.

[guyser]

I doubt that would make you any happier if you found a pedophile living in the room next to you, and a religious fanatic on the other side.

Well, I did say the family made the decisions, knwoing my family, Pedo's and religious fanatics would be out under the guidelines, application cancelled .

Religious people , like Catholics Muslims and Jews would be welcome. Those sneaky Buddhists tho.....too shady

[On Guard for Thee]

Well, I did say the family made the decisions, knwoing my family, Pedo's and religious fanatics would be out under the guidelines, application cancelled .

Religious people , like Catholics Muslims and Jews would be welcome. Those sneaky Buddhists tho.....too shady

Yeah I woudnt trust him either...always smiling, and he has man boobs and a big belly. Probably eat you out of house and home.

[Bob Macadoo]

Yeah I woudnt trust him either...always smiling, and he has man boobs and a big belly. Probably eat you out of house and home.

Buddhists.....not Buddha.....sheesh....

[Michael Hardner]

You can't refute the values? That's nonsense. You can certainly attack and tear about such values. Could you not castigate and attack the values of someone who believed Jews should be killed?

"Attack" ? Well I guess you can call such values inhumane, reprehensible and so on but that's just an expression of outrage. And people on this board DO say that to some arguments on here, calling them "racist". When that happens we hear that people have no arguments.

Well, I agree with you. Calling something racist, even when it is, isn't an argument it's just an expression of moral distaste. If someone is a happy racist then there's nothing much else to be said.

If somebody thinks that their sky muppet is going to give them salvation above other people, I have nothing to disprove that.

That depends on what you're critiquing. If you're critiquing a belief only held by 'some' or 'many' you can perhaps add that limiter on your statement,

but if your critique is on the religion as a whole than it applies to all the believers in that religion. For example, to use Ali again

“The assumption is that, in Islam, there are a few rotten apples, not the entire basket,” Ali tells The Post. “I’m saying it’s the entire basket.”

So what she is saying is that Islam is itself a religion which, when practiced by the great mass of its believers, inevitably leads to a bad end.

No... she is simply saying that Muslims are "rotten" with that sentence. Your interpretation doesn't follow from her sentence.

This is one of the reasons I argue against the current immigration of Muslims.

I accept that it is your reason.

However, the prism that's being used to examine these matters is tinted with the discolour of recent events. There's no reason to think that Islam as a religion won't follow the path that other religions took. There's no magical power that the one religion has over people, versus other religions.

[jacee]

If somebody thinks that their sky muppet is going to give them salvation above other people, I have nothing to disprove that.

Frame that.

[Guest]

No offence, but nobody cares what people think their sky muppet is going to give them. Caring only starts when they want others to do as their sky muppet says.

[Moonlight Graham]

Jbg it just isn't appropriate for you to comment on this Canadian issue, tell us how we 'should' treat new immigrants to Canada.

Your perspective as a USian is different from ours.

.

jbg isn't necessarily talking about Canada.

[Smallc]

What's really inappropriate is geographic bigotry.

[eyeball]

Geologic bigotry too - blaming people for living above our oil.

[jbg]

Jbg it just isn't appropriate for you to comment on this Canadian issue, tell us how we 'should' treat new immigrants to Canada.

Your perspective as a USian is different from ours.

.

jbg isn't necessarily talking about Canada.

I was talking about both our countries. Thanks Moonlight.

[jacee]

I was talking about both our countries. Thanks Moonlight.

The issue isn't the fine distinctions among garb that people where to set themselves apart from society. The issue is, if they wanted not to be part of society why they came here or why they're staying. We do not have to conform to what immigrants want. They're the arrivers, not us.

I don't think you get to speak for us in that way.

We purport to uphold freedom of religious practices.

That's why people come here.

Then we turn around and say 'not that religious practice'?

No.

And the Conservatives who have fought women's rights kicking and screaming, now want us to believe they are the great defenders of women's rights?

No. They just want women to do what they tell them.

.

[poochy]

I don't think you get to speak for us in that way.

We purport to uphold freedom of religious practices.

That's why people come here.

Then we turn around and say 'not that religious practice'?

No.

And the Conservatives who have fought women's rights kicking and screaming, now want us to believe they are the great defenders of women's rights?

No. They just want women to do what they tell them.

.

Such an empty argument, and it all goes back to the infallible charter, you and the others of your mind are all so convinced in its perfection, yet deny that it was written by people, who could not have anticipated ever situation, nor were they necessarily correct in every thing they wrote. Again, this is a non argument, we don't behead people, we dont stone them, we don't prevent women from working, or driving, we don't separate them from men at meals, or during menstruation. We draw lines, honor killings, also not acceptable. If the charter supports the protection of the oppression of women in our society (which it doesn't) it should be torn up. Also, your last sentence once again proves that you aren't a serious person.

Our society does not need to conform to a charter of rights and freedms, it should conform to our beleifs, arguing that we must do something simply to meet it's demands when most of our society disagrees is simply backwards. There are imposed societal limits to all things, including religion.

[jacee]

Our society does not need to conform to a charter of rights and freedms, it should conform to our beleifs, arguing that we must do something simply to meet it's demands when most of our society disagrees is simply backwards. There are imposed societal limits to all things, including religion.

So we reject women as immigrants if they choose to wear a face covering?

I'd like to see Harper try to enforce that. :/

And remember that private identification isn't an issue, only public.

The Charter and common law and reality assume each individual has all rights, unless constrained by law. What the majority of society thinks is irrelevant to the colour of my socks.

Mistakes are made by justifying discrimination.

Between 1930 and 1939, Canada rejected almost all Jewish refugees from Nazi Europe, taking in only 4,000 of the 800,000 Jews looking for refuge.

Edited March 23, 2015 by jacee

[jbg]

Such an empty argument, and it all goes back to the infallible charter, you and the others of your mind are all so convinced in its perfection, yet deny that it was written by people, who could not have anticipated ever situation, nor were they necessarily correct in every thing they wrote. Again, this is a non argument, we don't behead people, we dont stone them, we don't prevent women from working, or driving, we don't separate them from men at meals, or during menstruation. We draw lines, honor killings, also not acceptable. If the charter supports the protection of the oppression of women in our society (which it doesn't) it should be torn up.

The problem of course is that authorities wink at these practices in “multiculturally” separate communities. Whether it is political correctness or pragmatic fear of the police being under a barrage of attacks (think the shooting of police officers in Ferguson, Missouri) Canada and to a limited extent certain State and Federal authorities in the U.S. tolerate these practices.

Also, your last sentence [“No. They (presumably Conservatives) just want women to do what they tell them. “] once again proves that you aren't a serious person.

That’s called “jumping the shark.”

Our society does not need to conform to a charter of rights and freedms, it should conform to our beleifs, arguing that we must do something simply to meet it's demands when most of our society disagrees is simply backwards. There are imposed societal limits to all things, including religion.

The Charter is of somewhat recent vintage. Whether through construction or alteration it can be changed. Many unworkable parts of the U.S. Constitution have effectively been altered through construction.

So we reject women as immigrants if they choose to wear a face covering?

I'd like to see Harper try to enforce that. :/

And remember that private identification isn't an issue, only public.

I see two problems:

1. That an immigration ceremony is symbolic of the act of becoming a Canadian (or American); and
2. That the photo with a head covering is useless for identification.

When people come to a Western country they may have to make choices to shed certain religious traditions. In the U.S. in the famous “peyote” decision the Supreme Court found that people couldn’t use a substance similar to marijuana in furtherance of their Native American religion.

The Charter and common law and reality assume each individual has all rights, unless constrained by law. What the majority of society thinks is irrelevant to the colour of my socks.

Using ridiculous examples does not further your argument.

Mistakes are made by justifying discrimination.

Between 1930 and 1939, Canada rejected almost all Jewish refugees from Nazi Europe, taking in only 4,000 of the 800,000 Jews looking for refuge.

Clearly mistakes are made. Even a Charter wouldn’t have prevented that horror. The First Amendment didn’t in the U.S.

Edited March 23, 2015 by jbg

[jacee]

Jbg you are misleading.

Photo Id and verification are without face covering.

Keep the facts of the case clear pls while you are trolling.

[Keepitsimple]

So we reject women as immigrants if they choose to wear a face covering?

There are many, many for potential immigrants than Canada is able to take in. For every immigrant we accept, we have to turn other people away. Given that, what should Canada's position be if you have two women from Syria - one indicates she must always wear a niqab in public, the other does not. Should that be a factor in Canada's decision?

[cybercoma]

No offence, but nobody cares what people think their sky muppet is going to give them. Caring only starts when they want others to do as their sky muppet says.

Apparently not. Apparently caring starts when they wear the clothes that represent their particular brand of "sky muppet." Then we need to disrobe them and put them into jeans and flannel so they can assimilate into our "culture."

[Michael Hardner]

PS - I must attribute the term "Sky Muppet" to its creators - podcast legends Humble and Fred

[jacee]

There are many, many for potential immigrants than Canada is able to take in. For every immigrant we accept, we have to turn other people away. Given that, what should Canada's position be if you have two women from Syria - one indicates she must always wear a niqab in public, the other does not. Should that be a factor in Canada's decision?

Well?

.

[Keepitsimple]

Well?

.

That's your answer? Could you elaborate a bit? Here's the question again.....

There are many, many for potential immigrants than Canada is able to take in. For every immigrant we accept, we have to turn other people away. Given that, what should Canada's position be if you have two women from Syria - one indicates she must always wear a niqab in public, the other does not. Should that be a factor in Canada's decision?

[On Guard for Thee]

Such an empty argument, and it all goes back to the infallible charter, you and the others of your mind are all so convinced in its perfection, yet deny that it was written by people, who could not have anticipated ever situation, nor were they necessarily correct in every thing they wrote. Again, this is a non argument, we don't behead people, we dont stone them, we don't prevent women from working, or driving, we don't separate them from men at meals, or during menstruation. We draw lines, honor killings, also not acceptable. If the charter supports the protection of the oppression of women in our society (which it doesn't) it should be torn up. Also, your last sentence once again proves that you aren't a serious person.

Our society does not need to conform to a charter of rights and freedms, it should conform to our beleifs, arguing that we must do something simply to meet it's demands when most of our society disagrees is simply backwards. There are imposed societal limits to all things, including religion.

Talk about empty arguments (there is a better phrase but I will refrain from using it here) you are trying to conflate murder with the choice to wear a symbol of religious persuasion. I believe I have already reminded you that stoning, beheading (its called murder) is illegal here and such acts are a far cry from choosing to wear a niqab, or a cross, or a turban. But you are right at least about one thing, the charter was written by people, very learned people from our society, and was constructed to protect and preserve that which our society deems to be of the highest importance. It may not be infallible, and its not unchangeable, but it does protect us from the vagaries of governments who may attempt to degrade it, if only in an attempt to garner a few votes.

[eyeball]

When people come to a Western country they may have to make choices to shed certain religious traditions. In the U.S. in the famous peyote decision the Supreme Court found that people couldnt use a substance similar to marijuana in furtherance of their Native American religion.

This is a seriously cocked up argument.

[guyser]

There are many, many for potential immigrants than Canada is able to take in. For every immigrant we accept, we have to turn other people away. Given that, what should Canada's position be if you have two women from Syria - one indicates she must always wear a niqab in public, the other does not. Should that be a factor in Canada's decision?

Written rules as such? No

But you have people doing their job overseas interviewing and assessing the applicants, so likely the one who doesnt makes the cut.

But then again, the Burqa wearing folk who come here are refugees so there isnt much choice attributed to who we let in.

This whole thread exists for a few people some are worried about, why it would almost seem as if there is an agenda out there.

[Argus]

However, the prism that's being used to examine these matters is tinted with the discolour of recent events.

Not essentially. Recent events have made people more wary of the violent side of some Islamists, of the potential for terrorist attacks here in Canada. But that has never been the principle reason why I oppose Muslim immigration. I think the economic record of immigrants from those regions combined with the dubiousness of importing so many people with such extreme social values is more than sufficient to cause us to redirect our immigration quest to other areas.

There's no reason to think that Islam as a religion won't follow the path that other religions took. There's no magical power that the one religion has over people, versus other religions.

And there's no reason to think that will happen in the next hundred years, since it certainly didn't in the previous hundred years. In fact, the momentum is in the opposite direction, towards more conservative orthodoxy.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I don't think you get to speak for us in that way.

Clearly you are mistaken.

We purport to uphold freedom of religious practices.

Some, not all religious practices. Besides, this is more of a cultural practice, or so say the Muslim scholars.

That's why people come here.

No, they come here because we are more economically successful than where they are currently living.

And the Conservatives who have fought women's rights kicking and screaming,

It was a Conservative government which gave women the right to vote, in case you are wondering.