Should Canada Accept Gay Refugees?

[WWWTT]

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.

Have you bein to Attawapiskat?Or any other desperate reserve in Canada?Have you talked to the natives there?

WWWTT

[Bryan]

How would they prove it?

Exactly. It's a pretty easy thing to claim. Way too low of a bar.

[WWWTT]

There are about 6 billion people in the world, or about 3 billion men. If 1% of these men are gay, that's about 30 million. If half of these men live in backward/ignorant countries (eg. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria) where gays are persecuted, should we accept all the gays in these backward/ignorant countries?

Why do you refer to non western European/North American countries as "Backward/ignorant"?

Are all the political/social practices in these countries backwards?

Aswell are we in North America/Western Europe never or never have bein backwards/ignorant?

WWWTT

[dre]

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

Thats not what we did. We didnt give a shit about human rights, and Hitler could have gassed every jew, homosexual, and gypsie in Germany and we wouldnt have cared much. It was the sacking of commonwealth countries that got Canada pulled into the war.

And if the same thing happened today, we would be in there again.

[WWWTT]

Canada already is a gay country.

Do you mean to say that 50% or more(majority) of the Canadian population practises a gay or lesbian lifestyle?

Or that Canada has bein recently allowing people of alternative lifestyles the same rights as heterosexuals?

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

Thats not what we did. We didnt give a shit about human rights, and Hitler could have gassed every jew, homosexual, and gypsie in Germany and we wouldnt have cared much. It was the sacking of commonwealth countries that got Canada pulled into the war.

And if the same thing happened today, we would be in there again.

You have to read up into the thread to get context on this. You're disagreeing with my summation of someone else's views, which is confusing.

[cybercoma]

Do you mean to say that 50% or more(majority) of the Canadian population practises a gay or lesbian lifestyle?

Or that Canada has bein recently allowing people of alternative lifestyles the same rights as heterosexuals?

WWWTT

No. I just mean we're not becoming anything.

[Big Guy]

Of course we should accept gays as refugees!!

Gays are just misguided individuals with a difficulty in social adjustment based on a malfunctioning ability of libidinal evolution being restricted by a hostile environment – just ask any religious right winger. We should accept them and allow them to see the light and have their malfunctions “repaired”. The solution is a change in environment and lots of prayer!

In fact, it might be legislated and called the “Pedro and Buddy” act.

[g_bambino]

It was the sacking of commonwealth countries that got Canada pulled into the war.

Poland isn't in the Commonwealth; never was. We entered the war by our own initiative, not because of anyone else's "pulling".

[bush_cheney2004]

Poland isn't in the Commonwealth; never was. We entered the war by our own initiative, not because of anyone else's "pulling".

Good point...often ignored. It was Britain that declared war on Germany, without any attack on the Commonwealth.

[Bonam]

Canada's acceptance of rejection of a refugee claim should not be dependent upon the potential refugee's sexual orientation. If a potential refugee meets the criteria for qualifying as a refugee under Canada's laws (such as facing danger/persecution from the state they are fleeing), then that's that. That being said, the influx of refugees and immigrants in general must be limited to a reasonable number, so that it does not cause adverse effects in Canada. A country can only assimilate so many people over a given period of time. Canada's current 1%/year annual immigration rate is already quite possibly in excess of the rate at which people can be assimilated.

[waldo]

Canada's acceptance of rejection of a refugee claim should not be dependent upon the potential refugee's sexual orientation. If a potential refugee meets the criteria for qualifying as a refugee under Canada's laws (such as facing danger/persecution from the state they are fleeing), then that's that.

clearly, the essence of any related gay or transgendered refugee claim would be one related to persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity

[Guest Manny]

If refugee numbers are to be limited, which makes sense, I might be inclined to think that women and children should be given preference over men.

[cybercoma]

Canada's acceptance of rejection of a refugee claim should not be dependent upon the potential refugee's sexual orientation. If a potential refugee meets the criteria for qualifying as a refugee under Canada's laws (such as facing danger/persecution from the state they are fleeing), then that's that. That being said, the influx of refugees and immigrants in general must be limited to a reasonable number, so that it does not cause adverse effects in Canada. A country can only assimilate so many people over a given period of time. Canada's current 1%/year annual immigration rate is already quite possibly in excess of the rate at which people can be assimilated.

Their acceptance isn't dependent on their orientation; it's dependent on them being persecuted for something that we consider a protected status.

We already limit the number. Our entire permanent resident population is 0.7% of our total population. I hardly think quantity of immigrants is the problem with assimilation, if there even is a problem.

[cybercoma]

If refugee numbers are to be limited, which makes sense, I might be inclined to think that women and children should be given preference over men.

I don't think we should discriminate against refugees based on their age or gender. We're not talking about general immigration here, but protection for persecuted people. How are you going to say to a male applicant, "we know you're persecuted, but you're not a woamn.... so... umm.... no." Women are more likely to be persecuted in many parts of the world anyway, so it's more likely that they would be refugees anyway. We don't need any rules in place around this.

[sharkman]

Of course we should accept gays as refugees!!

Gays are just misguided individuals with a difficulty in social adjustment based on a malfunctioning ability of libidinal evolution being restricted by a hostile environment – just ask any religious right winger. We should accept them and allow them to see the light and have their malfunctions “repaired”. The solution is a change in environment and lots of prayer!

In fact, it might be legislated and called the “Pedro and Buddy” act.

Somehow I think you'd be against accepting religious rightwingers as well as gays. At least you're consistant.

[sharkman]

Canada's acceptance of rejection of a refugee claim should not be dependent upon the potential refugee's sexual orientation. If a potential refugee meets the criteria for qualifying as a refugee under Canada's laws (such as facing danger/persecution from the state they are fleeing), then that's that. That being said, the influx of refugees and immigrants in general must be limited to a reasonable number, so that it does not cause adverse effects in Canada. A country can only assimilate so many people over a given period of time. Canada's current 1%/year annual immigration rate is already quite possibly in excess of the rate at which people can be assimilated.

This type of mindset seems evenhanded, but it's a difficult issue. My concern with the whole idea is that Canada is well known as an open-arms-to-refugees, and the system is too easy to work. We get taken advantage of by dishonest people whether they be refugees or immigrants.

The problem is, how would it be proven that A)the person claiming refugee status is indeed gay as he/she claims, and B)that they indeed were facing serious danger back home for simply being gay. I wonder how difficult it would be to prove that one is gay, and not, for example, trying to beat the system by acting gay so they can get around the line up/regulations in immigration. I know that might sound callous, but it does happen and it's not fair to actual immigration applicants who are playing by the rules if Canada simply accepts a refugee's word for it without a process.

[Guest Manny]

I don't think we should discriminate against refugees based on their age or gender. We're not talking about general immigration here, but protection for persecuted people. How are you going to say to a male applicant, "we know you're persecuted, but you're not a woamn.... so... umm.... no." Women are more likely to be persecuted in many parts of the world anyway, so it's more likely that they would be refugees anyway. We don't need any rules in place around this.

Given a distribution of applicants that exceeds our "quota", we have to decide who is the most needy. The rationale for choosing women and children over men is that women and children are sometimes more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves. But other factors should also be considered. It doesn't mean, "you're not a woman, so we can't let you in." All other factors being equal though, it might be better to defer to the women and children first.

[Guest Manny]

The problem is, how would it be proven that A)the person claiming refugee status is indeed gay as he/she claims, and B)that they indeed were facing serious danger back home for simply being gay. I wonder how difficult it would be to prove that one is gay, and not, for example, trying to beat the system by acting gay so they can get around the line up/regulations in immigration. I know that might sound callous, but it does happen and it's not fair to actual immigration applicants who are playing by the rules if Canada simply accepts a refugee's word for it without a process.

That's quite a problem. But how would you know they're for real?

[sharkman]

THat was my point, I don't know how it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[g_bambino]

Their acceptance isn't dependent on their orientation; it's dependent on them being persecuted for something that we consider a protected status.

Sexual orientation has protected status in Canada; but, as I've already mentioned, sexual orientation is neither definite nor fixed. So, is it only those who call themselves "gay" who get serious consideration for refugee status, or is it anyone who's been caught and faces community and/or state punnishment simply for engaging in a homosexual act, whether that anyone identifies as gay or not?

[Guest Manny]

Not just gays. Even heterosexuals who have sex outside of marriage are in danger, in some countries in the world. Sometimes death by stoning, although it's usually the woman who is killed. Then the man is beaten and imprisoned.

[sharkman]

That's true, and I think I am hesitant to grant refugee status based on gayness. Whatever the parameters are for accepting a refugee, if they've been seriously harmed or persecuted, don't the laws on the books give them admittance already? Perhaps we don't need to add sub-categories for gay persecution, muslim persecution, christian, and whatever else.

[waldo]

That's true, and I think I am hesitant to grant refugee status based on gayness. Whatever the parameters are for accepting a refugee, if they've been seriously harmed or persecuted, don't the laws on the books give them admittance already? Perhaps we don't need to add sub-categories for gay persecution, muslim persecution, christian, and whatever else.

you clearly aren't getting it yet... you're not even aligning with Harper Conservative Bill C-11 related proclamations that presume to newly qualify and clearly identify one of the recognized persecutions to... now... include persecution related to sexual orientation.

[cybercoma]

Sexual orientation has protected status in Canada; but, as I've already mentioned, sexual orientation is neither definite nor fixed. So, is it only those who call themselves "gay" who get serious consideration for refugee status, or is it anyone who's been caught and faces community and/or state punnishment simply for engaging in a homosexual act, whether that anyone identifies as gay or not?

It's the persecution that's important. It doesn't matter how the person identifies. Whether they commit a single act or are homosexual doesn't matter. What does matter is how their community, society, government, whatever treats them.