Stripping citizenship.

[Argus]

The way to NOT do it is to forage through statistics until we find one that supports a pre-held notion and then post it on here. That's the way you like to do it, by finding a poll that shows a regressive attitude by Muslims somewhere then tying that attitude to Muslims everywhere.

Unless you've got hidden cameras in my house I'll thank you not to make assumptions about what guides my posting of citations. In point of fact, my 'pre held' notions on Muslims were not exactly inspired by watching old Lawrence of Arabia videos. They were arrived at through a deluge of information and personal experience over decades. The fact that Pew Research is one of the few organizations regularly taking the pulse of the Muslim world makes it an important source of information with regard to the issue which most concerns people, which is the degree of violence or extremism within that population.

You and others on the Left would prefer to think of extremism as a minor, almost insignificant element among world Muslims, but to arrive at even that belief you have to ignore the degree to which adherents of Islam hold beliefs which, were they held within Canada by Christians, you would not hesitate to label as extreme. This includes views on women, gays, and religious freedom, as well as crime and punishment (Sharia law).

]Most Canadian Muslims identify first as Muslim, and second as Canadian, but their pride in being Canadian matches the national average. When asked whether they identify first as Muslim or first as Canadian, 56 percent of Canadian Muslims chose Muslim first, while 23 percent chose Canadian first.

Why do you suggest this is somehow a relief to those suspicious of the extremism of the Muslim world? Because it echoes that of Israelis - a religious state under siege for fifty years, or that of many Americans, who frankly, are far more religious minded than Canadians (and for whom the split between religion and nation is still only 1 to 1)? How many Canadians, "old stock Canadians" do you think would refer to themselves as Christians first, and Canadians second? Do you think the former would outweigh the latter by more than double?

My opposition is to the extremism within today's Islam, and that includes not merely the terrorism but the social fundamentalism on so many issues (which you seem to prefer to ignore), and the doubt I hold that Muslim immigrants to Canada will integrate into our larger, secular culture. That Muslims in Canada see themselves, by a more than two to one margin, as Muslims first and Canadians second is not something which comforts me. I have no idea why it seems to comfort you.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Unless you've got hidden cameras in my house I'll thank you not to make assumptions about what guides my posting of citations.

I don't need hidden cameras. The language you use in your posts goes beyond 'persuasive' so that's evidence of what you're trying to achieve, to my mind. If you were simply looking at a problem and trying to get to the heart of it you would use more reserved language.

You and others on the Left would prefer ...

You just asked me to not characterize your motivation, and here you are... But as I replied above: your intentions are evidence in the posts themselves. My intentions and attitudes can't be gleaned as easily. You can't say that I say extremism is 'minor', that's going to far.

In summary, you are characterizing my wider viewpoint here, which is a far bigger leap than I have had to make to describe your intentions.

Also you feel the need to categorize me with "the left". I think that's at the root of your logical fallacies - people don't group quite so easily as that. You yourself bristle at being grouped with bigots and others who express anti-immigrant views so I would expect you to be more circumspect in this regard.

Let's not group each other.

Why do you suggest this is somehow a relief to those suspicious of the extremism of the Muslim world?

I can't speak to the feeling of relief part of this, only that one of the assertions (read: tropes) that I read on MLW is about religious people not being real citizens. We can take that out of our dialogue, based on this survey.

My opposition is to the extremism within today's Islam,...

I believe you, but you want to enact policies that restrict immigration from "Muslim countries" (your term) which would impact innocent people, and especially people who reject extremism and want to pursue life in a secular country.

That Muslims in Canada see themselves, by a more than two to one margin, as Muslims first and Canadians second is not something which comforts me. I have no idea why it seems to comfort you.

As per my note above, their identity as Canadians matches the national profile in general. So it seems to me that you're looking for problems that aren't there.

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

I want to point out again that my methodology here is has problems, and I don't agree with the tack that I took here. I was just going this way to show a different version of what you yourself do.

On the other hand, you seemed to engage with it and took the conversation a bit further so maybe we have found a common language; maybe it had some positive effect.

[Argus]

I don't need hidden cameras. The language you use in your posts goes beyond 'persuasive' so that's evidence of what you're trying to achieve, to my mind. If you were simply looking at a problem and trying to get to the heart of it you would use more reserved language.

Why should I use reserved language about Muslims? I don't about anything else. How do you use 'reserved' language to describe 25,000 terrorist attacks in ten years?

You just asked me to not characterize your motivation, and here you are...

But as I replied above: your intentions are evidence in the posts themselves.

My intentions and attitudes can't be gleaned as easily. You can't say that I say extremism is 'minor', that's going to far.

This is a false comparison. I'm not speculating and I'm not saying anything incorrect. You and the rest of the Left continually try to pretend that extremism is a very small element among Muslims, and that they are vastly outnumbered by the 'moderates'. Which is why you get indignant about my making blanket statements about the religion. Do I have it wrong here?

In summary, you are characterizing my wider viewpoint here, which is a far bigger leap than I have had to make to describe your intentions.

One can garner another's 'viewpoint' on something if they've posted on it hundreds of times. Understanding someone's motivation is more difficult and subjective.

Also you feel the need to categorize me with "the left". I think that's at the root of your logical fallacies - people don't group quite so easily as that.

You are on the Left and have never denied it. How is this a fallacy? I doubt anyone on this web site thinks otherwise.

You yourself bristle at being grouped with bigots and others who express anti-immigrant views

Being grouped with the Left is not a pejorative or insulting characterization. The other is. Why is such elementary logic even being discussed?

My general response to being called a bigot in real life would be to call the other person a brainless A-hole, or something similar. That seems to be against the rules here, therefore, I resent being subjected to brainless A-holes calling me a bigot.

And my views are not "anti-immigrant", nor have they ever been. They are "anti-immigration system". Now it's true that's because I believe we're bringing in the wrong number and type of immigrants, ones which are not going to do anything to attain the stated objectives of immigration, and at great cost. But the distinction is very real. I don't blame immigrants from coming here. I blame the system for bringing them in if they are non-productive and cause social or economic problems.

I believe you, but you want to enact policies that restrict immigration from "Muslim countries" (your term) which would impact innocent people, and especially people who reject extremism and want to pursue life in a secular country.

So? I don't approach immigration on the same emotional level as those who support it. I'm a nuts and bolts kind of guy, and I have very little interest in the welfare of unknown foreigners vs that of Canada as a whole.

Given the difficulty of sorting out these social "moderates", who I believe, frankly, to be a small minority among much of the Muslim world, and given the demonstrated lack of economic success of immigrants from the middle east and other geographical areas, I see nothing illogical about prioritizing immigration from parts of the world where data has shown us immigrants, as a group, are more succesful.

As per my note above, their identity as Canadians matches the national profile in general. So it seems to me that you're looking for problems that aren't there.

They identify as Muslims first, by a more than two to one margin. That is hardly a match for our national profile.

On the other hand, you seemed to engage with it and took the conversation a bit further so maybe we have found a common language; maybe it had some positive effect.

I invariably engage on immigration issues. As you and others have noted, it is one of my 'pet' subjects, after all. I think of it as an extremely expensive undertaking with no academic or scientific basis for who and how many we bring here. I'm not wholly opposed to immigration, but as I've said many times, the reasons given are nonsense. If we want to have an expensive immigration program ($21 billion per year according to Fraser) it should be determined by the experts liberals claim to respect, not by politicians looking to get votes from ethnic communities. Why should such a view draw such rage and disparagement from the Left?

[ToadBrother]

I invariably engage on immigration issues. As you and others have noted, it is one of my 'pet' subjects, after all. I think of it as an extremely expensive undertaking with no academic or scientific basis for who and how many we bring here. I'm not wholly opposed to immigration, but as I've said many times, the reasons given are nonsense. If we want to have an expensive immigration program ($21 billion per year according to Fraser) it should be determined by the experts liberals claim to respect, not by politicians looking to get votes from ethnic communities. Why should such a view draw such rage and disparagement from the Left?

Fertility rate of 1.6 is where we're at. Fertility rate of 2.1 is where we need to be.

When you have an idea of how to achieve that, you let us know.

[Argus]

Fertility rate of 1.6 is where we're at. Fertility rate of 2.1 is where we need to be.

When you have an idea of how to achieve that, you let us know.

Deal. When you have an idea of how to achieve that I invite you to let me know, as well.

The only idea you've had so far is immigration, which I believe I've demonstrated, will have virtually no impact.

[ToadBrother]

Deal. When you have an idea of how to achieve that I invite you to let me know, as well.

The only idea you've had so far is immigration, which I believe I've demonstrated, will have virtually no impact.

I'm beginning to think you don't actually read my posts at all.

[Argus]

I'm beginning to think you don't actually read my posts at all.

Well, I don't have to 'think' you don't read my cites since you've already admitted as much.

[marcus]

I suppose it is difficult to debate reality with bigoted minds. I would suggest it's also difficult to debate reality with closed minds.

After reading your previous post, I thought about it more and I did what I preach shouldn't happen. Paint with one stroke. I allowed myself fall into the whole right vs left emotional soap opera crap.

Anyway, keep up the good work.

[ToadBrother]

Well, I don't have to 'think' you don't read my cites since you've already admitted as much.

Your citations that actually do not deal with fertility rates at all, you mean?

[Guest]

After reading your previous post, I thought about it more and I did what I preach shouldn't happen. Paint with one stroke. I allowed myself fall into the whole right vs left emotional soap opera crap.

Anyway, keep up the good work.

I'll try not to disappoint.

[Michael Hardner]

Why should I use reserved language about Muslims?

You certainly don't have to. But please don't take offense as in " I'll thank you not to make assumptions about what guides my posting of citations". I can say that you've made up your mind on this, so I can at least make an assumption on that.

This is a false comparison. I'm not speculating and I'm not saying anything incorrect. You and the rest of the Left...

I've already asked you not to group me for your convenience.

They identify as Muslims first, by a more than two to one margin. That is hardly a match for our national profile.

It's the same ratio as Canadians, as evidenced in the Canadian poll. That's twice you have ignored that point now.

[Argus]

Your citations that actually do not deal with fertility rates at all, you mean?

My citations which state uncategorically that immigration will have only minor impact on aging, if that.

[marcus]

I think people should be either ignored or blocked until they are able to validate the stats they put out.

25,000 terrorist attacks in ten years?

Where do you get your numbers?

So far, Argus has avoided backing up the number of terrorist attacks he keeps repeating and he has avoided responding to his pew poll numbers, where he uses to generalize and paint one brush stroke.

[Argus]

You certainly don't have to. But please don't take offense as in " I'll thank you not to make assumptions about what guides my posting of citations". I can say that you've made up your mind on this, so I can at least make an assumption on that.

Everyone in here has made up their minds on the subject. The difference is my mind is made up based on evidence, not emotions.

I've already asked you not to group me for your convenience.

Seriously? You're just sounding petulant here. I think you're just objecting because you don't like me objecting to those calling me a bigot.

It's the same ratio as Canadians, as evidenced in the Canadian poll. That's twice you have ignored that point now.

No, I responded that it most definitely was not the same as Canadians in that by a more than two to one margin they see themselves as Muslims first. It was your cite. I have no idea why you're ignoring that except that your mind is made up.

[marcus]

The difference is my mind is made up based on evidence

LOL!

There is some emotion for you.

Edited November 6, 2015 by marcus

[Michael Hardner]

Everyone in here has made up their minds on the subject. The difference is my mind is made up based on evidence, not emotions.

My mind is certainly not made up. I think we've hit the key difference here. Your mind can't be changed by the evidence, but you're looking for evidence that supports your mindset.

Seriously?

Yes, thanks.

I have no idea why you're ignoring that except that your mind is made up.

Sorry, I'm focusing on the percentage identifying as "Canadian" as something that is significant.

[Argus]

My mind is certainly not made up. I think we've hit the key difference here. Your mind can't be changed by the evidence, but you're looking for evidence that supports your mindset.

My opinion is based on evidence. No one has supplied any evidence which counters what I already know. And you have not changed your opinions on this issue by even the smallest degree over time.

Sorry, I'm focusing on the percentage identifying as "Canadian" as something that is significant.

Yes, you're focusing on that because you think that helps your argument, but I think it's largely irrelevant to the point under discussion, which is just how to define 'extreme' social beliefs as opposed to the Canadian mainstream, and how many Muslims are 'extreme', both in Canada and in the area where we are recruiting future Canadians. And I don't think having the majority of them identify themselves as Muslims first, and Canadians second helps your case, frankly. It suggest the majority are quite religious, and take their religion very seriously. Given the tenets of that religion I fail to see how this goes against the suspicions that they are retaining antiquated social beliefs rather than integrating.

[jacee]

Canadian is the noun, Muslim the descriptor.

Using Muslim as the noun and Canadian as the descriptor gives more prominence to the religion than the nationality.

I don't think much of the tenets of any religions and a lot of religious people take it much too seriously, think they're superior, chosen, more special. Can we just deport all of them please?

Secular Canada. Yah.

Oh wait ... The thread isn't about religion. It's about citizenship.

Are you saying we should strip citizenship and deport all Muslims Argus?

What is you point anyway, in relation to the topic?

Doesn't matter anyway. Justin won't strip citizenship.

Edited November 7, 2015 by jacee

[drummindiver]

Then why not allow those who want to leave Canada to also "self deport"?

Ever hear of Omar Khadr?

We let them leave, they kill ppl, then we are on the hook.

[Michael Hardner]

My opinion is based on evidence. No one has supplied any evidence which counters what I already know.

I have provided some mitigating information but you're choosing to not take it into account. "It suggest the majority are quite religious, and take their religion very seriously." That's true, but it's not incompatible with identifying as Canadian. This information should at least mitigate your suspicions and fears somewhat.

And you have not changed your opinions on this issue by even the smallest degree over time.

That's not true, you have changed my mind.

[drummindiver]

I am all for throwing them out if Canada if it is applied equally to every individual convicted terrorist. Since it cannot be applied equally then we should do it the only way we can, punish them in Canada as Canadians. Why should Immigrants become loyal to Canada if they never have a chance to become true Canadians? Why should immigrants serve in the Military and risk their lives FOR Canada if they are only second class citizens?

People get differing penalties for every crime on the books. There is a min and max.

Same for terrorists.

If an immigrant serves in the military, hopefully they aren't planning on using their training to kill Canadians

If they do, clearly they are traitors, and thus should be deported.

[drummindiver]

No, the short sentence implies a crappy judicial system which is extremely lax on criminals.

...of the Liberal making.

Conservatives want criminals to be punished. Liberals want to love and give them a teat to suckle.

[drummindiver]

IF Canada accepts you as a citizen, you are Canadian for better or for worse, if you lied when applying that is a different story. That is all, you are Canadian and your citizenship should be absolutely equal in every way and right to that of the other 35+ million Canadians.

Huh?

Are you really stating being a terrorist, with all it implies like murder, mutilation, and mayhem is acceptable, Canadian for life.

But if you LIED, hell, you're out of here?

edit Sorry, my bad. It clearly stated that in the rule book, doesn't it? That certainly needs to be changed.

Edited November 7, 2015 by drummindiver

[ToadBrother]

...of the Liberal making.

Conservatives want criminals to be punished.

Indeed Conservatives want criminals punished, and where there are insufficient criminals, they'll find some way to produce more of them. The Conservative motto over the last decade has been "We'll build the jails, and then we'll fill them."

Meanwhile violent crime has been dropping for years, long before the Conservative Party of Canada came on the scene.

"Tough on crime", like "Senate reform" and "long form census abolition", are just populist mumbo jumbo meant to convince the naive and dedicated partisans to vote for them. It's the equivalent of waving a steak in front of a dog.

[Wilber]

Indeed Conservatives want criminals punished, and where there are insufficient criminals, they'll find some way to produce more of them. The Conservative motto over the last decade has been "We'll build the jails, and then we'll fill them."

Meanwhile violent crime has been dropping for years, long before the Conservative Party of Canada came on the scene.

"

BS

Incarceration rates. World ranking and per 100,000 pop.

#2 USA 698

#75 New Zealand 190

#97 Australia 151

#100 UK 148

#141 Canada 106

Our incarceration rate is nowhere near the countries most like us.

Where we do rank higher is pretrial/remand prisoners which says to me that the wheels of justice grind very slowly in Canada compared to the countries most like us.

#175 UK

#139 US

#132 New Zealand

#118 Australia

#85 Canada

I've maintained for some time that our legal industry has turned our Charter and Constitution into a legal system that is incapable of getting out its own way and I think these numbers back that assertion up. While I don't agree with some of the measures the Conservatives were taking, I believe they were an attempt to return some sort of sanity to our justice system.