I watched the first video. In the interview, the ambulance union head says they go to the so-called "no-go zones". That is, they aren't literally "no-go zones". This is in line with calling it a "problem area", as the Snopes article uses it. This is not in line with legostormtrooper's claim that there are areas which are "refused public utility service".

The union leader also says there are non-immigrant neighborhoods which are also no-go zones.

Reddit is blocked here, so I can't read the second link. The URL includes "head_of_swedish_amulance_drivers_union_nogo", so I assume it's the same person making the same statements.

For a real "no-go area" I would expect it would be easy to find multiple sources that confirm that ambulance, power, water, sewer, etc. service workers are not able to enter.

You write "the number of reported rapes has increased markedly" and give a link to bra.se.

These are the same statistics discussed in the second Snopes link I gave. Quoting now from https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-... , which quotes from the original report by Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention:

> The question posed on sexual crimes in NTU includes a wide range of crimes. It can range from minor events [like] flashing and groping, to very serious incidents of rape. Those who say they suffered must therefore answer questions about the severity of the crime. The responses show that in 29 percent of cases [have been] a more serious form of sexual crimes, says Emelie Hambrook, investigator at the National Council.

That is, the graph you linked to is not for "reported rapes" but is for "sexual crimes" in general. Snopes goes on to write:

> While Brå noted that the broad category of “sexual crimes” had increased since 2012, the same was not true for rape. Another Brå graph shows that reported cases of rape (represented by the purple line below) did not spike suddenly after the influx of refugees in 2015 – instead, they dropped from 6,697 in 2014 to 5,918 in 2015 (about the same amount as in 2009).

And while the numbers have increased, they appear to be more due to changing standards of what "rape" means, including "As from 1 July 2013, the sex offence legislation was again made tougher; among other things rape was expanded to include cases where the victim reacts passively."

This seems to be in line with jaha's description of your "anti-immigration tirades", that is, it appears that you are misinterpreting information with a view towards strengthening a presupposed anti-immigration viewpoint.

'No-go areas' - which you might notice I put between quotes in my reply, the Swedish term 'Utsätt område' does not translate that well to English - is a term for areas where community service can not function as intended. If you fall over the literal term 'no-go area' feel free to use another term, the problem remains.

The Reddit link (which you can find by searching for the term) leads to a discussion on the linked video, this being a Reddit discussion common sense should be applied when reading.

As to whether the 'no-go areas' - or 'problem areas' or 'challenged areas' or any other term - are a problem or not becomes clear when you listen to those who actually have to go there to do their jobs: police, ambulance, fire department, mail, delivery, etc. There is a Wikipedia article on the subject called 'Vulnerable area' [1], this being Wikipedia it is a good idea to also read the 'Talk' page related to the article [2]. Suffice to say that the problem is real, the areas by any other name are in many ways different from the rest of the country and those differences are not experienced as beneficial by most inhabitants. You do not need to take my word on this (or anything else), if you are truly interested in the subject there are many sources to consult.

The discussion on rape statistics in Sweden is wide and varied, just have a look at the 'talk' page to the Wikipedia page on 'Rape in Sweden' [3] for some of these discussions. The actual page is less interesting as it does not state anything which has not been brought up yet and is, like the rest of Wikipedia, susceptible to the bias (in whatever direction) of the editor collective ruling over this area. The last BRÅ-report claims rape (as in 'fullbördad våldtäkt') increased by 10% from 2016 to 2017 and states at the same time that it is likely that 80% of rapes (without further specification so it is unclear whether this is 'anything called rape in Sweden' or 'fullbördad våldtäkt') goes unreported.

Something is worth mentioning though: both you as well as jahaja keep on mentioning 'anti-immigration tirades' and similar terms. Please read what I wrote and notice I do not mention immigration anywhere, it was jahaja who brought this up and started off from that base. I'm well-used to this phenomenon as it has been the norm in Sweden for the last decade to apply labels like those on anyone who voiced criticism on developments in society but it is unsettling to find this in a forum like HN where I'd expect a more objective approach to prevail.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerable_area

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vulnerable_area

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_in_Sweden

The English phrase "no-go area" was the term used in the original Swedish conversation, so I don't know what your point is about bringing in a different Swedish term.

For example, https://youtu.be/ta5a02MzWjE?t=83 says "so called 'no-go zones'", and the following discussion continues to use the English phrase "no-go zones".

I agree that there is are problem areas. I pointed to a Snopes page which agreed there is are problem areas. But there aren't areas where the police don't go, which is what "no-go zone" was originally supposed to mean.

Once problem is when you jump in and ignore what I said and the evidence in the references I gave, and make statements which the links I already gave refute - and refute directly! It's as if you didn't even look at the links, much less make even a basic attempt at demonstrating the errors in the references I gave.

Instead, you use a term with no nuance - a strategy which I only see associated used in the xenophobic press. This makes it very easy to associate your terms with a xenophobic viewpoint.

You could easily have used "problem areas" or "challenged areas", and avoided that loaded term. Since you know the topic well, you are surely aware that these are the more nuanced terms for what the xenophobic press calls "no-go zones."

Since you did not, it's more plausible to believe you are engaged in a normalization strategy based on a sympathy with xenophobic viewpoints.

Such a strategy works better using dog whistles than outright anti-immigration statements. It can include, for example, highlighting the negative aspects of immigration, Islam, etc. when talking about Sweden. That appears to be what you do, based on my reading of your comment history.

Your statement regarding "I'd expect a more objective approach to prevail" is an example of your style. Rather than make a specific statement that you think I am biased or (I know you don't like them) a 'social justice warrior', you instead make an appeal to the vanity of other HN readers, implying that since they are objective, they should obviously agree with you, and that I and jahaja are making emotional, subject arguments that should be ignored.

Please read what you just wrote and consider the implications of your statements.

First: "The English phrase "no-go area" was the term used in the original Swedish conversation, so I don't know what your point is about bringing in a different Swedish term."

...followed by:

"Instead, you use a term with no nuance - a strategy which I only see associated used in the xenophobic press."

I used a term from the original video, quoted it to indicate it is a general term (as many such terms are, e.g. 'free trade zone' does not imply you do not need to pay, the 'fire brigade' does not start fires nor do they only extinguish them, 'rednecks' can have many colours in their necks and elsewhere, etc).

I tried to make clear to an unwilling reader that the term 'no-go zone' is one which is used for an area where public services like police, fire brigade, ambulance, mail and delivery are hindered by threats of violence. I do suspect you know this term is used this way even though, taken literally, it does mean something else. As I suspected you wanted to use this fact to denounce the actual content of the message I explained that in Sweden, for just those reasons, the term 'utsatt område' is used in preference over 'no-go zone' given the loaded meaning of the latter term.

Your reply just goes off on another tangent involving "xenophobic press" and "xenophobic viewpoint[s]", a story about "dog whistles", somehow you also mention islam and then conclude that "That appears to be what you do, based on my reading of your comment history".

Or it might be that I just pointed out Sweden has problems which need solving before trying to point the finger at that scary big Russian bear or other external factors...

Had you been arguing from a right-wing conspiratorial standpoint I would have suggested to take off your tin foil hat.

The term "no-go zone" has many different meanings.

In the context of this thread, I bought it up because legostormtrooper described areas which are 'refused public utility service'. This is surely a very strong definition of no-go area.

I mentioned no-go area in the general context as used in my country - I am an American - to mean an area where the police, etc. will not go or where the police have "lost control" of an area and the national laws do not apply.

For example, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sharia-law-muslim-no-go-zo... .

It is absolutely true that "no-go area" is used more broadly than that, in general. For example, http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/16216099.Dog_fouli... is titled "Dog fouling making popular nature reserve 'no-go area'"

Going then to the interview, the union head clearly stated that they do enter these areas. This is not the same as a no-go zone where people are refused public utility service or where police and rescue people will not go.

Therefore, when you use it to demonstrate that "no-go areas" exist, you are using it in a different sense than the original context.

Since I gave references which described exactly what I meant by "no-go area", and you gave a reference to someone using a different definition, I can easily interpret it as you not caring to consider what I was writing, perhaps because you have an ax to grind, or that it is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue and normalize the wider use of "no-go area".

But hey, I'm from the US, where we have many areas "where public services like police, fire brigade, ambulance, mail and delivery are hindered by threats of violence." As a kid, I remember stores of New York City where the locals called the fire department when there were problems because they were afraid of the cops. We had a standoff a couple of years ago where a self-styled militia had a standoff against the local authorities - and then won in court.

We've got many areas of the US which are effectively off-limits for blacks and other minorities.

If I'm going to accept your wider definition of "no-go area", then I want to see it really being used for something other than "places where we are worried about Muslim refugees and immigrants."

And that's why I keep referring to it as a xenophobic term.