dre Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Interesting point about reckless endangerment. If muslims can have a film banned by reacting violently to it could abortions be banned if christians bombed the tar out of a bunch of family planning clinics? Could we reverse the ban on bad films (and good cartoons and books) by blowing up more things than muslims do until they are allowed again? Muslims cant have a film banned. But the ones in Canada are free to protest a film, and they are also free to support stupid blasphemy laws, provided they dont break the law. You raise a valid point about abortions though. This thread contemplates having some kind of litmus test for immigrants that would support laws contrary to free speech. Should we have a pro choice litmus test too, to avoid letting in immigrants that would support laws that would strip women of some of their reproductive rights? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Muslims cant have a film banned. But the ones in Canada are free to protest a film, and they are also free to support stupid blasphemy laws, provided they dont break the law. You raise a valid point about abortions though. This thread contemplates having some kind of litmus test for immigrants that would support laws contrary to free speech. Should we have a pro choice litmus test too, to avoid letting in immigrants that would support laws that would strip women of some of their reproductive rights? My point was that if making that movie could be shown to be a criminal act because of the potential repercussions, it would effectively be banned. The same with cartoons and books. Which makes a mockery of what looks like, on the face of it, a perfectly reasonable law. Quote
dre Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 My point was that if making that movie could be shown to be a criminal act because of the potential repercussions, it would effectively be banned. The same with cartoons and books. Which makes a mockery of what looks like, on the face of it, a perfectly reasonable law. No the material wouldnt be banned, but the author could be charged. And there has to be more for a wreckless endangerment charge than "potential reprucussions. There has to be a reasonable suspicion that the act would lead to danger. In other words if you act in a way that is likely to get a lot of people killed, and you are aware of that and choose to act anyways that can be crime. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 No the material wouldnt be banned, but the author could be charged. And there has to be more for a wreckless endangerment charge than "potential reprucussions. There has to be a reasonable suspicion that the act would lead to danger. In other words if you act in a way that is likely to get a lot of people killed, and you are aware of that and choose to act anyways that can be crime. Granted, but again, my point is that any action can lead to danger if those who don't like the action see the reckless endangerment law being upheld and decide to respond to the action with violence for the sole purpose of using the law to get at their pet peeve. So a lawless band of radical christians start blowing up family planning clinics such that anyone performing an abortion ought to know that their actions will result in a violent reaction, ergo they don't do it for fear of breaking the law. What I'm saying boils down to this: No free expression, be it a cartoon, movie, book or the burning of a book, should ever relieve anyone who commits a violent act in response to the expression of one iota of responsibility. No reckless endangerment law should ever apply. Quote
Bonam Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) The first example was more of an invasion than a migration. And mass migrations aren't really the same thing as what we're talking about here. I'm wondering if there's any examples of peaceful and steady (as opposed to massive and sudden) immigration that has resulted in the sublimation of the original culture. Sorry for not replying earlier, was at work. How do you define "massive and sudden". You use these as subjective words here, but immigration is an easily quantifiable phenomenon. Today, in Canada, we bring in approximately 1% of the national population per year as immigrants (it might be a bit less than 1%, just rounding here). That is, with a population of ~30 million, we bring in about ~300k immigrants per year. This, to me, seems the best way of quantifying it: the rate of immigration as a % of the total population already there, that lets us normalize between different events in history. Now then, your implication is that this rate is "steady" and gradual, whereas events like the European colonization of North America were "sudden" and "massive". So if those events were so much more sudden, I would expect that the % immigration rate would have been much higher, yes? Well, as it turns out, no. For example, the average immigration rate to North America (the areas now being the US and Canada) over the first 200 years after discovery by Columbus was about 10k/year. I base that on an estimate of there being 2 million Europeans in North America in 1700, approximately 200 years after discovery. Estimates of native population prior to the arrival of Europeans are around 30 million. So the relative immigration rate there was just 0.03%/year compared to our 1%/year today. Even if you take into account that 80% of the native population died from disease and discount that portion of the native population, that's still just 0.15%/year. So no, I would say that by a quantitative measure, the immigration we are experiencing today is far more "massive and sudden" than that of the Europeans from 1500-1700. And yet by 1700 the fate of the natives, to be overrun by rising colonial nations, was already sealed. The only difference is that we are inviting this immigration, bringing it upon ourselves, whereas the natives did not. We have the power to shape policy to protect ourselves, but the natives had no real options. And if we go the way of the natives, which we surely will if we continue as we are, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. Edited October 2, 2012 by Bonam Quote
dre Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 So no, I would say that by a quantitative measure, the immigration we are experiencing today is far more "massive and sudden" than that of the Europeans from 1500-1700. And yet by 1700 the fate of the natives, to be overrun by rising colonial nations, was already sealed. The only difference is that we are inviting this immigration, bringing it upon ourselves, whereas the natives did not. We have the power to shape policy to protect ourselves, but the natives had no real options. And if we go the way of the natives, which we surely will if we continue as we are, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. The difference is europeans came here to establish their own society. Immigrants come here because they want to be part of our society, and their often fleeing their own. The other difference is that european settlers came here as a group with an adgenda and a plan directed by the nations they came from. Immigrants to Canada today come from hundreds of countries and every different kind of culture and religion. They are working together as kind of conspiracy. They will change the character and identity of the nation a bit at a time just like all the other immigrants in our history but there isnt going to be any "take over", and arent going to "go the way of native americans". If theres a real threat to the western european peoples its simply that they have a negative birthrate. Oviously if we dont breed we wont be around forever but that has little to do with immigration. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jbg Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 There was a protest at the American consulate in Toronto from Muslims who demanded an end to freedom of speech and expression, while also finding a few moments to attack Israel and Zionism with some thinly-veiled anti-Semitism. Why is this important? It reveals how irresponsible immigration policies import people who subscribe to a set of values antithetical to Canadian values of freedom. Couple that with "multiculturalism" policies that actually encourage people to cling to these anti-Canadian values, and you've got a recipe for cultural destruction. My suggestion would be that if they want, they either return to the sh**holes they came from, or else Canada set aside a portion of Baker Lake, Nunavut for a "Little Pakistan". Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bleeding heart Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) So no, I would say that by a quantitative measure, the immigration we are experiencing today is far more "massive and sudden" than that of the Europeans from 1500-1700. And yet by 1700 the fate of the natives, to be overrun by rising colonial nations, was already sealed. The only difference is that we are inviting this immigration, bringing it upon ourselves, whereas the natives did not. We have the power to shape policy to protect ourselves, but the natives had no real options. And if we go the way of the natives, which we surely will if we continue as we are, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. That's not by any stretch the "only difference." Unless you genuinely believe that most immigrants are coming here with the express desire of taking over and implanting their own culture(s) and laws and societies over our own, as we are a bunch of subhuman savages. Adding to that that we are talking about multiple cultures, rather than a small handful of dictinctly similar European ones,(and almost totally dominated by two, in fact) as in the "encounter." At any rate, if that's the claim (that they are planning to take us over) it's going to take some serious evidence to back it up. If it's a simple matter of demographics, that doesn't work either in this case, as has been explained multiple times. {edit: I see that Dre beat me to it, with a roughly identical sentiment.) Edited October 2, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
PIK Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 That's not by any stretch the "only difference." Unless you genuinely believe that most immigrants are coming here with the express desire of taking over and implanting their own culture(s) and laws and societies over our own, as we are a bunch of subhuman savages. Adding to that that we are talking about multiple cultures, rather than a small handful of dictinctly similar European ones,(and almost totally dominated by two, in fact) as in the "encounter." At any rate, if that's the claim (that they are planning to take us over) it's going to take some serious evidence to back it up. If it's a simple matter of demographics, that doesn't work either in this case, as has been explained multiple times. {edit: I see that Dre beat me to it, with a roughly identical sentiment.) Well dalton tried the old sharia law gimmick to get votes, so it has started. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 There are vast differences in a person/familiy's ability to integrate even when they are from the same cultural background. While there may be differences between the cultures to some extent, there are much larger factors like community support, socioeconomic status, education, jobs, languages, etc. that play a much larger role in people's ability to integrate. On an individual basis you are correct. However, when one examines a community or group as a whole, we know, statistically speaking, that if we bring in 1000 people from the UK and 1000 people from Pakistan, that the UK group will enjoy an average individual income of more than 3 times that of the Pakistani group. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 But we're not grabbing groups: we're grabbing individuals from those groups. We should be grabbing the individuals who can adjust better and bring more to the table and not close ourselves off from potential contributors by slamming the door on the whole group. After all, if you take immigrants on a case by case basis based not on the performance of the group, but the individual qualifications, you will probably be excluding those who would be more likely to struggle: your "illiterate goat herders." Unfortunately there does not appear to be any good way to determine which individuals will perform well in Canada. We've tried getting people with higher educations and they've actually performed WORSE than prior immigrants. We've tried awarding points for particular skills and wound up with highly skilled people driving taxis. The only thing we can say for sure is that people from European countries have a far higher economic success rate than people from anywhere else in the world. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 The thing is we already have a points based system thats one of the best performing immigration systems in the world. We seem to be putting the cart before the horse here and trying to find solutions before we identify a problem. And we appear to be doing this based on a peaceful protest against a film by a tiny percentage of Canadas 600 000 muslims. This is not a way to formulate good policy. Its a way to make stupid policy based on knee-jerk reactionism. The declining economic performance of immigrants has been very well-identified and documented for some years now. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 The difference is europeans came here to establish their own society. Immigrants come here because they want to be part of our society, and their often fleeing their own. Immigrants don't come here because they necessarily want to be part of our society, or because they reject their own. They come here to make more money and have more economic success. But we have seen that many, at least, cling to their own culture, and reject ours. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 That's not by any stretch the "only difference." Unless you genuinely believe that most immigrants are coming here with the express desire of taking over and implanting their own culture(s) and laws and societies over our own, as we are a bunch of subhuman savages. Immigrants didn't come here hundreds of years ago with any thought about supplanting the natives, or importing cultures. They came for the same reason as immigrants come today: hopes of having more economic success, with all that brings. Naturally, their culture and values followed, just as they do today. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Immigrants didn't come here hundreds of years ago with any thought about supplanting the natives, or importing cultures. You're joking, right? Quote
Argus Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 You're joking, right? Did you see a little smiley face? Do you actually think those poor people jammed into leaking boats for months gave a damn about natives? If they even thought about them all they thought was that they hoped there weren't any of them around where they were going. Immigrants didn't come here to advance some sort of national or group agenda. They came here as individuals in hopes of a better life. Same as they do today. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Have you just forgotten about the Jesuits and other missionaries that came over here? I'm not sure why you're saying these things. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Like, Champlain was a fine chap that just came to hang out and make a few bucks. You hold a strange revisionist view of history. Quote
bleeding heart Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Well dalton tried the old sharia law gimmick to get votes, so it has started. And yet some of us aren't shivering in terror, maddened by visions of the caliphate's crescent shadow looming over Western civilization. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Immigrants didn't come here hundreds of years ago with any thought about supplanting the natives, or importing cultures. They came for the same reason as immigrants come today: hopes of having more economic success, with all that brings. Naturally, their culture and values followed, just as they do today. They barely considered the "savages" at all, considering them a subhuman blip on an empty and virginal land. There is nothing analogous about the contemporary situation. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
guyser Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 And yet some of us aren't shivering in terror, maddened by visions of the caliphate's crescent shadow looming over Western civilization. No shit. But I would change your remark to almost everyone is not cowering. Some people make things up, then get all nervous. Quote
Black Dog Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 No shit. But I would change your remark to almost everyone is not cowering. Some people make things up, then get all nervous. And yet it's the biggest fraidy cats who fancy themselves the West's only true hope and greatest defenders, safeguarding Christendom by pounding out calls for action their Mountain Dew- and spunk-encrusted keyboards between games of Gears of War. Quote
Argus Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Have you just forgotten about the Jesuits and other missionaries that came over here? I'm not sure why you're saying these things. And what percentage of those who immigrated to Canada were Jesuits and other missionaries? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 They barely considered the "savages" at all, considering them a subhuman blip on an empty and virginal land. There is nothing analogous about the contemporary situation. There is in discussion of the motivation of immigrants. It's the same then as it is now. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
g_bambino Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) Do you actually think those poor people jammed into leaking boats for months gave a damn about natives? If they even thought about them all they thought was that they hoped there weren't any of them around where they were going. Immigrants didn't come here to advance some sort of national or group agenda. They came here as individuals in hopes of a better life. In that sense, perhaps. But, there was more to immigration back then; in order to have the better life each desired, there had to be built a framework within which it could grow. Common language, law, and order was needed, and commerce. These things required governments, regulators, and traditions, which, not too ironically, ended up looking essentially the same as the same systems back in the home country. I think there's still a desire on the part of some immigrants to do the same; there are certainly people who come here and start to recreate some of what they left behind, ranging from social groups to legal systems. It's obviously hard to say how many want how much, though. [ed.: sp] Edited October 2, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.