Rue

Firstly, yes you clearly have no idea what personality tests are used for. Here is what they are used for: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-psychology/chapter/personality-assessment/. It might therefore have bee a good idea after admitting you are not an expert on them to have researched their purpose BEFORE you then continued to present them as being able to detect if when asking people cultural value questions, these people would be lying. Your reasoning makes the false assumption personality tests detect lying. They do not. Your response also deflects from and ignores the point made to you that you have no response for that states that lie detection testing is not accurate or reliable:https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00748/full Next when asked to define what would be the values you would be searching for in immigrants you did not answer and this was no surprise because while you are quick to say what is not a Canadian value you can’t say what is./ Argus for any psychological testing to have accuracy it must use objective criteria that can be validated . That means simply asking people questions to feed back agreement with your preconceived views as to what is culturally acceptable is subjective criteria not objective criteria. Next you have already stated numerous times you have already decided anyone who believes in Islam is incompatible with Canadian values. So why the pretense? . In fact you even used a device on a religious thread about Islam to throw out as an insult to me that I “admire Islam” as if that in itself was an automatic ground to reject any challenge I made as to your negative generalizations about Muslims. No problem its just a recycled version of calling someone a n...ggr lover. Fine by me. Here’s the thing though. I do not “admire” Islam or any other religion. The word “admire” means from the definition I warmly approve of i and/or look at Islam or other religions with pleasure. You threw that out to insult and belittle and that is because rather than try be respectful over a difference of opinion you choose instead to throw out ignorant spiteful negative comments meant to insult and then whine that if I challenge this, it means I am angry or feel superior to you. I most certainly however respect people as individuals and so their beliefs including Islam,, or any other belief system as long as they do not use their belief system like you to negatively generalize, rationalize hatred, engage in terror, sexism, or physical or mental practices that are questionable. This is why I continue to categorically challenge your comments and point out what I feel are t glaring deficiencies , your deflections from being unable to support your positions with objective criteria. Its interesting because you hurl out false misrepresentations, profanities, insults and then when I challenge them whine that I am sanctimonious. No but I will challenge your use of abusive language towards me or anyone else.

Your above comment was in direct response to my remark in which I said: "To start with the immigration law process for determining eligibility already interviews." What I do know ignoring your name calling is this: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/prepare-life-canada/border-entry/interviews.html What I also know is this: that under 3 economic immigration classes of the federal express entry system because there is an objective point assessment screening system that may preclude the need for an interview. What I also know is that personal interviews may be required depending on the category of immigration applied for and there is an Express Entry system that takes the need away because the information obtained in an interview because it is already objectively obtained and screened for validity. It is most often required with family sponsorships, and non skilled workers but not usually with skilled workers. So what I know is there is no stratistic that says only 10% of applicants to immigrate to Canada are interviewed and if someone is not interviewed its because they already provided and validated information that would otherwise be obtained in an interview. Immigrants not seeing anyone until they get here has nothing to do with whether they provided objective information that was already validated before they come to Canada. Provide where you got your 10% figure from and what it refers to. It appears fabricated because you do not understand when interviews might be waived depending on what class of eligibility an immigrant applies. It also appears you have no idea about preliminary interviews or the immigration refugee process that deals with an initial interview with the CBSA officer who can reject them or choose to send them on to the Refugee Board which conducts a hearing to determine if they are eligible and in that process extensively questions and tests the testimony of refugees. What I do know is you shoot off at the mouth about what I know, and over simplify the immigration application process.

Here was your answer: "We can start with an interview to try to determine what kind of a person we are inviting to come join us here, what their views are on various subjects and how tolerant they are likely to be once in Canada. Hell, the Swiss seem to have discovered that merely attempting to shake hands with someone of the opposite sex is enough to show they're not the type to fit in there." Where is the "more to it". Please explain what other suggestions you provided.

In regards to statement 1, that is blatantly obvious. In regards to statement 2, no why would I? You mistake me for you. I challenge generalizations and steretypes, you again mistake me for you, In regards to statement 3, no, never did and already answered that, however when you claim to speak for all Jews, tell all Jews how to think, tell us who to hate and stereotype, I will call you out as a Jew. If you raise the Jewish card, I will challenge it as is my right as a Jew. In regards to statement 4, that is precisely why I challenged you and you show there is little hope for you. It also explains in your next statement 5, how you demonstrate one can lie and stereotype at the same time. In regards to statement 5, no evidently not. In regards to statement 6, no of course not. I take you for what you are someone who relishes telling people he does not give a damn what they think. I regards to statement 7, no I am not on a pedestal. I do not look down or up at you. If I had t use an analogy though I would say I am standing next to someone sitting on a toilet. As for your claims of being "generally true" about your "generalizations", I would say you have shown that it is not generally true. In regards to statement 8, I have never disagreed with the fact that there is strong anti-semitism in the Muslim world. Repeating that false misrepresentation won't make it true. Provide the words where I denied it. You can't because I never provided them, so if anything Argus your petulant response is to be expected and adds nothing but more name calling from you,

IF by this June, the Democratic Party does not have majority holding candidate, just months before election campaigns begin a shock challenge and therefore surprise candidates could then offer to run. This might be what is happening at the moment...certain individuals waiting to see if there will be a stalemate and see how popular Trump is in June....so that conceivably means someone none of us are considering which caused one writer to speculate on Hilary Clinton again coming back: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1223243/trump-news-hillary-clinton-tipped-for-surprise-second-election-run-in-2020-spt. Yikes. However has anyone considered that under such a circumstance Bam Bam's wife Michaelle Obama might be thrown in as a candidate? While a deadlock has never happened in over 50 years, there is no clear front runner and the convention and has a system of new rules that could cause such an event to arise and some have said the new rules were designed to let it arise to enable a last minute candidate to come in. What they refer to as a "brokered" convention has to be contemplated. How could it not? How could the Democrats feel comfortable with Saunders, Biden or Warren at this point. 2 geriatrics whose prostates are considered historic monuments and an over caffeinated Betty White. Some choice. Saunders, Biden or Warren also appeal to the same constituents of the party making the overlap or deadlock even more likely. The remaining candidates coming up the rear are polling very low to justify serious consideration. And so ladies and gentlemen I reveal to you the next President and first lady who will come to the rescue and defeat Donald Trump: President Kanye West and the first lady Mrs. Kim Kardashian West

Yes unless you are in Russia. Then as Putin is now doing, you just re-write the constitution to suit you so that you can stay in power for life. China's President did that too. If Trump could he would amend the constitution to keep him in for life then have his daughter take over. King Donald, Queen Ivanka, of the house of Trump.

Kim Kardashian. She's studying law you know.

The exact same thing you see in Trump. It does make one blind.

To start with you are probably referring to the Paris Principles on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict 2007 which defines a child soldier as: "A child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes." The above is not a law. It also when drafted contemplated children in state armies when it referred to armed force or armed groups and this is why before the above principles were drafted: " n 2000, the UN General Assembly adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict to protect children from recruitment and use in hostilities. The Optional protocol is a commitment that: States will not recruit children under the age of 18 to send them to the battlefield. States will not conscript soldiers below the age of 18. States should take all possible measures to prevent such recruitment –including legislation to prohibit and criminalize the recruitment of children under 18 and involve them in hostilities. States will demobilize anyone under 18 conscripted or used in hostilities and will provide physical, psychological recovery services and help their social reintegration. Armed groups distinct from the armed forces of a country should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities anyone under 18. The Protocol entered into force in 2002 and has now been ratified by a majority of the world’s countries.." (link for above quotation is: https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/six-grave-violations/child-soldiers/) The UN does not make laws. It can make recommendations through enunciaated principles as to how nations should act but they are not legally binding. The UN can draft a convention. Countries can then voluntarily sign on to that convention and undertake to incorporate in their domestic laws the principles enunciated in the conventions they sign. You removed the Paris Principles from their actual contextual and reference points which was not terrorist groups and did not quote the actual convention that would be relevant. You will also note the protocol's last sentence which clearly like any law of any nation or any principle of the UN is not recognized and is in fact rejected by terrorist groups. The UN did provide this "training manual" as to the subject of trying to prevent recruitment of terrorists who are youth: https://read.un-ilibrary.org/children-and-youth/prevention-of-child-recruitment-and-exploitation-by-terrorist-and-violent-extremist-groups_dee195f7-en#page1. So I question calling a child terrorist a child soldier. and then stating laws exist defining the two as the same. Next, the concept that Omar Kadr was not responsible as an adult would be comes from taking the Youth Offender Act of Canada, arguing what Kadr did would be considered homicide in Canada and therefore then making the assumption he would get a lesser sentence and be held to a lower standard of criminal culpability than an adult. That assumption comes from the Declaration of Principles in the Youth Offenders Act that states: "The youth justice system must be separate from the adult system and must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability." The Youth Offender Act's incorporation of the above principle came about because Canada signed a convention and agreed to apply the above principle from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Youth Offenders Act calls first or second degree murde as per s.231 or 235 of the Criminal Code of Canada "serious violent offences". It is important to note the Youth Offenders Act also states; 3 (1) The following principles apply in this Act: (a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by (i) holding young persons accountable through measures that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person, (b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults, must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability and must emphasize the following: (i) rehabilitation and reintegration, (ii) fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity, (iii) enhanced procedural protection to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right to privacy, are protected, (iv) timely intervention that reinforces the link between the offending behaviour and its consequences, and (v) the promptness and speed with which persons responsible for enforcing this Act must act, given young persons’ perception of time; (c) within the limits of fair and proportionate accountability, the measures taken against young persons who commit offences should (i) reinforce respect for societal values, (ii) encourage the repair of harm done to victims and the community, (iii) be meaningful for the individual young person given his or her needs and level of development and, where appropriate, involve the parents, the extended family, the community and social or other agencies in the young person’s rehabilitation and reintegration, and (iv) respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons and of young persons with special requirements; and (d) special considerations apply in respect of proceedings against young persons and, in particular, (i) young persons have rights and freedoms in their own right, such as a right to be heard in the course of and to participate in the processes, other than the decision to prosecute, that lead to decisions that affect them, and young persons have special guarantees of their rights and freedoms, (ii) victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy and should suffer the minimum degree of inconvenience as a result of their involvement with the youth criminal justice system, (iii) victims should be provided with information about the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate and be heard, and (iv) parents should be informed of measures or proceedings involving their children and encouraged to support them in addressing their offending behaviour. Act to be liberally construed (2) This Act shall be liberally construed so as to ensure that young persons are dealt with in accordance with the principles set out in subsection (1). It is the above wording in its totality used to argue Kadr was entitled to a diminished sentence. It is further argued the above act did take into consideration child terrorists because it states: "Orders (2) A youth justice court has exclusive jurisdiction to make orders against a young person under sections 83.3 (recognizance — terrorist activity), 810 (recognizance  — fear of injury or damage), 810.01 (recognizance  —  fear of certain offences), 810.011 (recognizance —  fear of terrorism offence), 810.02 (recognizance  —  fear of forced marriage or marriage under age of 16 years) and 810.2 (recognizance — fear of serious personal injury offence) of the Criminal Code and the provisions of this Act apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require. If the young person fails or refuses to enter into a recognizance referred to in any of those sections, the court may impose any one of the sanctions set out in subsection 42(2) (youth sentences) except that, in the case of an order under paragraph 42(2)(n) (custody and supervision order), it shall not exceed 30 days." However and this is what I would like to point out, this same act goes on to state: Included offences (2) If the Attorney General has given notice under subsection 64(2) of the intention to seek an adult sentence and the young person is found guilty of an included offence for which an adult is liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years, committed after he or she has attained the age of 14 years, the Attorney General may make an application under subsection 64(1) (application for adult sentence). 2002, c. 1, s. 69 2012, c. 1, s. 180 Hearing — adult sentences 71 The youth justice court shall, at the commencement of the sentencing hearing, hold a hearing in respect of an application under subsection 64(1) (application for adult sentence), unless the court has received notice that the application is not opposed. Both parties and the parents of the young person shall be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. 2002, c. 1, s. 71 2012, c. 1, s. 182 Order of adult sentence 72 (1) The youth justice court shall order that an adult sentence be imposed if it is satisfied that (a) the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability of the young person is rebutted; and (b) a youth sentence imposed in accordance with the purpose and principles set out in subparagraph 3(1)(b)(ii) and section 38 would not be of sufficient length to hold the young person accountable for his or her offending behaviour." So the automatic assumption Kadr should not have been tried as an adult is incorrect and in Canada there is ample precedent for treating minors as adults in murder cases. I trust that helps shed light on the actual laws that are relevant.

In response to D and G's debate.... If conventional military forces engage in war crimes against civilians or enemy combatants that is subject to military law and international conventions and international war crimes courts. However to infer terrorism is no worse than the above does not justify either. Hopefully no one has or should condone any terrorist or war criminal. I do not wish however to stray from the the thread. To make it relevant to the thread we would need to discuss how does one know the difference between a desireable and undesireable Canada.

Start with an interview... that is it..that is the totality of your answer? To start with the immigration law process for determining eligibility already interviews. Canadian Border Security Officers and inland immigration officers already interview and the very purpose of admissability hearings and refugee board tribunal cases is to interview and cross examine. Clearly your concern is its not asking the right questions. You haven't a clue what questions to ask. Go on tell us. What questions would you ask and how would they screen out the Muslims you are so worried about? Please explain. You know damn well anyone can prep an answer to a question. If interviewing was a sufficient method to screen "undesireables" you would not be coming on this board complaining about Muslims. You threw out an unoriginal idea as lip service proving the point its easy to point out the negative and what does not work, but people like you have no clue as to how to fix what whine about, you prefer instead to fear monger about Muslim terrorists coming into Canada and Muslims coming into Canada who will erode our Canadian values. You can't even enunciate our Canadian values. You can however assume negative about other peoples values without stating your own. From what I can see of your values, you believe whatever yours are, they are superior to the values of Muslims and they should have the same values as you. You won't acknowledge a difference between the many kinds of Islamic values and lump them all as undesireable repeatedly in your comments and then deny you do and claim if I question this I "admire" the Islamic religion and therefore that makes my challenging your negative generalizations defective. Go on tell me how the following is not stereotyping, educate us all:

You now presume to tell me that Nazi propaganda in speeches, films, political cartoons did not stereotype Jews it just slandered Jews. What an insipid attempt to engage in semantics to deflect from and defend your negative generalizations about Muslims and why it was inappropriate to lecture me or any Jew to negatively stereotype or hate anyone.. ..quite pathetic actually. As for your need to negatively generalize about Muslims no one including me has issued you any prohibitions. You mistake me for Shady or you telling me and Jews how to define anti-semitism or who we should hate.

One brother openly renounced his family and said the above about them. So that brother of Kadr I distinguish. His sister and mother I deeply criticize as they have gone in to the Muslim community and preached extremist Islamist ideology. How popular they are I do not claim to know. Well yah the issue. Being hateful in itself is not illegal. If it incites crime or violence it then may be considered a hate crime. So it has been used to prevent certain people from getting a visitor's visa to Canada when they have wanted to come and give lectures or speeches. It is of course a tricky topic because there is a fine line between hate crimes and freedom of expression guaranteed in s.2 and other sections of the Charter. The current immigration laws give a Canadian Border Security officer the right to challenge entry on the grounds a foreign national may be a security risk, a fugitive of a criminal conviction where that crime is the same in Canada, or is suspected of being part of organized crime, a terrorist organization or having violated war crimes or UN conventions. The problem with that of course is when the foreign national steps foot on Canadian soil, the Charter applies. So if they do not agree to leave asap and demand an appeal, they are detained and have a detention hearing and an admissibility hearing and the evidence is reviewed as to the grounds to deport. Many countries will not take back criminals or terrorists. They refuse. A classic example is Jamaica. It goes out of its way at times to avoid taking back known gang members who try to get into Canada with fake names, etc. Here is another twist. We added a new definition of refugee that states a person who commits a crime in another country, where that crime is not a crime in Canada or where they were convicted of a sentence much harder than they would in Canada or claim they would be killed if sent home or tortured and can not avail the protection of the state can apply for state protection and be granted refugee status. Its been used for a teacher in her 30's who had sex with a 16 year old and was convicted of statutory rape in Florida since it was not considered statutory rape in Canada. Its been used to allow a 4 time pedophile serial killer from Iraq to remain in Canada because he would have faced a death sentence in Iraq. It can be used by anyone who commits a crime for murder and is sentenced to capital punishment in another country and can flee. It has not been used that way. In Kadr's specific case, the laws he was tried under were found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court 4 times so the US regardless of President had to release him. Each time his conviction was called unconstitutional Bush Jr. would change the law leading to yet another appeal and was able to do that 4 times but after his tenure as President Obama did not want to push that process and scrapped it. The US system failed because it attempted to fuse military tribunal processes with civilian criminal law processes. In so doing it did not allow full disclosure of the evidence used to define Kadr as guilty violating the US constitution and for that matter the Canadian Charter of Rights, Australian, United Kingdom and all laws of full disclosure in Western allied countries. There are no international conventions states have agreed to follow to suggest the treatment of terrorists, child terrorists. This is because no one can agree on what a terrorist is. With Kadr the US had two other alternatives. It could have treated Kadr as a prisoner of war, but he would have had to be released once hostilities were at an end and could not be punished for his killing of the US soldier. He could have also been arrested and charged with violating Afghani laws but the US felt if placed in an Afghani prison he would have easily escaped. The primary motive of the US in creating the hybrid law it did because it felt it morally imperative to contain and punish terrorists especially those who killed a US soldier. Today we are no further ahead. When Kadr returned and he had to, he should have been forced to go to the Supreme Court of Canada on his request for compensation. It is very probable the courts would have said he is entitled to rehabilitation which might include schooling but they most probably would not have rewarded him money as Trudeau did in an out of court settlement citing the common law doctrine that one can not profit from crimes for any reason. Trudeau set a legal precedent to pay off terrorists rather than test this principle. In regards to screening terrorists at this point, we rely on overseas consulates and other government intelligence and police sources because CSIS has no budget or personnel to properly do this and the few CSIS officers we have are swamped screening diplomats. We do have a shared intelligence agreement with the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand and we can ask for info from NATO allies or through Interpol but usually there is not enough time or manpower to do this. The cost to have a proper screening process is something no one discusses. As well no one discusses the implications of the Charter's application and how it makes many grounds some would want to be used to deport or block entry, unconstitutional. Right now I am not sure how much political will the current Prime Minister has to block anyone for any reason. In regards specifically to Muslims coming to Canada our Charter says they must be treated as all others. Simply assuming they are terrorists because they are Muslim won't do it. If on the other hand they did what Kadr did then we have concrete proof of a crime. The problem then is because Kadr was under 16 at the time of his crime he invoked the Young Offenders Act to argue a lesser sentence than age of majority individuals.. The Young Offender Act was predicated on dealing with domestic crimes not acts of terror and war overseas and so it enabled Kadr to get out of a prison term for time already served. Civilly I believe our courts acted unreasonably in not allowing the widow of the person he killed recover compensation from Kadr for wrongful death. I would have liked to have seen that appealed. The true injured parties are the family of the soldier Kadr injured. In regards to Kadr, he was never rehabilitated. He has made it clear he has no remorse for what he did. What can we do for current laws? Well we are going to have to clearly define what is a terrorist. We are going to have to write into the definition words that contemplate the Charter exemption from the Charter if it can be shown the anti terror law is justified as being a higher level of importance than individual rights. The only way to do that is assure the evidence would be fully disclosed as to the grounds of terrorism. The problem with that is the state may not want to fully disclose the evidence for fear of compromising where it was obtained from. So you see its a complex matter.

SOME of us. What I say is also akin to Bhuddist and Taoist approaches, quantitative physics, and people who do recreational drugs. On a further lighter note I like the Chrustians try make God less frightening through Jesus, I am not sure though the people who wrote his gospels may have understood that. Paul I would say or at least what is attributed him, can appear quite hateful in its pronouncement and judgements.

I agree with G's position on Kadr but I am not sure how it relates to the thread. The defficiency in our laws as to how to deal with terrorists and child terrorists is a very real and complex issue. Banning innocent Muslims coming to Canada or hating all Muslims won't resolve it. I have yet to hear anyone provide criteria to screen out what they feel are undesirables.

Deleted

It was soul rotting because it had to make profit. Profit is not a concept of spirituality. It is a concept of man made practical necessity to survive because we could not treat each other as equals and share fairly. But hey I get why evangelists like profit and turn their religion into a scam to make money. Business is business. I also think we are all born bigoted and remain so our entire lives. Whether we learn to understand how this distorts our perceptions and decipher the distortions remains with the individual. Some have no idea of the distorytons existing, some do and so try their best to decipher them but in the end all of us see what we decide to see and whether that is actually what we see remains to be seen.

No. Original Judaism believed and believes the Messiah has not yet come. However many of us today do not interpret Judaism thatvway anymore just like many others reject your literal interpretations. We believe heaven and hell are symbols for our negative and positive energy. We believe everyone is the messiah, i.e. given this life to save or condemn, heal or injure. We embrace many views of life being a complex process of creating meaning from chaos or balancing negative and positive energy and this process is complex, multi dimensional, constantly takes new forms as it travels. We are all Gods creating universes so to speak but always connected to each other and a greater origin from whence we came but from where we can not return. Where I move is just a reflection of you and vice versa. It's all a big illusion. It's just something to do really. Do notv swet the details. If calling it Jesus helps you enjoy. I call it eternal transference of mutating enegy based on the dialectic process of any given moment which was,is and could be all at the same moment. The vessels that transfer the energy of meaning are infinite as each new meaning creates one.

Are you kidding? Why do I care? The three original kardashian sisters is kkk. The next two plus Kanye is kkk. Get it? 666. They are demons.

Because I have no life.

I agree but whether its only leftist in orientation I am not sure. It may be but some of the people who feel that way may have no ideology or may notice things you and I do not and think its racist when it is just snobbery based on blood line. As well the bloodline snobbery would discriminate against white and black but then with blacks be racist if we get technical about it. So everyone has their view. I personally believe Markle is just playin the dimwit Harry.

Not true. The relationship was no secret.

No of course not. Its meaning and significance depends on the context the holocaust is used. Your blanket prohibition and censorship of its use is illogical. I raised the point for a specific reason or context.. to explain why Argus telling Jews who and why we should hate is ignorant of Jewish history. It was not initiated as a stand alone accusation. It was raised to explain why telling Jews to hate Muslims is an ignorant and stupid thing to do. That in no way diminishes the holocaust but applies lessons learned from the holocaust NOT TO REPEAT the same process of steretyping and so does the exact opposite. In fact to remain silent as a Jew as to what the holocaust taught us about hatred in the face of being told by Argus in reference to my being a Jew who and when to hate would diminish the meaning of the holocaust. That is why I raised it. You might also want to look at the negative generalizations Argus threw out on the Islam thread about my positions and for that matter Dialamah's before you tell me how to deal with the implications of the steretypes he throws out. I respond to what is said. I make no apologies.

Your sorrow is selective. What was not a good idea was Argus presuming to lecture me about anti-semitism and telling me I must negatively generalize about all Muslims because they hate Jews which is precisely what he did which then made me morally obliged as a Jew to explain it is precisely because Nazis negatively generalized about all we Jews that for anyone to tell us to do the same thing to others is absurd and just outright ignorant. You want to be sorry, then start by trying to understand when and why I raised the history of Nazism. I only did so when Argus played the Jew card suggesting as a Jew I should know certain Muslims hate Jews. My raising it was as an analogy of direct relevance to the consequences that arise when any of us define an entire people as undesireable. If you can not understand that with due respect it might be good idea you tried rather than try indirectly to suggest I unfairly called Argus a Nazi. I have challenged his hateful negative generalizations of an entire people as a Jew whose family history was the target of it, as a Zionist faced with it as an impairment to achieving peace with certain Muslims and as a human being.

Argus you stated the above and yet in the remainder of the same reply made it clear your only concern was with those coming to Canada who commit crimes. Your disconnect in what you claim to say and actually say does not lend to credibility.