Lauren Southern prohibited from a Muslim “no go” zone in Sydney, Australia

July 29, 2018 • 8:45 am

It is necessary—but should be superfluous—for me to begin this post by saying I have no truck with Lauren Southern. A darling of extreme right-wingers everywhere, she’s a nativist, a jingoist, an anti-immigrant activisit, and, I suspect, a white supremacist. You might contest the latter characterization, but there’s no doubt that she’s a bigot.

Nevertheless, she has the right to speak and the right to go anywhere she wants in public. In this encounter, though, she wants to enter to a “no go” part of Sydney, Australia inhabited largely by Muslims. There’s no doubt she wanted to stir up trouble, as she did when she and her minions distributed “Allah is gay” flyers in Luton, England. The thing is, she has a right to do that; and, indeed, calling public attention to Islamic homophobia or sharia law has its beneficial side. Just as I’d defend anybody’s right to utter offensive speech, and just as the ACLU defended the American Nazi Party’s right to march in uniform and display swastikas in the largely Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois in 1977, I emphatically defend Southern’s right to say and do what she wants in public.

But there’s no First Amendment, I guess, in the Australian constitution. Here, in a 4-minute video, an Aussie police inspector tries to keep Southern from entering a “no go” zone”: the Sydney suburb of Lakemba. His reason? He has “grave concerns that she might cause a breach of the peace” because the area is “highly religious”:

Regardless of what you think of Southern, her counterarguments are sound: any “breach of the peace” would be the fault of those who would cause the trouble, not Southern. The cop, in fact, tells her that she isn’t allowed to enter the area and almost threatens her with arrest. He asks her “why do you want to criticize Islam?”, when in fact his warning answers that very question.

This, and the no-go zones in Paris I talked about yesterday, where Jews are unsafe, indicates how thoroughly the Muslims have insulated themselves from criticism—indeed, from the presence of non-Muslims!—in some parts of the West.  While street harassment of that type is not unique to Islam—I’m told there are parts of Jerusalem where those dressed “provocatively” on the Sabbath will be harassed by Orthodox Jews—the problem of “no-go” zones is largely due to the threat of Muslim offense. That threat is what has made this cop a coward, and has made the French government timorous when it comes to that nation’s burgeoning anti-Semitism.

If we allow Muslims, or those of any faith, to silence dissent by making threats of violence, then we might as well prohibit any cartoons that mock, disparate, or criticize religion, like the magazine Charlie Hebdo. Indeed, we might just silence any speech that offends someone else. And lest you say that the cop’s argument is sound because Southern’s presence might cause “imminent violence,” it is not a call for imminent violence, something that’s illegal under the courts’ construal of the American First Amendment. The call for violence comes from the Muslims who would attack her, not from Southern.

191 thoughts on “Lauren Southern prohibited from a Muslim “no go” zone in Sydney, Australia

  1. It’s actually worse than a free speech issue. It is state approved segregation, kind of familiar to most in the U.S. for other reasons. Intimidation is an awful thing.

    1. I think “approved” is too strong a word. The state did not force muslims to settle in Lakemba, the state merely recognises the fact that there are a lot of them there.

      Who is intimidating whom? I think it can be argued that intimidation was part of Southern’s purpose.

  2. I’m puzzled. Since any adherents to the Religion of Peace would, of course, be entirely peaceful, why on earth would that policeman anticipate a breach of the peace?

    Can anyone help me out here?

  3. I would not be too harsh on the cop, he possibly saved her from serious bodily harm, if not death.
    Note, I fully agree that ‘no-go’ zones are totally unacceptable. We do not only find them in Australia or Paris, but all over Western Europe.
    But if you plan a crack-down on no-go zones (in itself not necessarily a bad idea), it should be in cooperation with the police, if not carried out by the police, not a dangerous individual action. And the strategy should be well thought through as to avoid preventable violence as much as possible. I don’t have a patent answer here, but no-go zones should be out.

    1. Isn’t the correct police response to see this as a golden opportunity? She’s the bait, you ask kindly for a live feed of her video, and supply a few plainclothesmen… and a bunch more in uniform one street over.

      Anyone who lifts a finger you can immediately arrest… and ideally deport, or at least harass severely, check their tax records are squeaky clean, make sure their restaurants don’t have a single e-coli, etc.

      If the goal was to clean this up, you could be proactive like this. Rather than just allowing the threat of committing crimes to make everyone shy away.

      1. a-non: Do you really think the authorities are looking for a pretext to manufacture trouble? That’s Southern’s thing.

        It would also be fascist tactics.

        (I’m a little surprised to be defending the police, here, it’s not the side I’m normally on).

        If ordinary people were being hassled, that might be different. But the cop said they weren’t. Why would you believe Southern rather than him?


        1. Yes actually. If ordinary people have learned not to do something, for fear of crimes, then no crimes are being committed, and a purely reactive police force cannot do anything. But given one volunteer to be the canary, they can go and lay down the law.

          But first they have to notice that there is a problem. And be prepared to have less pretty figures on their spreadsheets this year.

          Imagine instead if this was a segregated school we were discussing, where the black parents knew damn well they dare not send their kids… so none do, so nobody gets hurt. The solution to this problem is clear: you recruit one volunteer, and send the national guard in to make damn sure nobody touches her.

          Is this fascist, really? It involves a willingness to assert what values your society holds, and does not hold. The civil rights movement did this.

      2. I’m not sure it is legal to provoke someone to commit an illegal act. Furthermore what you suggest in your second par amounts to harassment, and would probably also be considered illegal.

        Have you considered the probability that a lot of the people who live in Lakemba are actually Australian citizens?

    2. I’m not sure there are any ‘no-go’ zones in Sydney. It seems to have been a phrase invented by Southern.


      1. That is what I think! US faux (Fox?) media invented “no go” zones in Sweden, what I heard. We don’t have such.

        1. What, are you guys looking for these things on Google maps?

          I lived for a short time in Ft Lauderdale and knew that as a white man I could not go into neighborhoods west of the freeway without serious risk. I grew up near Boston and there were neighborhoods on the South Side that black men didn’t dare go.

          No no-go zones in Australia or Sweden? I’m not buying it for a minute. They exist everywhere.

          1. mikey, not every country is exactly like yours. You might find it incredible that in some countries you can trespass on someone else’s lawn without risking being shot.

            Depends what you call a ‘no-go zone’.
            Are there no-go zones in Auckland? There are a few neighbourhoods where I wouldn’t leave my car parked overnight in case it got nicked. There are a few places where I wouldn’t advise a young woman to walk unaccompanied after midnight on Saturday night, just in case some drunk guy hit on her. But places where people of any description shouldn’t go in daylight? – no.
            Sydney is probably the same.


          2. But places where people of any description shouldn’t go in daylight?

            Obviously not “people of any description”, I think mikeyc was clear about that. The “no-go zones” people like Southern are talking about are simply the Muslim versions.

          3. The police officer provides evidence to the contrary, infiniteimprob.

            This situation is completely different than your examples of stolen cars and drunks attacking women at night. In all of those the police would, if present, be responsible for protecting your car, arresting the drunk. They would not prevent you from parking or her from walking.

          4. Well, I don’t know about Sidney os Sweden, but they definitely exist in Belgium or France.

        2. From Wikipedia:
          “In a 2017 interview with the conservative opinion magazine Weekly Standard’s Paulina Neuding (sv), Gordon Grattidge, the head of the Swedish ambulance drivers’ union, stated that there were areas where it is too dangerous for rescue workers to enter without police protection, using the English term “no-go zones” to describe them…”

          1. So then you’re advocating a police state rather than a free country.

            The police can shut down anything merely by saying that it will “stir up trouble”. So we no longer have the right to criticise religions or government policy or go on a protest march, because it might “stir up trouble” and the police should prevent that?

          2. I am not advocating a police state. A police state is not a necessary consequence of what I suggested.

            Frankly I find your poorly thought out comments disgusting and offensive. It is a rabid overreaction.

            Once more for the slow readers. In Australia we have a Racial Discrimination Act:

            “Section 18C of the RDA makes it is unlawful for a person to do an act in public if it is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person of a certain race, colour or national or ethnic origin, and the act was done because of one or more of those characteristics.”

            Check it out on Wikipedia. Australians have lived under the RDA since 1975. Is Australia a police state? Clearly not.

            In the US police regularly gun down people, often black, for appropriate reason, in numbers that far outstrips anything in the rest of the western world. If any western country has a police state I suggest that is the good ole US of A, where police officers gun down innocent people with impunity. How’s the case of Justine Diamond going?

          3. You implied that the police can stop someone going somewhere merely on the vague grounds that they might “stir up trouble”. That’s way too much power to give to the police and makes things akin to a police state.

    3. “I would not be too harsh on the cop, he possibly saved her from serious bodily harm, if not death.”

      So there you go, mass Muslim immigration is a very bad idea.

      1. But it is not up to an individual cop to change the mistaken policies of his country.
        I think he tried to -and did- prevent some serious violence, and I think that is not to be dismissed. As said, I’d be not to harsh on him.

  4. I have watched many of Lauren’s vids. I can assure you, she is neither a white supremacist nor a bigot.

    1. She’s part of the Identitarian Movement. That’s a Far Right nationalist movement that also shades into the Neo Fascist scene, and that’s already a charitable interpretation.

      They know that the Far Right have a reputation problem, and seek to make Fascism Great Again, by rebranding it. This is why only the facts on the ground matter, and what political scientists observe, not what Southern and their numerous apologists (who follow this rebranding strategy) say into a camera.

      1. I am sure if Churchill was alive today many people would brand him as Fascist.

        I think we should take degrees of white nationalism and fascism into account.

        1. Nonsense. You are either a useful idiot, or someone who plays along with that game. Either way, there is no important distinction to make. People like Southern are anti-democrats and that’s what matters.

          1. “You are either for or against immigration”

            Is this the kind of simple narratives we must engage in?
            Don’t you realize that even people you despise like Southern have some valid points?

          2. You’re shifting the goal posts. Being critical of immigration occurs across the spectrum, one need no Lauren Southern and her ilk for that. The reasons also matter. Southern’s are ethno-nationalist, identitarian, and racist.

          3. “Being critical of immigration occurs across the spectrum”

            I am not American but I am very sceptical about your assertion. As far as I can tell immigration has become a racist litmus test, thus I think democrats that want to control illegal immigration are in hiding.

          4. I am not American either. There are others beside Democrats, especially internationally to turn to. Southern and the likes started as “Anti-SJW” or opposed to “Regressives” along with the corner now dubbed IDW. She then quit Rebel Media, already Far Right, and went full (real) Alt-Right or Identitarian Movement (internationally). She makes no secret about it, or her newfound identitarian views. The identitarian movement is well-documented, too, and it’s trivial to find out about them.

        2. “… we should take degrees of white nationalism and fascism into account.”

          You can take degrees of fascism and white nationalism into account if you want. Not me. And not any other US patriot. There’s nothing more un-American.

  5. I’m sure the policeman is simply pointing out that there are places in Sydney that a scantily clad young woman should not go to because of the very real danger she may provoke a crime to be committed.

  6. For an account of the Haredi no-go district in Jerusalem, see the Wikipedia entry on Mea Shearim. Posters warn women against immodest dress on any day of the week, and driving through (or using a cellphone) on Shabbat could be dangerous to your health. However, super-orthodox Jews are not able to create such neighborhoods in Sydney, or the environs of Paris, or even Brooklyn.

    1. In Antwerp there is a fully Hassidic quarter, but you can walk there without being harassed in the least, something that cannot be said of several Muslim quarters, especially if you are a woman walking alone.

          1. Argh, thanks for the heads-up, Ken. I shoulda paid attention to who was posting that!

            Sorry, Eric!

  7. Contrast the treatment of Lauren Southern who was trying to do what is legal to do with the adulation of Erlin Ersson , who held up commercial aviation in Sweden at no risk to herself.

  8. Southern is nothing but a troublemaker, and not in a good cause. I don’t see why she should be allowed to deliberately exacerbate tensions in someone else’s country. Southern is NOT campaigning on behalf of free speech, I doubt she gives a fig for the principle, she just uses it as a convenient tool to spread her prejudices and a shield to hide behind. I totally disagree that she has “a right … to stir up trouble”.

    How much deliberate verbal provocation is someone allowed to engage in before the resulting fracas becomes their fault? I don’t think ‘free speech’ (however you choose to define it) is an absolute right, nor do I think it’s a panacea. It isn’t allowed on this website, for example, where anyone behaving like Southern would be quickly banned. If free speech was as vital and efficacious as it is claimed to be, surely the US with its talismanic First Amendment should be a much better place than other countries that don’t have it?

    And what’s with calling the cop a coward? He’s doing his job. Does anyone want to claim
    that he had no grounds for thinking Southern would cause a disturbance if she could? I am also very reluctant to judge anything on the basis of a video shot and edited by one side. Does anyone believe that if Southern had managed to walk through the area and failed to cause a kerfuffle, that she’d have reported it?


    1. First, this is not a government run web site. However lets assume the cop was in the U.S. Then it include a free speech aspect.

      1. I always find this a curious argument. So ‘free speech’ can only be infringed by a government? I would have thought the principle was the same regardless of who was controlling the situation.


        1. The principles aren’t the same because one involves legal protections and the other does not. How is this hard to grasp?

          1. Only in the USA.

            Are you saying that, say, an Internet Service Provider who selectively censors certain articles *isn’t* infringing free speech?


          2. Mathstutorwirral brought up the KKK and Charlottesville. Randall specified the US. The subthread is about government, free speech, and US law. The principles aren’t the same.

          3. I thought it was about Southern stirring up shit in Australia. US law doesn’t apply there.


          4. As I see it, this is one reason why U.S. conservative ideologues, for all their talk of “freedom,” want smaller government and want to privatize as much as possible, so as to allow private corporate tyrannies (re: “Chainsaw Al” Dunlap and “Neutron Jack” Welch and their ilk) as much as possible to do as they please regarding flesh-and-blood human beings.

          5. Yes and since privatizing is generally the opposite of what people think, meaning higher cost for the tax payer and lousy service it is a disaster. I wonder why people cannot think of free speech, a protection in the bill of rights, as a restriction on government, not incitement to the people. If you insist on free speech from every other company or firm you may be suing these firms your whole life. Good for the lawyers.

        2. “Free speech” as an abstract principle can be violated by anyone placing a restriction on expression. The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution can be violated only by the government, since it addresses only governmental restraints on speech (“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …”).

          1. Thank you Ken, for clarifying the issue around the point I was trying to make.


    2. Oh, and I just tried Googling for “No go” zones in Sydney and it appears that this is a phrase invented by Lauren Southern, and echoed by a few right-wing sites. In other words, it’s complete BS.

      The only older reference to ‘no-go’ zones in Sydney that I can find is a discussion on TripAdvisor, about which areas tourists should avoid late at night (consensus seems to be, there are a few, but no worse than any large city).

      It’s unfortunate to see it echoed here as if it was a fact.

      (And I don’t like religion, but I just hate to see rabble-rousers like Southern given any credence whatever).

      1. Well the police certainly know where it’s not safe to go. Maybe the guy in the video prefers some term other than no-go-zone… you think he’s some kind of figment of Southern’s imagination?

        1. I think the video is biassed as hell.

          And, based on Southern’s past actions, the cop had good cause to be suspicious of what she might do.


          1. Probably, based on her past actions, stood in front of the mosque and done an inflammatory ‘piece to camera’ and kept going until someone objected, thus ‘proving’ her point. Or even summoned the cops to get her removed as a nuisance. Which Southern would then have portrayed as ‘angry mob’ or ‘religious bigots’ or ‘police censorship’ or whatever suited her.

            Surely the definition of a ‘no-go zone’ would be, would an ordinary citizen walking through there and minding their own business experience any trouble? I’m not in Sydney, I can’t say. But Lauren Southern proves nothing.

          2. @coel

            You are improperly distorting the issue. Standing in the street and taking into a camera allowable action. Disturbing the peace is not.

      2. I reacted to the blind echoing of a term that was misused to convey conspiracy theory on Sweden by Fox News and the US designated president. Southern is likely full of it.

      3. “In other words, it’s complete BS.”
        More likely exaggerated, but I take your point – I know nothing about the situation in Australia.

        However – my question to you:
        Do you agree that there are neighborhoods in European cities with unhealthy muslim majorities where secular laws are being replaced by Sharia and non-muslims intimidated and police cannot function without the “blessing” of the muslim community?

        1. Eric Grobler hand wavey fear mongering is so easy to do, but much harder when names are named. Please name examples of districts of European cities that fit this assertion of yours rather than expecting others to do the heavy lifting:-

          “…there are neighborhoods in European cities with unhealthy muslim majorities where secular laws are being replaced by Sharia and non-muslims intimidated and police cannot function without the “blessing” of the muslim community”

          Also please provide an example of what an “unhealthy Muslim majority” is – is there a healthy Muslim majority anywhere?

      4. I doubt the expression ‘no go zones’ was invented by Ms Southern (what’s in a name?). I had never heard about Ms Southern , but no-go zones are long standing, they just got bigger and more numerous in recent years.

    3. ” I don’t see why she should be allowed to deliberately exacerbate tensions in someone else’s country”

      I would point out that large Muslim populations in Western Countries threatens Western democratic values and social cohesion. What is the biggest threat – Lauren Southern or Islamic doctrine?

      1. Definitely the latter. No contest. Empathically no contest. But that does not imply the likes of Ms Southern are not dangerous.

    4. “I totally disagree that she has “a right … to stir up trouble”.”

      In which case anyone can shut down anyone merely by saying that their speech will “stir up trouble”.

      How about all the Muslim reformers and apostates such as Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ali Rizvi, they have no right to criticise Islam since that will only “stir up trouble”?

      1. You’re shifting the goalposts.

        It all depends on circumstances and Southern has a track record of agitation.

        The circumstances are relevant and critical.


          1. By ‘agitation’ he means ‘blasphemy’.

            Lauren Southern is on record as handing out leaflets saying ‘Allah is a gay God’.

            Highly religious people get agitated when there is blasphemy.

          2. “Highly religious people get agitated when there is blasphemy.”

            So what?

            I guess I get “agitated” by instances of racism, sexism, hell, just plain rudeness. I wouldn’t dream of resorting to violence.

      2. ‘“I totally disagree that she has “a right … to stir up trouble”.”

        ‘In which case anyone can shut down anyone merely by saying that their speech will “stir up trouble”.’

        The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The opinion says nothing about shutting down “anyone” and does nothing to facilitate it. You are spouting rubbish.

        1. In this case, the police shut down the only person who was trying to call attention to the problem. I don’t think anyone else trying to do the same would be treated differently.

    5. I agree. We don’t subscribe to the USA’s “First Amendment” and we don’t want these people here. They are not here to further a cause or engage in a relevant debate. They are here to stir up trouble and hatred. Immigration law in Australia and NZ is none of their business, and I resent Americans trying to impose their dysfunctional crap on us. Here, “freedom of speech…” goes along with “…within reason”.

  9. There is a brief biography of Lauren Southern on Wikipedia. There is a link in the article to “White genocide conspiracy theory”. This article contains a list of 13 proponents, of which 4 are Canadian. Just sayin.

  10. Honestly, what is a “no go” zone and does Australia have them?

    I have to ask since I heard that some media in US labeled some of Sweden’s city blokc as “no go”, but we have no such designation! The official list has “especially exposed areas” where there is a wide spread unwillingness to cooperate with official authorities (e.g. police) [ ]. But that does not mean there is a problem to “go” there.

    1. ” But that does not mean there is a problem to “go” there.”

      That does not mean you can take your dog for a walk wearing a kippah.

  11. I’m of two minds about this. It seems to me that our socieites only function because everyone also tries to not go out of their way to annoy everyone else. When everyone uses their alotted time to practice their violin after another, they can legally drive their neighbours insane. Why not meet up near the library and have a jam-session there? Or play samba outside the fence of the cemetary during a burial. Maybe the local heavy-drinking soccer fans and hooligan chapter can meet in front of the LGTB center, as is their legal right. In turn, the Gay Parade could take place deliberately in the Muslim-majority district. Everyone could attend a concert, but instead of listening, could put their fingers into their ears, visibly to the performers. What’s the outrage? It’s your right to stick your finger into your ears.

    I think this case stands for something else. The narrative here is that Muslims have “taken over” some part of the town, and this take-over is protected by the police. In reality, 1) police are often instructed to de-escalate. 2) our societies work because we generally try to be not annoying 3) in a free society, a group can believe their spook and meet at a place. All of these things are perfectly innocent.

    The other side is that Islam is (on average) intolerant, and with a sectarian ingroup mentality, which I deem incompatible with an open society, which isn’t equipped to deal with local majorities that impose their own rules. See the paradox of tolerance.

    1. well put, Aneris. Southern is a nothing more than a provocateur of the worst sort. She has manufactured this stunt because she knows she can use our understanding of how our society is supposed to work to her advantage. The Muslims, the police -and all the rest of us- are playing her game.

      1. “The Muslims, the police -and all the rest of us- are playing her game.”

        Really? If the Muslim community would have violently attacked Southern for asking “insulting questions” they would have been tricked into a violent response?

        1. I mean that that is exactly what Southern is trying to provoke – she knows how everyone is going to respond and that’s the sum total of her effort; she’s using that knowledge to her own ends.

          There are no good guys here – not Southern, not the Muslims in that suburb, not the police and not the rest of us for playing along.

          1. “I mean that that is exactly what Southern is trying to provoke ”
            I agree with your assessment, and we can also assume she is an attention seeking narcissist.

            However the elephant in the room is that this
            narcissist has a point and we all know that a violent reponse from a muslim community is likely because Islam is a violent religion.

          2. That still does not give her the right to stir up trouble, by any means. She may have been guilty of breaking the law …

            ‘Section 18C of the [Racial Discrimination Act] makes it is unlawful for a person to do an act in public if it is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person of a certain race, colour or national or ethnic origin, and the act was done because of one or more of those characteristics.

            ‘Exemptions are provided in section 18D, including acts relating to artistic works, genuine academic or scientific purposes, fair reporting, and fair comment on matters of public interest.’

            – Wikipedia

            Besides, in Australia the Roman Catholic Church probably represents the greatest threat of any religion.

          3. It doesn’t matter that there are no good guys here. By “disturbance of the peace,” I think it’s unlikely that the cop meant “shouting match.” It appears that physical violence is the threat, and I’m sure Southern is too canny to initiate that herself.

          4. Well not necessarily. We have enough white, nationalistic yobbos who are ready, willing, and able to engage in riotous affray if the opportunity presents itself.

      2. If Southern and her ilk had their way, I doubt there’d be much free speech left for the rest of us. The rightwing has a miserable track record on free expression. Most of ’em support it only so long as they can employ it to “trigger the Libs” or to “melt the snowflakes.” Aside from the some pockets of “never-Trumpers,” there’s little remaining these days of principled conservatism.

    2. ” . . . 1) police are often instructed to de-escalate.”

      And when they do their best to de-escalate a situation, but “fail,” they get criticized by those who will never deign to labor in those human primate howling mob vineyards. One might respond, “If police officers can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Yet, society expects SOMEBODY to do that work.

  12. “There’s no doubt she wanted to stir up trouble…The thing is, she has a right to do that;”

    I have to disagree with that. Freedom of Speech is not Freedom to Disturb the Peace.

    If a religious group gathered outside the PCC residence at midnight, shouting “Evolution is a sin”, or whatever, is that legal? No it is not, it is disturbing the peace.

    As long as she has some means to express her views publicly, her freedom of speech is intact. The police do have the right to maintain peace, and to manage potentially disruptive public gatherings.

    1. No it’s thornier than that.

      Imagine that some bunch of KKK-types decide that their little baptist-college town is off limits to blacks. They cause a riot whenever any show up… well not of course the respectable older ones, just the young men of the same creed. How should we then respond? Once everyone understands this about their town, then in some sense the black journalist who chooses to go there _is_ causing a breach of the peace: he knows full well there will be a riot. Should he go?

      This example seems a bit crazy because acting like this, claiming territory by threats of violence, is quite foreign to our society. That’s why we find ourselves ill equipped to deal with people who are willing to do so.

      1. ” Once everyone understands this about their town, then in some sense the black journalist who chooses to go there _is_ causing a breach of the peace”

        You illustrate the point beautifully and much more clearly than me!

      2. Yes it is thornier indeed.
        “Every complex problem has an answer that is clear, simple and wrong” (HL Mencken).

    2. “If a religious group gathered outside the PCC residence at midnight, shouting …”

      Making a noise at midnight is not generally accepted. Walking down a street is. Indeed, I’m pretty sure that that’s what streets are *for*.

      1. The question is, did the cop have reasonable grounds to suspect that, given Southern’s past behaviour and the fact she had video cameras in attendance, just quietly walking down the street was NOT all she was going to be doing.

        I think he did.


        1. The policeman was perfectly clear. His job was to ensure that ‘highly religious’ Muslims were not offended by anything that Lauren Southern might do.

          He was terrified of the consequences if Muslims feel offended and ‘objected to’.

        2. OK, so she would not have just walked quietly, she would also have talked into a camera.

          How utterly heinous of her! So the policeman was justified in stopping her because she might have … talked into a camera!

    3. “If a religious group gathered outside the PCC residence at midnight, shouting “Evolution is a sin”, or whatever, is that legal? No it is not, it is disturbing the peace.”

      This sounds disingenuous because you know like everyone else that Islam uses VIOLENCE or the threat of violence against any critisim and when the police officer used the term “disturbing the peace” in was a euphemism for a possible violent response to her “provocation”.

      Let me put it this way, it is safe for a jehovah witness to knock on doors in a christian neighborhood but not in a Muslim area like molenbeek.

      “The police do have the right to maintain peace, and to manage potentially disruptive public gatherings.”
      Sure, but this is not the point, the issue is that you are not safe to challenge Islam in public in a Muslim area and that many Muslims believe they have the right to enforce sharia principles in areas they dominate.

      1. +1, especially your last sentence. And I would add that it appears many of them want to dominate more areas.

    4. “If a religious group gathered outside the PCC residence at midnight, shouting “Evolution is a sin”, or whatever, is that legal?”

      It is illegal to the exact same extent it would be illegal for another group to gather and shout “Darwin rules.” The government may proscribe disturbances of the peace, and may set other “time, place, and manner” restrictions on speech, but such laws must be “viewpoint-neutral” both on their face and in their application.

      1. I’m sure this policeman would have reacted exactly the same way if Southern had been a man of Pakistani decent wanting to interview people on the street about what clothing is appropriate for women to wear while shopping.

        1. I’m sure that if a Muslim, like, say, the late Muhammad Ali, wanted to go on British TV and lambast Western women for not dressing modestly, he would be given a platform – and get paid for appearing.

    5. And freedom of speech is not a right to a forum to speak in.

      In any case, Southern’s speech is not seriously threatened. She is already in the country and she can no doubt spread whatever message she wants (so long as it is legal) on any number of sympathetic right wing media channels. Even if she were prevented entirely, she is completely free to return to her own country and post her schtick on the interwebs, and that would be available to all and sundry in Australia too.

      She is not being denied her freedom to speak, she is merely being (slightly) restricted. She is being denied a specific forum in which to speak. There is a world of difference. If she were completely silenced how could a policeman know to prevent her disturbing the peace?

  13. I don’t know Southern’s motivations beyond the desire to demonstrate the existence of “no-go zones”. Maybe she is a right wing provocateur. But I don’t think it matters. There is no evidence here that she had any intent beyond documenting what would happen if a person hostile to Islam tries to walk into a neighborhood with a large Muslim majority in Australia. She made her point and the video speaks for itself.

    I am dismayed by apologists for official enforcement of religious of segregation.

    1. But there isn’t ‘official enforcement of religious of [sic] segregation’ it is merely preservation of the peace. It isn’t government policy that only muslims are allowed in Lakemba.

      It is not the case that Southern was prevented from going to Lakemba because she was white, christian, or anything else like that. She was prevented from going there on the reasonable assumption that she would disturb the peace, and most probably deliberately so.

      I am dismayed at such rabid misrepresentation of reality to support an argument.

      1. How exactly is talking to a camera and interviewing people now considered “disturbing the peace”?

        I might as easily say that your response here is offensive and disturbing the peace.

        1. That is a silly response IMO. If talking to a camera and interviewing people provokes some unhinged person to violence, then of course it is disturbing the peace.

          I don’t know that I have disturbed any peace (unless you’ve been motivated to throw the stapler at the screen) although my comments may offend some. Comments like yours and Coel’s cause offence too. I usually expect your comments to be well considered and worth reading, but your (and Coel’s) failure to comprehend what I’ve been saying without twisting it into a different meaning without flying of on some tangent is quite exasperating.

          I have never claimed Southern has no freedom to speak, but that she does not have an absolute freedom to say anything, especially in Australia where the Racial Discrimination Act is in force (nor even in the USA for that matter). Please try to keep up.

          I’ll go further and say that Southern does not have a right to a forum or platform to express her free speech. I’ll go further again and say that since Southern is already in the country she is free to speak (subject to the RDA) on any number of conservative media channels if they’ll have her. Failing that she is free to spout whatever nonsense she likes in her own country and that speech is almost certain to be available everywhere in Australia. I have never said she cannot speak, merely that in Australia she cannot speak anywhere she likes, cannot say anything contrary to the law (the RDA), and she must not disturb the peace. Besides which, if she feels hard done by she can seek legal redress.

        2. Excusing the “unhinged person” is the silly response, IMO. That’s who disturbed the peace.

          Nobody has a right to not be offended.

          FWIW, I think you might want to invest in an irony meter upgrade.

          1. My irony meter is just fine. I have never suggested excusing an “unhinged person” and have often said (or written) that nobody has a right to not be offended.

            You are defending the concept of free speech without properly considering the possible consequences. As I have said/written elsewhere on this site, absolute free speech is a laudable idea, but its application has adverse consequences, and society has a right to protect itself from them. I hope I don’t have to repost the rather long details of Irish unrest in the nineteenth century, and the inclusion of restriction of freedom of speech and expression as part of the Good Friday Agreement.

            Here’s a piece of irony for you. In some US (and Australian also) states pro-lifers are prohibited from demonstrating withing a prescribed area around abortion clinics. In what significant sense is that not denying the freedom of speech said protestors any more or less than Southern was? None.

          2. Do you actually know what the prescribed distances are? Fifteen to fifty feet here in the US. These buffers are intended to allow women access to clinics, not to prevent protesters from protesting. Protesters are not limited in their speech but in their ability to interfere with the physical movement of others.

            You place the responsibly for “disruption” on people talking into cameras who are not physically interfering with anyone. Your example (abortion protest) works against you.

          3. (In NSW it is 150m (~500ft) IIRC.) On the contrary, you are making my argument for me. The point of the buffers, and preventing Southern’s access to Lakemba, is not to deny their free speech (in fact they still have it I’d argue), but civil amenity in both instances. The impact on free speech is incidental, and my argument is that that is acceptable under the circumstances, both in the US and in Australia.

            Has the irony not occurred to you that you are arguing for free speech on a web site where you could be banned merely for impolite speech?

          4. Are you new around here? We are guests in Jerry’s living room. We’re not out on a public street. Different rules apply.

            The rules you propose are useful for all manner of authoritarianism. They are the rules that are regularly practiced in theocracies. They are the rules that block WEIT in Pakistan.

          5. Believe me, no one (here in the US) is as loud and obstreperous as the pro-lifers. They take full advantage of their free speech rights, and then some.

  14. The policeman absolutely refused to answer her simple repeated question, “Do I have a legal right to walk in this area?” He kept saying effectively, “Because I said so.” He repeatedly said that she would be the cause of any trouble, not saying the first word about any possible culpability attributable to the opposing side.

    I reasonably assume that not a few Muslim males in that area would feel that they have a right to walk on any public thoroughfare anywhere on the planet, without owing a single word of explanation to anyone.

  15. In Europe at least, “no-go zones” are a myth.


    “Sharia Law Muslim ‘No-Go’ Zones?
    Rumor: Several European and Americans cities have been designated Islamic ‘no-go zones’ where Sharia law prevails.”

    This rumour is false.

    “Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities
    Stories about big Western cities surrendering neighborhoods to control of Islamist extremists are shocking—and totally false”

    1. This is the sort of idiotic article that gives fact-checking such a bad name.

      We learn that not all of Birmingham is ruled by the islamic mob, as some idiot once claimed.

      We learn that the French government does not use the term “no-go zone”, and indeed the official designation also includes other things, mere urban renewal projects. And that some idiot once jumped to conclusions about the official list of 750 such zones.

      “French law applies everywhere in France, including the cit&eacutes, whatever practical obstacles may exist to its application.”

      Right, and and Colombian law has always applied, in theory, all the way to the Panama border. It’s just that “practical obstacles may exist to its application”.

      1. @a-non I can’t make head nor tail of your comment. You are referring to the Snopes article HERE which concludes that a series of claims about ‘No Go’ zones are FALSE

        You lead off with:

        “This is the sort of idiotic article that gives fact-checking such a bad name. We learn that not all of Birmingham is ruled by the islamic mob, as some idiot once claimed”

        Nowhere in the article does it say “not all of Birmingham” so please don’t spin the link to suit your narrative.

        The idiot you refer to is a ‘security expert’ Steve Emerson who claimed on Fox News that:

        “In Britain, it’s not just no go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in…”

        As a white, ex-RCC, Irish heritage ‘Brummie’ I can tell you Emerson is talking out of his arse regarding Birmingham. So what are you implying by your summation of that part of the article? You write “We learn that not all of Birmingham is ruled by the islamic mob, as some idiot once claimed” – so are you suggesting some of Birmingham is?

        I despise your style of commenting – you fail to clarify & you leave a smelly trail of insinuations behind you. If you wish to deny Snopes’ claim on the basis that their fact checking is poor, then please provide counter-evidence rather than listing the bits you disagree with with nothing presented by you to support your case.

        Hit me with your Birmingham facts.

          1. Stay away from drifting my convo with a-non to some new place ‘Wirral
            It’s clear what I’m asking for from a-non.
            a-non says Snopes has written crap & doesn’t say in what way, but he sneakily implies [depending on the reading] that parts of Brum are run by Islamic mobs.

            If a-non is going to poo poo Snopes then s/he should bring something in addition to the snarky last sentence re Colombian Law. Substance.

          2. Lauren Southern isn’t just any “blonde woman in a mini-skirt”. She’s a far-right supporter who specializes in provocation and controversy.


            I can understand the poor policeman: if she goes to that area without a police escort and does her usual schtick, she may get in trouble, and then use that for propaganda (please do keep in mind that her usual schtick could potentially get her in trouble pretty much in any area of any major western city). If she goes to that area with a police escort, she will use that for propaganda. And if she goes to that area unaccompanied and nothing happens, she will probably lie about it. The poor cop can’t get ahead.

          3. So… you think she shouldn’t go into “pretty much in any area of any major western city”?

            Just making sure I get your point.

          4. That’s not what I said. I said “her usual schtick could potentially get her in trouble pretty much in any area of any major western city”. Let’s say I walk up and down your street with a sign saying “GBJames is a poopy head”: just exercising my freedom of speech and whatnot. Well, I’m sure I could potentially get in trouble, in the sense that the probability of there being an adverse reaction from you or maybe your friends would go up. Is that clear?

          5. Surely you could invent an example that doesn’t make my point.

            Nobody has a right to not be offended, including me.

            Not that “GBJames is a poopy head” would cause offense, although I might bust a gut laughing.

          6. Lauren Southern once went into a protest against rape culture holding a protest sign stating “There Is No Rape Culture In The West”. Unsurprisingly, she got shoved around and the sign was torn up. Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from the consequences of speech.

          7. Yeah, ’cause it’s a well known internet fact that canadian cops are very buddy-buddy with muslims everywhere. It must be because they’re so polite and stuff!

            By the way, I see by your in-depth knowledge of and event I mentioned after reading about it on wikipedia that you are far more familiar with Lauren than I am. Are you related to her? Cousin, brother, friend… Lover?

          8. You say ‘Nobody has a right to not be offended, including me,’ and broadly I agree. However, in Australia

            ‘Section 18C of the [Racial Discrimination Act] makes it is unlawful for a person to do an act in public if it is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person of a certain race, colour or national or ethnic origin, and the act was done because of one or more of those characteristics.’

            It is contested, but it is the law. If you are offended on certain grounds you have a right to some legal redress.

          9. Your point that Australia has bad laws, too, is acknowledged.

            Islam causes great offense to some people. Does Southern now get veto over Muslims walking into her neighborhood? Why not?

          10. @GBJames

            “Your point that Australia has bad laws, too, is acknowledged.”

            I was passing no judgement on whether the RDA was good or bad, that’s simply your assessment. I was merely reporting that it exists. It is contested, mostly by conservatives, who often go on to protest the freedom of others’ speech that they don’t like. Australians have lived under it since 1975 and we don’t have a police state and we are not on some slippery slope towards one, certainly not as a result of the RDA.

            As for bad laws, that 2nd Amendment is a right doozy. In fact as I have pointed out before, if ever there was a case that highlighted the pitfalls of granting some absolute freedom, there it is.

            But look, how can you support the arrogance of someone who visits a foreign country and is unwilling to abide by their laws?

          11. I’ve no interest in arrogance, which is generally a slur hurled by people who want someone to STFU. Nor have I ever defended the 2nd amendment, which would be cancelled in a moment if I were king.

          12. GBJames: Islam causes great offense to some people. Does Southern now get veto over Muslims walking into her neighborhood? Why not?

            I think that is off topic. Southern was prevented from from entering Lakemba because it was feared she might generate some disturbance as I understand it, not simply because she might cause offence

            “Does Southern now get veto over Muslims walking into her neighborhood?” Not merely for causing offence, although as I think I’ve made clear that might depend on whether that was in the US or Australia, and if in Australia the grounds on which that offence was caused.

            If there is reasonable concern that a riot might ensue, yes I think she would have reasonable grounds to veto Muslims walking into her neighborhood, in the US and Australia.

            Oh, and the Roman catholic Church causes great offence in Australia but we don’t expect Catholics or their enemies to get violent and disturb the peace. Any more.

          13. I get it. In Australia Muslims are not expected to behave by the same rules as Catholics. And you are fine with Government officials enforcing it by restricting the freedoms of speech and movement of non-Muslims.

        1. Alright, not great writing. But the Snopes piece angers me and I think illustrates something very wrong with… polite discourse in the West.

          The term “no-go zones” is clearly a vivid shorthand for something like “places of contested sovereignty”. And it seems clear to me that such places exist. Obviously this is a matter of degree, and it would be useful work for Snopes et. al. to gather honest information on this degree. There are examples besides Islamic enclaves: for instance in Sicilian towns with a heavy Mafia presence, Rome isn’t the only authority which matters in settling disputes. Ditto the Favelas of Brazil. Naxalite enclaves in Bengal.

          But the Snopes piece isn’t interested in this. It assumes that the question is a binary one, and chooses carefully what positions the two sides must occupy. So they pick up this Steve Emerson’s claims that (1) all of Birmingham is a no-go zone, and (2) that France’s 750 designated ZUS zones are no-go zones, and (3) that this literally means people can’t go there. These are false.

          But this doesn’t begin to settle the questions raised, and pretending that it does is dishonest.

          And counter-productive too: many people can smell the dishonesty, even if they lack the knowledge (or the debating skills) to pick it apart in detail. They watch the videos on youtube, and are shocked that this level of harassment of (say) a camera crew is allowed to happen within France/Sweden/England. They know that something real is going on there, even if some guys with fancy degrees can twist words to show that what the guy on fox said isn’t quite accurate.

          It’s revealing that in the same article, the people they quote in support of their “it’s false” conclusion sound, to me, like they concede the important part of the point. That’s what I meant by quoting “practical obstacles may exist to its application” — that’s kind-of the definition of contested sovereignty! The King thinks it’s his territory, but his tax-collectors always seem to go missing, and nobody gets caught. The fact that the Snopes authors cannot see this reveals how complacent they are in their “fox is wrong” position.

        2. “I despise your style of commenting”
          I am not a fan of your aggressive and sneering style either. Nothing wrong with challenging someones argument but your tone seems disrespectful.

          It is surely very difficult to get objective facts – the left ignores any issues until the right exaggerates.

          “If you wish to deny Snopes’ claim on the basis that their fact checking is poor, then please provide counter-evidence rather than listing the bits you disagree with with nothing presented by you to support your case.”

          Asking him to provide evidence is fair, however I would like to hear YOUR personal opinion, obviously the term “No-go zone” is sensational and emotive, but do you think there is a danger of some muslim areas in Britain becoming de facto sharia enclaves where men and women are not integrated into the larger british culture and economy?

          1. Eric Grobler. Just another Grobler set of assertions – put some meat on the bone with Evidence please. Opinions are two a penny.

            Where do you live [I notice your spelling of “neighborhood”]? What is your experience of the problems you outline?

            The claim by some on the right that Sharia has, or will replace the UK legal system in parts of Britain is an example of a poorly framed piece of divisive propaganda. If some punk gets caught shoplifting batteries it doesn’t go to a sharia court – there’s no alternative Muslim track for criminal offending.

            In civil matters – if a Muslim owes money to another Muslim or there’s a dispute about parking outside someone’s house & blocking access – that might go to a local adjudicator in sharia court. There’s some disturbing stuff I’ve read about marital disputes & divorce being handled by sharia & I’m dead set against that – the division of assets being against the law as we understand it. I suspect that still goes on & not enough is being done to stamp out ‘creep’. I’m also against sharia being run entirely by males who hold onto Pakistani rural values [horrible].

            I believe that sharia will begin to shrink in influence through lack of customers as we go into the current 3rd/4th generation of British Asians. The girls coming up are nearly all too well educated to put up with ‘grandads ways from back in the old country’ nonsense. I would not ban sharia, but it needs observation & oversight.

          2. “Where do you live”

            “I believe that sharia will begin to shrink in influence through lack of customers as we go into the current 3rd/4th generation of British Asians”

            Evidence please. Opinions are two a penny.
            See how irritating this is?

          3. You asked for my opinion Eric & I gave a detailed response – your short reply that references little of what I said tells me all I need to know about you & your actual interest in the question you asked. You are just a pesky troll with more experience than I at posting low value comments designed to evoke reactions rather than discussion.

            When you wrote this I had to read it twice:

            It is surely very difficult to get objective facts – the left ignores any issues until the right exaggerates.

            This is indeed a right-wing MO – all those inflammatory video clip memes & still image memes of outright lies – innocent material decontextualised, relocated & sold as further, ongoing outrages perpetrated by the hordes beating at our gates. You seem approving of this tactic – there’s maybe a 100 of these shit drama memes a week & it is abhorrent to me. But if it gets the job done, according to your objectives – then carry on…

            Screw facts eh?

          4. Michael Fisher,

            “your short reply that references little of what I said tells me all I need to know about you”
            You seem to have little self awareness, I used your own words to make you aware how difficult you make it to have a civil respectful discussion.

            I made a point that the right wing media typically exaggerates an issue/problem the left wing largely ignored.

            “This is indeed a right-wing MO, You seem approving of this tactic”

            Michael, I am actually highly critical of the right and the left and I am also self critical.
            I do not think it is controversial to observe that our media has become tribal and that balanced objective reporting is severly lacking.

            You seem to get very emotive about much ado about nothing, we most likely have the same general values.
            Have a whiskey, relax.

        3. OK a-non. You avoided answering this question of mine. Please answer it:

          As a white, ex-RCC, Irish heritage ‘Brummie’ I can tell you Emerson is talking out of his arse regarding Birmingham. So what are you implying by your summation of that part of the article? You write “We learn that not all of Birmingham is ruled by the islamic mob, as some idiot once claimed” – so are you suggesting some of Birmingham is?

          People are prone to use exaggerated terms, thus we all agree [I think] that “No Go Zones” is too strong a language for most examples.

          When I lived in Liverpool just before the ’81 Toxteth riots it was said in the press there were “No Go Zones” where the authorities had given up on maintaining order – i.e. in strongly Afro-Caribbean/White ‘Liverpool 8’ [the postcode] the traffic wardens didn’t patrol & issue tickets for double parking & the cops didn’t foot patrol at all.

          This was a firmly believed ‘fact’ that happened to be bullshit. I lived there, I mixed there, I went to many a ‘Blues Party’ & I know.

          Exactly the same bullshit claims were made about Afro-Caribbean/Asian/White Lozells Road & Soho Rd in Handsworth, Birmingham when I lived there around ’91 – all made up garbage

          All that stuff comes from somewhere & it serves a purpose – it is simply racist rabble-rousers raising the temperature by disseminating propaganda that gets repeated & amplified by the ignorant, the weak & the disaffected

          Now re your original comment – you are raising the temperature & it DOESN’T HELP

          1. With due respect, Michael, I don’t believe your ability to go where you want really proves anything, unless you’re female, Jewish, or blatantly homosexual.

    2. I stopped taking Snopes seriously when they summarily dismissed (without any argument other than “Trump voters were probably reluctant to admit they voted for Trump”) the discrepancy between the exit polls and counting in swing states in the 2016 elections, such a discrepancy being a clear pointer to fraud.
      I have lived in Brussels, Antwerp and Paris. There are definitely no go zones. Maybe an unobtrusive male may ‘shadow’ through without being harassed (and if not unobtrusive probably not), but a woman alone, unless seriously covered, would not: ‘no go zones’.
      (Strangely, I’ve also lived in Amsterdam, but did not notice no-go zones there.)

      1. Snopes has been infected with political correctness, which is very disappointing. They are no longer the place to go to for the truth about matters that exercise the Ctrl Left.

  16. Laura southern is not a white supremist from my research into her views and I find it disturbing you throw that title on her without backing up evidence of your opinion. Being against the ideology of multiculturalism and bringing the attention of the racial murdering of white farmers in South Africa by racist black Africans does not make her a white supremist but to the contrary a proud defender of white Christian European heritage and that has my support.

      1. If I am a fan of the European Enlightenment and regard that as the pinnacle of human achievement do I expose myself?

        There is a lot to be proud and ashamed of.

    1. Regarding the plight of white farmers in South Africa;
      The right uses terms like “white genocide” which is completely inappropriate and ignores the fact that the society as a whole are subjected to extreme violence.

      However, it seems that farmers are disproportionately targeted and the brutality of some of the murders are unimaginable.

      If the mainstream media would report accurately on the violence in south africa it would not be a right vs left issue.

      The most vulnerable are black women who are routinely victims of crime and rape.

      The most disturbing trend I think is the rise of black identity politics. You get for example black politicians who openly tell veteran indian ANC members to shut up because they are not black.
      Thankfully Zuma was dethorned by a small majority within the ANC but there is a real danger of a split between the moderates and black nationalists (some overtly racist)

      Anyway my point is that South Africa is in danger of imploding with dire consequences for all its citizens.
      The left with energy and empathy brought about the end of apartheid.
      Today they do not seem to care, perhaps it was more virtue signalling than empaty during the anti-apartheid rallies.
      Maybe outside our next of kin we all pretend to care, lauren southern included.

      1. From what I’ve read one of the reasons farmers seem to have been targeted is that farms are often quite remote, and further that the murder rate has actually been going down across the nation in recent years. Also, many black Africans are also murdered, perhaps more black farmers than white farmers.

        1. In fact it was covered on the tv just the night before last, and if I recall the numbers correctly, out of 19,000 murders in the country only 100 were “farmers” and it was not clear if they included black farmers in that. The country doesn’t have a genocide against white farmers so much as a very serious problem with violence.

    2. Ok, so you don’t like the word “white suprematist”. Would it be ok if we employed “reactionary”? Or “ideologue”? Or even “wingnut”?

  17. There are no-go zones in Paris ?

    If anyone can tell me what they are, I’d be pleased. I want to go there right now.

    1. Last week, I tried to walk right into the Élisée palace with a sign that said “Macron est un enculé”. They wouldn’t let me in, the freedom of speech curtailing bastards! A no-go zone! And in Paris!

          1. Bragging rights.

            Seriously, were are the no-go zones in Paris ? I’ll go there tomorrow.

    2. Dear whyevolutionistrue commenters,

      Pr. Coyne said there are “no-go zones” in Paris.

      Listen, I have the utmost respect for Pr. Coyne, and this is not ironic. However, I have to say, these no-go zones seem to me not to exist.

      I looked up “Paris no-go zones” on google. Please bear in mind that we do not all have the same search results for a given search query. In particular, being based in France, I will have top search results different, or so it seems, of those given to a person based in another country. It is obvious (to me at least) from the fact that my top search results are in French.

      Anyway, my top results are articles in French denouncing articles in English claiming there are no-go zones in Paris and in Paris’ surroundings.

      That article, in English, seems to de ironic :

      Yesterday on this forum, I asked people to name no-go zones in Paris so that I could go and check. No one did. Later on I realised I was naive. Anyone facetious could send me in any place in Paris and make me waste my time.

      The offer still holds provided you can point me to a source on the internet that labels the zone as a no-go zone. I’m not going to go here and there just on a person’s whim.

      Why did I specify the place had to be inside Paris ? Well, to start with, to me it always had to be inside Paris. When people say “Paris”, I understand it in the narrow sense and not in the broad sense of “Paris and its surroundings”. However, when I looked up no go zones in Paris on the internet, I saw a couple of maps that labelled as no-go zones some places in the vicinity of Paris. The thing is, it is one thing to take the subway to go here or there inside Paris, and quite a different trip to take the RER to go to, say, Bobigny. It takes a lot more time.

      I do not think there is any no-go zone in Paris. Sad as it is, you cannot believe the press on such matters.

      I am not linked in any way to the tourism industry.


  18. I was stunned to see this happen in our country, How have we allowed a group to take over a section of our city making it impossible to freely walk down the street without being abused or attacked, this is our country. Peoples from all over the world have worked together to make this one of the most tolerant multinational countries in the world. This sort of behaviour will start to disintegrate what we have fought so hard to build. I honestly believe that if you can’t integrate and live peacefully and within the laws of this country then those people have no right being in this country. Shame on those people who seek to divide and separate.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *