Posted on 01/23/2015 5:28:33 PM PST by SJackson
Comments by Steven Emerson on Fox News have prompted a heated debate over whether predominantly Muslim “no-go zones” exist in Europe.
On Jan. 11, Emerson said they “exist throughout Europe … they’re places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany don’t exercise any sovereignty. .. you basically have zones where Shariah courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don’t go in, and where it’s basically a separate country almost, a country within a country.”
Although Emerson, whom I admire for his moral courage and investigative skills, immediately apologized for his “terrible error” of saying that cities like Birmingham, England, “are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go,” he did not address the larger question of whether no-go zones, in fact, do “exist throughout Europe” and are there places where governments “don’t exercise any sovereignty.”
Is he right about this?
In a 2006 weblog entry, I called Muslim enclaves in Europe “no-go zones” as a non-euphemistic equivalent for the French phrase Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones. “No-go zones” subsequently became standard in English to describe Muslim-majority areas in West Europe.
After spending time in the banlieues (suburbs) of Paris in January 2013, as well as in their counterparts in Athens, Berlin, Brussels, Copenhagen, Malmö, and Stockholm, however, I have had second thoughts.
I found that those areas “are not full-fledged no-go zones” – meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No war lords dominate; Shariah is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term “no-go zones.”
So, what are these places? A unique and as-yet un-named mix.
On the one hand, West European states can intervene anywhere and at any time in their sovereign territory. As the shoot-out in Verviers and the subsequent raids in Belgium suggest, their overwhelming advantage in force – including military, intelligence, and police – means they have not ceded control.
On the other hand, governments often choose not to impose their will on Muslim-majority areas, allowing them considerable autonomy, including in some cases the Shariah courts that Emerson mentioned. Alcohol and pork are effectively banned in these districts, polygamy and burqas commonplace, police enter only warily and in force, and Muslims get away with offenses illegal for the rest of population.
The Rotherham, England, child sex scandal offers a powerful example. An official inquiry found that for 16 years, from 1997-2013, a ring of Muslim men sexually exploited – through abduction, rape, gang rape, trafficking, prostitution, torture – at least 1,400 non-Muslim girls as young as 11. The police received voluminous complaints from the girls’ parents but did nothing; they could have acted, but chose not to.
According to the inquiry, “the Police gave no priority to CSE [child sexual exploitation], regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime.”
Even more alarming, in some cases, “fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene.”
Worse, the girls “were arrested for offences such as breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly, with no action taken against the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault against children.”
Another example, also in Britain, was the so-called Operation Trojan Horse that flourished from 2007 to 2014, in which (again, according to an official inquiry), a group of school functionaries developed “a strategy to take over a number of schools in Birmingham and run them on strict Islamic principles.”
What does one call Rotherham and Birmingham? They are not no-go zones, neither in terms of geography or sovereignty. This is where we – Emerson, others (such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal), and I stumbled.
The English language lacks a readily-available term for this. And for good reason: I know of no historical parallel, in which a majority population accepts the customs and even the criminality of a poorer and weaker immigrant community. The world has never seen anything comparable to the contemporary West’s blend of achievement, timidity, and guilt, of hugely superior power matched by a deep reluctance to use it.
Instead of “no-go zones,” I propose “semi-autonomous sectors,” a term that emphasizes their indistinct and non-geographic nature – thus permitting a more accurate discussion of what is, arguably, West Europe’s most acute problem.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Barrio, ‘hood, getto....
Ask Norway.
“Instead of “no-go zones,” I propose “semi-autonomous sectors,” a term that emphasizes their indistinct and non-geographic nature”
And not for one second does he recognize the irony and moral surrender implied by using a more politically correct term to describe what was already correctly described as a no-go zone.
If these are the “brave men” that will defend western civilization, then we had all better plan on buying rugs and bowing toward mecca.
I do not know if there are no-go zones in Europe.
I do know that there are no-go zones in Houston and the no-go zones have absolutely nothing to do with Muslims. There are parts of Houston where I would not venture in broad daylight with a police escort.
Ooops, I was referring to ho gun zones
And not just Houston. A wise person will develop the capability to rapidly recognize our domestic “no-go” zones and proceed with appropriate caution.
If they want to do their own thing they shouldn’t expect anyone to feed and shelter them.
Translation:
Don't take the “Martin Luther King Boulevard” exit.
I prefer a directive for those people living in said "no go zones" to leave to the Muslim country of their choice, prior to leveling the areas completely, preferably for redevelopment.
You want a no-go zone? Walk around Baltimore at night. Another place that comes close is the area of New Orleans adjacent to the French Quarter.
Dearbornistan = no go zone in Michigan.
Try this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQFcWGgPigE
Napalm bombs were made specifically for “No Go Zones”...
Trust me, they work!
Or any street named after a US State..
That's a stupid name. If you look back in history, the first name assigned to anything usually turns out to be the most accurate. I guess this is because most names are initially assigned by people who see the obvious, and don't confuse themselves with convoluted thinking processes like political correctness, critical race theory and many other upside down-backward ass ideas. For example, I saw a guy on O'Reilly who has convinced himself that fighting against the Taliban victimizes them, and this victimization then justifies their atrocities.
It seems no-go zone is the most obvious term to use, then that's what we should stick to.
Having lived around Germany for twenty-odd years (not continuously)....I can speak to some degree on this.
What you have are areas where if the cops are called at night (in particular, to some minor degree in daylight)...the cops respond and show up with three or more cop vehicles (figure two cops in each one). The residents of these areas often believe they can intimidate the cops. One thing you will tend to notice if you travel in Germany...cops aren’t intimidated by most folks. It’s generally a respected crowd, educated to their profession, and if they cite you...they can cite the code and give just cause. So, there is a cultural thing at work here.
Now, in some areas....like Frankfurt’s train-station neighborhood....you just don’t go anytime after dark because the drug dealers and nutcases have taken over the neighborhood. The city councils allow this to occur....to appease the doped-up crowd (they’d just go and use some city park instead). Cops carry out orders and allow no-go areas to populate themselves...whether the public likes it or not.
Finally, if the authorities figure out that the public is keen or wanting an open area....they will clean up the mess and let the population screwing up a neighborhood know that their lifestyle is finished. No interest? The culture thrives. This is why some inner city areas are screwed up and the public doesn’t care. Go to Munich for example.....there simply aren’t any no-go areas because the enthusiasm by the city is for a clean operating city.
How about “politically correct areas of civil regression”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.