Refugee status accepted on Chinese birth restrictions!

[Guest Peeves]

No. I'm just wondering why we have to explicitly state the religion. There are enough false arguments made against that religion on these boards to justify my suspicion, I think.

The link, the cause, the subject of the article references the religion. So why work "false" into your reply? Ulterior motive? Is the link specific to the religion? Did I simply inject it for ulterior motive. You're really trying to hard to obfuscate a simple reference that addressed a religion.

If you fault the Muslim reference, take it up with the Burmese. I had no part in it except as an example on point and you simply beat a dead horse.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Peeves

[Argus]

No. I'm just wondering why we have to explicitly state the religion. There are enough false arguments made against that religion on these boards to justify my suspicion, I think.

I don't understand what your argument is here. The law is religious-based, thus the reference.

Could you perhaps give us a few of those 'false' arguments made against this particular religion, and how you determined them to be false, as opposed to simply going against your own opinion?

[Michael Hardner]

The link, the cause, the subject of the article references the religion. So why work "false" into your reply? Ulterior motive? Is the link specific to the religion? Did I simply inject it for ulterior motive. You're really trying to hard to obfuscate a simple reference that addressed a religion.

I missed the fact that it was discrimination against Muslims that was driving the policy. I guess you could have been just asking "what about this other country ?" but I wanted clarification because:

1) It seemed that the point that Muslims were involved should have been considered in the decision.

2) There are unfair anti-Muslim posts on here quite often.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't understand what your argument is here. The law is religious-based, thus the reference.

Could you perhaps give us a few of those 'false' arguments made against this particular religion, and how you determined them to be false, as opposed to simply going against your own opinion?

I don't think I made an argument. I asked a question.

People make the assertion that Muslims are different than other people, and should be kept out of Canada although when you try to chase down why these people can sometimes get very upset with you.

[Signals.Cpl]

I think we do not see development and resource utilization the same way. You seem to can this in with expenses and poorly managed programs. That is the framework of bad government, and it is unfortunate that is the box you are looking at. It is not the right box, nor is it creative, inventive, nor beneficial to the public to think that way.

Oh I think you need to review what a refugee actually is and try to stay on topic, because you are the one missing the boat.

I've already directed you to the international and Canadian rulings, if there is some document I am missing or havn't provided by all means provide it.

Since it seems you have ingored my links I'll post another to dumb this down for you.

http://www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.html

Ok there login, not gona waste my time with this again...

[AlienB]

No, I'm suggesting this case, this specific case is too imho, frivolous and all too encompassing to have been granted. I referred specifically to this case. You on the other hand are attributing unfounded accusations that suggest I condemned all bureaucrats. I condemned this specific decision.

Now if you continue to exaggerate, obfuscate and accuse without supportive facts I shall challenge you to a duel. Probably with logomachy., so be careful.

I was not speculating. Show me where. I am suggesting the term of refugee has been extrapolated beyond rational or reasonable tests for acceptance.

Restriction to reproduction has not been a criterion so far as I know till now.

See below.

human rights abuses are something you are ignoring that is another criteria of persecution. Infringing peoples human rights is persecution. I suggest you read the second chapter of the handbook I posted it fairly clearly explains that human rights abuses, which include forced sterilization, or other forced reproductive controls are a human rights abuse.

( Persecution

51. There is no universally accepted definition of “persecution”, and various attempts to

formulate such a definition have met with little success. From Article 33 of the 1951 Convention, it

may be inferred that a threat to life or freedom on account of race, religion, nationality, political

opinion or membership of a particular social group is always persecution. Other serious violations

of human rights--for the same reasons--would also constitute persecution.

59. In order to determine whether prosecution amounts to persecution, it will also be

necessary to refer to the laws of the country concerned, for it is possible for a law not to be in

conformity with accepted human rights standards. More often, however, it may not be the law but

its application that is discriminatory. Prosecution for an offence against “public order”, e.g. for

distribution of pamphlets, could for example be a vehicle for the persecution of the individual on

the grounds of the political content of the publication.

60. In such cases, due to the obvious difficulty involved in evaluating the laws of another

country, national authorities may frequently have to take decisions by using their own national

legislation as a yardstick. Moreover, recourse may usefully be had to the principles set out in the

various international instruments relating to human rights, in particular the International

Covenants on Human Rights, which contain binding commitments for the States parties and are

instruments to which many States parties to the 1951 Convention have acceded.

The bottom line is, forced sterilization does not meet Canadian Human Rights standards so her application should be accepted.

Women in Canada control their own reproductive rights. It is a human rights abuse to control a womans reproductive capacity.

see: United Nation's 1968 International Conference on Human Rights

"Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children."

Edited June 24, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Peeves]

Such being the case as you present it opens the door subjectively to overwhelming applications that Canada, nor any other country could manage.

"It is a human rights abuse to control a womans reproductive capacity.

see: United Nation's 1968 International Conference on Human Rights

"Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children."

I maintain that our country should not be obliged to grant refugee status to those with your interpretation of rights that imo fail the test of refugee criterion.

There are limits and subjective judgments that do not consider our country, our citizens, our tax payers should not be handled in a cavalier manner.

I believe the referenced case was a failure of due diligence by those (un) concerned with the ramifications.

if you do not give something the importance it deserves, you are cavalier in your attitude. For example, if a government does not take proper interest in the problems of the old, it shows the government's cavalier attitude to the problems of the old. That is, the government does not consider it important.

All to frequently government agencies are inclined to summarily knee jerk responses which they might regret. I think of Green Energy

[Guest Peeves]

I don't think I made an argument. I asked a question.

People make the assertion that Muslims are different than other people, and should be kept out of Canada although when you try to chase down why these people can sometimes get very upset with you.

"People" are always accused of your claim, but, there are few that don't differentiate between the 'Islamist' radicals and the other billion or so.

Yours is a getting old, oft repeated, seldom proven, canard generally used to obfuscate any discussion where Islam or Muslim is even an aside or non issue in a post.

In future it might be helpful to point out the specifics of any reference that are not true, or are denigrating to all of the (unmentionable.)

[Michael Hardner]

"People" are always accused of your claim, but, there are few that don't differentiate between the 'Islamist' radicals and the other billion or so.

Yes, those are the people I refer to.

In future it might be helpful to point out the specifics of any reference that are not true, or are denigrating to all of the (unmentionable.)

I always do.

[Argus]

I don't think I made an argument. I asked a question.

People make the assertion that Muslims are different than other people, and should be kept out of Canada although when you try to chase down why these people can sometimes get very upset with you.

I don't think they get upset with you if you ask them why. I think they get upset with you when you call them names.

[Argus]

Yes, those are the people I refer to.

I always do.

Yes, I believe your standard refrains is that Muslims are entirely the same as anyone else, that their religion and cultural values play no importance in consideration of their adaptability to Canadian life, that any violence they commit has nothing to do with them, and that anyone who doesn't love Muslims is basically the same as Adolph Hitler. Have I pretty much got that right?

Edited June 26, 2013 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, I believe your standard refrains is that Muslims are entirely the same as anyone else, that their religion and cultural values play no importance in consideration of their adaptability to Canadian life, that any violence they commit has nothing to do with them, and that anyone who doesn't love Muslims is basically the same as Adolph Hitler. Have I pretty much got that right?

Well, I would likely not use the phrase "entirely the same". People, cultures are different - no one can deny that - but the idea that a certain metaphysical point of view can render someone incapable of change, and therefore should bar them from Canada, seems to be posted here from time to time.

I do have a problem with the idea that anybody with that religion should be kept out of Canada - barred for the reason that people with the same religion commit crimes. I didn't make any statement like the Hitler statement. Instead, I probe peoples' ideas on different groups and try to help us resolve them so that they're consistent.

Sometimes people get upset when I do this, and I'm not sure why. I think there's something really culturally ingrained in people to abhor racism, but they're not sure why they should, ie. they haven't thought about it. They seem to simply have it coded in their minds that discrimination based on skin colour is wrong, but when questioned about other types of similar discrimination they seem to falter. I suspect it's because they don't know why racism is wrong, but we've never had anybody make that realization yet.

[Scotty]

Well, I would likely not use the phrase "entirely the same". People, cultures are different - no one can deny that - but the idea that a certain metaphysical point of view can render someone incapable of change, and therefore should bar them from Canada, seems to be posted here from time to time.

Would it not be more intelligent to draw in immigrants who don't require substantial "change" to conform with Canadian community standards and cultural values?

That is to say, ones who don't think gays should be executed, Jews are the source of all evil and women should be beaten into obedience?

[The_Squid]

Would it not be more intelligent to draw in immigrants who don't require substantial "change" to conform with Canadian community standards and cultural values?That is to say, ones who don't think gays should be executed, Jews are the source of all evil and women should be beaten into obedience?

This is what Chinese refugees think? I had no idea....

[jacee]

Would it not be more intelligent to draw in immigrants who don't require substantial "change" to conform with Canadian community standards and cultural values?

That is to say, ones who don't think gays should be executed, Jews are the source of all evil and women should be beaten into obedience?

How would you screen for that?

[Scotty]

How would you screen for that?

How do you screen for friends? Most people look for those who pretty much share their values and beliefs. Do you hang around with a lot of homophobic racists? I'm guessing, based on your postings to date, you probably don't, and wouldn't.

There are psychological personality tests all over the place to screen potential employees to determine personality traits. Some of them are quite clever in ferreting out things without those taking them even realizing it. Why couldn't we use that in immigration? Immigrants are a lot more important than employees. You can FIRE employees, after all. We can't get rid of immigrants who turn out to be unpleasant people.

[Scotty]

This is what Chinese refugees think? I had no idea....

Do you consider that snarky, snotty reply to have any real value? I mean, it wasn't even clever...

[jacee]

How do you screen for friends? Most people look for those who pretty much share their values and beliefs. Do you hang around with a lot of homophobic racists? I'm guessing, based on your postings to date, you probably don't, and wouldn't.

There are psychological personality tests all over the place to screen potential employees to determine personality traits. Some of them are quite clever in ferreting out things without those taking them even realizing it. Why couldn't we use that in immigration? Immigrants are a lot more important than employees. You can FIRE employees, after all. We can't get rid of immigrants who turn out to be unpleasant people.

Hmmm ... psychological profiling for selecting refugees ... good luck with that.

It's easier to say things than to actually implement them. I hope you screen for child porn freaks too.

In fact, maybe we should check everybody out and throw out the Canadians who fail too!

Edited June 30, 2013 by jacee

[The_Squid]

Do you consider that snarky, snotty reply to have any real value? I mean, it wasn't even clever...

It was of value. It shows how irrelevant your little diatribe about Muslim immigrants was when we were talking about a Chinese refugee.

[Scotty]

It was of value. It shows how irrelevant your little diatribe about Muslim immigrants was when we were talking about a Chinese refugee.

"We"? I'm not sure what YOU were talking about. Evidently it wasn't of much interest to anyone, however, since others were discussing the broader implications of lowering refugee requirements to the point where virtually anyone discriminated against throughout the world would qualify. This had turned to Muslims in Burma some time ago, and my reply was to that aspect of the topic. Perhaps if you could catch hold of your frantic knee-jerk political correctness and stop attacking and belittling people long enough to actually read through a topic you might find yourself able to contribute more than puerile insults.

[Scotty]

Hmmm ... psychological profiling for selecting refugees ... good luck with that.

It's easier to say things than to actually implement them. I hope you screen for child porn freaks too.

In fact, maybe we should check everybody out and throw out the Canadians who fail too!

See, I don't get this attitude, that we can't put much effort into checking out people who will be here for the rest of their lives, and be either a contributing part of society, if we select properly, or a drain on society if we don't. We don't need any more drains on society. We have enough losers, leeches and criminals without importing more. Many large corporations do psychological testing on all prospective employees. They evidently find this to be worth the money. Why shouldn't Canada do likewise?

[Michael Hardner]

Would it not be more intelligent to draw in immigrants who don't require substantial "change" to conform with Canadian community standards and cultural values?

It might be, assuming that such an endeavor isn't fraught with problems or even possible. We don't provide cultural grading to people coming in for these reasons, I suspect.

That is to say, ones who don't think gays should be executed, Jews are the source of all evil and women should be beaten into obedience?

Kudos to you for being specific. Yes, I agree with this provision which is already part of the citizenship ceremony

[Scotty]

It might be, assuming that such an endeavor isn't fraught with problems or even possible. We don't provide cultural grading to people coming in for these reasons, I suspect.

Kudos to you for being specific. Yes, I agree with this provision which is already part of the citizenship ceremony

I don't want it part of a ceremony I want it part of a testing process before these people are accepted. I want it weighed with other aspects of their candidacy for which they get points. Just because something isn't textbook easy to do doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, given the stakes involved. You could start with the various questions posed to determine when someone thinks violence is acceptable, for example, when it's allowable to hit your wife. Obviously you don't pose the question that baldly because few would be dumb enough to get tripped up by it, but there are a lot of clever ways to phrase hypotheticals in these tests that are designed to get people to admit their thoughts without knowing what they're revealing.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Scotty

[Michael Hardner]

I don't want it part of a ceremony I want it part of a testing process before these people are accepted. I want it weighed with other aspects of their candidacy for which they get points. Just because something isn't textbook easy to do doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, given the stakes involved. You could start with the various questions posed to determine when someone thinks violence is acceptable, for example, when it's allowable to hit your wife. Obviously you don't pose the question that baldly because few would be dumb enough to get tripped up by it, but there are a lot of clever ways to phrase hypotheticals in these tests that are designed to get people to admit their thoughts without knowing what they're revealing.

The test already asks questions about what is protected in the Canadian Constitution. The ceremony is where you swear to accept your responsibilities as a Canadian. If you don't recite the oath you don't get to be Canadian.

If you're trying to keep religious zealots out, you're better off making them swear to do something than just asking a multiple choice quiz. If you phrase things cleverly, you're just going to snag a lot of false positives.

Anyway, you should be glad that what you're asking for is already in place I suppose.

[jacee]

See, I don't get this attitude, that we can't put much effort into checking out people who will be here for the rest of their lives, and be either a contributing part of society, if we select properly, or a drain on society if we don't. We don't need any more drains on society. We have enough losers, leeches and criminals without importing more. Many large corporations do psychological testing on all prospective employees. They evidently find this to be worth the money. Why shouldn't Canada do likewise?

Should refugees be psychologically tested in English or their own language? Do we have reliable assessments that work for all cultures and languages? There are complexities to your suggestion that make it of questionable practicality. Do we exclude men who might tend to commit domestic violence without any evidence of such? Will the courts see that as valid when appeals of such decisions are heard?

And how is this relevant to a woman fleeing the birth restrictions of China?