Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Remember the No-Go Zones?
Back in 2015, there was a huge backlash against the suggestion that there were Muslim “no go” zones in Europe. Recently I heard a podcast discussion about Sweden and the controversy over immigration in that country. I began to wonder what happened regarding the presence of no-go zones, and what I discovered caused me concern about the increase in Muslim neighborhoods in Europe and whether we should be concerned in this country. I think we should.
First, it’s helpful to understand that there’s a lack of agreement on what comprises a no-go zone. Originally these areas were described as neighborhoods or districts where non-Muslims who entered them were attacked by residents. The real issue, according to Daniel Pipes, is that the neighborhoods were dangerous for government representatives, particularly the police:
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 Antwerp, Athens, Berlin, Brussels, Copenhagen, the Hague, Malmö, and Stockholm, however, I 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 warlords dominate; sharia is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.
On the other hand, there are districts that clearly reflect orthodox and radical Muslim norms:
Alcohol and pork are effectively banned in these districts, polygamy and burqas are 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, 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.’
Pipes stated that there is “no historical parallel, in which a majority population accepts the customs and even the criminality of a poorer and weaker immigrant community.” To be sure that we are clear on the characteristics of these communities—not necessarily a threat to visitors but to law enforcement, he suggested we call them “semi-autonomous sectors.” Although this suggestion may seem trivial, its use might stop those who would protect these communities by protesting what they are called, not what they do.
My point is that these areas do still exist and are growing in Europe, whether we discuss them in our mainstream media or not.
Two other countries that acknowledge there is a growing problem with no-go zones are Sweden and Germany. In a June 2017 article, Sweden’s national police chief presented a report with his latest findings. The report listed 53 “vulnerable areas,” 15 of which were “especially vulnerable.” These districts were described in this way:
. . . socio-economically vulnerable areas with a generally high crime rate. In an especially vulnerable area there are also often parallel societal structures, religious extremism and police regularly have to adapt their methods to the volatile situation. Residents also often do not report crimes, either out of fear of retaliation or because they think it will not lead to anything.
In an opinion piece published before this report was issued, national police chiefs Dan Eliasson and Mats Löfving wrote that around 5,000 criminals and 200 criminal networks are believed to be based in these 61 “vulnerable areas.”
This month an article was published about Germany’s no-go zones. The Police Union Chief Rainer Wendt claimed, “Authorities are unable to enforce the law thanks to the rise of dangerous no-go zones caused as a result of mass immigration.” Although police officers have denied there are no-go zones, Chief Commissioner of Criminal Investigation Ralf Feldmann describes the situation as “very real.” Germany’s Parliament also has approved a law to stop “hate speech” on social media networks. There are complaints that this law will not only limit free speech, but some say it is intended to silence criticism of the government’s policy toward immigration.
And thus we have one last point on Europe to consider, regarding the lack of discussion on no-go zones. The dominant Left in much of Europe does not want to admit that immigration policies are not only a failure, but have endangered their countries. In other words, they don’t want to acknowledge that they have made a terrible mistake. If they were to take positive steps to slow or stop immigration from Muslim countries, there would be an uproar.
At this point you might be asking, what do the conditions in Europe have to do with our country? On one hand, we are working on restricting immigration from those countries that breed terrorists (whether in their homelands or after they arrive). But at this moment, the Democrats are fighting border security. If they get their way, our borders will be as open as ever.
Unfortunately, Hezbollah has been entering this hemisphere through South America since at least 2010. We now know that this country is at risk:
The exploitation of alien smuggling networks by terrorists until recently had been dismissed by both American security officials and private security experts as largely an urban myth.
However, the Southcom intelligence report revealed that the threat of Islamist terror infiltration is no longer theoretical. ‘This makes the case for Trump’s wall,’ said one American security official of the Southcom report. ‘These guys are doing whatever they want to get in the country.’
If immigration becomes even more severely restricted, we need to assume that terrorists will find other ways to enter the country; this potential is reason enough for building the wall and improving border security measures. Take it from those Europeans who are willing to speak the truth.
Published in Islamist Terrorism
Trump is our last hope. Pray that he holds the line. Or we will be overrun just as Europe has already been.
We are in a civilizational struggle which we cannot lose unless we either refuse to fight or just capitulate. But we can’t win unless we face up to reality It didn’t start on 9/11 but too many of us don’t know that.
The wiser among us speak in terms that no one can predict or manage the future. But history is replete with lost opportunities — what Robert Heinlein would refer to as “bad luck”. It seems like now is such a moment. Pray that we can at least do the minimal thing to mitigate bad luck.
So much of the focus has been on the Hispanic illegals. If border security isn’t improved, we will have no idea how many people have come in, and from where.
Precisely. Open borders is open borders. In the future if one group is fearful that another group is getting too big then there will be tribal violence, either through direct action or through a government controlled by the “correct” coalition of tribes.
Nobody tell Claire.
There’s a part of me that feels like we must be crazy to anticipate this type of disorder, though, @rodin. It’s just not the USA. We’re bigger and better than that, aren’t we?
Oh my gosh, @jeannebodine! No kidding! Except that with the correction of the language–that the police, not necessarily civilians, are the ones who are reluctant to deal with these neighborhoods–I wonder if she’d disagree with us?
I’ve experienced no-go zones when I used to work with colleagues in Belgium. Walking with a Belgian one night and proposing to cut through a neighborhood to avoid taking a metro, I was told no, don’t, that “white people don’t go there safely”.
Four days later, driving to find a particular beer store that my sons wanted me to check out, an address that bordered on a Muslim neighborhood in a Brussels suburb, I got into more and more ethnic looking blocks. Arriving, I found the store had been vandalized and closed.
Getting back to my car to go, I noted no women on the street at all, except those in Muslim headwear. Speaking to the car rental agent later that day, he was astonished that I had gone where I went.
Belgium is a lost cause, France likely too. Great Britain for sure. Why these ancient, proud nations have subsidized their own destruction is beyond me.
For now. Likely so was the Belgium at one time that Doctor Robert did not see.
I so appreciate your first-hand experience. No surprise that a beer shop was closed. I think you’re right about those countries being lost, too.
It’s frequently not the people but the elites who have facilitated the Muslim mass immigration into these countries.
I want to believe that a backlash is coming, one that will throw out the European elites who have let this happen.
With Trump’s election, that backlash seems to be happening in this country, though the elites are fighting back ferociously, and who will win is, to my mind, up in the air.
The constant drumbeat of left wing propaganda may indeed win the day. How can an unengaged populace not have their minds shaped when only one side of the story is told by most news stories, features, editorials, movies, magazines, plays, teachers, and labor unions?
I’m pessimistic.
Kent
Students who have overstayed their visas worry me too. The Trump administration is acting on this problem, but it has been going on for a long time, and who knows how many there really are and where they are:
I am, too, Kent. And by nature I’m very optimistic.
Since I’m usually a pessimist, it’s odd to find me more optimistic on this issue, in the United States. Yes, we should control immigration so we at least know who’s coming in. And, my optimism goes out the window if the group identity politics attitude really takes over. But, I still think the draw of assimilation in the United States – because it’s not ethnic – reduces the likelihood of exclusionary enclaves developing. Yes, there are ethnic enclaves. But, because it is easy in the United States to start and move businesses, and the willingness of the majority of Americans to patronize businesses across ethnic lines means that in the United States there are vast opportunities for wealth provided by appealing outside your ethnic group. Similarly, the ease with which you can buy a house anywhere you want means that people are tempted by the availability of nicer and accessible housing in many areas. Yes, we will likely always have ethnic enclaves in the United States, particularly for new immigrants, but I think the attractions outside the enclave (and realistic availability of those attractions) will reduce the likelihood of developing significant “no go zones” for police and other officials.
[I acknowledge that certain American Black neighborhoods challenge my optimism.]
FST, an excellent analysis of the situation. We offer so many more things than other societies provide. The freedom, potential fluidity of movement, opportunities, are available to anyone who has the desire. We just have to try to make sure that the identity politics that the Left is so proud of doesn’t discourage those who want to explore outside their ethnic group.
I sure hope you’re right.
I would agree as long as the fracturing pressures of progressive ideology do not dominate. We saw how badly we accelerated in this direction during Obama. That is why I felt such relief that Hillary was not empowered to continue the pressure. But if Oprah/Harris/Warren/Bernie get the levers of power supported by Slimy Schumer and Dirty Durbin then the pressure is back on big time.
A long time ago, immigrants to this country established areas of ethnicity, but they were very safe and welcomed the police, especially because many of the police back then came from their neighborhoods. They also welcomed outsiders, who often came to dine or take in the local entertainment.
Nowadays, these neighborhoods do the opposite (whether immigrant or ghetto)—they don’t welcome outsiders or the police, and anyone who doesn’t belong caught there can be raped and murdered. Even police who grew up in these neighborhoods don’t want to come back and patrol them.
I don’t know what the answer is, but all of my solutions involve the military, automatic weapons, and extreme actions . . .
It would be nice to figure out an approach a little less extreme, Stad! I think at least a part of it is that people wanted to be part of the American dream. They wanted to fit in, to be welcome and accepted. Even though that didn’t always happen (thinking of the Irish), they persisted and became part of our melting pot. Those who isolate themselves today are purposeful.
I agree, but the left doesn’t want a test to see who really wants to come here, versus those who want to come here to flee persecution, but establish their own version of persecution (here) on others. I’m thinking of the Muslims who flee the violence inflicted on them (by other Muslims!), but come and and inflict the same violence on “the other”, meaning us.
And perhaps they must be expelled. This is why I’m hesitant to mention extreme violence, but violence inflicted on us must be met with an equal or greater violence on the perpetrators. If they are willing to accept violence inflicted on themselves to destroy us, then perhaps retaliation on their families (threatened or real) or their home countries is called for. I just don’t know . . .
I view the Old Testament in many ways, but as a historical document is one of them. If God can order the total destruction of a people (men, women, children, animals, etc.), then aren’t extreme actions by us (our country) called for in some cases? Do we have one of these cases thrust upon us now in the form of a worldwide Islamic Jihad?
Well, when the Jews set out to destroy others with G-d’s help, they were going into other countries, not killing them in their own. And often G-d had them do that so they wouldn’t be tempted to adopt the worship of idols and other ungodly practices. It’s complicated–what I’m trying to offer as a simple answer, and our current situation. I’m just really uncomfortable setting out to destroy people already here because of what they might do, or worse, because of what they might believe.
You kind of hit on it – there is no simple answer.
As for me? I’m what I’d like to think of as a well-educated, well-read, and well-informed man. I guess that makes me somewhat civilized (other than the fact I am a man. Talk to my wife about that!).
But whenever I read anything about Islam, I get the idea that we are at war with a religious-political-governmental system that uses torture under the guise of corporeal punishment to advance its goal of world domination. In almost every way, it scares me a helluva lot more than Communism.
As I see Islam today, it is not civilized. In fact, it has become even more brutal than it was hundreds of years ago, when it was first founded. Judaism has grown beyond the Old Testament punishments. Why can’t Islam?
I’m just sayin’ . . .
I wonder how much those police of old acted as a sort of cushion/lubrication between the two cultures. btw, this is not an attempt to rewrite history, immigrants used to want to become American. Now, they seem to just want to live here.
Extreme actions: I feel ya.
Now that is an interesting thought, TBA. If they did serve that role, I wonder if they were aware of playing it.
Good point, that.
My grandfather was an Irish cop in Westfield, MA. in the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s; I suspect that he did kind of serve as a cushion, but it was complicated. There were lots of immigrants in the town at that time, from all sorts of different places, and some of the Irish criminals were irritated with my grandfather because he didn’t give them preference over others: he tried his level best to treat everybody the same, and there were some Irish people who did not appreciate that. At one point, he was jumped by a gang of 5 or 6 men-I suspect they were probably Irish, but I don’t know if anyone other than my grandfather knew who they were-and they roughed him up pretty badly.
What amazes me is, that it took 5 or 6 men to rough him up. By all accounts, he was an incredibly tough man.
Thanks for sharing that story, Judithann. Being an Irish cop is tough enough without the crooks ganging up on you. I’m very grateful for his service, all those years ago. It took guts.