.

[On Guard for Thee]

I've posted reams of material, including economic studies and statistics on immigration. What have you contributed but snarky insults?

I have yet to be labelled a bigot.

[Je suis Omar]

. What have you contributed but snarky insults?

Here's a mirror, Argus.

[Je suis Omar]

Sure, the term "Je suis Omar' was posted by a Muslim Dane after the terrorist Omar El-Hussein was killed by police after murdering several people in Cophenhagen recently. Danish police investigated the person who posted those words. I wonder if Canadian police would be interested in someone using them to identify himself on the internet...

Michael Hardner does not like trolling.

I'm pleased, no, thrilled to see that not only do you support personal freedom of choice but you also actively and ferociously support freedom of expression.

You truly are a patriot, Argus, not in the filthy, gutter like sense that's used in the USA, where "patriots" are those that rejoice in the slaughter of innocent men, women and children.

[Argus]

Omar: Lordy, lord, but you are ignorant of history, Rue! Have you not heard of the Canadian government's long standing policy of genocide against First Nations peoples, supported actively and passively by most all Canadians.

Interesting, then, that the aboriginal population continues to grow larger, year after year after decade after decade.

[Argus]

Michael Hardner does not like trolling.

I'm pleased, no, thrilled to see that not only do you support personal freedom of choice but you also actively and ferociously support freedom of expression.

You truly are a patriot, Argus, not in the filthy, gutter like sense that's used in the USA, where "patriots" are those that rejoice in the slaughter of innocent men, women and children.

So you don't wish to address the hypocrisy of using a term which originated as an expression of support for terrorism as your name here while at the same time condemning terrorism?

Do you support Islamic terrorism against the United States, Israel and Canada?

Edited April 8, 2015 by Argus

[Je suis Omar]

Interesting, then, that the aboriginal population continues to grow larger, year after year after decade after decade.

There's those Argus "economic and statistics" sources again. Pretty hard to discuss things with a brainy guy like you.

[Je suis Omar]

Do you support Islamic terrorism against the United States, Israel and Canada?

Not at all, but you actively support terrorism against numerous countries around the world with your unflagging support of the largest terrorist group on the planet, the USA.

Oh, have I mentioned how much I enjoy your sources?

Noam Chomsky: The Long, Shameful History of American Terrorism

President Obama should call our countrys history of supporting insurgents abroad for what it is: U.S.-backed terrorism.

BY NOAM CHOMSKY

It's official: The U.S. is the world's leading terrorist state, and proud of it.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/17311/noam_chomsky_the_worlds_greatest_terrorist_campaign

[Je suis Omar]

So you don't wish to address ... ?

Je suis Omar. Tu es Omar. Nous sommes Omar.

[Argus]

There's those Argus "economic and statistics" sources again. Pretty hard to discuss things with a brainy guy like you.

You said the government had been practicing genocide for years - with no supporting evidence. I replied that their numbers continue to grow. How do you reconcile your imaginary genocide with their numbers growing?

[Argus]

Not at all,

And yet you choose a name which identifies with a terrorist, and spout violently anti-West rhetoric. Where did the name "je suis omar" come from if it's not an indication of support for terrorism?

[Argus]

Je suis Omar. Tu es Omar. Nous sommes Omar.

Phrases which almost got the man who posted them arrested and imprisoned for supporting terrorism.

[Je suis Omar]

I replied that their numbers continue to grow.

?

with no supporting evidence.

[Je suis Omar]

...

You are Omar, Argus.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/all-canadians-are-complicit-in-omar-khadrs-torture-says-lawyer

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Stop the thread drift.

Ch. A.

[Rue]

Je Suis Omar you misread what I stated. I would expect that. I stated ETHNIC groups when we came to Canada after the aboriginals, English and French as a general rule assimilated. We did not force our cultural values on anyone.

You responded to me misreading what I said and raised the issue that aboriginal people have been mistreated in Canada, in particular they were put in residential schools. The placing of aboriginals in residential schools was at the time a policy to try force Christian values and the social values of the day on them under the belief that their own values were inferior.

It had nothing to do with the ethnic groups I was referring to.

I also have never said or argued there has never been racial, ethnic, cultural, intolerance in this country.

[Michael Hardner]

"Only 16 per cent of immigrant families living in poverty were receiving social assistance benefits in 2004, compared to 33 per cent of Canadian-born low-income families who received benefits from social assistance programs."

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2222361-10-myths-about-immigration/

Nice ! Also sources cited in the article are: Sources: Statistics Canada, Hamilton Immigration Partnership Council, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Hamilton’s Vital Signs

[Michael Hardner]

I stated ETHNIC groups when we came to Canada after the aboriginals, English and French as a general rule assimilated.

Too bad they didn't, with each other....

[jacee]

We did not force our cultural values on anyone.

Nor is a woman wearing a niqab "forcing" cultural values on anyone else.

.

Edited April 9, 2015 by jacee

[Je suis Omar]

Rue: You responded to me misreading what I said and raised the issue that aboriginal people have been mistreated in Canada, in particular they were put in residential schools. The placing of aboriginals in residential schools was at the time a policy to try force Christian values and the social values of the day on them under the belief that their own values were inferior.

--------------

Not mistreated, Rue, genocide, the Canadian government had a policy of genocide.

[Argus]

Nice ! Also sources cited in the article are: Sources: Statistics Canada, Hamilton Immigration Partnership Council, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Hamilton’s Vital Signs

In point of fact, NO sources were cited for any of the information provided.

For example, the report states:

Only 16 per cent of immigrant families living in poverty were receiving social assistance benefits in 2004, compared to 33 per cent of Canadian-born low-income families who received benefits from social assistance programs.

That year, a third of low-income working-age recent immigrants were considered working poor, just a bit higher than the 27 per cent of other low-income persons who reported enough hours to be considered part of the working poor group.

It's interesting how it jumps between "immigrant families" and "recent immigrants'. But since we have no idea where the numbers are coming from we have no way of looking into it and finding out what definitions were used.

I will say that generally many of the statistical reports only keep track of immigrants for the first few years they're in Canada. Three years after they come here, if they have citizenship, many of them no longer consider them to be 'immigrants' for the sake of statistics.

I'd also like to note the wording used "only 16% of immigrant families living in poverty were receiving social assistance benefits"

It says nothing of federal benefits, nor does it give a percentage for how many immigrants are living in poverty. I would regard any immigrant living poverty as a failed immigrant.

The story contains wordage such as "Statistics suggest" and "a report released in 2007", "Research indicates", and "Studies have shown" but doesn't identify any of these studies or statistics.

It says Locally, Hamilton does not have enough locally-raised people to fill the 29,000 jobs expected to be created by economic expansion and 21,000 positions made available because of retirement between 2006 and 2016.

Says who? Federal studies on expected job vacancies have turned out to be so much nonsense.

All in all, it's a typical feel-good pro-immigration puff-piece with no factual data supporting its arguments. It's typical of the propaganda on this issue.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

It says nothing of federal benefits, nor does it give a percentage for how many immigrants are living in poverty. I would regard any immigrant living poverty as a failed immigrant.

I think the policy is meant to bring in low-wage workers, at least as it appears from the TFW program.

What Federal Benefits are you thinking of ?

And of course the stats are cherry-picked but some of them are compelling.

[cybercoma]

I think the policy is meant to bring in low-wage workers, at least as it appears from the TFW program.

What Federal Benefits are you thinking of ?

And of course the stats are cherry-picked but some of them are compelling.

The most important part is to smash a truck through his argument that "welfare offices are filled with immigrants." Of course, if you're stupid enough to think that people who aren't white are immigrants and not born here, well.... Edited April 11, 2015 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

The most important part is to smash a truck through his argument that "welfare offices are filled with immigrants." Of course, if you're stupid enough to think that people who aren't white are immigrants and not born here, well....

Well, some would argue they're not "true Canadians"... also they will posture about people coming here and changing "our" culture as if that's a thing.

[Rue]

Jacee a woman who shows up at a ceremony celebrating inclusivity and covers her face demands people conform to her. If you can't see that, then you clearly demonstrate one doesn't just have to cover their face to be blind. Its a deliberate decision to show others this cultural value trumps the values of those at the inclusivity celebration-its a message that says my cultural value is more important than those of the rest of you. It makes a deliberate statement saying this woman will continue to maintain her culture and expects everyone else to agree with it and accept it. No we do not have to.

No one said they will walk over to her and pull it off. However her choice to wear it shows a refusal to acknowledge she is entering a culture where the need to cover one's face is not the culture of the country.

Now put up or shut up. How is it not a message saying everyone must accept this value. If I showed up naked to the citizenship event saying its my cultural right would you be o.k.with it and say its not being imposed? Give it a break Jacee. The point is when you come to this country, if you want to pick and choose which values are suitable to you and ignore the rest, its going to cause disagreement. No I do not agree with and find it the wrong place to cover your face and yes I and many Canadians do not want this value being brought to Canada and presented as if its part of an inclusive society any more than we want a Nazi wearing a Nazi uniform at a citizenship ceremony. Its a deliberate choice to impose a value and demand others accept it as a norm.

[Michael Hardner]

Jacee a woman who shows up at a ceremony celebrating inclusivity and covers her face demands people conform to her. If you can't see that, then you clearly demonstrate one doesn't just have to cover their face to be blind. Its a deliberate decision to show others this cultural value trumps the values of those at the inclusivity celebration-its a message that says my cultural value is more important than those of the rest of you.

No, that's your interpretation of it but it's not valid. Cultural "values" in Canada include protection for rights to express oneself through their religion. Even if the person was intending to challenge the common understanding of what is reasonable in that respect, your characterization of this as rather simplistic selfishness isn't persuasive or helpful to the argument.

It makes a deliberate statement saying this woman will continue to maintain her culture and expects everyone else to agree with it and accept it. No we do not have to.

We can discuss it, but really we have no influence on the courts decision only on the impacts on our cultures.

... the need to cover one's face is not the culture of the country.

You don't decide this for everybody.

How is it not a message saying everyone must accept this value.

You're the one who makes the case that it IS saying that, so YOU have to prove what you say. We don't have to disprove it.

If I showed up naked to the citizenship event saying its my cultural right would you be o.k.with it and say its not being imposed?

If YOU showed up....

Also, what an awful analogy.

Give it a break Jacee. The point is when you come to this country...

And you restate your point again...

No I do not agree with ...

Yes, yes... YOU... we get that. Your opinion matters as much as anyone's, except a judge's, as I said above.

and yes I ...

you...

we want a Nazi wearing a Nazi uniform at a citizenship ceremony. Its a deliberate choice to impose a value and demand others accept it as a norm.

And Godwin shows up at the end of your illogical parade on a Nazi Hyperbole float.... Godwin's like a Nazi Santa !