notca

I'm not against helping people. I think what bothers me most is the mass hysteria that the government and media have whipped up over the refugee crisis. The government (any government) who will go to such lengths to provide for refugees but turn a blind eye to their own people's needs makes me angry. Maybe it bothers me more than some others because I've been one of those poor single mothers working at two jobs and refused an application for low income housing because 'they are for families'. One child doesn't make a family apparently, in the eyes of the government. I'm not going to hijack this thread with my own experiences as a desperate person. I just think that the help the government and even private individuals are giving the refugees is over and above what is needed. I'm also concerned about the cost. The deficit is going to cost us all dearly in the long run and the unemployment situation is promising to worsen. (Maple Leaf Food today announced a lay-off of 400 more). We are all going to be living in dire poverty at some future point. Some legacy for our children! It isn't just the Federal deficit but the Provinces are also going to need more from us. I think they could have done this a lot more cheaply if they wanted to. Chartering jets? If they wanted to involve the military why not use troop carriers to transport the refugees? We have ships that could transport more than a jetliner and we're already paying their crews. Health care? Why don't they set up temporary clinics for the refugees? Maybe hire back some of the nurses that have been previously laid off? (I'm speaking here about Ontario). Our facilities here are already bursting at the seams. My husband became paralysed and almost died 2 years ago because of lack of care. It isn't the refugees themselves or even helping them that upsets me. It is the way it is being done and the strain it will put on our services and our economy and problems that will arise that haven't even been considered yet by the majority of people.

I have only spent 4 - 5 years studying the Qu'ran, since the controversy about Islam begin to rear it's head. And I would never teach such clap-trap to anyone, even if I were qualified! I have no agenda to promote. Muslims have. I am non-religious, they are devoted to their religion. I am only interested in the truth and the truth as I have seen it is what I have posted. I don't believe Christians either when they claim to be Christians but don't act like it, preaching hatred for lifestyles with which they disagree. It is my experience that religious people will say anything (perhaps even believe it) to justify their actions and that includes lying. That is why I left the Church years ago and never looked back. I think organized religion have only one purpose; to control their followers.

It isn't being petty and nitpicky. Refugees, imo, would be needing safety and sustenance. We are providing that for them. The cost of this endeavor already exceeds six billion dollars that we don't have. It only seems prudent to cut out any services which are unnecessary to safety and sustenance. There are a good many of our own disadvantaged people who are living in conditions that are poorer than those that will be provided for the refugees. Those people too have children who go hungry and are endangered by the violence of life on the streets. Nobody volunteered to give our disadvantage a chance for betterment in their lives to the tune of six thousand, never mind six billion! How much is enough? How much is too much? Shouldn't 'adequate' be enough for now?

No one with a heart could not be moved by the sight of those refugees arriving. But I have given a lot of thought to the matter. I know that if this country were engaged in civil conflict, if we were poor, hungry and our lives were in danger there is no way I would put my young children in a raft like that and attempt to cross a sea. I would do whatever I could to hide, protect and provide for them and pray for the best but setting them out on a journey like that would not be an option.

No it is not valid. There is only one way to interpret violence. How many ways can 'Kill' be interpreted? Or 'submission' ? It is not a matter of interpretation. All religious people seem to cherry pick which parts of their Holy Books to live by, whatever will justify what they do. The violence in the Bible's OT is no longer relevant to Christians who are really Christians. The OT was revised and amended by Jesus in the NT. There is no such revision or amendment in the Qu'ran. The violence of the Qu'ran is the same today as it was in the beginning. One could say that violent Christians are worse than Muslims because they have a choice in what to believe while Muslims only have one book of instruction. Thankfully, Christians as a whole do not resort to violence. they can be damned mean and hateful but mostly they respect the laws against violence.

In wartime the military provided religious services for Protestants and Catholics. Jews had no where to go so they chose one of the above. This is not 'wartime' so why are the Muslims so privileged? FGS do they HAVE to pray en masse? Do they think Allah can not hear their individual prayers?

I wonder how many of these refugees will end up in the USA? I think the Americans are wondering that too!

Precisely what is it you think people are ignorant about?

Apparently some of you missed the unveiling of the Liberal plan for refugees that they delivered yesterday. Refugees will only be assigned to military bases if absolutely necessary All security check will have been completed before the refugees enter Canada Total cost of Government sponsorship is in excess of 6 billion $. Refugees will be transported by chartered jets. There are still a lot of details to be released and I'm sure the media will be probing on Power Play and Power and Politics tonight. Tune in.

Sorry, I don't get the connection you are making here. I think everyone who was paying attention knew what their platform was/is.

I don't believe people are stereotyping Muslims, they are stereotyping their religion. And rightly so in my opinion. In order to assimilate into Western societies, Muslims will have to align their allegiance with the laws of their adopted countries. As it is, many of them put their allegiance to their religion first and that is not compatible with our Constitution. Western societies will not accept male dominance, forced marriage, marriages of old men to little girls, the intolerance of certain foods and alcohol, demands to change our laws to accommodate religious freedom. In those areas and other areas as well, Muslims will have to learn to compromise and adapt. There are ways that Muslims could show their willingness to adapt that they still reject. One glaring mistake they make, I believe, is their continuance of wearing head coverings It is widely known that it is not a religious requirement but a cultural preference. If the head coverings were discarded, they would not draw unnecessary attention to their 'difference'. Their boldness in defence is evident in the tv interviews where they appear in Muslim attire defending their right to wear it. Well of course they have that right, but all I am saying is, Is it wise? It is only prudent to avoid confrontation whenever possible and I believe this is one way that would go far in avoiding cultural clashes. Canadian would welcome any sign that there is acceptance of our own culture.

When you consider the number of promises the Liberals made to win the election (something for everyone) the voters should have realized that it would not be possible to keep all of those promises. This is where Harper was correct in saying, "Trudeau is just not ready". He(Trudeau) might have actually believed he was going to change the world but he was naïve at best. He does not have the life experience to know what the realities of the world are. One can only hope that he will learn a thing or two! I agree that the Liberals would have said anything to gain power. The people were so enthralled with the idea of 'change' that they didn't think the ill-advised 'promises' through. I still can't understand fully the desperate need for change at this particular time when the world is so unstable! I liked Canada the way it was. I disagree with you that excluding single males from the program was a bad idea. In times of threat, it has always been 'women and children first'. Who was first into the life boats when the Titanic was sinking? Women and children. Who were NOT conscripted when war broke out? Women and children. 'Women and children first' has always been the way of the civilized world. Women and children are much more vulnerable and in need of protection than single males. Therefore I think this decision was prudent. When (and if) the first and second wave of refugees gets settled and oriented successfully I'm sure single males will get their turn.

That is a wise decision, kimmy! It is evident that some posters are here with the sole purpose of being insulting. Cowards who couldn't get away with it in real life without someone beating on them. When you ignore them you deprive them of the pleasure the take in getting a reaction. Your views are as welcome and interesting as anyone else's and you have every right to express your opinions. That's what public forums are for! I find your thoughts are not 'knee-jerk' but very carefully considered.

I give the Liberals credit for delaying the process. It was the prudent thing to do. But to show how contrary Canadians can be, some of the same who were convinced the plan was moving too fast are now yapping about a broken promise. Go figure!

Boy O Boy! You gotta love the way some of you thrown around words like, 'xenophobia' and 'bigot'. Accusations like that against people you can't see face to face or have any real life knowledge of are low and uncalled for! Socialists use that method of 'labelling' to make others who don't agree with their views shut up. When you have reasonable arguments for a particular way of thinking you don't need to stoop to name calling and character attacks. When you have an open mind you listen respectfully to differing opinions. When did it become an societal necessity to agree with an opinion that you disagree with?

I must have had a memory lapse. I don't remember being on any side back then.

Well I don't know. Why do you think? And what have you done? It's pretty damned hard for individuals to do anything meaningful when the ones who hold the money and the power work against them.

You are assuming a lot here. I and many like me have done quite a lot for our own needy . Our efforts to engage the government in any signifigant aid program have fallen on deaf ears. They have money enough to throw in other directions but the places where it is most needed. Putting on a show for the world is their main concern while they sweep the plight of their most needy citizens under the rug or hide them behind the dumpsters. . Individual and small group participation is like trying to fill a bathtub with a dripping tap while the stopper is open. What have YOU done besides accuse people with realistic concerns of xenophobia? It's pretty damned small to make such an accusation just because some others don't agree with your way of thinking. It's low and uncalled for!

My point exactly! Canadians are all wrapped up in their love affair with JT and the Liberals just now. If JT and the Liberals had paid some attention to needy fellow Canadians it would have been helpful. I was wondering, if your child (not YOURS, specifically) and a neighbour's child were in the street and a truck was bearing down on them and you had an opportunity to save only one of those children, how many people would choose to save the neighbours child before saving his own? That analogy portrays what we are doing in accepting this great influx of refugees. It is human nature to protect and look after our own first so what's with Canadians who are so gung ho to save the refugees when they won't make the effort to help the down and outers?

There is much more to the anti-refugee sentiment than Islamophobia. It is the belief that our government should be looking after it's own people FIRST, before burdening its taxpayers with the tremendous expense and inconvenience of solving the problems of outsiders. There are Aboriginals in this country who are living in deplorable, unsanitary conditions in tumble down shacks with no clean water, limited and unaffordable food supplies, lack of educational and health facilities and no hope of any betterment in the future. There are multitudes of homeless, jobless and mentally ill who need help desperately. There are low income families who are struggling to survive, desperately in need of affordable housing, going deeper into debt by the month with no hope of a better future due to constantly rising costs. These unfortunate Canadians will suffer even more when the influx of refugees descends on us. With the world economy in a slump, our economy could plummet at any time in spite of the Liberal's rosy outlook. Already people are losing jobs due to the sagging oil industry. As the deficit increases there will be more demand on the already burdened taxpayers to cough up more of their earnings. It couldn't be a worse time to take in hordes of strangers who cannot speak the language, are in need of services that are already overcrowded and for whom there will be very few job opportunities. Yes, Canadians have good reason to question and resent this refugee plan. These naysaying Canadian are not heartless monsters without sympathy for the plight of the refugees. They are just people who believe that we should care for our own needy first and that ultimately we will plunge ourselves into the same dire straits as the refugees who are victims of other countries whose governments acted irresponsibly.

Your comparison of the violent passages of the Bible to Islam is not valid. The violence committed by Christians who focused on the OT has long disappeared into the past. Islam has clung to its ancient tenets unchanged unto the present day. Sure there are still Christian crazies who question the law and strive to inflict their wrong-headed beliefs on society but they do not kill to uphold their beliefs. The laws of the land forbid such violent actions. Muslims who are born and raised in Islamic countries will naturally be enured to laws they have always lived with. Some people seem to like bring up the violence of the past as justification for the violence of the presence carried out by Muslims. There is just no comparison. Other religions have evolved to a point of civilized reason. Islam has not.

Okay I will give you my answer. What we could do here in Canada to prevent the negative effects Europe is seeing is learn a lesson from it and not do it. I don't see any positives from bringing more Muslims to Canada. I don't think they should have been brought to Canada in such number at all. Islam is not compatible with Western societies. Our Constitutions allow freedoms that Islam forbids (speech, religion, equality) and has laws against what Islam demands,( male domination, polygamy, forced marriages etc.) I don't know of a country that has received large numbers of Muslims that has not experienced clashes between Muslim culture/religious beliefs and the laws of the land. Muslims do not get along with each other let alone with non-Muslims. There are those who would deny that but they are ignoring the reports of Muslim vs. other culture conflicts. They see only what they want to see.

The aboriginals voted in large numbers for the Liberals and they knew what the plan was so I assume they were alright with it.

Whoever is putting out this crap is full of it! Talk about rewriting history! I don't know where all this 'government help' was when my ancestors came in the late 1700s. All of the immigrants who came here around that time went through hardships not even imagined by today' immigrants and they did so willingly ON THEIR OWN! Where was government assistance when the Selkirk Settlers perished, every one of them? No, this Government of Canada BS is just that - BS.