SRV

Yes, I realize that Canada's conforming to US immigration policy is but one instance of how we contribute to human rights abuses and contribute to the number of refugees and internally displaced people in the world. I live and work as a human rights defender in Colombia, with which Canada has signed a FTA despite government complicity in massacres, direct involvement in extrajudicial killings, and the internal displacement of 5.5 million people (second only to Syria). Here too trade takes precedence over human rights and land and resource grabs by, amongst others, the Canadian mining industry. Canada is also wilfully blind to Saudi Arabian internal human rights abuses and bellicose interventions in neighbouring countries because they have become a major purchaser of Canadian-made light armored vehicles. And those are only the tip of a very large and growing iceberg... We can add to this list our contributions to the creation of climate refugees and economic refugees. Canadians themselves are being colonized by a corporatocracy that exercises control over, not only the resources we stole from first nations, but the ability to implement social or environmental policies that threaten the profits of our corporate landlords. Our politicians, whom we seem to have granted power of attorney, have sold us out.

Hmm. My concern is that our trade relations and dependency on access to US markets might impede our future goodwill and acceptance of reffugees, and my hope was that our desire to do the right thing and give refuge to those fleeing violence would take precedence over out desire to maintain easy access to US markets. I see from many of these posts that the desire to maintaining an open border is greater than the desire to welcome reffugees. I'm disappointed.

A mistake. Didn't intend to repeat my post. Thought I was editing --correcting the spelling of naive to be precise-- and discovered it had reposted the whole thing. The editing option on my computer app seems to be more straight forward than this Android app, which I'm not sure even has that option. A bit new to all this...

I guess what concerns me is the naive assumption that the secular are assumed to be more objective, less fanatical, and more benevolent. I see people questioning the role of religion that are oblivious to the role of equally blind unquestioning faith and trust in politicians, most of whom are in fact willing or reluctant corporate lackeys.

I guess what concerns me is the native assumption that the secular are assumed to be more objective, less fanatical, and more benevolent. I see people questioning the role of religion that are oblivious to their equally blind unquestioning faith and trust in politicians most of whom are in fact corporate lackeys.

Religion is often singled out as the primary cause for conflict and violence in the world today. But is this accusation justified? It is indisputable that much violence and many wars, conquests, inquisitions, cultural genocide, and genocide has been committed and continues to be committed in the name of religion. It is also true that violence perpetrated in the name of religion is rooted in fanatical blind faith in religious constructs that its adherents feel justifies their intolerance of and violence toward those who disagree with them. Many adherents to religions reject scientific data inconsistent with their teachings and/or 'sacred texts'. This lack of objectivity has caused many secular, atheist and scientifically-minded people to label religions as dangerous and its adherents as fanatics that collectively represent the greatest obstacle to world peace. But are religions the primary obstacle to world peace in the 21st century? Would poverty, cultural genocide, colonialism, racism, inequality, war and violence magically disappear if enlightened people abandoned religion? Or has religion become both a scapegoat and a tool used alternatively by a sinister and obscure corporatocracy that unscrupulously uses peoples' religious beliefs to garner support for its own corporate agenda, while it simultaneously manipulates the secular ideologues' critique of religion to divert attention away from its own abuses of power? Colonialism is a case in point: Five hundred years ago colonialism --the systemic appropriation and dispossession of other peoples lands and resources-- was done in the name of religion. The Doctrine of Discovery recognized only the sovereignty of Christian countries who invaded ('discovered') non-Christian countries. Cultural genocide in the name of God and saving the souls of pagans was a moral duty. Today the systemic appropriation and dispossession of other peoples' lands and resources (neo-colonialism) is justified on the basis of 'bringing development to the under-developed'. Like 'saving the souls of the pagans' before it, 'bringing development to the underdeveloped' is a moral duty, and the resulting cultural genocide an unfortunate but inevitable consequence. Despite having shed its religious underpinnings, colonial systemic oppression (neo-colonialism) continues unabated and uninterrupted. Ideological arguments have eclipsed religious ones as the primary justification for systemic land and resource appropriation and the resulting cultural genocide. Even a cursory glance at political campaigns are enough to show that elections today are not won or lost based on an enlightened public's scientific understanding of the world we live in. Despite separation of Church and State religious views are still invoked and exploited in electoral campaigns, while science --social science or hard science-- plays little or no role in the propaganda used to woo voters. The general voting public has no more knowledge and insight into the behind-closed-doors decision-making that determines when wars will be fought, trade deals signed, foreign policy decisions made, and economic policy decided upon and enacted than did parishioners back when priests still delivered homilies in Latin. Whether their country and political party's superiority is based on being God's chosen people or on advancement in some contrived Darwinian chain of social evolution matters little. The fanatical blind passionate faith people place in political candidates, parties and ideologies is indistinguishable from the faith they previously or still place in religious constructs. And, like their ancestors before them in a more religious era, the corporate elites continue to denounce as heretics scientists who present evidence that goes against their corporate agendas. In short, it seems to me that in the upper echelons of power people's religious and ideological beliefs are equally fanatical, blind and easily manipulated. A move towards a more secular society and world view will do little to nothing to promote justice, prosperity and peace. Cultures and human rights are not threatened by innovation and a lack of adaptability. They are threatened by an imbalance and abuse of power. Mutual respect for and appreciation and protection of diversity will do far more to promote justice, prosperity and peace for all than top-down religious, ideological or economic constructs!

Alas, the human rights of billions of disenfranchised and dispossessed will not be taken seriously because they cannot articulate their demands with nukes or guns. Might makes right, and if you cannot muscle your way to a seat at the negotiating table you are f**ked. That is the status quo, and if we are going to play that game by those rules, so it shall remain. Agreed. But let's play a different game, with different rules. Let's acknowledge and protect the inherent rights of every human being on this planet, beginning with the most vulnerable. Granted, such an approach would make us the enemies of the rich and powerful, but at least we would die without having become the evil we condemn in others! Either way is mutual destruction!

Ah yes negotiating an end to hostilities. One of those deals where if you have enough guns you get a seat at the table and a say in the outcome. And the message is "You want a say? You want your concerns and rights to be given consideration? Get enough military hardware and mount a credible threat/counter-threat and you might earn a seat at the table!That message doesn't prevent radicalization, it encourages it. That is not what I'm advocating for. I'm advocating for the recognition and protection of inherent universal human rights of everyone.

I rather like that idea. It does seem to me though, that an acknowledgement of the existence of the War on Terrorism --not an endorsement-- must precede truth and reconciliation.

Because Canadian business is much more heavily reliant on access to the US market than vice versa, and the flow of goods and of people are closely related. I am old enough to remeber, and not yet senile enough to have forgotten some of the post 9/11 controversy. But i was happy to find this quote from a doubtlessly more credible and recent source for you: To date, we’ve only had a momentary glimpse of this idea when the failed candidate Scott Walker attempted to outdo Mr. Trump by musing about building an even more massive border wall between the U.S. and Canada; a practical impossibility but completely in line with the deepest fears of Republican voters. Unfortunately, these fears could prompt a return to the dark period after 9/11: beginning with Clinton-era UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke calling Canada “a Club Med for terrorists” and followed by more than a decade of negotiations on how people and goods would travel safely across the border – something Canadian businesses can ill afford a repeat of. ( Canada’s reputation for tolerance may fuel U.S. border anxiety, Globe and Mail, Dec. 14, 2015 )

I had thought that the issue would only come up with a Republican government, but earlier responders to my initial post have convinced me that the American public will demand tighter border controls and viglence regardless of which party wins the elections next year.

Let's take a step back to get past some of the semantics. In fact let's take two or three steps back, and try to gain some perspective. Let's acknowledge that there is a War on Terrorism, and that that war was both declared because of the deaths of innocent civilians and continues to result in the death of innocent civilians. Innocent civilians continue to die in large numbers. Some of these civilian deaths have been non-Muslim Westerners, but the vast majority have been Muslims. There have also been tens of thousands of people imprisoned without trial, abused and even tortured, and again the overwhelming majority of these innocent-until-proven-guilty victims have been Muslims. Civilian victims of this so-called War on Terrorism --be they Western or Muslim-- have relatives, friends, neighbors, coworkers and acquaintances that are affected and influenced by what is happening to those around them and their loved ones. The War on Terrorism is instilling terror, hatred, and a desire for vengeance in many innocent victims, their loved ones and acquaintances, regardless of whether they are Westerners or Muslims. Once the semantics are removed, and no distinction is made between innocent civilians who died from suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices, the appropriation of civilian airliners etc. on the one hand; and civilians who died because of invasions, bombing raids, missiles, drone strikes etc. on the other hand; when when no distinction is made between those who are wrongfully abducted and held hostage and those who were wrongfully imprisoned without trial, abused and often tortured; then it becomes clear that there have been far more innocent civilian Muslims victims, mostly within the borders of their own countries, in this so-called War on Terrorism than Westerner victims. It further becomes apparant that the War on Terrorism itself, as well as the reluctance to accept its reffugees, is doing more to radicalize Muslims than diminish a largely imagined and greatly exaggerated terrorist threat. worst of all it is actually confirming ISIS' narrative that the West has declared war on all of Islam, and helping them recruit, while the West circles the wagons in their own countries. Instead of promoting peace and the universal human rights we espouse, our strategies have made us into the very evil we set out to defeat.

Hmm. I expect you all are right, whatever government gets elected will feel pressured to put more border controls and restrictions in place for PR reasons, and that these controls and restrictions will be largely ineffectual and do little or nothing to prevent anyone who is determined from crossing a very long and largely unpatrolled border. Which brings me to my next question: Will the Trudeau Liberal government make Canadian refugee policy more closely conform to that of the US in order not to diminish or otherwise inhibit cross-border Canadian trade and business with the US?

Let's take a step back to get past some of the semantics. In fact let's take two or three steps back, and try to gain some perspective. Let's acknowledge that there is a War on Terrorism, and that that war was both declared because of the deaths of innocent civilians and continues to result in the death of innocent civilians. Innocent civilians continue to die in large numbers. Some of these civilian deaths have been non-Muslim Westerners, but the vast majority have been Muslims. There have also been tens of thousands of people imprisoned without trial, abused and even tortured, and again the overwhelming majority of these innocent-until-proven-guilty victims have been Muslims. Civilian victims of this so-called War on Terrorism --be they Western or Muslim-- have relatives, friends, neighbors, coworkers and acquaintances that are affected and influenced by what is happening to those around them and their loved ones. The War on Terrorism is instilling terror, hatred, and a desire for vengeance in many innocent victims, their loved ones and acquaintances, regardless of whether they are Westerners or Muslims. Once the semantics are removed, and no distinction is made between innocent civilians who died from suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices, and the appropriation of civilian airliners on the one hand, and civilians who died died because of invasions, bombing raids, missiles, drone strikes on the other hand; When when no distinction is made between those who are wrongfully abducted and held hostage and those who were wrongfully imprisoned without trial, abused and often tortured; then it becomes clear that there have been far more innocent civilian Muslims killed, mostly in their own countries, in this so-called War on Terrorism than Westerners, and that the war itself as well as the reluctance to accept its reffugees, is doing more to radicalize Muslims than diminish a largely imagined and greatly exaggerated terrorist threat. Instead of promoting peace and the universal human rights we espouse we have become the evil we set out to defeat.

ISIL wins every time another Muslim is radicalized or becomes an ISIL supporter. ISIL maintains that the West has declared war on all of Islam, and that every Muslim is a target of the West's war on terrorism. Treating all Muslims as guilty until proven innocent makes all Muslims victims of the so-called War on Terrorism. Also, in terms of civilian casualties --drones strikes, invasions, imprisonment without trial often including abuse and even torture, illegal invasions of countries and violations of sovereignty, etc.--there have been far more innocent Muslim civilian casualties of the so-called War on Terrorism than non-Muslims. We would lose in terms of creating more enemies than we eliminate, and in terms of becoming the very evil we claim to want to defend ourselves from.

Given the history of border issues after 911 when one of the terrorists was alleged to have entered the US via Canada, can we expect more of the same if the Republicans win the next election? They seem to be decidedly against accepting Syrian reffugees for fear of terrorists slipping in amongst the reffugees. (Edited to correct my erroneous assumption that one of the terrorists had entered via the US --thanks "On Guard for Thee")