Tuesday, 20 January 2015

Why did Fox apologize? There ARE no-go areas for non-Muslims in Europe

"Sensitive urban area" in Paris, one of 715 on the French Government website.
Is this "no-go", or "go at your own peril", or a Muslim version of Chinatown?
You go, and see for yourself.  I've been and it was fine.  But that's for a man.
Try being a western woman, unveiled and go there...There are some shocking
YouTubes of how they're treated in these "sensitive areas".
On Saturday, Fox News apologized four times on the air for its reports about the no-go zones, acknowledging that there was no reason to believe that they existed. It called the reports an “error” and apologized to “any and all,” including “the people of France.” [New York Times]
But why would Fox apologise?  That there are such zones is proved by a French government website that details 715 such "sensitive" zones, where you enter at peril, especially if you are an unveiled woman. (See also here, and YouTube here, from the left-of-centre RT.com, which talks of the beating up of French police who went into one of these "sensitive zones").
I'm baffled, especially as Fox is usually quite robust in taking on its critics.  Do they not know of the government website?  Or do they think the euphemistic term "Zones urbanise sensibles" somehow means that it's not a "no-go" zone?
The New York Times article (linked above) claims the spread of sharia in Europe is "purported".  But western media are now hewing to a prohibition on cartoons or pictures of Muhammad, making them compliant with Islamic sharia blasphemy law.  In the UK there are nearly 100 Sharia courts, and Sharia principles are now to be enshrined in UK law.  What's "purported" about that?