New Group wants to talk about immigration reform

[Shwa]

You are, of course, a member of one of the groups above?

Nope.

I think if we had freedom of speech and racists could speak freely then we would know who they are and not confuse them with people who have legitimate social concerns. Such as forced integration of cultures disguised as multi-cultural tolerance.

Some racists speak freely enough to be identified, but have any outspoken 'legitimate' critics of our immigration been openly called 'racist' by the press or media?

In this day and age I think we recognize people are people of whatever race, colour or creed and all deserve the same consideration. Thus true racists could never rise to any power.

You are ignoring degrees of power and influence. And I think what you are referring to is rather overt, public racism. Would you deny that racists can obtain positions of power in the bureaucracies of government of business and provide some form of pressure within those organizations?

What you say is true a baseline has to be established but curtailing freedom of speech blurs the line and we guess or point fingers at who we think might be a racist, carte blanche using the race card when we can, making a mockery of racism with multi-culturalism and the expectation of unquestioning tolerance.

Who said anything about curtailing freedom of speech? Legitimacy is about reason, not censorship - even though, in the end, reason tends towards censure. If a group espouses a reasonable view - something that can be discussed and openly debated with a measure of public civility, we ought to welcome this should we not?

Michael happened to mention one and seems to be aware of it. Are you not aware of it at all?

Just one?

Not relevant. Coy and condescending.

Your cynicism is your problem I'm afraid and I can't much help you there.

[jbg]

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.

I want them to get exactly what my Grandma Sarah got. I want them to get exactly what my great grandparents Lena and Jacob got. Except they didn't even get the choice of learning either French or Canadian. Only English.

And they sacrificed alot to speak English in the home so their children would grow up being American.

I'm proud of why they came to this country. And I'm proud to be an American. The immigrants should be proud to be Canadians. Toronto shouldn't look like some upscale version of Calcutta or Kabul.

[charter.rights]

I want them to get exactly what my Grandma Sarah got. I want them to get exactly what my great grandparents Lena and Jacob got. Except they didn't even get the choice of learning either French or Canadian. Only English.

And they sacrificed alot to speak English in the home so their children would grow up being American.

I'm proud of why they came to this country. And I'm proud to be an American. The immigrants should be proud to be Canadians. Toronto shouldn't look like some upscale version of Calcutta or Kabul.

Ah, but Canada isn't the US and no one here wants to model after the US.

We are Canadian! And we like beer and moose meat. So as long as the immigrants don't interfere with our beer, we're ok with them doing whatever the hell they want.

Edited October 26, 2010 by charter.rights

[jbg]

We are Canadian! And we like beer and moose meat. So as long as the immigrants don't interfere with our beer, we're ok with them doing whatever the hell they want.

I've actually had moose steaks in Jackson Hole, Wyoming and like them. And I like all varieties of Molson, including Brador, as well as Labatts.

Doesn't make me a bad person.

[RNG]

Including that Toronto bunch that wants Sharia law?

Sorry, that was a response to charter.law. I'm still learning the buttons on this board.

Edited October 26, 2010 by RNG

[RNG]

I've actually had moose steaks in Jackson Hole, Wyoming and like them. And I like all varieties of Molson, including Brador, as well as Labatts.

Doesn't make me a bad person.

Real Coors is good.

[Michael Hardner]

I want them to get exactly what my Grandma Sarah got. I want them to get exactly what my great grandparents Lena and Jacob got. Except they didn't even get the choice of learning either French or Canadian. Only English.

Canada didn't even accept Jewish refugees during WWII. And immigrants got pretty much nothing.

Why do you want that ?

The immigrants should be proud to be Canadians. Toronto shouldn't look like some upscale version of Calcutta or Kabul.

1st sentence: why do you think they're not ?

2nd sentence: hard to interpret this as anything other than "no Indian or Afghanis". help me out here.

[charter.rights]

Including that Toronto bunch that wants Sharia law?

Sorry, that was a response to charter.law. I'm still learning the buttons on this board.

Man....we're talking about beer....Sharia law is ok too as long as they don't interfere with beer and moose back strap. I mean everything else is secondary.

[jbg]

2nd sentence: hard to interpret this as anything other than "no Indian or Afghanis". help me out here.

It's not the people or the hue of their skin that's a problem. It's their garb and their enclaving.

[RNG]

Man....we're talking about beer....Sharia law is ok too as long as they don't interfere with beer and moose back strap. I mean everything else is secondary.

Sharia law is really scary dude. There's no way anyone in the west could agree with that. It's a serious menace, You want your mom, sisters, aunts and daughters made second class citizens. And that's just a small part of it.

[Shwa]

Sharia law is really scary dude. There's no way anyone in the west could agree with that. It's a serious menace, You want your mom, sisters, aunts and daughters made second class citizens. And that's just a small part of it.

What is scarier, dude, is folks that are actually afraid of Sharia law somehow magically usurping Canadian law. The problem is that they might build upon this fearful fantasy and then use it to inform their outlook towards others.

[Michael Hardner]

What is scarier, dude, is folks that are actually afraid of Sharia law somehow magically usurping Canadian law. The problem is that they might build upon this fearful fantasy and then use it to inform their outlook towards others.

I was thinking the same thing. Sharia law taking over from Canadian law should be pretty low on our list of worries.

[Pliny]

Some racists speak freely enough to be identified, but have any outspoken 'legitimate' critics of our immigration been openly called 'racist' by the press or media?

It seems to me that this is the point of the discussion.

Argus: I pointed out that this new group set itself up and was immediately called "unCanadian" for daring to question immigration policy and suggest that it might not be entirely justifiable.

That's 2 now. Of course, you have to assume that questioning immigration policy is racist but there is no other reasonable reason why a crowd would think immigration policy could not or should not be questioned.

You are ignoring degrees of power and influence. And I think what you are referring to is rather overt, public racism. Would you deny that racists can obtain positions of power in the bureaucracies of government of business and provide some form of pressure within those organizations?

I am not denying degrees of power and influence. A law of the sanctity of person and property must be upheld for all and that is pretty simple. It doesn't have to be complex.

Yes, I do deny it. In today's world they can rise to power because they deny they are racists which almost everyone does or or else risks thorough demoralization. And racism is not just oppression or the obvious expression of dislike but it manifests also in the sanctimonious, patronizing of a race or policies of a government that appear ohhh...so tolerant and indignant at intolerance. This is multi-culturalism at work and it is divisive because all cultures are not treated equally. Some may receive favour or privilege which brings it to a level of institutionalization. Europeans, the English and the French, the Protestants and the Catholics have been privileged for years with language preferences and religious holidays and now others are being privileged in some misguided attempt at "leveling the playing field" or "social justice". The problem is in thinking that law defines a culture and not the people.

Who said anything about curtailing freedom of speech? Legitimacy is about reason, not censorship - even though, in the end, reason tends towards censure. If a group espouses a reasonable view - something that can be discussed and openly debated with a measure of public civility, we ought to welcome this should we not?

So why do you dislike whites?

Pliny: Michael happened to mention one and seems to be aware of it. Are you not aware of it at all?

Just one?

You really don't see any? I know you missed Argus's point and it seems to be what the discussion is about.

Your cynicism is your problem I'm afraid and I can't much help you there.

You can help immensely. You don't have to like my views but if you want a legitimate, open and honest debate on a subject leave your personal prejudices at the door for the duration and employ some civility and grant me a little respect as a person instead of snottily looking down your nose.

I don't want to have this discussion and won't be addressing it anymore. So don't come back with, "Golly...when did I ever treat you mean? I have always been so nice."

We could start a thread and discuss the above but not here.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Pliny

[Argus]

Man....we're talking about beer....Sharia law is ok too as long as they don't interfere with beer and moose back strap. I mean everything else is secondary.

Sharia law says if you drink beer you get whipped. I'm sure you'd have no problem with that either.

[Argus]

I was thinking the same thing. Sharia law taking over from Canadian law should be pretty low on our list of worries.

Our law is built on somewhat of a consensus by the citizenry on what should be allowed and what shouldn't. If you bring in several million granola crunching whitebread liberals from California, chances are the laws will lighten up. If you bring in a few million people who support Sharia law then chances are laws will start to lean that way. Doesn't mean you'll see religious police beating up women who dare to show their hair in public, but very conservative Muslim voters will make their wishes known on many issues.

The amazing thing about lefties is while they are appalled at a Canadian politician who is uncertain about whether he wants to support gay marriage as opposed to say, civil unions, they haven't got a word to say about a community which, by and large, thinks Muslims are vermin who should be in prison. In fact Lefties want to bring over as many as possible so we can have more colorful restaurants!

[Pliny]

I was thinking the same thing. Sharia law taking over from Canadian law should be pretty low on our list of worries.

I think you are concentrating on Sharia and Canadian and not the term "LAW". It is not Canadians that follow Sharia law it is Muslims. If, as some Canadians wish, separation of church and state is desirable then Sharia law should be allowed to be practiced by Muslims in Canada. It seems to me that, as it stands now, Muslims, for the most part, accept Sharia law must be curtailed and made secondary to Canadian law. But if you want freedom of religion then you have to accept that some Muslims will demand their religious rights to Sharia law or Hindus to honour killings or whatever the religious practices may be. They are still not going to apply to non-Muslims.

Christianity has abrogated it's right to the use of force to government - no longer can witches be burned at the stake. And I think, other religions need to abandon their use of force as well. If they do not then they should not be welcome in a country with freedom of religion because the legal use of force must be restricted to government. In my view, if a religion uses force it must be considered a form of government first and a religion second.

But there is of course the willing submission to the use of force. Atonement for sins is willingly performed and do Muslims willingly submit to stonings and accept their fate? So there is no force involved only the obligation of a "contractual" agreement which governments should not interfere in.

In the end, I think that anyone entering into a religion must understand fully to what he is committing his life to and must also reserve the right to unconditionally and voluntarily end the commitment. I think with this freedom of the individual that religion would be able to evolve along with civilization and science instead of solidifying into a practice of rite and ritual.

[Michael Hardner]

Our law is built on somewhat of a consensus by the citizenry on what should be allowed and what shouldn't. If you bring in several million granola crunching whitebread liberals from California, chances are the laws will lighten up. If you bring in a few million people who support Sharia law then chances are laws will start to lean that way. Doesn't mean you'll see religious police beating up women who dare to show their hair in public, but very conservative Muslim voters will make their wishes known on many issues.

I'm glad you see that it doesn't mean you'll see religious extremism, because you won't.

The amazing thing about lefties is while they are appalled at a Canadian politician who is uncertain about whether he wants to support gay marriage as opposed to say, civil unions, they haven't got a word to say about a community which, by and large, thinks Muslims are vermin who should be in prison. In fact Lefties want to bring over as many as possible so we can have more colorful restaurants!

I guess that means that lefties like the constitution. I don't know what else to say.

[Michael Hardner]

But there is of course the willing submission to the use of force. Atonement for sins is willingly performed and do Muslims willingly submit to stonings and accept their fate? So there is no force involved only the obligation of a "contractual" agreement which governments should not interfere in.

Except that you couldn't contractually agree to certain things, such as being stoned.

In the end, I think that anyone entering into a religion must understand fully to what he is committing his life to and must also reserve the right to unconditionally and voluntarily end the commitment. I think with this freedom of the individual that religion would be able to evolve along with civilization and science instead of solidifying into a practice of rite and ritual.

And as somebody explained to me once: the easiest way to ensure the decline of a religion is to allow it complete freedom. People try to quote statistics about this to the contrary, but I haven't seen any that are convincing yet.

[guyser]

It's not the people or the hue of their skin that's a problem. It's their garb and their enclaving.

Could you perhaps expand on this?

What garb? Like maybe a hat, Turban, a Yarmulke what?

Enclaving....like Kiryas Joel or New Square?

[Pliny]

Except that you couldn't contractually agree to certain things, such as being stoned.

why not? It occurs and people doing the stoning have obviously made the agreement with it even though they may not think it will ever be their destiny.

And as somebody explained to me once: the easiest way to ensure the decline of a religion is to allow it complete freedom. People try to quote statistics about this to the contrary, but I haven't seen any that are convincing yet.

Right. By freedom I only mean the freedom to secede from it or join it if he can agree with it's tenets. I don't mean complete freedom. There has to be rules and regulations as within any organization. And, I think, a religion that doesn't allow entry and exit freedoms should go into decline. I think there would only be remnants of old world religions left today if that had been the case all along.

It is a little more complicated than that and there is definitely more to consider such as the reason for leaving. One can't have committed crimes or broken rules and then say, "OK, I'm leaving now." One has to arrive at the conclusion that it no longer fulfills him. Or he may decide it is not what he thought it was.

There are many things to consider.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

why not? It occurs and people doing the stoning have obviously made the agreement with it even though they may not think it will ever be their destiny.

It's not legal to sell, or constrict the rights guaranteed by the constitution, such as freedom from murder, assault, slavery and so on.

It is a little more complicated than that and there is definitely more to consider such as the reason for leaving. One can't have committed crimes or broken rules and then say, "OK, I'm leaving now." One has to arrive at the conclusion that it no longer fulfills him. Or he may decide it is not what he thought it was.

There are many things to consider.

It seems that you're considering Sharia law could be used in criminal cases, and that's not even close to being considered right now. That said, of course the problems you point out would have to be considered.

[Shwa]

That's 2 now. Of course, you have to assume that questioning immigration policy is racist but there is no other reasonable reason why a crowd would think immigration policy could not or should not be questioned.

Nope. Labelling all questioning of immigration policy as racist is not reasonable.

I am not denying degrees of power and influence. A law of the sanctity of person and property must be upheld for all and that is pretty simple. It doesn't have to be complex.

Interpretation necessarily introduces degrees. And consensus.

Yes, I do deny it. In today's world they can rise to power because they deny they are racists which almost everyone does or or else risks thorough demoralization. And racism is not just oppression or the obvious expression of dislike but it manifests also in the sanctimonious, patronizing of a race or policies of a government that appear ohhh...so tolerant and indignant at intolerance. This is multi-culturalism at work and it is divisive because all cultures are not treated equally. Some may receive favour or privilege which brings it to a level of institutionalization. Europeans, the English and the French, the Protestants and the Catholics have been privileged for years with language preferences and religious holidays and now others are being privileged in some misguided attempt at "leveling the playing field" or "social justice". The problem is in thinking that law defines a culture and not the people.

Law defines nothing and only frames a part. Hence, they need to make new laws and strike down old ones. And really, that is only the public part of the law, that refers to the public part of culture. You are saying nothing about anyone's personal decision to form their own interpretation of the law, in degrees, about acts private and public spheres. None of which needs to be codified, but can be implied.

So why do you dislike whites?

Why do you advocate social darwinism?

You really don't see any? I know you missed Argus's point and it seems to be what the discussion is about.

No, I got Argus point and replied to it. The discussion as evolved.

You can help immensely. You don't have to like my views but if you want a legitimate, open and honest debate on a subject leave your personal prejudices at the door for the duration and employ some civility and grant me a little respect as a person instead of snottily looking down your nose.

No, that is the risk you take. You either deal with it or put me on your censored list. There is, ironically, no law against that.

I don't want to have this discussion and won't be addressing it anymore. So don't come back with, "Golly...when did I ever treat you mean? I have always been so nice."

Fair enough, since there hasn't been any requirement for it.

We could start a thread and discuss the above but not here.

Be my guest, I'll look for it.

[jbg]

Sharia law is really scary dude. There's no way anyone in the west could agree with that. It's a serious menace, You want your mom, sisters, aunts and daughters made second class citizens. And that's just a small part of it.

What is scarier, dude, is folks that are actually afraid of Sharia law somehow magically usurping Canadian law. The problem is that they might build upon this fearful fantasy and then use it to inform their outlook towards others.

I was thinking the same thing. Sharia law taking over from Canadian law should be pretty low on our list of worries.

Let's face it. The only reason we're even having this debate is Western fear of Muslim violence. If some FN tribe wanted to allow "tribal law" to exist off reserves they'd be laughed at hysterically. In fact, in the U.S. Supreme Court, in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) gave a chilly reception to the argument that just because peyote was part of religious rituals its use was protected. The perception that Muslims as a group will react to being spurned with sickening violence no doubt motivates society's willingness to cave in to unreasonable demands.

[Shwa]

If some FN tribe wanted to allow "tribal law" to exist off reserves they'd be laughed at hysterically. In fact, in the U.S. Supreme Court, in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) gave a chilly reception to the argument that just because peyote was part of religious rituals its use was protected.

You'll have to quote Canadian law and context when referring to Canadian First Nations and off-reserve legalties.

The only reason we're even having this debate is Western fear of Muslim violence...Let's face it. The perception that Muslims as a group will react to being spurned with sickening violence no doubt motivates society's willingness to cave in to unreasonable demands.

What "unreasonable demands" has society been motivated to cave in to with respect to Sharia Law? If I recall it was soundly rejected in Ontario 5 years ago. Was there a news story or something?

[Shwa]

Our law is built on somewhat of a consensus by the citizenry on what should be allowed and what shouldn't. If you bring in several million granola crunching whitebread liberals from California, chances are the laws will lighten up. If you bring in a few million people who support Sharia law then chances are laws will start to lean that way. Doesn't mean you'll see religious police beating up women who dare to show their hair in public, but very conservative Muslim voters will make their wishes known on many issues.

The amazing thing about lefties is while they are appalled at a Canadian politician who is uncertain about whether he wants to support gay marriage as opposed to say, civil unions, they haven't got a word to say about a community which, by and large, thinks Muslims are vermin who should be in prison. In fact Lefties want to bring over as many as possible so we can have more colorful restaurants!

Well with regard to this post, I'm a lefty and I don't want to "bring over as many as possible" without it being a susatainable activity with regard to economic and social impact. As for anyone that "...by and large, thinks Muslims are vermin who should be in prison..." well this lefty would find that attitude sort of pathetic. More to be pitied than scorned.

As for Sharia, meh, the Criminal Code ain't going anywhere and I doubt a weensy teensy portion of a weensy teensy ethnic group is going to make much a difference now or in the foreseeable future. We got Hudsons Bay stores and winters.

I do find it funny sometimes, this Sharia boogey man that keeps getting trotted out. It appears that when it comes to this issue, the righties are always claiming that the tail is, in fact, wagging the dog.