - 2:04 pm 46. heather:

Further to the Churchill discussion on Roman law: Henry II (father of Richard the Lion Hearted) and his predessors developed English Common Law at a time when there were very few university graduates around to tell him all about Justinian, and Roman Law. Universities (especially the U of Paris) did not really flourish until after Henry had died.

So Henry et al. had to depend upon the few competent judges available, who had to travel around the countryside (very rapidly, the roads were dreadful), listen to the locals, and put much of the responsibility for info-gathering to the local gentry (land owners).

I consider that this is the basis for British Empiricism, as opposed to French Rationalism, and further, that this is why the Anglosphere is so very much more successful than the Francophile world.

Nov 3, 2005 - 2:57 pm 47. valerie:

Uh, the pro-US stories really sound FAKE.

French people would not burst into applause. They aren’t extras in An Officer and a Gentleman. It’s just not done.

Someone coming up and asking you if you’re American is also highly unlikely. I’ve lived in France for over 15 years and it has NEVER happened once. Most French people would never go up to a stranger to ask a question like that.

And all that effusive pro-Bushness is just so NOT French. Effusive is not French, period.

I think the e-mail was not only fake but very inaccurate.

Sorry, Roger.

Nov 3, 2005 - 3:14 pm 48. Bruce B:

Much as I want to believe this, I’m afraid I agree with Valerie that its a fairy tale more rooted in wishful thinking than in fact. Not that I claim any special knowledge of the French public’s views of Americans, but the incidents described seem so improbable.

That said, my family and I were in France in 1997 and in 2002. Neither time did we experience any obvious anti-Americanism or other discourtesy, despite our less-than-perfect command of French. In 2002, we were in Paris for a week over Bastille Day; and in 1997, we were on a “self-drive” canal boat in the Camargue (Languedoc) and on the Canal du Midi (in the vicinity of Carcassonne) in early July. On the Canal Boat trip, we had to rely exclusively on our French; English was not widely spoken. The canals are very far off the American tourist track, so a number of our fellow boaters guessed us as anything but Americans — even Canadians or Australians.

Of course, attitudes may have changed after the invasion of Iraq.

Nov 3, 2005 - 4:02 pm 49. kpom:

I don’t know if Mr. Cruce is real, but he has a blog:

http://www.frogblog-lavache.blogspot.com/

Nov 3, 2005 - 4:59 pm 50. kpom:

I don’t know if Mr. Cruce is real, but he has a blog:

http://www.frogblog-lavache.blogspot.com/

Nov 3, 2005 - 4:59 pm 51. mythusmage:

I see that Valerie and BruceB work under the belief that if they don’t agree with it, it must be wrong. Academic scepticism itstead of scientific.

Nov 3, 2005 - 5:59 pm 52. HA:

After 8 days of riots by the muslim hordes the previously well-concealed Gallic love of America is finally revealed!

I’m not buying it. The French are in deep trouble and they are starting to realize it. They need us, therefore they love us.

France is a nation of back-stabbing whores. We’ve experienced the back-stabbing the last few years. Now we get to experience some whoring.

Nov 3, 2005 - 7:02 pm 53. TBinSTL:

Where is Mischa “The Dissident Frogman” when you need him……

Nov 3, 2005 - 7:09 pm 54. spam909:

The Muslim horde is indeed out of control in France. It’s absolutely great. However, the United States is going to have the same problem in 50 years if we keep allowing these people in.

Nov 3, 2005 - 8:00 pm 55. 205guy:

I think others have pretty much shown Paul Cruce’s comments to be bogus, or at least not reliable. I think he’s amplifying what he wants to see, which is American admiration and (oddly enough) French authoritarianism. Of course there are French people who think Chirac is a political tool, and I’m certain there are even some French right-wingers who admire George Bush, but I doubt there were ever 30 in one room, fawning over some American in Paris.

Nobody has mentioned this yet, but I seriously doubt any French person would ever say “God bless George Bush” in English or French. That’s an American expression that Paul Cruce has imagined he heard when a French person admired Bush, and it has now become his truth. His understanding of the subtleties of French language is rather poor, as shown on his supposed blog linked above.

Somebody else has pointed out that the French military use French FAMAS rifles. Perhaps Paul Cruce was referring to AK-47’s as a generic assault rifle, but I think he just demonstrated he doesn’t know much beyond the surface of French culture.

Finally, beyond any history of the French legal system, someone above perfectly summed up the French attitude towards presumed innocence the way I perceived it when I lived there: “their procedures are theoretically sound, but rely more on human goodness than the adverserial system.” When you have an educated public and a non-fascist police force, you don’t need Miranda rights. Don’t get me wrong, there are bad French cops and slick lawyers who try to exploit the French system, but that is way outside the norm that prevails in the US.

What I find interesting in Paul Cruce, Roger Simon, and the poll commentators is their unabashed conservatism _and_ Francophilia, beautifully expressed as “Miranda de merde.” As a left-leaning American raised in France, I of course admire all the progressive aspects of French culture. I sometimes make the mistake of believing that my French upbringing infused me with all the good things of France, thereby makes me liberal in the US. These people remind me that despite the American mockery of French “surrender monkeys” and despite French Bush-bashing (which is indeed acute in French and American academia), there are conservative Francophiles and French conservatives who return their love.

I think the big lesson here is that on both sides of the pond there are people in both political camps who see the other country in different ways. I’m sure that not all American liberals know or love France. I think many French have interiorized this better, both accepting and enjoying MacDo while opposing US foreign policy. My wish is that people of all camps in both countries can see both the good and the bad in the other, and in their own country.

Nov 3, 2005 - 8:19 pm 56. thibaud:

205guy,

The illiberal, authoritarian nature of French judges — who are in effect prosecutors in many criminal cases — goes far beyond a lack of constraints from what you call “Miranda rights.” Try no habeas corpus rights, with the result that dozens of suspects have languished in French jails for years without a trial, and in some cases without access to lawyers. Note that this is the nation that criticizes the US over Gitmo.

Also wrap your mind around the notion of “preemptive arrests,” which is reportedly used by French flics to coerce suspects into talking. Educate yourself a bit and start by reading this WaPo story from 2004 about the extraordinary powers given French magistrates like Bruguiere:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17082-2004Nov1?language=printer

France has embraced a law enforcement strategy that relies heavily on preemptive arrests, ethnic profiling and an efficient domestic intelligence-gathering network. French anti-terrorism prosecutors and investigators are among the most powerful in Europe, backed by laws that allow them to interrogate suspects for days without interference from defense attorneys.

…other European countries have been reluctant to fully embrace the French model, part of a legal tradition from the Napoleonic era that has always given prosecutors strong powers.

Britain, for instance, typically takes years to extradite terrorism suspects to other countries and has respected the free-speech rights of imams who praise Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader, and endorse holy war. Until three years ago, Germany did not ban membership in a foreign terrorist organization such as al Qaeda as long as it didn’t operate inside the country.

Many of the anti-terror laws and policies in France date to 1986, when the country was grappling with Palestinian and European extremist groups. Since then, the government has modified and expanded those laws several times, gradually giving authorities expanded powers to deport and detain people.

…At times, French authorities have pursued terrorism cases outside their borders, taking over investigations from countries unwilling or unable to arrest suspects on their own.

Last year, Christian Ganczarski, a German national and alleged al Qaeda operative, arrived in Saudi Arabia for a religious pilgrimage to Mecca. … Saudi officials prepared to deport Ganczarski back to Germany, but when German officials indicated they lacked the evidence to arrest him, Saudi authorities arranged a detour, putting him on a flight with a connection through Paris. When Ganczarski arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport on June 2, 2003, he was detained for questioning by French police.

Seventeen months later Ganczarski remains in a French jail, under investigation for alleged conspiracy in the Tunisian attack. French investigators have claimed jurisdiction in the case because French nationals were among the casualties in the Tunisia attack.

Also last year, French counterterrorism officials tipped off the Australian government that a visiting French tourist, Willie Brigitte, was allegedly part of a terrorist cell in Sydney that was planning attacks during rugby World Cup events there. Lacking direct evidence of their own, Australian officials deported Brigitte to France in October 2003, where he was arrested. He also remains in jail, where he is subject to regular interrogations.

The French anti-terrorism judge overseeing both cases is Bruguiere, an investigating magistrate who under French law is granted great prosecutorial powers, including the ability to sign search warrants, order wiretaps and interrogate suspects.

Over the past decade, Bruguiere has ordered the arrests of more than 500 people on suspicion of “conspiracy in relation to terrorism,” a broad charge that gives him leeway to lock up suspects while he carries out investigations.

“There is no equivalent anywhere else in Europe. This provision is very, very efficient for judicial rule in tackling terrorist support networks,” Bruguiere said in an interview. “Fighting terrorism is like the weather. You have high pressure zones and low pressure zones. Countries that have low pressure zones” attract terrorism.”

Nov 3, 2005 - 8:57 pm 57. thibaud:

Score one for French cunning: they’ve somehow hoodwinked the rest of the world into thinking that the US is implementing a police state when in fact France is by far the world’s most authoritarian and brutally repressive advanced democracy as regards cracking down on suspected terrorists. No advanced democratic nation comes even close to matching France’s illiberal, sweeping police and judicial/prosecutorial powers.

Nov 3, 2005 - 9:00 pm 58. WichitaBoy:

The comment about the supposed lack of the presumption of innocence in France being due to Roman law is a calumny against the Romans. The principle was established at least as early as the year 358, under Julian the Apostate while he was governor of Gaul. So sayeth that most sagacious Angeleno, Will Durant.

The idea itself was present at least in inchoate form under Trajan, if not earlier. From this

http://web.archive.org/web/20030216230239/%68ttp://www.talkleft.com/archives/001907.html

…the Roman law was pervaded with the results of this maxim of criminal administration, as the following extracts show:

“Let all accusers understand that they are not to prefer charges unless they can be proven by proper witnesses or by conclusive documents, or by circumstantial evidence which amounts to indubitable proof and is clearer than day.” Code, L. IV, T. XX, 1, 1. 25.

[click on more to read additional quotes]

The noble (bivus) Trajan wrote to Julius Frontonus that no man should be condemned on a criminal charge in his absence, because it was better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” Dig. L. XLVIII, Tit. 19, 1. 5.

“In all cases of doubt, the most merciful construction of facts should be preferred.” Dig. L. L, Tit. XVII, 1. 56.

“In criminal cases the milder construction shall always be preserved.” Dig. L. L, Tit. XVII, 1. 155, s. 2.

“In cases of doubt it is no less just than it is safe to adopt the milder construction.” Dig. L. L, Tit. XVII, 1. 192, s. 1.

Nov 3, 2005 - 9:21 pm 59. Evan Kirchhoff:

I can’t speak for Cruce’s story, but we were in Paris for a week in April, and in spite of my bad French, the only anti-Americanism we ran into was from a fellow American on an airport shuttle, who naturally assumed that we should all discuss how much we hated Bush and wanted to move to Canada. I said I’d actually moved FROM there, but that it was a nice place and she’d probably like it just fine.

Paris might be different in the peak season, but in the spring it was pretty friendly. There was some generic big-city disdain for clueless newbies, much like you’d get in NYC, but it seemed directed at least equally at the rural French coming in from the country for the school holidays. My impression was that between the Parisians hating the country folk and the country folk hating the Parisians and everyone hating the English and the English bartenders insulting the French to us, hating individual Americans wasn’t a big priority for anyone.

Anyway, the punchline is that on the way back to the airport, the cabbie found out I’d voted for Bush, and he he got out and HUGGED me. (Your mileage may vary.)

Nov 3, 2005 - 9:24 pm 60. rosignol:

France is a nation of back-stabbing whores.

No, France is run by back-stabbing whores.

The actual people are fairly decent, with about the usual proportion of jerks and a-holes one runs into pretty much anywhere.

Nov 3, 2005 - 10:34 pm 61. Rick Ballard:

Rosignol,

Not all French pols are back-stabbing whores. Some of them are pimps and a few are brothel keepers.

As to the French people – when I start reading about their concern for American anti-Gaulism perhaps I’ll stop thinking of France as a space that one flies over. Probably not though. Any people willing to be governed by the likes of Villepin and Chirac are unworthy of contemplation.

Nov 4, 2005 - 12:29 am 62. Zilch:

those of you who happen to speak french might be interrested to know of this pro-american (among other things) Forum:

http://www.peres-fondateurs.com/forum

peres fondateurs:Founding Fathers

Nov 4, 2005 - 3:18 am 63. HA:

rosignol,

The actual people are fairly decent, with about the usual proportion of jerks and a-holes one runs into pretty much anywhere.

That is no doubt true. It is also beside the point. The normal human hospitality that we experience on a personal level has nothing to do with the collective mindset of a group.

The Arabs are famous for their hospitality. Yet their countries are cesspools that produce little besides terrorists and oil. Likewise with Southerners who gave us Jim Crow, the KKK and lynchings. I also have no doubt that there were plenty of personable and hospitable Nazis too.

Nov 4, 2005 - 3:45 am 64. Billy Beck:

“You can run into trouble in America with academics if you admit to supporting American policies.”

I’ll never forget the time I walked into a working-class pub in Strasbourg, and could not buy a beer. It takes a lot to intimidate me, but that was a long walk through that crowd back to the door.

I could be wrong, but I’m just guessing that my Air Force A-2 jacket with the 99th Bomb Wing insignia and SAC command shield had something to do with it. The weather vindicated me, though: it was very cold in that place.

Nov 4, 2005 - 8:50 am 65. 205guy:

Thibaud,

I’ll admit that I never understood the French investigating judges or how that really worked. Then again, I’m not a law student. What I did notice is that the French themselves, both droite and gauche, seemed to think the system worked fairly. I rarely heard about how unfair a judge was or how s/he was being manipulated by the government. I’m sure it does happen, but between their built-in review procedures, a press with real teeth, and what I would call a cultural slant towards respecting the spirit of the law, it just seems to work for them.

You obviously have some ax to grind, quoting the Washington Post (?) about how much more authoritarian French justice is than other European nations. Your second post implies that French justice is worse than in the US, but have offered no arguments, just a rhetorical jump from the first one. Actually, it seems to me that every single item you bolded in the article and hold against the French has always been US practice as well, or was recently allowed by the misnamed patriot act.

Frankly, I didn’t see any oppression of the masses living in France and sort of got to trust that the system was working. Knowing both French and American cultures, I as a citizen/resident trust the French government with those authoritarian powers much more than I trust the current US administration. Who knows, maybe the French government is just better at hiding their shennanigans than the US administration.

To evaluate French law and culture with American expectations seems pointless. Each country has its system for creating the laws that work for its people, or at least its people in power. Of course, you are allowed to criticize and to work within or without the system (as the rioters do) to change it. And it is always good to see if other are doing it better or worse so you can learn from them. But like many of the posters here you just seem to want to incite predjudice against the French (”backstabbing whores”), not “avancer le schlimblick” as they say.

Note that I haven’t made any assumptions as to whether you are French or American or something else.

Regarding the original thread about riots in Paris, I think that the Instapundit article linked in the original post is very close to the truth. Of course, since that blames the whole thing on jobs, you can now be prejudiced against the French economic system, too.

Nov 4, 2005 - 3:45 pm 66. Bostonian:

205guy,

Enjoy your stay in France as long as you can.

Nov 4, 2005 - 4:54 pm 67. Ofc. Krupke:

Actually, it seems to me that every single item you bolded in the article and hold against the French has always been US practice as well, or was recently allowed by the misnamed patriot act.

Pre-emptive arrests? As a statutory matter? I suppose you could make a case that the U.S. does the equivalent with people who have been ruled “enemy combatants.” But at least the U.S. has the benefit of an actual shooting war for the enemies to be combatants in. The French do not.

Frankly, I didn’t see any oppression of the masses living in France and sort of got to trust that the system was working.

Well, I don’t see that in America, either.

I was also confused by your reference to “a non-fascist police force” in France. Do you consider American police to be “fascists”? That’s a mighty heavy brush, ya know.

Nov 4, 2005 - 6:22 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: