On Baring your face in public

[Argus]

Yeah. I tend to ignore intellectual dishonesty. Try addressing what I actually argue rather than creating strawmen and asking me to address those.

Maybe I should help you out with the concept.

So you refuse to say what standards, if any, we ought to have for potential immigrants. Avoidance noted.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Argus

[WestCoastRunner]

Women who choose to marry within a polygamous relationship are willing participants as are women who wear burkas. Why do we choose not to honour the beliefs of the polygamists? Their women aren't crying about it after all?

Very good point. I don't hear an outcry against protecting a woman's right in these polygamous communities. These women are heavily doctrined at a very young age and really have no choice and have long lost the ability to think for themselves. The same goes for women and the burqas.

[WestCoastRunner]

Do you also think that banning pornographgy and banning prostitution would make tremendous progress for women`s rights?

Providing a safe working environment for women or men of legal age would be of course beneficial for them. However, I do believe that customers (both men and women) who participate in a transaction with a minor should be charged to the fullest extent of the law. Not sure what this has to do with burqas though?

[WestCoastRunner]

How would legislating what a woman can or cannot wear be "progress" for women's rights?

Read back the posts to understand my position.

[carepov]

Providing a safe working environment for women or men of legal age would be of course beneficial for them. However, I do believe that customers (both men and women) who participate in a transaction with a minor should be charged to the fullest extent of the law. Not sure what this has to do with burqas though?

In the worlds of prostitution, pornography, and extreme Muslim households there are certainly cases of abuse, let's also add modelling. The world would certainly be much better off without any of these. My argument is that banning burqas is as useless as banning prostitution or pornography.

[Argus]

In the worlds of prostitution, pornography, and extreme Muslim households there are certainly cases of abuse, let's also add modelling. The world would certainly be much better off without any of these. My argument is that banning burqas is as useless as banning prostitution or pornography.

But no one has suggested banning burquas. The question which has arisen is should we be discouraging people who believe women ought to be wrapped in shrouds everywhere to come and live in Canada?

[carepov]

But no one has suggested banning burquas.

I thought that WestCoastRunner stood up earlier in favour of a burqa ban.

The question which has arisen is should we be discouraging people who believe women ought to be wrapped in shrouds everywhere to come and live in Canada?

The answer in no - mainly because it is not practical to do so.

[hitops]

What about native-born people who feel that way? What do you propose to do about them ? If you're going to be serious about enforcing ideological conformity, you should really go all the way.

There's no perfect solution, you can't start deporting people born here. You can be smart about who comes here. You have to work pragmatically and play the cards you are dealt. People anywhere can be radicals. It's just tens of thousands of times more common in some places vs others. Reasonable logic tells you to put efforts where they are most useful, instead of just throwing your hands up if you can have total perfection.

[Black Dog]

Suppose these prospective citizens think six year olds are hot and sexy? It's not illegal to think that. It might be disgusting to you, but hey, maybe they belong to a particular religious group which doesn't have a problem with pedophilia. Should we not screen them for that?

Notwithstanding the sheer impracticality of screening for something like this, we should apply the same standards we do for people who are born here. Think what you want, but obey the laws of the land.

Already dealt with this. Just because we have criminals here doesn't mean we want to bring in more. So if you have a criminal record you're pretty much screened out from applying for immigration. Do you think we should allow people to come live here even if they are habitual criminals in their homelands?

I think having a criminal record is a reasonable grounds to deny someone entry into the country. But we're not talking about what people do here are we?

You seem to have avoided my queries about whether you believe we should simply have no standards and let in child molesters, rapists and other criminals simply because we have such people here. Suppose you instead give me your opinion as to why we should have no standards in those we bring to Canada? That, in effect, no matter how anti-social and primitive their views are, we should let them immigrate here and live among us.

Holy moving goalposts Batman!

[Black Dog]

There's no perfect solution, you can't start deporting people born here. You can be smart about who comes here. You have to work pragmatically and play the cards you are dealt. People anywhere can be radicals. It's just tens of thousands of times more common in some places vs others. Reasonable logic tells you to put efforts where they are most useful, instead of just throwing your hands up if you can have total perfection.

Except we're not even talking about radicals here. We're talking about beliefs and attitudes we find unsavory (many of which would have been mainstream in a slightly different package a generation ago).

[Argus]

I thought that WestCoastRunner stood up earlier in favour of a burqa ban.

The answer in no - mainly because it is not practical to do so.

How is it not practical? And were it practical, do you believe it should be done?

[Argus]

Notwithstanding the sheer impracticality of screening for something like this, we should apply the same standards we do for people who are born here. Think what you want, but obey the laws of the land.

And once again, you are sneakweaseling around so you don't have to confront the question.

There are clearly traits which most of us would consider to be pluses in terms of potential new citizens, and traits most of us would suggest are very much minuses. If you feel that anyone who blasphemes should be executed, that would be a minus. If you feel women are about at about the same status level as a goat, that would be a minus. If you feel anyone who is gay should be executed, that would be a minus.

The point which confuses me, is that all you flaming liberals are frantically opposed to the thought of putting any restrictions up against the people who would spit in your face for your views, people who are core defenders of extreme misogyny, inequality, homophobia, and religious extremism.

Your view seems to be, hey, the more of that kind we let into Canada, the happier you'll be!

And I frankly don't understand it.

[Argus]

Except we're not even talking about radicals here. We're talking about beliefs and attitudes we find unsavory (many of which would have been mainstream in a slightly different package a generation ago).

What do you call a radical in Canada? If, for example, one of Harper's conservatives suggested executing homosexuals, would you just dismiss that as not a big deal? If another of his people gave a lecture on how to properly beat your wife so that it was in line with scriptures, would you shrug that off as unimportant? If they suggested that women are by their nature inspirers of impure thoughts, and that maybe we'd all be better if they weren't allowed to walk around showing their sluttish faces, would you not mind that?

It seems to me that a belief which you would consider shockingly extremist if held by a white Christian Canadian, you just shrug your shoulders like it's no big deal if it's held by an immigrant Muslim. Hey, that's not radical! I mean, as long as they're not actively trying to kill us they're moderates, right!

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe you would not get so much blowback if you stopped trying to "speak for most of us"

[cybercoma]

Harper calling for the execution of homosexuals is entirely different than some random schmuck who believes homosexuals should be executed because it's against his religion. You couldn't construct a bigger strawman if you tried.

[cybercoma]

I find those views completely abhorrent but we don't round up people for their beliefs. Now if someone were attempting to murder gay people or inciting others towards violence against homosexuals then you would have a criminal matter on your hands.

[cybercoma]

But seriously, comparing the Prime Minister calling for executions to the personal beliefs of some random individual is purely ridiculous.

[Guest]

He didn't, he just asked what the reaction might be if conservatives said some of those those things.

And of course, it would be apocalyptic.

[Black Dog]

And once again, you are sneakweaseling around so you don't have to confront the question.

What question is that?

There are clearly traits which most of us would consider to be pluses in terms of potential new citizens, and traits most of us would suggest are very much minuses. If you feel that anyone who blasphemes should be executed, that would be a minus. If you feel women are about at about the same status level as a goat, that would be a minus. If you feel anyone who is gay should be executed, that would be a minus.

The point which confuses me, is that all you flaming liberals are frantically opposed to the thought of putting any restrictions up against the people who would spit in your face for your views, people who are core defenders of extreme misogyny, inequality, homophobia, and religious extremism.

Your view seems to be, hey, the more of that kind we let into Canada, the happier you'll be!

And I frankly don't understand it.

FOK, so tell me: what is your system for screening these undesirables out?

[overthere]

And once again, you are sneakweaseling around so you don't have to confront the question.

There are clearly traits which most of us would consider to be pluses in terms of potential new citizens, and traits most of us would suggest are very much minuses. If you feel that anyone who blasphemes should be executed, that would be a minus. If you feel women are about at about the same status level as a goat, that would be a minus. If you feel anyone who is gay should be executed, that would be a minus.

The point which confuses me, is that all you flaming liberals are frantically opposed to the thought of putting any restrictions up against the people who would spit in your face for your views, people who are core defenders of extreme misogyny, inequality, homophobia, and religious extremism.

Your view seems to be, hey, the more of that kind we let into Canada, the happier you'll be!

And I frankly don't understand it.

Agreed, and that screening for 'pluses' is already in place happens for the most immigrants, the majority who come here as economic migrants with verified education, language and skills.

I don't see what an immigrant wear or does not wear as relevant in any way, before they arrive or after, as long as it complies with Canadian law. It does not matter for citizens, why should it matter for future citizens.

This is what is required of immigrants: work, pay taxes, obey the law. That's it. Beyond that, it is simply bigoted arrogance to insist they look like you.

[Black Dog]

Agreed, and that screening for 'pluses' is already in place happens for the most immigrants, the majority who come here as economic migrants with verified education, language and skills.

I don't see what an immigrant wear or does not wear as relevant in any way, before they arrive or after, as long as it complies with Canadian law. It does not matter for citizens, why should it matter for future citizens.

This is what is required of immigrants: work, pay taxes, obey the law. That's it. Beyond that, it is simply bigoted arrogance to insist they look like you.

Not even: they also have to think like you. I'm sure Argus is well-intentioned, but it's very strange to see someone who self-identifies as a pragmatic, small government conservative talking about creating an ideological litmus test, given the impracticalities involved as well as the potential slippery-slope directions such a thing could go. I mean, who gets to decide how much "misogyny, inequality, homophobia, and religious extremism" is too much?

[hitops]

Except we're not even talking about radicals here. We're talking about beliefs and attitudes we find unsavory (many of which would have been mainstream in a slightly different package a generation ago).

Unfortunately in the non-perfect, non rainbow and unicorn filled world we currently occupy, there's no way to perfectly know who will be a radical. We do however know generally speaking from which areas they tend to come. We have to be pragmatic and use surrogate markers because that is the best information we have. It's not wrong for a nation to orient immigration policy towards it's best interests.

Edited October 28, 2014 by hitops

[Argus]

Harper calling for the execution of homosexuals is entirely different than some random schmuck who believes homosexuals should be executed because it's against his religion. You couldn't construct a bigger strawman if you tried.

I said some conservative. Let me put it another way. If someone comes into your house and he says all homsosexuals should be executed, and he thinks your wife and daughter are whores for showing their faces publicly you'd never invite him back again. In fact, if you knew he held such views you wouldn't invite him in the first place.

So why do you want to bring thousands of people with such views into Canada every year to live amongst us?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

I find those views completely abhorrent but we don't round up people for their beliefs.

Now THAT's a straw man. I never suggested any such thing.

The question is why do you want to bring people with abhorrent views into Canada in their thousands?

[GostHacked]

There's another way of looking at it. Her refusal to take off the hood for the ceremony could be also be considered cultural intolerance.

That I can agree with. Maybe her religion is more important to her than being a Canadian Citizen.