Muslims in Toronto demand end to freedom of speech and expression.

[Michael Hardner]

Why? That question can be answered from two angles. Theoretically, and empirically.

From a theoretical standpoint, here's a few reasons:

- Modern technology allows people to communicate with and stay in touch with their homeland and its culture more than ever before. In the past, immigrants in a new land were immersed in it and had basically no communication with home. Today that is not the case.

- The rates of immigration. Assimilation happens at a certain rate. If the rate of immigration is higher, then the immigrant culture starts to overwhelm the native culture. There are plentiful examples of this in history, such as European immigration overwhelming Native American cultures.

- The relatively recent policies of modern multiculturalism, which emphasize "celebrating" diverse culture, rather than encouraging immigrants to adapt to their new culture, as was the norm in the past

The empirical part would be about immigration rates - do we have any numbers around that we can look at ?

The other points are interesting, but I don't see them having much of an effect.

Some other things I'd like to note:

- Human rights tribunals repressing the rights of Canadians when people of foreign cultures feel they have been "offended"

I see this quoted on here quite often. In fact, I see more examples of people offended by the charge of racism for posting repugnant views.

- Thousands of individual cases of honor killings, "home grown" terrorism, religious violence, gang rapes, and other criminal acts committed by individuals of certain foreign cultures, at rates far higher than comparable acts are committed by people not from those cultures

Not substantiated.

Now, if we were getting some huge benefit from all this immigration from certain parts of the world, maybe one could make the argument that the above was somehow worth it. But I challenge anyone to provide proof that having hundreds of thousands of immigrants from third world societies/cultures somehow benefits Canada.

It's the perceived economic benefit of positive population growth.

If you stated that there was consensus on this topic, you'd be wrong but there is an economic benefit that major institutions have agreed on.

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada#Economic_rationale_for_immigration

Why do we have to scrape the bottom of the barrel of barbarous third world hellholes and theocracies for our immigrants when there are so many better candidates? And why do we require such high immigration rates to begin with, when unemployment rates remain as high as they are?

You've given yourself away with that last sentence. It's the "lump of labour" fallacy -look it up.

[Rocky Road]

The empirical part would be about immigration rates - do we have any numbers around that we can look at ?

The other points are interesting, but I don't see them having much of an effect.

Some other things I'd like to note:

I see this quoted on here quite often. In fact, I see more examples of people offended by the charge of racism for posting repugnant views.

Not substantiated.

It's the perceived economic benefit of positive population growth.

If you stated that there was consensus on this topic, you'd be wrong but there is an economic benefit that major institutions have agreed on.

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada#Economic_rationale_for_immigration

You've given yourself away with that last sentence. It's the "lump of labour" fallacy -look it up.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/photo-deemed-offensive-to-islam-sparks-riots-temple-burning-in-bangladesh/article4578273/?service=mobile more violence.

[wyly]

Wanna have a contest to see who can name more? I'll even give you a helping hand - Jared Loughner and James Holmes. The problem is, of course, that there is no underlying ideological common denominator that unifies these mass murderers. So it's a sort of apples and oranges comparison, which is par for the course with socialists like you.

hey I'll trump you with all time champions of mass murder Hitler and Mussolini of course the underlying ideological common denominator christian intolerance that unifies these mass murders...so it is an apples and apples comparison, which is an inconvenient hypocrisy for fascists like you.

and to think my father put his life on the line 70 years ago killing fascists and here they are alive and well in canada...

[Bonam]

The empirical part would be about immigration rates - do we have any numbers around that we can look at ?

Immigration rates in Canada are about 300k/year. The vast majority of the immigrants go to the major cities (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary) which have a total population of about 15 million. With birth rates in Canada sitting right at replacement, at these rates, it would take approximately 50 years for these cities to be composed 50% of first/second generation immigrants (they are already a good chunk of the way there). Now, I don't have a good cite for assimilation rates, but it seems to me that it is far from a given that such a situation would result in successful assimilation. If you have any data or thoughts to share on the subject feel free.

The other points are interesting, but I don't see them having much of an effect.

Based on what? I think they will each have a very substantial effect.

If you stated that there was consensus on this topic, you'd be wrong but there is an economic benefit that major institutions have agreed on.

Some institutions may have agreed on it, but I didn't, and I will continue to voice concerns about the topic until someone shows me airtight studies that lay my concerns to rest. And I'm not the only one. I agree that net positive population growth is required for a healthy economy. But I don't believe that the present immigration rates are a result of any carefully researched economic cost-benefit analysis.

You've given yourself away with that last sentence. It's the "lump of labour" fallacy -look it up.

I am aware of the fallacy. And I agree, for each new member of the population, more consumption and demand is created, and more jobs are created. Whether net unemployment falls or rises depends on how much more demand is created. So a rational immigration policy would be based on a careful evaluation of how much extra demand is created (on average) per new immigrant. Is the demand associated with each new working immigrant sufficient to create 1.0 or more new jobs? If it is, that means bringing in the immigrant will work to reduce unemployment rates. But if less than 1.0 new jobs are created by the demand produced by the new immigrant, then it will have the opposite effect. Was such an analysis ever done or even attempted? Or were the immigration rates that we have a result of mere political considerations.

My view, and I would love to be proved wrong, is that our immigration policies have not been sufficiently well thought out and analyzed in either their economic or social impact on our country. I think they are a result of politicians trying to get votes, like many important decisions, and could easily be detrimental to Canada over the long term. I don't think blindly defending these immigration rates and policies, or even putting the onus on critics of these policies, is productive. These are important issues, and it should be up to the government to show that the immigration policies it implements or maintains are for the good of Canadians.

Also, you ignored my last point, that there are millions of immigrants wanting to get into Canada from cultures that have much less strife with our own and yet we continue to invite many immigrants from parts of the world that we know are experiencing certain... issues, issues that make it more likely that people from there may not be so happy with Canada and its values and policies. And this is done without proper screening of these immigrants for the benefit of Canadians. Why is this so? Immigration to Canada is not a right, denying someone such immigration is not discrimination. Immigration, both the rate of immigration and the types of people that are allowed to immigrate, should be based on a careful consideration of what is best for existing Canadians and permanent residents of Canada.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Bonam

[kraychik]

Immigration rates in Canada are about 300k/year. The vast majority of the immigrants go to the major cities (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary) which have a total population of about 15 million. With birth rates in Canada sitting right at replacement, at these rates, it would take approximately 50 years for these cities to be composed 50% of first/second generation immigrants (they are already a good chunk of the way there). Now, I don't have a good cite for assimilation rates, but it seems to me that it is far from a given that such a situation would result in successful assimilation. If you have any data or thoughts to share on the subject feel free.

There is no meaningful assimilation, that is a direct consequence of the suicidal "multiculturalism" policy that Canada adopted via Trudeau. Canadian identity is now whatever anyone wants it to be, and it's been intentionally watered down. There was a TDSB thread in the Provincial Politics section where a link to its curriculum was found. On that website was a section entitled "inclusive education". As you'd expect, it was packed with nonsense: "Afrocentric history", "Asian history", "Muslim heritage month", and other such nonsense. If we're lucky, there'll be a resurgence of Canadian identity in rejection of this failed social experiment.

What Michael Hardner is essentially telling you to do is not to believe your lying eyes when you look around at the failures of Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver.

Some institutions may have agreed on it, but I didn't, and I will continue to voice concerns about the topic until someone shows me airtight studies that lay my concerns to rest. And I'm not the only one. I agree that net positive population growth is required for a healthy economy. But I don't believe that the present immigration rates are a result of any carefully researched economic cost-benefit analysis.

Michael Hardner is just making things up. There is absolutely no consensus from "authorities" regarding the (imaginary) "successes" of contemporary immigration policies. We are not screening effectively for good immigration candidates, and as a consequence immigrants have been, on balance, net liabilities on our economy over recent decades.

I am aware of the fallacy. And I agree, for each new member of the population, more consumption and demand is created, and more jobs are created. Whether net unemployment falls or rises depends on how much more demand is created. So a rational immigration policy would be based on a careful evaluation of how much extra demand is created (on average) per new immigrant. Is the demand associated with each new working immigrant sufficient to create 1.0 or more new jobs? If it is, that means bringing in the immigrant will work to reduce unemployment rates. But if less than 1.0 new jobs are created by the demand produced by the new immigrant, then it will have the opposite effect. Was such an analysis ever done or even attempted? Or were the immigration rates that we have a result of mere political considerations.

The entire premise that immigration is necessarily a boon for the economy only exists in a purely free market. This reality gets distorted with government welfare programs. For heaven's sake, foreign students in several provinces are eligible for public healthcare! We also treat illegal aliens.

My view, and I would love to be proved wrong, is that our immigration policies have not been sufficiently well thought out and analyzed in either their economic or social impact on our country. I think they are a result of politicians trying to get votes, like many important decisions, and could easily be detrimental to Canada over the long term. I don't think blindly defending these immigration rates and policies, or even putting the onus on critics of these policies, is productive. These are important issues, and it should be up to the government to show that the immigration policies it implements or maintains are for the good of Canadians.

I agree, but you're being way too kind. Contemporary immigration and "multiculturalism" policies are a disaster.

Also, you ignored my last point, that there are millions of immigrants wanting to get into Canada from cultures that have much less strife with our own and yet we continue to invite many immigrants from parts of the world that we know are experiencing certain... issues, issues that make it more likely that people from there may not be so happy with Canada and its values and policies. And this is done without proper screening of these immigrants for the benefit of Canadians. Why is this so? Immigration to Canada is not a right, denying someone such immigration is not discrimination. Immigration, both the rate of immigration and the types of people that are allowed to immigrate, should be based on a careful consideration of what is best for existing Canadians and permanent residents of Canada.

Michael Hardner pretty much labelled you as a bigot after these comments.

[Black Dog]

And then we have empirical evidence that shows assimilation is not working as it has in the past:

I don't think the word "empirical" means what you think it means.

- Growing ethnic enclaves

Assuming it's true (whatever it means) how is it evidence that assimilation is not working?

- Entire areas where foreign languages are dominant

Like Chinatown? Little Italy? Richmond, B.C.?

- Unrest due to supposed offenses against some immigrant cultures

We're not really seeing that here.

- Human rights tribunals repressing the rights of Canadians when people of foreign cultures feel they have been "offended"

Examples?

- Thousands of individual cases of honor killings, "home grown" terrorism, religious violence, gang rapes, and other criminal acts committed by individuals of certain foreign cultures, at rates far higher than comparable acts are committed by people not from those cultures

Data?

[kraychik]

I don't think the word "empirical" means what you think it means.

Assuming it's true (whatever it means) how is it evidence that assimilation is not working?

Like Chinatown? Little Italy? Richmond, B.C.?

We're not really seeing that here.

Examples?

Data?

Translation of almost your entire post:

"If a tree falls in the woods and Black Dog doesn't hear it, does it make a sound?"

Answer - Not in Black Dog's world. You must live on the same island of delusion as Michael Hardner, where nothing exists until Peter Mansbridge tells you it does.

The funny thing is this just reinforces my earlier point about the widespread omission of relevant stories by most of the Canadian media landscape, with the most recent example being the nearly complete burial of the story linked in the original post reported on by Sun News. Out of sight, out of mind!

[Black Dog]

Translation of almost your entire post:

"If a tree falls in the woods and Black Dog doesn't hear it, does it make a sound?"

Answer - Not in Black Dog's world. You must live on the same island of delusion as Michael Hardner, where nothing exists until Peter Mansbridge tells you it does.

Well, I'm not easily swayed by lunatics raving on street corners, which is basically your role here.

The funny thing is this just reinforces my earlier point about the widespread omission of relevant stories by most of the Canadian media landscape, with the most recent example being the nearly complete burial of the story linked in the original post reported on by Sun News. Out of sight, out of mind!

Or out of your mind.

That you think asking policy choices should be based on anecdotal evidence is exactly why people like you shouldn't have any influence on policy.

[PIK]

There is 2 canadas, the one before trudeau and the one after, but there is certain people here that don't understand that.

Edited October 1, 2012 by PIK

[kraychik]

That you think asking policy choices should be based on anecdotal evidence is exactly why people like you shouldn't have any influence on policy.

You're right, every single policy decision we make should be determined by multi-million dollar "studies" carried out by "experts". We definitely need liberal arts professors ("immigration experts") telling us that bringing in diseased and senior relatives who don't speak English of new Canadian citizens in the name of "family reunification" isn't likely to be an economic boon for Canada. We also need "experts" to tell us that the future of the country will be determined by the composition of the electorate, which isn't well served by importing Islamists from Somalia. Maybe there's a way to scientifically measure "social cohesion" that's been agreed to by "experts" and "authorities" at universities in order to present this information in a clearly specificity manner so as to be palatable to a rationalist like yourself?

[kraychik]

There is 2 canadas, the one before trudeau and the one after, but there is certain people here that don't understand that.

Nah, they're just ultra-wise scientifically-oriented individuals who demand compelling evidence from Evan Solomon before they believe anything. When they're not perusing "data" from "authorities" like Avaaz and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, they're busy expanding their horizons by playing video games and talking about how great they are for choosing not to have kids (sincere thanks on the latter point, by the way).

[Bonam]

I agree, but you're being way too kind.

One must speak very carefully when debating this issue with MH.

[Argus]

Why would a group not be able to assimilate, unlike every other group.

Why would you assume a group which is unlike any previous group, and operating under entirely different circumstances, would assimilate as previous groups did?

[Argus]

Well, assimilation into a larger culture seems to be universal thus far. It's quite natural to ask why you think there would be an exception here ?

Would you say the Amish have assimilated into Canada's larger culture?

For that matter, have natives assimilated into our larger culture after centuries of interaction?

[carepov]

Is there any non white countries or non christian countries that have multiculturism?

Singapore and Malaysia. How about the Chinese SARs of Hong Kong and Macau? South Africa (unless you still consider it a white country). Some Central and South American Countries would fit as well.

[Black Dog]

You're right, every single policy decision we make should be determined by multi-million dollar "studies" carried out by "experts". We definitely need liberal arts professors ("immigration experts") telling us that bringing in diseased and senior relatives who don't speak English of new Canadian citizens in the name of "family reunification" isn't likely to be an economic boon for Canada. We also need "experts" to tell us that the future of the country will be determined by the composition of the electorate, which isn't well served by importing Islamists from Somalia. Maybe there's a way to scientifically measure "social cohesion" that's been agreed to by "experts" and "authorities" at universities in order to present this information in a clearly specificity manner so as to be palatable to a rationalist like yourself?

And the alternative is what? Knee-jerk decisions made by uneducated, paranoid conspiracy nuts like you?

[Argus]

It's relevant, though, to the point of assimilation. Children born into our society will learn our values, including those of tolerance and acceptance.

If they're raised in a community which has a different language, culture and beliefs, and spend most of their time among that community, what makes you think they will assimilate into the larger, surrounding community?

[Black Dog]

Nah, they're just ultra-wise scientifically-oriented individuals who demand compelling evidence from Evan Solomon before they believe anything. When they're not perusing "data" from "authorities" like Avaaz and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, they're busy expanding their horizons by playing video games and talking about how great they are for choosing not to have kids (sincere thanks on the latter point, by the way).

How's the posting on the GameSpot boards going?

[Bonam]

Nah, they're just ultra-wise scientifically-oriented individuals who demand compelling evidence from Evan Solomon before they believe anything.

It's not a matter of being "scientifically-oriented". I am probably the most scientifically oriented person on this forum: I have a masters in aerospace engineering and a PhD in space plasma science and work at a company that develops prototype experimental equipment for fusion research laboratories. It's a matter of knowing where science applies, and how it applies, and how to properly evaluate the validity of a given study. Now, social science is a field in its infancy, if it can be called science at all, and the studies in this field are more subjected to the bias of the researchers than in almost any other scientific field. Studies in the social sciences must be treated with the proper scientific skepticism, which they rarely are by posters on this forum who lack the scientific knowledge to do so and agree with their results reflexively. Of course, they are quick to dismiss "right wing" studies in the social sciences, not realizing that those that support their viewpoints are just as inherently flawed in their methodologies.

Given how young and often wrong the field of social science is, its results are often not meaningful at all, and in some cases "common sense" or "common knowledge" can be just as insightful (or more insightful) as the nascent results of social studies. This is of course very different from harder sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Bonam

[kraychik]

It's not a matter of being "scientifically-oriented". I am probably the most scientifically oriented person on this forum: I have a masters in aerospace engineering and a PhD in space plasma science and work at a company that develops prototype experimental equipment for fusion research laboratories. It's a matter of knowing where science applies, and how it applies, and how to properly evaluate the validity of a given study. Now, social science is a field in its infancy, if it can be called science at all, and the studies in this field are more subjected to the bias of the researchers than in almost any other scientific field. Studies in the social sciences must be treated with the proper scientific skepticism, which they rarely are by posters on this forum who lack the scientific knowledge to do so and agree with their results reflexively. Of course, they are quick to dismiss "right wing" studies in the social sciences, not realizing that those that support their viewpoints are just as inherently flawed in their methodologies.

Michael Hardner has made a consistent effort to portray himself as an ultra-rationalist who is only driven by compelling evidence. The reality is, of course, that he uses this unsatisfiable demand for "scientific evidence" from "experts" or "authorities" which simply doesn't exist in order to shut down discussion. He's basically told us that is he is incapable of accepting or understanding anything until a Peter Mansbridge tells him to. Consider that in the thread about the ridiculous "no zeroes" policy implemented at some schools, he tried to tell everyone to shut up because apparently we all lack "sufficient expertise" in education. Can you imagine living in that world, where you can't learn or understand anything on your own? He is that caricature of a leftist who wants government managing his life from the cradle to the grave. He'd be a great cog in the machine of 1984.

Edited October 1, 2012 by kraychik

[Black Dog]

It's not a matter of being "scientifically-oriented". I am probably the most scientifically oriented person on this forum: I have a masters in aerospace engineering and a PhD in space plasma science and work at a company that develops prototype experimental equipment for fusion research laboratories. It's a matter of knowing where science applies, and how it applies, and how to properly evaluate the validity of a given study. Now, social science is a field in its infancy, if it can be called science at all, and the studies in this field are more subjected to the bias of the researchers than in almost any other scientific field. Studies in the social sciences must be treated with the proper scientific skepticism, which they rarely are by posters on this forum who lack the scientific knowledge to do so and agree with their results reflexively. Of course, they are quick to dismiss "right wing" studies in the social sciences, not realizing that those that support their viewpoints are just as inherently flawed in their methodologies.

Given how young and often wrong the field of social science is, its results are often not meaningful at all, and in some cases "common sense" or "common knowledge" can be just as insightful (or more insightful) as the nascent results of social studies. This is of course very different from harder sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology.

Accepting kraychik's ridiculous strawman for a moment, what is the alternative in your mind? How should social policy be guided? By those who bitch the loudest?

[carepov]

My view, and I would love to be proved wrong, is that our immigration policies have not been sufficiently well thought out and analyzed in either their economic or social impact on our country. I think they are a result of politicians trying to get votes, like many important decisions, and could easily be detrimental to Canada over the long term. I don't think blindly defending these immigration rates and policies, or even putting the onus on critics of these policies, is productive. These are important issues, and it should be up to the government to show that the immigration policies it implements or maintains are for the good of Canadians.

IMO, the proof that you are wrong is in Canada’s success as a country.

Let x = the year that Canada significantly changed immigration/multiculturalism policy. I will let you pick it.

By most measures, in both absolute terms and relative to the average OECD country, Canada is a better place to live today versus “x”.

-Economic growth

-Standard of living

-Life satisfaction

-Reduced crime

-Others?

Overall, by these and other measures, Canada has become and is becoming a better country. I am not claiming that this is proof that our immigration/multiculturalism policy is causing the improvements, however Canada’s success disproves theories such as “immigration/multiculturalism policies are destroying Canada”. Our policies certainly have room for improvement but there is certainly no need for major reform.

[kraychik]

IMO, the proof that you are wrong is in Canada’s success as a country.

That's not proof. Canada enjoys broader success despite its failures. Your position could be used to suggest that the EHealth scandal was actually a success because healthcare in Ontario is still of good quality and reasonably accessible to most Ontarians. It is a ridiculous position.

Let x = the year that Canada significantly changed immigration/multiculturalism policy. I will let you pick it.

By most measures, in both absolute terms and relative to the average OECD country, Canada is a better place to live today versus “x”.

-Economic growth

-Standard of living

-Life satisfaction

-Reduced crime

-Others?

All of this is based on your initial ridiculous premise. It's like saying that gambling away $500 every weekend isn't a waste of money because my net worth is higher this year than in years past due to a strong income.

Overall, by these and other measures, Canada has become and is becoming a better country. I am not claiming that this is proof that our immigration/multiculturalism policy is causing the improvements, however Canada’s success disproves theories such as “immigration/multiculturalism policies are destroying Canada”. Our policies certainly have room for improvement but there is certainly no need for major reform.

By this standard, Harper's administration has been a success. Of course, you'll vote for one of the opposition in the next federal election.

Edited October 1, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

Accepting kraychik's ridiculous strawman for a moment, what is the alternative in your mind? How should social policy be guided? By those who bitch the loudest?

We already know your and Michael Hardner's prescription: keep on importing diseased and uneducated third-world trash, Islamists, communists, and Nazis until "scientific evidence" is presented from "experts" and "authorities" to tell us that this is a bad idea. It's not possible to have a reasonable or honest discussion with either of you leftists. Remember, reality doesn't exist until the CBC tells you it does.

[carepov]

That's not proof. Canada succeeds despite its failures.

I agree with the first sentence and specifically stated that Canada’s success does not prove that we had good immigration policies BUT it does disprove that our policies have been disastrous!

Your position to could be used to suggest that the EHealth scandal was actually a success because healthcare in Ontario is still of good quality and reasonably accessible to most Ontarians. It is a ridiculous position.

All of this is based on your initial ridiculous premise. It's like saying that gambling away $500 every weekend isn't a waste of money because my net worth is higher this year than in years past due to a strong income.

No not al all. Immigration has costs and benefits. Your examples have no benefits.

By this standard, Harper's administration has been a success. Of course, you'll vote for one of the opposition in the next federal election.

Maybe or maybe not. Immigration is one of the areas where I generally agree with the CPC policies.