Now is not time to cede the use of this term - we are not in an acedemic debate

Submitted by Tom Cohoe (United States), Jan 21, 2015 at 23:29

I don't know why you would back down from using the term "no-go zone" to describe the regions in France where the police fear to go without muslim suffrance. I certainly never thought of a "no-go" zone as a place where "sovereignty is lost", like a region in an active war zone of some type where the nominal authority cannot enter, even in force, and a war lord rules.

Your description of the French and British areas described above sounds pretty much exactly what I always thought of as a "no-go" zone.

Ceding use of the term before an onslaught of politically correct spin "coincidently" in the immediate wake of the recent terrible attacks in France does a great dis-service to those of us who want to serve truth. Suddenly, we are supposed to change our terminology to some official French euphemism that hides the truth?

Sensitive? Where the police will not enter to control a disturbance, like the tire burnings? Where the law is not, in fact, enforced as it is elsewhere? Where control is, in fact, being ceded?

Since when does a word have a single, precise meaning, such as you require due to political pressure from denialists? You have thrown a bomb into the ranks of those who put truth ahead of multicultural ideology.

Thanks.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".