As per this Guardian article, the French government seems to have started dabbling in brainwashing.
Are they going to concentrate all these people in one place?
What’s the debate?
I, for one, am against making those people more Frenchlike, because France, and all.
(remembering the Etats Unis’ long and fruitful relationship la belle France, and remembering I’m not English) Au contraire!
NPR’s All Things Considered tonight had a feature on Somali-Danish moms using that most-powerful tool, Mom Guilt, to rescue their kids from ISIS.
Wouldn’t be the first bugfuck stupid idea of Manuel Valls’.
I’m sorry. I saw “French Reinsertion”, and clicked on the thread. Nothing further to say. :smack:
This is a bit confusing.
According to a Daily Telegraph reportabout this:
“The government has previously said there will be two types of centre: one for voluntary would-be extremists who have repented, and another for radicalised individuals who theoretically could be imprisoned for having sought to reach extremists groups abroad but failed to actually reach war zones in Iraq or Syria.”
Valls now seems to be saying there will be a third group of “clients”; people who can’t be imprisoned (because, presumably, they haven’t committed any crime, or at any rate haven’t been charged or convicted) but who also won’t be voluntary clients. That sounds ominous.
According to the Telegraph, Valls said this “without clarifying” - meaning, presumably, without clarifying how the government will involuntarily detain people who can’t legally be detained, or on what basis it will select those to be not-detained in this way.
I happen to know a couple of people who worked with some of these people and what they tell you is enough to keep you awake at night.
:(. Normal prescriptions don’t work with these people.
I thought it was some interesting new technique. But then, I have a dirty mind.
Yes, it is concerning.
Over here in the USA, there is an entire industry and movement for forced institutionalization and treatment of people who are perceived as having dangerous sexual inclinations and impulses that could harm others, but it is virtually impossible to get “put” into one of these programs unless one has been convicted of a sexual crime. If there was a program to identify budding or wannabe sex offenders and forcing them into therapy before they committed a crime, obviously there would be fewer victims but nobody wants to start that kind of a program due to civil liberty issues. Imagine the backlash - “What, you want to put me away for looking at too much legal porn? What happened to free speech? I haven’t hurt anybody, and I’m not going to! If this material is so bad, then make it illegal, don’t do this runaround with the mental health system.”
Before people get too high and mighty about this and make inaccurate comparisons to history, we should realize that there is nothing inherently wrong about re-education. Many conservatives here and elsewhere have lamented that we don’t have mandatory bible studies for kids, or teach them to respect the flag, or other brainwashing things that are absolutely false like intelligent design. There are laws on the books restricting some red states about how global warming can be taught or spoken of, so these people are in no position to object.
There is a continuum of choices between absolutely wrong and absolutely right, and while this may seem to fall closer to the wrong side of history, terrorism has always been a pretty serious and severe thing. That things have come to this point where they feel they need re-education centers doesn’t automatically make them wrong. Are radicalism and terrorism severe enough to warrant action? Are these centers done with transparency and integrity? I have no objection to them if the answers are both yes, some people need re-education and yes, the government, being a representation of the people in a democracy, are the only ones that can and should do it
No, “forced reeducation” is 100% bad. There is no upside. If someone can’t be trusted to remain free, then charge them with a crime and have a jury of their peers sentence them to prison. There is no other acceptable option.
Instead of turning at-risk youths away from ISIS, this might be giving them a push.
Don’t be surprised if they’re doing a French mistake.
Well, there are closer parallels. The US is currently running a prison at Guantanamo whose client group is precisely people who can’t be lawfully detained because they haven’t been convicted of any crime, but who also aren’t voluntary clients.
I struggle to believe that Valls is proposing that France should have its own network of Guantanamos, but within French territory and holding French citizens. But if he’s not proposing that, then what is he proposing.
One of my cousins works at a school for “at risk youths”. Some of the kids he teaches sleep in the local reformatory; some are in judicial custody (CPS custody), living with a temporary family or in shared flats with custodians (custodians in the sense of “having custody”, not of “the people who clean”); some have been sent there through the school system, sometimes the process having been started by the previous school and sometimes by the custodians (a lot of them are from families which aren’t so much “broken” as “disintegrated”).
We’re not really going to know until the French government provides more information, but it could be something like that.
They going to re-open devils Island for the gitmo class.
What do you call schools? Democracies force kids to be in school, learning from government-approved teachers and using a government-approved curriculum. This re-education falls on the more extreme end of that scale but functionally they are similar.
In your job, there are probably mandatory trainings you have to attend, I know there is in mine. Every few years, a sexual harassment prevention training, or a management refresher course, or something like that. That’s forced re-education with your job on the line. Same thing.
We are all so conditioned to oppose anything that sounds bad that we don’t stop to think if it actually is bad or simply a reaction to historical wrongs. Many humans don’t have the proper information to live in a functional society, or they belief dangerously false things. There is nothing wrong with teaching them new information, or showing them why their beliefs are dangerous.
Its funny that the response some people have is to simply say charge them with a crime and throw them in jail. As if trumped up charges are never done, or people are never incarcerated falsely. I think that’s a lot scarier than some re-education centers.
That’s not re-education, that’s education. The curricula are as politically neutral as the teachers can force the government to make them and if anything, a good teacher teaches his students to question it and him - not just blindly repeat. Teachers might be on the government’s dime, but they are emphatically not tools of the government. The end goal of schooling is not to have a properly formatted kid saddled with the right kind of brainwashing, but a kid who can think for themselves, look up information on their own and process it on their own terms, in their own words - the exact opposite of re-education.
So no, they are not remotely similar.
NO curriculum is truly politically neutral. Each one is picked, categorized, and written by biased human beings. Its supposed to be as neutral as possible, but as we have seen from places like Texas and Louisiana, political realities dictate members of the school board who choose what information to present. Mary Lou Bruner says Obama is a gay prostitue and hates Muslims is in the lead for a seat on the Texas State Board of Education. We have Congressmen in charge of science who thinks global warming is a hoax. Who are you trying to fool claiming that education is politically neutral?
Re-education gets a bad rap, but its no different from education. Unless we hear that France is using electroshock or torture to get these people to believe what they want, then there is no real problem. Re-education is fine, its a back to school program for potential terrorists. Nothing wrong with that
What you call “politically neutral” is still (or at least, it better be) anti-ISIL. Teaching children it’s wrong to beat people up because you want their stuff is anti-ISIL. Reporting domestic abuse is anti-ISIL. “No means no” is anti-ISIL. Unless your intent is to raise a generation of sociopaths, education is naturally going to have an anti-ISIL message.