Politicians in denial about no-go areas

Michael Nazir Ali has been upsetting people again, warning of no-go zones for non-Muslims in British cities.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Hazel Blears responded by denying that such areas exist, Nick Clegg and William Hague said that the Bishop had not produced any evidence to back his claim and a number of Muslim groups called for his resignation.

Perhaps the Bishop should have given a few examples. He could have quoted from this report by Bradford's former Race Relations Adviser:

[T]here is a drive amongst the mosque-attending older generation who would like sharia areas.  There is also the minority of highly disaffected young men who want to control their patches.  These two opposite ends of the spectrum desire the same thing albeit for different reasons and it is likely that they will support each other in order to attain their goals.

There are significant groups of young men who are heavily involved in drug dealing and abuse, gang activities and crime.  They are often abusive and threatening to white people in their areas and appear in significant and intimidating groups in the town centre area.  No-one within their own communities seem prepared to challenge them or call them to order.  However, these same young men, for the most part, profess their belief in Islam, do not drink alcohol and the vast majority will accept the arranged marriage.  Their parents claim to have no control over them yet these young men do not kick against certain fundamentals.

I believe that the parents do have some control, that they have a tacit agreement with their young men which basically requires them to accept the strictures on drinking and the arranged marriage in return for no interference in other aspects of their young men’s lives.  This simply reflects their priorities:-  the commitment to Islam, the prohibition on drink and the arranged marriage are more important than other aspects.  There is a parental fear, no doubt well-founded, that if they exert pressure in other areas then they will lose their sons’ commitments in those three vital areas.  It works for them but is a recipe for chaos in the rest of the community.

Or he might have talked about the Clichy estate in East London, where Muslim youths used machetes against a group of unsuspecting white people who trespassed on their turf. He could also have mentioned Christopher Yates, who was killed for inadvertently "interfering in Paki business"; code for being in an area his murderers considered their own.

Of course, none of this is to say that only Muslims create no-go areas. There are parts of our towns and cities where not being white or African or West Indian could get you into trouble too. Ethnic and religious no-go areas have existed for years and are an inevitable by-product of increasingly segregated cities.

For many people, no-go areas are a fact of life in the districts where they live. Politicians and columnists can't just wish them out of existence.

Comments

[Les Bean]

Good post. Yazz takes the usual liberal "Shoot the messenger" line. If the messenger had been a white bishop, it's quite possible he'd have been arrested by now. He certainly wouldn't have kept his post.

"Of course, none of this is to say that only Muslims create no-go areas. There are parts of our towns and cities where not being white or African or West Indian could get you into trouble too."

White strangers can get attacked in white areas, let alone ethnic ones, but mass immigration has made this old problem much worse, like many others. But the lies about how it's enriched us carry on, from all main parties.

[Wolfie]

But your have to admit Steve, Londoner to Londoner that these no-go areas are rapidly expanding and it’s the Whites who have the most to fear. Admittedly sometime from our own.

[Rastaman]

Interesting post. I just put one up as well about your brave bishop and a few other things.

Here in the States Nazir Ali would be considered a "good ol' boy" and be well supported by the community for his stand.

This kind of crap is the direct result of multiculturalism. When immigrants cultures are protected like an endangered species of some sort, you end up with radical, exclusionary communities of all types.

One thing you could do to stop the inflow and reverse it would be to put an end to the dole. People come to Britain for the chance of getting onto the national dole, and then, after getting it, discover that the limited income puts them at the very bottom of the social ladder with no opportunity to rise up.

So there they are, stuck in a mini-version of the place they left, in a life of degradation just like before. Hell yes, they're angry.

Your government created this. By making other cultures more sacred than your own, which along with the dole created cultural ghettos. Get rid of the dole and replace it with jobs at a slightly higher pay rate. Create food-related industries, sell the food back to the workers, thus recouping part of their wages. Build decent housing for them with them being paid to build, then rent to them and as they move in, tear down the ghettos.

This is basic, obvious stuff, which is no doubt why it will never be implemented.

Rasta
www.IslamaNazi.com

[aDM]

Not necesarily Rasta. This is a good looking start

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7176707.stm

and so you have similar issues from what i've read.

[Rastaman]

Damn! That's great! I hope it's widely implemented. And yes, we do have similar issues here. Not as severe as yours because the dole is a state issue rather than a national one, and most states look unfavorably on long-term welfare. California is one of the few exceptions and that's changing.

Rasta

[Kaffir]

Hazel Blears, speaking from the safety of her Ivory Tower.