Should Canada Accept Gay Refugees?

Michael Hardner · January 3, 2012

Absolutely.

...

Yes Michael, we Canadians defeated "prejudice on some level".

That wasn't the question, though.

The question was: Did we ENTER WW2 to combat prejudice ?

Why did Canada enter the war ? Because Germany was arresting homosexuals, Roma and Jews ? That is not why.

In the 1940s, our men did good. I know this because people in small French towns told me. My grandmother was too proud/discrete to say the same but she lost her first husband because he "did good". Michael, I have spoken to French people, Russian women about this, British, even German women and Dutch.

I'm glad for it, but it's not the question I was asking.

From 1939 on, our Canadian men in general did good. For young Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders, it is striking to walk in these cemeteries. For young people from Quebec, when they see the family names on the gravestones and understand the consequence, it is a life changing experience.

Interesting that you would choose Quebec as an example - the province that was the biggest problem for confederation when it came to committing to wars but I digress.

-----

I can see finally the point you're making: you are a moralist, and you want Canada to "do good". I understand your viewpoint, I think, in my own way. Let me say this:

You're thinking about a recent period of history where morality was barely questioned, and in fact was called upon regularly. Government, church and society built their endeavors on a foundation of "good" behavior.

Well, today, we don't have a church, nobody believes the government and you can select your own society to live in, that will support your world view. We have left the garden of Eden, now, and the idea of living for someone other than oneself seems naive and pathetic.

What is Canada? Why sacrifice my life?

Exactly.

If you want to bring back moralist values, I can see why. How to bring them back ? I think it would take a very hard lesson, unfortunately.

waldo · January 3, 2012

an OP link draws reference to the 'Rainbow Refugee Committee (RCC)'... presumes to 'showcase' Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney in a cooperative undertaking with RCC. The RCC website hosts a letter to Kenney, drawing attention to the lack of any public consult toward the makeup of Bill C-11 and speaks to significant concerns within Bill C-11... the letter post-dates the OP's linked article. Unfortunately, the website hasn't updated recently to provide additional insight as to whether any concerns were recognized by Harper Conservatives prior to Bill C-11 recently receiving royal assent.

Tilter · January 3, 2012

It depends what you mean by persecuted but the United States accepts them, as does Europe, and some parts of South America, Australia and some areas of Asia. So to say the world persecutes them isn't quite accurate.

It would be interesting to see a demographic of gay population, per capita in different countries in the world. Hard to get data thats accurate in some places, I'd imagine. As Ahmadinejad said, "In Iran we do not have such problems."

No, they kill all admitted or discovered gays.

Nice place, well at least as nice as the whackjob head of the country

Edited January 3, 2012 by Tilter

Tilter · January 3, 2012

Quote
Canada awarded a South Korean man refugee status after he objected to the mandatory military service in his home country for being a pacifist and a homosexual, a local human rights group said Thursday.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) granted the status in July 2009 to Kim Kyung-hwan, 31, saying the gay conscript is highly likely to face abuse and mistreatment back home, according to the Center for Military Human Rights in Korea, which brought the story to light two years after the fact.

He should have been refused, Not for being gay but for being a coward. If he objected to military service in a threatened country like South Korea he would also be useless to Canada inm the event that this country needed defending

Edited January 3, 2012 by Tilter

g_bambino · January 3, 2012

So what if Canada becomes a country of gays?

What, exactly, is a "country of gays"? What is "a gay", for that matter?

g_bambino · January 3, 2012

It's hard to get that data here. People don't like answering how much money they make on questionnaires, let alone their sexual orientation.

It'd also be incredibly difficult question to formulate; humans aren't neatly and permanently divided into two orientation categories.

Black Dog · January 3, 2012

Gays have not lost direction. It is the West that is confused.

IMHO, gay men are like left-handed people. In a world with ignorant bullies who want to exterminate left-handed people, why invite more left-handed people to your country? It is foolish if you live in a society who has lost courage to confront ignorant bullies.

I fear that we in the West have lost our courage. In the 1940s, we in the West had courage - even if we were foolish.

Accepting gay people as refugees from places where they are persecuted for their sexuality is a courageous thing and a pretty definitive statement of values. Not sure how not accepting them as you imply would be anything but an abdication to the ignorant bullies out there.

I really need to start smoking more weed. I can't think of any other way to make sense of these types of August threads.

The_Squid · January 3, 2012

Yes, we should accept gays as refugees who are persecuted in their country.

However, mandatory military service in a "1st world" country is not persecution.

So, generally, it is a good policy. In this specific case of the South Korean person, I think that the refugee board got it wrong.

guyser · January 3, 2012

Let 'em all in.

Lots of places in this country could use a makeover.

prairiechickin · January 3, 2012

I've read through this thread and its taken some strange turns, but if the question is should Canada be a refuge for legitimately persecuted gay people, I say hell yes. I'm less interested in how many of their relatives are likely to come here than I am in making a statement that Canada is a gay-friendly nation, and we accept that designation as dangerous in some parts of the world. We should always be open to the victims of intolerance.

But what struck me as wierd was the part of this thread involving our immediate ancestors in World War Two. For the record, I consider that generation that endured the Great Depression then went on to fight and win the Second World War to be among the finest Canada has ever produced. Most of them saw little but depravity before signing up to fight for European freedom, but they did it anyway and paved the way for a good chunk of the peace we have today. But by today's standards, they were a racist, mysoginistic, homophobic and outright bigoted bunch, and I'm struck by the irony that their sacrifice would parlay into gay refugees. I think they'd be cool with it though.

PlayItLoud · January 3, 2012

But what struck me as wierd was the part of this thread involving our immediate ancestors in World War Two. For the record, I consider that generation that endured the Great Depression then went on to fight and win the Second World War to be among the finest Canada has ever produced. Most of them saw little but depravity before signing up to fight for European freedom, but they did it anyway and paved the way for a good chunk of the peace we have today. But by today's standards, they were a racist, mysoginistic, homophobic and outright bigoted bunch, and I'm struck by the irony that their sacrifice would parlay into gay refugees. I think they'd be cool with it though.

And by their standards, we're a weak, unprincipled bunch that took ten years to fight a a group of towelheads.

Bryan · January 3, 2012

I suspect that Arab gays out of the closet in Montreal don't go home to Tunis or even Beirut unless the closet door is closed. Bryan, whaddya think?

If they really are gay. Like I said, if that's the golden ticket, people WILL use it.

prairiechickin · January 3, 2012

And by their standards, we're a weak, unprincipled bunch that took ten years to fight a a group of towelheads.

Domestically yes, militarily no. I think our troops performed to the very high standards set by the Canadian military, and I think they carried out a very tough assignment with exceptional discipline. The politicians behind them, not so much. I was not pleased when, after much hoopla, America tired of Afganistan and ran off to Iraq leaving us on point since none of the other pussie nations would serve in a combat zone. I'll give Cretien points for keeping us out of Iraq, but he made nary a noise about being left in Afganistan. And then there's the question of Pakistan's duplicity, how many lives did that cost? The good news is that we're out of there now and if some other nation thinks they can bring these people into the 21st century, good luck with that.

cybercoma · January 3, 2012

IMHO, gay men are like left-handed people. In a world with ignorant bullies who want to exterminate left-handed people, why invite more left-handed people to your country? It is foolish if you live in a society who has lost courage to confront ignorant bullies.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't invite the "left-handed" (the latin root also gives us the word sinister--so I hope your remark is not intentional in that way) in because people might "bully" us? Edited January 3, 2012 by cybercoma

cybercoma · January 3, 2012

Absolutely.

Battlefieds after the fact? I have been here and there. I have looked over various battles of the Seven Years War and from Ypres to Verdun. Marathon, Thermopylae, Carthage. I have not been to Stalingrad (a tremendous regret) but I walked around Borodino. I have walked the beaches of Normandy, and the US cemetery at Nettuno. I have been to Dieppe several times.

I recently walked on the terrifying fields of Treblinka and years ago, I went to Dachau. I have seen with my own eyes both Auschwitz I and II.

Yes Michael, we Canadians defeated "prejudice on some level". In the 1940s, our men did good. I know this because people in small French towns told me. My grandmother was too proud/discrete to say the same but she lost her first husband because he "did good". Michael, I have spoken to French people, Russian women about this, British, even German women and Dutch.

From 1939 on, our Canadian men in general did good. For young Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders, it is striking to walk in these cemeteries. For young people from Quebec, when they see the family names on the gravestones and understand the consequence, it is a life changing experience.

Andrew Cohen writes a great book about how we lost our way from our past glory. It's called While Canada Slept. He addresses what you're talking about.

Nevertheless, I still don't see what that has to do with accepting gay refugees.

cybercoma · January 3, 2012

It'd also be incredibly difficult question to formulate; humans aren't neatly and permanently divided into two orientation categories.

This is true too, but I didn't want to open that can of worms about sexuality and gender spectrums. I'm simply trying to understand what August is saying. He's being pretty cryptic with his answers. I'm not sure if he rejects homosexuality as immoral and believes Canada needs to stand up for morality--this asylum case being an example of how we've lost our morality by accepting persecuted homosexuals... or if he thinks that we ought to do the right thing and give asylum to people who are persecuted, but we're too "weak" of moral conviction to stand up to a world that would criticize us for standing up for our beliefs.

cybercoma · January 3, 2012

However, mandatory military service in a "1st world" country is not persecution.

Think of how gays were treated in the US military with hazings and abuse, which the brass would turn a blind eye to. Imagine that, only worse, but service in the military is required of you. In other words, you would be required to be abused for your sexuality because you legally can't avoid the environment that is being abusive to people of your orientation. It's not mandatory service itself that is persecution, but it's the fact that the mandatory service would require him to be abused. He would have had to prove it to our immigration office, so they obviously thought it was likely enough that he was granted asylum.... under the Conservatives no less.

Michael Hardner · January 3, 2012

I'm simply trying to understand what August is saying. He's being pretty cryptic with his answers. I'm not sure if he rejects homosexuality as immoral and believes Canada needs to stand up for morality--this asylum case being an example of how we've lost our morality by accepting persecuted homosexuals... or if he thinks that we ought to do the right thing and give asylum to people who are persecuted, but we're too "weak" of moral conviction to stand up to a world that would criticize us for standing up for our beliefs.

...or maybe he is saying that we should take military action against those who abuse rights, as we did in WW2.

cybercoma · January 3, 2012

...or maybe he is saying that we should take military action against those who abuse rights, as we did in WW2.

Does not compute. :huh:

g_bambino · January 3, 2012

If they really are gay...

How would they prove it?

g_bambino · January 3, 2012

He's being pretty cryptic with his answers.

That's standard fare.

Michael Hardner · January 3, 2012

See Auguste's post:

Gays have not lost direction. It is the West that is confused.
IMHO, gay men are like left-handed people. In a world with ignorant bullies who want to exterminate left-handed people, why invite more left-handed people to your country? It is foolish if you live in a society who has lost courage to confront ignorant bullies.

I fear that we in the West have lost our courage. In the 1940s, we in the West had courage - even if we were foolish.

So, in the 1940s they had the courage to confront ignorant bullies and we don`t seem to today.

Of course, those bullies were intent on rolling through England - the seat of Canada's Queen. There are examples of bullies that we didn't attack, or even bullies that we helped because they were on our side.

Further extending this aside- I hate the relativist response to a moral point of view. I think that people want to do "good" things, and that is a great driving force for our way of life.

What are our options for a new common morality rising from our current situation? I think this is what Auguste is wondering, and I think that`s a great question.

cybercoma · January 3, 2012

MH:

I don't believe there has ever been a "common" morality. I believe that's just the narrative that is constructed when historians look back on things and people write the stories. King believed Hitler was a great leader and would be the Joan of Arc of his people. Our immigration bureau denied Jews asylum. Fervent nationalism in Quebec fostered white supremacy there and Nazism (see: Adrien Arcand). One could just as easily write a darker history of our country filled with a distinct lack of morality and that's just this particular time period.

Michael Hardner · January 3, 2012

MH:

I don't believe there has ever been a "common" morality. I believe that's just the narrative that is constructed when historians look back on things and people write the stories.

There has never been a common morality ? Do you think that there was vast support for the Allies in World War II ? How about a moral majority ?

And how would one ever determine whether these things did in fact exist ?

King believed Hitler was a great leader and would be the Joan of Arc of his people. Our immigration bureau denied Jews asylum. Fervent nationalism in Quebec fostered white supremacy there and Nazism (see: Adrien Arcand). One could just as easily write a darker history of our country filled with a distinct lack of morality and that's just this particular time period.

[edit]Not sure whether you're saying there was no common morality, or if you're poking holes in the morality of the day [/edit]

I don't care about what is "right" or "wrong" here, but whether there was a shared idea of right/wrong that had weight. If so, was it more significant or more evident than today ?

cybercoma · January 3, 2012

I'm sure there is a sort of social consciousness or a "majority morality," so to speak. Maybe "common morality" seems a little too universal for my tastes. We detained the Japanese during that time too--I forgot to add that. Perhaps I lean more towards the Hegelian dialectical model of history. Every thesis has its antithesis. History is a constant struggle between ideas, morals, and material existences. Hegel, of course, believed the the first two shape the third, while Marx flipped it around (material existence shapes morality and ideologies). I just have a hard time hanging my hat on the word "common."