France's Muslim no-go zones

[Argus]

This makes the point that while Trump is wrong about their being 'no-go' zones in France, he's not very far wrong. The Muslim suburbs are violent and getting more violent.

Trump was wrong. There aren’t any no-go zones in France for the police. There are, however, a growing number of zones that the police enter knowing their chances of emerging unscathed are slight. In the parlance of politicians and the press, these districts are described as sensible (sensitive) or défavorisé (disadvantaged), and last year the government launched an ‘urban reconquest’ of sixty of the most troublesome with the deployment of foot patrols by police.

The police wear body armour because the men who control these sensitive zones – to the misery of the majority of law-abiding inhabitants – are at war with the Republic and anyone in uniform is regarded as an enemy.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/the-french-suburbs-where-police-rarely-escape-unscathed/

[QuebecOverCanada]

He is not wrong, this article is flat out lying.

There are no go zones in France. I lived in France, I know they exist since the 1990s.

They are called "Zones de non droit", or "No laws zone". Police doesn't patrol there, firetruckers and ambulances are escorted by armed police (most of the police don't have guns in France) and armoured cars.

[marcus]

Always trying to blame Islam. You poor scared little boys. 

These are ghettos. Kind of like what South Central L.A. was in the 80s and 90s. Or the Bronx in the 60s, 70s and 80s. 

Issues in the ghettos are all about poverty and economics and not about religion. 

[Argus]

17 minutes ago, marcus said:

Always trying to blame Islam. You poor scared little boys. 

These are ghettos. Kind of like what South Central L.A. was in the 80s and 90s. Or the Bronx in the 60s, 70s and 80s. 

Issues in the ghettos are all about poverty and economics and not about religion. 

Funny, but I don't recall a time when the police wouldn't go into South Central LA or the Bronx except in COMPANY strength.

[marcus]

37 minutes ago, Argus said:

Funny, but I don't recall a time when the police wouldn't go into South Central LA or the Bronx except in COMPANY strength.

Youth being radicalized is a symptom of poverty and despair. Not religion.

But you go on with your The Rebel and Trump talking points. Go on spreading your thoughts in the hopes that others will join you in seeing the world from your scared little boy perspective.

[dialamah]

From people who actually live in Paris and are familiar with these supposed "no-go" zones. 

"The so called "no-go zones" list is a 20 year old list of urban areas drawn up by the French government as a prelude to a series of extremely large urban regeneration plans. The zones are called "ZUS" (zone urbaine sensible) and the list was reached by taking into account population, employment rates, income levels and crime. ... At least one of the zones has a large Jewish population, another has a Catholic Cathedral. Quite a few of the zones are student campuses, because it apparently didn't occur to the list makers that many university students have low incomes."

Link

"The reality is that these zones are the same poor and underprivileged ghettos that have been neglected by the authorities for decades. In France, they are called “Zones Urbaines Sensibles” (ZUS), or Sensitive Urban Zones. Their size, crime rates, and security levels vary widely. According to reports, there is hardly a town in France that does not have at least one ZUS."

"...the claim that these neighborhoods are microstates governed by sharia law is just lame. Yes, there is concern about Muslims in the West rejecting Western values and, instead, immersing themselves in radical versions of Islam. This might also give the impression that Islamic laws are being applied instead of the laws of the land, but this is not the case."

"In fact, many of the fears expressed today regarding the integration of Muslims in the West are identical to the fears of a century ago about the integration of Catholics, who were seen as undemocratic and unpatriotic because of their perceived refusal to integrate and their allegiance to the Pope. But all that changed as Catholics paved the way to acceptance and full citizenship."

Link

I think an equivalent claim in BC would be calling the DTES a no-go zone, ruled by indigenous law or Whalley (in Surrey) a no-go zone under South Asian law.  These places have problems, no doubt, but calling them no-go zones would be ridiculous.

A description here of one of France's most notorious "no-go zone."

[Argus]

12 hours ago, marcus said:

Youth being radicalized is a symptom of poverty and despair. Not religion.

But you go on with your The Rebel and Trump talking points. Go on spreading your thoughts in the hopes that others will join you in seeing the world from your scared little boy perspective.

And you go on being the useful idiot to everyone who hates the West, just because you hate it too.

[DogOnPorch]

26 minutes ago, dialamah said:

From people who actually live in Paris and are familiar with these supposed "no-go" zones. 

"The so called "no-go zones" list is a 20 year old list of urban areas drawn up by the French government as a prelude to a series of extremely large urban regeneration plans. The zones are called "ZUS" (zone urbaine sensible) and the list was reached by taking into account population, employment rates, income levels and crime. ... At least one of the zones has a large Jewish population, another has a Catholic Cathedral. Quite a few of the zones are student campuses, because it apparently didn't occur to the list makers that many university students have low incomes."

 

 

There you go: the fellow that lived there is wrong and those darn Catholics and Jews are just as violent as the worshipers of Allah.

[Argus]

32 minutes ago, dialamah said:

From people who actually live in Paris and are familiar with these supposed "no-go" zones.

Nothing you quoted contradicts what was in the Spectator article.

I think an equivalent claim in BC would be calling the DTES a no-go zone, ruled by indigenous law or Whalley (in Surrey) a no-go zone under South Asian law. 

Are the police afraid to enter these areas except in company strength? Do they have mob attacks every time they do enter?

Edited September 16, 2019 by Argus

[Moonlight Graham]

14 hours ago, marcus said:

Always trying to blame Islam. You poor scared little boys. 

These are ghettos. Kind of like what South Central L.A. was in the 80s and 90s. Or the Bronx in the 60s, 70s and 80s. 

Issues in the ghettos are all about poverty and economics and not about religion. 

You're not wrong that many of these neighbourhoods are low-income.  Go to most cities in Canada and the poorest neighbours with the highest crime have a very high % of immigrants.

Many of these people aren't economic migrants.  These are less uneducated people brought in as asylum seekers over the decades, refugees and the like.  A refugee from the middle east or Africa etc. (or anywhere else) who is not capable of attaining an average Canadian salary because of low education and skills should not be allowed into the country.  Syrian refugees should be welcomed in modest numbers only if they'll be able to adapt economically and not contribute to these run-down, low income, high crime areas.  Otherwise, let them flee to Jordan or Egypt or any other country in the world that is more comparable economically.

You can't expect most any person of the age of 40 with children and poor education, especially when the father is missing, to be able to magically become a highly educated and economically valuable, even if you give them free education.  More likely they will raise their kids in poverty, and their kids may get into trouble and join gangs.  These people are "riff-raff".  We don't bring in that many refugees annually, thus we should be able to be selective in who we do, and not compromise our communities and make them more violent in the name of helping people.  We can help people but also protect ourselves at the same time.  I have no problem temporarily protecting people truly fleeing for their lives, but we should be able to relocate them, and if they're truly desperate they will comply.  This requires a change in the refugee regime we abide to, but the UN should not control us.  Canada has sovereignty.

[Moonlight Graham]

41 minutes ago, Argus said:

Are the police afraid to enter these areas except in company strength? Do they have mob attacks every time they do enter?

If they want violence, and violence is all that will force them to comply with the law, then give them violence.  Bring in the military.  Those who do not comply with law and order will be arrested, those who resist with violence will be shot.  They need to be shown who runs the show.  Politicians too politically correct and afraid to do what needs to be done should be removed.

It now takes a man as horribly arrogant and ignorant as Trump to do these things.  That's how cowardly most politicians are to do what needs to be done, for fear of offending.

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If they want violence, and violence is all that will force them to comply with the law, then give them violence.  Bring in the military.  Those who do not comply with law and order will be arrested, those who resist with violence will be shot.  They need to be shown who runs the show.  Politicians too politically correct and afraid to do what needs to be done should be removed.

It now takes a man as horribly arrogant and ignorant as Trump to do these things.  That's how cowardly most politicians are to do what needs to be done, for fear of offending.

Don't mistake Trump for being the least bit brave. He's not. He's always been a coward and remains one. He only says and does things which he thinks appeals to his base. He's always been a salesman - and a dishonest one, according to those who worked with him. He'll say whatever he thinks the customer wants to make a sale. In this case the customer is the Republican voter.

You are correct about the cowardice of most politicians, however, including all the ones here with the possible exception of Bernier.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

There you go: the fellow that lived there is wrong and those darn Catholics and Jews are just as violent as the worshipers of Allah.

Where did I or anyone say that Catholics/Jews were are violent? I'm merely pointing out that these are diverse neighborhoods and not "Muslim strongholds".

[Shady]

50 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Where did I or anyone say that Catholics/Jews were are violent? I'm merely pointing out that these are diverse neighborhoods and not "Muslim strongholds".

But they're not diverse neighborhoods.  

[dialamah]

23 minutes ago, Shady said:

But they're not diverse neighborhoods.  

Christians, Jews and atheists live in those neighborhoods, as well as Muslims.  How is that not diverse?

[Goddess]

24 minutes ago, Shady said:

But they're not diverse neighborhoods.  

I don't think she read the article.  It's just a knee-jerk "Don't say anything bad about Islam or you're a racist" response.

From the article:

Quote

A policeman called Camille said there were indeed inner-city housing estates where firefighters and ambulance refuse to go. The police brave them, but only in company strength, and even then they’ll usually meet a barrage of something, be it stones or abuse. Speaking in 2016, Camille noted that the hostility had strengthened since the murder of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists the previous year. ‘This is only the start,’ one youth had shouted at Camille’s unit. ‘You’ll see… in a few years, Allah will be in power.’

 

[dialamah]

Just now, Goddess said:

I don't think she read the article.  It's just a knee-jerk "Don't say anything bad about Islam or you're a racist" response.

And, not surprisingly, you are unable to follow a thread.  

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

At least one of the zones has a large Jewish population, another has a Catholic Cathedral. Quite a few of the zones are student campuses, because it apparently didn't occur to the list makers that ma

 

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

The reality is that these zones are the same poor and underprivileged ghettos that have been neglected by the authorities for decades. In France, they are called “Zones Urbaines Sensibles” (ZUS), or Sensitive Urban Zones. Their size, crime rates, and security levels vary widely. According to reports, there is hardly a town in France that does not have at least one ZUS

Also from Argus' article:

"The ‘yellow vest’ movement has contributed to the sharp rise in 2019. The street protest that began last November at the planned introduction of a fuel tax was subsequently hijacked by far-left extremists who enjoy nothing more than attacking the police"

So is it Muslims, or "The Left" that have created these dangerous zones?  Can you guys maybe get your stories straight?

As I've already quoted: 

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

In fact, many of the fears expressed today regarding the integration of Muslims in the West are identical to the fears of a century ago about the integration of Catholics, who were seen as undemocratic and unpatriotic because of their perceived refusal to integrate and their allegiance to the Pope. But all that changed as Catholics paved the way to acceptance and full citizenship

Think about this - many of fears you are expressing about Muslims are the same fears people expressed about Catholics, once upon a time.  

[Goddess]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So is it Muslims, or "The Left" that have created these dangerous zones?  Can you guys maybe get your stories straight?

From the article:

Quote

The violence is worsening. Figures released last month by the government revealed that in the first seven months of 2019 there had been 23,000 assaults against security forces, firefighters and ambulance crews, a 15 per cent rise from the same period in 2018. Overall, the number of violent assaults against the emergency services has rocketed by 60 per cent in the last twenty years.

There was already an issue in these areas before the Yellow Vest Movement.  The Charlie Hebdo attacks made it worse and then:

Quote

The ‘yellow vest’ movement has contributed to the sharp rise in 2019.

....... because:

Quote

In Islamic extremists, the far-left now have an ally in their conflict with the police.

......which matches what many are coming to realize - that some apologists for Islam are only such because they like that Islam hates who they hate.

 

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Think about this - many of fears you are expressing about Muslims are the same fears people expressed about Catholics, once upon a time.

Think about this:  I see YOUR counterpart in those German citizens who made excuse after excuse for increasing Nazi atrocities, except you do it for Islam.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

Think about this:  I see YOUR counterpart in those German citizens who made excuse after excuse for increasing Nazi atrocities, except you do it for Islam.

It was the Nazis spreading propaganda about Jews that ultimately led to German citizens either supporting, doing nothing, or opposing the propaganda machine, often at risk to themselves.

Propaganda marginalizes and demonizes a group by spreading "information" about the group's goals, behavior, threat to public order, threat to women, threat to the economy, threat to the culture, threat to social cohesion.  

These themes have been used regularly to whip up sentiment against outsiders, whether those outsiders have been Japanese, Eastern Europeans, Catholics or any other group.  The same themes permeate the anti-Islam rhetoric presented on this forum by Argus, DoP and you.  

You also might stop and think about how many of those themes are used by religious organizations to keep their members too scared to leave *including Islam*.

Is it any wonder I'm so hard to persuade, when I see so much rhetoric that looks just like anti-Jew and anti-Japanese rhetoric from the second world war?

[Goddess]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Is it any wonder I'm so hard to persuade, when I see so much rhetoric that looks just like anti-Jew and anti-Japanese rhetoric from the second world war?

So basically, ANY criticism of Islam is "rhetoric" to you.

Because, just for starters, you include "threat to women" in there - which Islam definitely is.  That is not rhetoric.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Don't mistake Trump for being the least bit brave. He's not. He's always been a coward and remains one. He only says and does things which he thinks appeals to his base. He's always been a salesman - and a dishonest one, according to those who worked with him. He'll say whatever he thinks the customer wants to make a sale. In this case the customer is the Republican voter.

You are correct about the cowardice of most politicians, however, including all the ones here with the possible exception of Bernier.

Trump does and says what he wants and doesn't care who gets offended.  It takes a lot of arrogance to do that, it also takes balls.  We can call Trump a lot of things, I wouldn't call him a coward politically.  for better or worse, he takes on all opposition, even spites them. 

[dialamah]

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

So basically, ANY criticism of Islam is "rhetoric" to you.

Nope. I have criticized Islam's attitude toward women, gay people, anti-Semitism expressed by Imams, apostates, the lack of human rights in Islamic countries, child marriage, especially in Iran because its legally sanctioned, FGM anywhere, including among Muslims, terrorist activity among extremists, and the extreme punishments some countries claim as part of Sharia.

What I don't agree with is the fear-mongering rhetoric that Muslims are a threat to our culture/economy/women/children/gay people or that there is an agenda among nearly 2 billion Muslims to take over the world, that Muslims hate Westerners or that Muslims hate democracy.  

I think the situation in these sensitive areas are long-standing and are more related to marginalization and poverty than to Muslims out to destroy democracy.   

But hey, you can boil down my thoughts to a simplistic "don't criticize Islam" as that's apparently easier for you than employing a smattering of critical thinking.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Trump does and says what he wants and doesn't care who gets offended.  It takes a lot of arrogance to do that, it also takes balls

Oh please. You've fallen for a sales gambit. Trump has no balls. He's been a coward his whole life. Look at how fast he retreated from his "I don't care what the NRA thinks" as soon as they express disapproval.  Trump is desperate for praise and cheers. He will say whatever he thinks brings that. The instant those cheers halt he reverses himself. He caved on the wall, and then when some of the conservative media pundits started criticizing him he immediately reversed himself.

He doesn't care what LIBERALS get offended, because he knows he will never get cheers or votes from them anyway, but he cares deeply what his base thinks.

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

 

What I don't agree with is the fear-mongering rhetoric that Muslims are a threat to our culture/economy/women/children/gay people or that there is an agenda among nearly 2 billion Muslims to take over the world, that Muslims hate Westerners or that Muslims hate democracy.  

 

And I see Islam as being a threat to women and gays and Jews, because that is what is happening and not just in Muslim countries.  You may not want that talked about, but some of us think that is pretty important.  When France is saying it's difficult for Jewish kids to even get an education, when Muslims are violently attacking free speech in nearly every country, when women are still walking around in burqas and young girls in hijabs, when the most popular tshirt for Muslims is a shirt that says "2030 - then we take over" and making comments like the one in the above article "You'll see - in a few years Allah will be in power", when almost 80% of UK Muslims want Sharia law instead of democracy.......Sorry, but "They don't really mean that" and "Not ALL of them want that"  coming from you, isn't very reassuring.

Yes, Dia - we all "get" that not ALL Muslims are the same.  But there are far more bad ones out there than apologists like to admit.

[CITIZEN_2015]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

Don't mistake Trump for being the least bit brave. He's not. He's always been a coward and remains one. He only says and does things which he thinks appeals to his base. He's always been a salesman - and a dishonest one, according to those who worked with him. He'll say whatever he thinks the customer wants to make a sale. In this case the customer is the Republican voter.

Indeed he is a coward and a liar. All talk and no action. Full f hot air and bluffs but no action. He has the most powerful military and use it in a positive way to make the world more secure and better for everyone but he is too coward to use it. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by CITIZEN_2015