New Group wants to talk about immigration reform

[Shwa]

1) It was yours.

2) More than one issue would confuse you even more.

1) I am not doing your homework for you ya moron. If you want to go back and lift quotes, at least have a little decency and bring along a little context.

2) Seriously, this coming from a guy whose typical post to anyone consists of one or two lines.

Riiiiight.

[kimmy]

You want to prove that the subjucation of women is embraced by proponents of multiculturalism? Come with proof. Statements that it is OK to treat a woman like an inferior because HEY that,s what you did in the old country. Or changes to civil or criminal laws to accommodate practices that run contrary to the principle of equality of men and women before the law.

Well, "embraced" is the wrong word. But there seems to be a willingness to excuse, overlook, deflect from, or apologize for these beliefs.

How often do criticisms of the treatment of women under Islam get a response like "oh yeah well when will the Catholics allow female priests??"

How often do discussions of the topic get deflected with accusations of racism? A while back me and Nicky10013 had a discussion regarding whether Britain's "Undercover Mosque" documentary should be aired in Canada. The show features footage of British Imams making a number of appalling statements, including discussing the proper way to beat women and the general inferiority of females. Nicky felt that broadcasting the documentary in Canada would be bad because it would create anti-Muslim sentiment. That seems to be a popular attitude: discussing appalling beliefs and practices could increase intolerance, so appalling beliefs and practices should be overlooked.

Or, a while back we discussed this article where a professor urges us to mute our

criticism of female genital cutting ...because it's culturally insensitive and it's mean to condemn people for doing what they think is in the best interest of their children. Nobody from MLW was in agreement of her, but clearly an example of what Bambino was getting at.

-k

[Saipan]

1) I am not doing your homework for you ya moron.

Every time you're losing debate try name calling. It'll make you look smarter.

[dre]

Well, "embraced" is the wrong word. But there seems to be a willingness to excuse, overlook, deflect from, or apologize for these beliefs.

How often do criticisms of the treatment of women under Islam get a response like "oh yeah well when will the Catholics allow female priests??"

How often do discussions of the topic get deflected with accusations of racism? A while back me and Nicky10013 had a discussion regarding whether Britain's "Undercover Mosque" documentary should be aired in Canada. The show features footage of British Imams making a number of appalling statements, including discussing the proper way to beat women and the general inferiority of females. Nicky felt that broadcasting the documentary in Canada would be bad because it would create anti-Muslim sentiment. That seems to be a popular attitude: discussing appalling beliefs and practices could increase intolerance, so appalling beliefs and practices should be overlooked.

Or, a while back we discussed this article where a professor urges us to mute our

criticism of female genital cutting ...because it's culturally insensitive and it's mean to condemn people for doing what they think is in the best interest of their children. Nobody from MLW was in agreement of her, but clearly an example of what Bambino was getting at.

-k

Catholics dont just refuse to have women as priests. They have been possibly the largest obstacle to the realization of womens rights in the west going back hundreds of years.

For whatever reason, hating on women and treating them like garbage seems to be an integral part of sky-god worship. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the three major skygod cults all started with that mysogynistic piece of worthless trash, Abraham!

THe difference in the west is that reasonable, secular people have had good success FORCING skygod fanatics to behave themselves for the most part.

[nicky10013]

Well, "embraced" is the wrong word. But there seems to be a willingness to excuse, overlook, deflect from, or apologize for these beliefs.

How often do criticisms of the treatment of women under Islam get a response like "oh yeah well when will the Catholics allow female priests??"

How often do discussions of the topic get deflected with accusations of racism? A while back me and Nicky10013 had a discussion regarding whether Britain's "Undercover Mosque" documentary should be aired in Canada. The show features footage of British Imams making a number of appalling statements, including discussing the proper way to beat women and the general inferiority of females. Nicky felt that broadcasting the documentary in Canada would be bad because it would create anti-Muslim sentiment. That seems to be a popular attitude: discussing appalling beliefs and practices could increase intolerance, so appalling beliefs and practices should be overlooked.

Or, a while back we discussed this article where a professor urges us to mute our

criticism of female genital cutting ...because it's culturally insensitive and it's mean to condemn people for doing what they think is in the best interest of their children. Nobody from MLW was in agreement of her, but clearly an example of what Bambino was getting at.

-k

I also mentioned that Jesus Camp shouldn't be shown for the exact same reason. Then again, that would make me look, you know, moderate.

[kimmy]

Catholics dont just refuse to have women as priests. They have been possibly the largest obstacle to the realization of womens rights in the west going back hundreds of years.

Sure. I'm just pointing out that one can't criticize the treatment of women in Islam without somebody trying to shift the topic to Catholics instead. Why is that?

I also mentioned that Jesus Camp shouldn't be shown for the exact same reason. Then again, that would make me look, you know, moderate.

"Moderate" isn't the word I'd use.

But the discussion wasn't specific to Islam. The claim made was that some people are willing to downplay/apologize for/deflect from/make excuses for cultures that subjugate women, in the name of tolerance. There are Christian sects that have some appalling beliefs regarding women, and if somebody were arguing that such beliefs should not be discussed for fear of causing intolerance, then I would say the same.

If someone were to tell me that the practices of Bountiful, BC shouldn't be discussed because it might make people intolerant, I'd say let people be intolerant. Why would we as a society want to be tolerant of such behavior?

-k

[dre]

Sure. I'm just pointing out that one can't criticize the treatment of women in Islam without somebody trying to shift the topic to Catholics instead. Why is that?

"Moderate" isn't the word I'd use.

But the discussion wasn't specific to Islam. The claim made was that some people are willing to downplay/apologize for/deflect from/make excuses for cultures that subjugate women, in the name of tolerance. There are Christian sects that have some appalling beliefs regarding women, and if somebody were arguing that such beliefs should not be discussed for fear of causing intolerance, then I would say the same.

If someone were to tell me that the practices of Bountiful, BC shouldn't be discussed because it might make people intolerant, I'd say let people be intolerant. Why would we as a society want to be tolerant of such behavior?

-k

Sure. I'm just pointing out that one can't criticize the treatment of women in Islam without somebody trying to shift the topic to Catholics instead. Why is that?

The problem is that a lot of this critisism comes from the members of other mysogynistic skygod cults. So its sorta like Jeffrey Dalmer critisizing John Wayne Gasey in that regard.

In any case youre right... we shouldnt let the debate be framed in these terms. We're a nation of secular laws, and we need to make sure our laws protect women from all types of religious idiocy. And we need to punish people who break them, regardless of whether they believe in Jesus, Mohammed, Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny.

There are Christian sects that have some appalling beliefs regarding women, and if somebody were arguing that such beliefs should not be discussed for fear of causing intolerance, then I would say the same.

THe point is discussing these beliefs will get you nowhere at all. They are what they are, and youre not going to get cultists to give them up no matter how stupid these beliefs are. So you need to focus on the bad behaviors these beliefs produce, and criminalize the bad ones.

For example look at Christianity in the west... We succeeded in making them behave (for the most part) not by any rational discussion about their beliefs but buy holding a gun to their head, and throwing them in prison when they step out of line. Most of them still believe all the crazy shit they did before...

Edited October 24, 2010 by dre

[Shwa]

Wow, that's two whole sentences Saipan! Congratulations are in order, you excellent poster you, with your well thought out, relevant and wise sage postings. I can hardly wait for the next wonderful example of compact expression with surgical precision, the shining excellence and graceful efficiency. If we were all more like you, the world would be a better, more concise universe!

Every time you're losing debate try name calling. It'll make you look smarter.

Ohhhhh.... you were being... sarcastic.

[jbg]

It's tough to discuss the issues because it usually ends up with name calling, anyone opposed to unfettered immigration is usually labelled a 'racist'.

We have a right to determine who and what is best for Canada so we should be linking immigration to skills needed in Canada. We should also be cutting back on the family class or the family reunification program. An offshoot of this is Ruby Dhalla's bill which would reduce the wait time for senior immigrants to collect OAS. Aging parents are brought in by the children who don't want to be financially responsible for them, they expect us to support them.

Official multi-cult is wrong, we should not be paying for people to be different, we should be helping them to become part of our society.

I agree strongly that assimilation should be encouraged, perhaps mandated. I don't think the problem is too many immigrants or the wrong religion or nationality of immigrants. I think the problem is that Canada encourages a mosaic rather than a melting pot; and is willing to subsidize non-productivity. I think people should be welcomed in the U.S. and Canada as immigrants; but should not be entitled to draw benefits other than free public schooling and, where applicable, health care. I don't think, for a period, that immigrants should be able to draw any needs-based benefits other than education.

[dre]

I agree strongly that assimilation should be encouraged, perhaps mandated. I don't think the problem is too many immigrants or the wrong religion or nationality of immigrants. I think the problem is that Canada encourages a mosaic rather than a melting pot; and is willing to subsidize non-productivity. I think people should be welcomed in the U.S. and Canada as immigrants; but should not be entitled to draw benefits other than free public schooling and, where applicable, health care. I don't think, for a period, that immigrants should be able to draw any needs-based benefits other than education.

Mandated assimilation? Youre not joking are you... wow.

Mind telling me how that might work?

[jbg]

Mandated assimilation? Youre not joking are you... wow.

Mind telling me how that might work?

Promoting the use of Canadian, English and French, period.

When my ancestors came to New York there was little or nothing in the way of public benefits. If they didn't learn English they'd starve. It was as simple as that. We can and should do that again, and limit the extent that we accomodate non-conformity.

[Michael Hardner]

Promoting the use of Canadian, English and French, period.

When my ancestors came to New York there was little or nothing in the way of public benefits. If they didn't learn English they'd starve. It was as simple as that. We can and should do that again, and limit the extent that we accomodate non-conformity.

The baseline for life was not much better than that at that time. Why would you want to do that today ?

[jbg]

The baseline for life was not much better than that at that time. Why would you want to do that today ?

Because I want immigrants who do come to know that they have to survive largely on their own and by their own efforts. Aside from education in speaking either Canadian, English or French they shouldn't be given much on a silver platter.

[dre]

Promoting the use of Canadian, English and French, period.

When my ancestors came to New York there was little or nothing in the way of public benefits. If they didn't learn English they'd starve. It was as simple as that. We can and should do that again, and limit the extent that we accomodate non-conformity.

"Promoting" French and English is a far cry from mandating assimilation.

To really mandate assimilation you would have to set up some kind of ethnic quotas to make sure a community doesnt become "too chinese", or "too jewish" or "too muslim".

Language is not the only thing driving ethnic balkanization at the community level. Theres a whole host of factors... everything from food, to religion.

[jbg]

Language is not the only thing driving ethnic balkanization at the community level. Theres a whole host of factors... everything from food, to religion.

One cannot control where people live or what they eat. What we can control is whether we, as a society, subsidize such Balkanization.

[CANADIEN]

One cannot control where people live or what they eat. What we can control is whether we, as a society, subsidize such Balkanization.

What people chose to eat is a form of balkanisation? Frankly.

As for languages... according to the 2006 census, about 500000 people (less than 2% of the population) knew neither English or French. Considering that most of them are likely very recent immigrants, that should put to rest the notion that "immigrants do not learn the language".

[Michael Hardner]

Because I want immigrants who do come to know that they have to survive largely on their own and by their own efforts. Aside from education in speaking either Canadian, English or French they shouldn't be given much on a silver platter.

Forget about the silver platter - you want them to get even less than non-immigrant citizens get. It all seems to come from a desire to punish people, as far as I can see.

[Argus]

The problem is that a lot of this critisism comes from the members of other mysogynistic skygod cults. So its sorta like Jeffrey Dalmer critisizing John Wayne Gasey in that regard.

How is that a problem? The criticism is valid or is invalid. If it's valid it shouldn't be renounced or deflected simply because the person who issues it is an idiot. You can accept the criticism while still pointing out the person is less than savoury.

THe point is discussing these beliefs will get you nowhere at all. They are what they are, and youre not going to get cultists to give them up no matter how stupid these beliefs are

Then perhaps it would be a good idea not to be importing millions of people who are the most dedicated and zealous proponents of that sort of belief system.

For example look at Christianity in the west... We succeeded in making them behave (for the most part) not by any rational discussion about their beliefs but buy holding a gun to their head, and throwing them in prison when they step out of line. Most of them still believe all the crazy shit they did before...

Far be it from me, who can't be dragged into a church for anything other than weddings and funerals to point out the obvious - but who is this "we" you speak of, white man? Because my understanding of history in the West is that virtually every major public figure behind all societal progress throughout history has been a dedicated, church-going Christian (or temple going Jew. And your contention that Christians and Jews in the West still believe in archaic and violent nonsense is unsupported by anything remotely approaching fact. All you're doing here is exposing your own bigotry.

On the other hand, Muslims today, the great majority of them, do seem to still be rather zealous supporters of archiaic and violent belief systems - something you shy away from with a rather desperate sense of politically correct avoidance.

[Argus]

Ohhhhh.... you were being... sarcastic.

He was being innacurate, too.

[Pliny]

Forget about the silver platter - you want them to get even less than non-immigrant citizens get. It all seems to come from a desire to punish people, as far as I can see.

Should we just have illegal immigrants to provide cheap labour then, like the States does? Or Germany issues work permits for people who will provide their cheap labour, good idea?

Multi-culturalism is touted as being about tolerance. It is really about forced integration and a tool to be used by governments to neutralize any argument regarding immigration policy. If you criticize the immigration policy you are an intolerant racist. The reasons why immigration is about forced integration is dabatable. Social Democrats or liberal politicians like it as it increases their voting base.

In any case, once again political correctness shuts down any reasonable debate.

[Michael Hardner]

Should we just have illegal immigrants to provide cheap labour then, like the States does? Or Germany issues work permits for people who will provide their cheap labour, good idea?

I don't think we need to change our system specifically for immigration. Any changes to the system that I favour are across-the-board for all government ops.

On the other hand, if we're talking about major shifts... do we want to start talking about redesigning the economy ? Some are touting no-immigration/no-growth models, it seems to me. I have seen one paper on that: Prosperity Without Growth

The text within seemed to be more about a heart-and-home plea to persuade people to change than about a specific plan for replacing our economy with something new.

Multi-culturalism is touted as being about tolerance. It is really about forced integration and a tool to be used by governments to neutralize any argument regarding immigration policy. If you criticize the immigration policy you are an intolerant racist. The reasons why immigration is about forced integration is dabatable. Social Democrats or liberal politicians like it as it increases their voting base.

In any case, once again political correctness shuts down any reasonable debate.

Sorry, Pliny. It doesn't fly for me any more to say that immigration policy opponents are labeled racist. Take a look at this thread. There hasn't been any progress made on the issues discussed here, and in fact you have people like justme coming in and dominating the debate at points.

If I took the time to go through this thread, I could score the pro/anti reform posters on how much they focused on issues rather than name calling. I don't think there would be a clear winner on either side.

Good discussion takes both sides, and pro-reform people aren't any more ready than those who would label them racist without listening.

[Pliny]

dre: THe point is discussing these beliefs will get you nowhere at all. They are what they are, and youre not going to get cultists to give them up no matter how stupid these beliefs are

Then perhaps it would be a good idea not to be importing millions of people who are the most dedicated and zealous proponents of that sort of belief system.

A good answer, but it is politically incorrect as it smacks of intolerance. In arguing immigration it is a rational point. In arguing multi-culturalism it is intolerant and possibly racist.

[Michael Hardner]

A good answer, but it is politically incorrect as it smacks of intolerance. In arguing immigration it is a rational point. In arguing multi-culturalism it is intolerant and possibly racist.

Not sure if you're being ironic, but if you are then you should know that Pliny's comment falls short of rational.

[Shwa]

Multi-culturalism is touted as being about tolerance. It is really about forced integration and a tool to be used by governments to neutralize any argument regarding immigration policy. If you criticize the immigration policy you are an intolerant racist. The reasons why immigration is about forced integration is dabatable. Social Democrats or liberal politicians like it as it increases their voting base.

In any case, once again political correctness shuts down any reasonable debate.

Well PC doesn't shut down debate here, thank God, however opposing blind bigotry or chauvensim isn't necessarily PC.

But I am curious about this: "If you criticize the immigration policy you are an intolerant racist."

Have you ever seen legitimate critics of immigration policy vilified as "racist?" If so, where?

[Michael Hardner]

Have you ever seen legitimate critics of immigration policy vilified as "racist?" If so, where?

Shwa, you strike me as being able to discuss immigration policy rationally, without name calling. And I feel that I can do so as well. Anybody else on here want to discuss immigration reform ? I imagine there are some.

I'm just waiting for some good arguments to progress on this topic.