.

[Argus]

in any case, yours is old news MLW member Simple... you were updated on this previously... yet you continue to 'bash America'! --- on September 20, the U.S. announced a 85,000 ceiling for refugees in 2016... rising to 100,000 annually in 2017.

Wow! A hundred thousand, eh? Well, okay then! Let's do the same as them, on a per capita basis, of course. Since they're ten times our size, that would mean we would take in a total of ten thousand refugees a year. You happy with that?

[ToadBrother]

And yet, nobody is doing so. Curious, that. Barrack Obama is adored by the Canadian Left. Granted, mostly because he's Black, or half Black, but nevertheless, he's extremely popular. Yet he's doing far and away less than Harper, and no one seems to be much bothered by that. Certainly no one here who is calling Harper everything from a white supremacist to an evil, uncaring monster, has uttered a single word of condemnation of Obama's rather small goals of bringing in ten thousand Syrians over the next couple of years.

I have no idea what Obama was even mentioned. Mind you, considering how badly Harper has allowed our relationship with the US to falter, maybe we should talk a bit more about the President.

[Argus]

I have no idea what Obama was even mentioned. Mind you, considering how badly Harper has allowed our relationship with the US to falter, maybe we should talk a bit more about the President.

I'd be interested in hearing of a single one of America's allies who has a good working relationship with Obama.

As far as I know, virtually every close Allie has expressed frustration, if not contempt for the man.

[waldo]

Waldo - you were wrong back then - and you are still wrong today.....an acknowledgement of that fact would be appreciated, but not expected. From your own linked article:

no - then, as now... Kerry, and Obama, indicated the increased levels would afford a prioritization towards Syrian refugees, bringing the 2016 number up from the current 10,000 to 25,000... subsequently adding another 15,000 in 2017 (40,000 total).

[bush_cheney2004]

I have no idea what Obama was even mentioned. Mind you, considering how badly Harper has allowed our relationship with the US to falter, maybe we should talk a bit more about the President.

Well, back in 2011 Canadians were channeling President Obama as well, and PM Harper got a majority. It's just bizarre how foreign politics can influence Canadian elections. They're already getting in line for Hillary Clinton.

Edited October 14, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

Well, back in 2011 Canadians were channeling President Obama as well, and PM Harper got a majority. It's just bizarre how foreign politics can influence Canadian elections. They're already getting in line for Hillary Clinton.

I can't wait to start blaming her for everything!

[Keepitsimple]

no - then, as now... Kerry, and Obama, indicated the increased levels would afford a prioritization towards Syrian refugees, bringing the 2016 number up from the current 10,000 to 25,000... subsequently adding another 15,000 in 2017 (40,000 total).

That was not mentioned in your original September 20 article......do you have another cite what you've claimed?

[waldo]

That was not mentioned in your original September 20 article......do you have another cite what you've claimed?

it's Obama that has ordered the ceiling increases... it is Obama that has indicated the need to prioritize those ceiling increases towards Syrian refugees. I know you have difficulty with math but ceiling increases from 70K-to-85K, from 85K-to-100K, prioritized to accommodate Syrian refugees takes that current level of 10K-to-25K-to-40K. It's 'simple' math!

perhaps I should be the one asking you to provide those "Harper Conservative" Syrian refugee commitments from the past versus actual numbers... make sure to factor in the PMO meddling, hey!

[waldo]

Well, back in 2011 Canadians were channeling President Obama as well, and PM Harper got a majority. It's just bizarre how foreign politics can influence Canadian elections. They're already getting in line for Hillary Clinton.

the influence is in your imagination and desire to make everything about the US.

.

[Michael Hardner]

You're being dishonest. There are many real concerns here which were never concerns in the past.

That's not true. I can remember intolerance towards Italian Canadians myself.

http://www.mhso.ca/ggp/Ethnic_groups/Italian/Ital_overview.html

During the 1920s and 1930s immigration restrictions and regulations encouraged by racialist and xenophobic notions in Canadian public opinion and politics limited South European, hence Italian immigration.

The acceptance of others into Canadian culture has always been a difficult thing.

[Keepitsimple]

it's Obama that has ordered the ceiling increases... it is Obama that has indicated the need to prioritize those ceiling increases towards Syrian refugees. I know you have difficulty with math but ceiling increases from 70K-to-85K, from 85K-to-100K, prioritized to accommodate Syrian refugees takes that current level of 10K-to-25K-to-40K. It's 'simple' math!

Once again Waldo - do you have any cite to support what you are claiming? Please don't try to mix Syrian refugees with the US world-wide refugee quota. I can only work with the facts - from your own article....a target of 10,000 in 2016 and maybe more in 2017.

The White House said earlier this month that it would take in at least 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year, and the administration’s decision to raise the ceiling for all refugees worldwide in 2016 will allow for that increase. Raising the worldwide ceiling to 100,000 in 2017 could enable the United States to accept even more Syrians, though American officials did not provide an estimate.

[cybercoma]

That's not true. I can remember intolerance towards Italian Canadians myself.

http://www.mhso.ca/ggp/Ethnic_groups/Italian/Ital_overview.html

The acceptance of others into Canadian culture has always been a difficult thing.

In 1909, JS Woodsworth, who was a key figure in the social democratic movement, wrote a book called Strangers Within Our Gates. In it he ranked the "desirability" of immigrants based on ethnocentric intolerance and prejudice.

The opening to the book could be taken from any number of posts by Argus:

Perhaps the largest and most important problem that the North American continent has before it to-day for solution is to show how the incoming tides of immigrants of various nationalities and different degrees of civilization may be assimilated and made worthy citizens of the great Commonwealth. . . . Either we must educate and elevate the incoming multitudes or they will drag us and our children down to a lower level. We must see to it that the civilization and ideals of Southeastern Europe are not transplanted and perpetuated on our virgin soil.

[Michael Hardner]

We must see to it that the civilization and ideals of Southeastern Europe are not transplanted and perpetuated on our virgin soil.[/i][/indent]

It could have been said in 2015 about different peoples.

[Big Guy]

The sad part is that there are still many who do not see their attitudes as either racist, mysogynistic or prejudicial. These are well meaning people who are unable to differentiate between nationalism and racism. There is a very fine line between the two. The concept is not new. As Michael has pointed out, that attitude is a default position when you have to deal with people who are different from you and you fear the effect of immigration.

Yes, I remember the post war European immigration wave, the subsequent Italian, Portuguese, Chinese and Vietnamese immigration waves. The same was said at that time and proved in time to be needless fear mongering.

When I post quotations from intolerant, radical organizations, I hope to show these folks on this board just what kind of people think like them. If they do not like the company then look in the mirror.

It is not illegal to look down on immigrants or other people who do not look like you, talk like you or live like you do. It is not illegal but it is a mistake that often makes you seem foolish and ignorant.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Big Guy

[Argus]

That's not true. I can remember intolerance towards Italian Canadians myself.

Why would you say it's not true when it clearly is true? You ignored all the words which came after the sentence you address, which seems to indicate you don't disagree with them. So how then do you believe what I said was not true?

I never said there wasn't intolerance or bigotry or racism directed at immigrants. I said that there were a lot of issue now which were not in play back then. Were people afraid those Italian immigrants would come to Canada, not pay taxes, and go on welfare? No, because we had no welfare.

[Argus]

It could have been said in 2015 about different peoples.

And legitimately so, when you consider the misogyny, religious and racial intolerance, and retrograde social values of many of our immigrants. You'd have to be intellectually bankrupt not to judge these cultural traits as unwanted in Canada.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

And legitimately so, when you consider the misogyny, religious and racial intolerance, and retrograde social values of many of our immigrants. You'd have to be intellectually bankrupt not to judge these cultural traits as unwanted in Canada.

And on and on we go. A billion people tarred with the same brush.

[Argus]

And on and on we go. A billion people tarred with the same brush.

Don't a billion people have retrograde social beliefs, especially those inspired by religion?

You can be beaten to death by angry mobs in half a dozen countries for the rumor that you have done something which offends their religious beliefs.

[ToadBrother]

Don't a billion people have retrograde social beliefs, especially those inspired by religion?

You can be beaten to death by angry mobs in half a dozen countries for the rumor that you have done something which offends their religious beliefs.

Not all of those countries are Muslim countries.

[Argus]

Not all of those countries are Muslim countries.

Did I SAY they were all Muslim countries?

Do all immigrants to Canada come from Muslim countries?

My position has always been that the number of immigrants to Canada should be decided on a non-political basis by economists and demographics experts, and that the source of our immigrants should be largely decided based upon what factual statistics, studies and experience have shown us are the geographical regions which produce the most successful immigrants.

[ToadBrother]

Did I SAY they were all Muslim countries?

Do all immigrants to Canada come from Muslim countries?

My position has always been that the number of immigrants to Canada should be decided on a non-political basis by economists and demographics experts, and that the source of our immigrants should be largely decided based upon what factual statistics, studies and experience have shown us are the geographical regions which produce the most successful immigrants.

Your position is that you will make thinly veiled attacks on Muslims, until called out, and then suddenly you go all vague and insist that you have been misunderstood.

You do it at least three or four times a day right now.

[Argus]

Your position is that you will make thinly veiled attacks on Muslims, until called out, and then suddenly you go all vague and insist that you have been misunderstood.

You do it at least three or four times a day right now.

I don't make thinly veiled attacks on anyone or anything. When I attack something there's no veil in the way. So kindly don't ascribe your imaginary positions to me. If you can't respond to what I actually say then don't bother trying.

[dialamah]

Not all of those countries are Muslim countries.

Not all of the Muslim countries are filled just with Muslims. Not all Muslims are misogynistic, or intolerant. There's a lot of variety among those billion people, from violent fanatics to extremely tolerant pacifists. They all find a way to reconcile their beliefs to what their religion preaches. Not to deny that these countries are male-dominated, and that they tend to hold unfortunate views in many areas. But I'm always surprised when I look a little bit closer, to find areas where women are as free or even freer than they are in Western countries.

For example, by law in Egypt, a couple who marry must have an agreement - similar to a nuptial agreement in the West. The agreement spells out the responsibilities of each. Couples can put whatever they feel is important in those contracts - from who does the housework to what would happen in case of divorce. This agreement is, in theory at least, legally enforceable against both the husband and the wife - though in practice, I don't know how this all works out. In the West, we have the similar disconnects between what the law says and how enthusiastically we actually enforce it.

And, while it's still easier for a man to obtain a divorce than a woman, the society as a whole is gradually easing towards more equality. Many in that society are realizing that keeping old traditions around courtship and marriage is not really ideal. For starters, it means men must put off marriage for much longer, since they're expected to provide a fully functional home for their wife before marriage and this can be extremely difficult. And, even if they divorce, men are still obligated to support her for life, and any children. That whole 'alimony' thing is still a bone of contention in Western societies, so again - when you look more closely, you can see similarities between their culture and ours.

[ToadBrother]

Not all of the Muslim countries are filled just with Muslims. Not all Muslims are misogynistic, or intolerant. There's a lot of variety among those billion people, from violent fanatics to extremely tolerant pacifists. They all find a way to reconcile their beliefs to what their religion preaches. Not to deny that these countries are male-dominated, and that they tend to hold unfortunate views in many areas. But I'm always surprised when I look a little bit closer, to find areas where women are as free or even freer than they are in Western countries.

A lot of the attacks laid against Muslims are in fact regional in nature. Take FGM, which has been a very big deal in Europe. While some Muslims do practice it, so do some Christians and other groups, because it's a custom in parts of Africa. Honor killings can be found throughout Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent, and are a rather sad facet of the Indo-Iranian cultural complex.

Heck, even face veils had their origins in Byzantine custom (probably lifted from the ancient Persians), and the Byzantines were Christians. The custom isn't practiced by the majority of Muslims.

You give me a misogynistic homophobic Muslim, and I'll show you a conservative Hindu, or heck, even some fundamentalist Christians and Mormons.

The most populous Muslim states, like Malaysia and Indonesia, while hardly paragons of civil liberties, certainly do not have these extreme practices, and even in Syria and Iraq, before the lunatics gained control of the asylum, much of the population in urban areas were reasonably liberal-minded.

And, ironically, one of the worst countries as far as abuse of women, homosexuals and religious minorities is our very bestest friend; Saudi Arabia.

[Argus]

But I'm always surprised when I look a little bit closer, to find areas where women are as free or even freer than they are in Western countries.

For example, by law in Egypt,

Ah yes, Egypt, land of hope and freedom for women!

Where 95% of married women in a recent poll confirmed they had been victimized by female genital mutilation, where 74% of respondents to the PEW research poll expressed a desire for Sharia law, where 94% supported religious courts where women are heavily discriminated against, where women can't walk the streets in broad daylight alone without being groped, grabbed, and having mobs of young men tear their clothes off, even in crowded markets. Yes, indeed, so much freedom for women there.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Argus