kimmy Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 Germany is another story but Canada is NOT allowing in too many refugees. 10,000? 25,000? That's nothing. That's a drop in the bucket. We have been averaging thousands of refugees a year for the past 50 years. This, despite the major slow down during the Harper decade. We're still doing okay. People are hysterical over nothing. I'd point out that first off, the 10,000-25,000 is in addition to the Muslims we already bring into Canada, which have numbered 40,000-50,000 a year in recent years. So yes, the number of refugees is pretty small in the big picture, but it's accelerating a trend that's already underway. I'd also point out that like dialamah you're pointing to the small number as a positive. Doesn't that imply you recognize that the issues I'm talking about have some validity? Nothing has stayed the same during Canada's history. The only constant is change. Our culture is constantly changing and being influenced by different cultures, moral values, technology and everything else in our environment. We all influence each other. You can argue that some changes are bad but usually, many changes are for the best. As a woman, you have never been in a better position in our history. I really do appreciate all the progress that has been made in Canada over the years, especially on womens' rights and gay rights. Which is why I'm extremely skeptical that these newly arriving social conservatives will have a positive impact on our country. You would be surprised how much of a positive effect you can have by welcoming people, instead of being suspicious of them. They are here to make a better life for their families, especially their children. When we approach them with open arms, there is less chance of them isolating themselves in their own groups. Nothing will be perfect, but we should always strive to treat others as we would want to be treated. Sure, I understand that many of them just want to be safe and raise their families and don't want to cause trouble for anybody. But there's still a portion within the community that holds views that are toxic and incompatible with our values. I will again mention the two progressive Muslims I quoted earlier in the thread who pointed out that there are Imams who do preach that western women are whores and deserve to be treated like garbage. That's not coming from Breitbart or Stormfront, that's coming from the progressive Muslims that people are always saying need to be listened to. -k (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Smallc Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 And? That these are pretty poor examples being used to justify fear of others - a common theme throughout history. No one will be setting up Sharia courts in Canada.
DogOnPorch Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 Islam is what it is. It has been around much longer than Canada. The Quran says what it says. What is written is the very word of Allah as given to Mohammad via the angel Gabriel. Dying while fighting in the name of Allah is the surest path to Heaven. Our own individual incredulity will not change this. What is different is that Islam as a driving ideology took a little break in the 20th century and is only now coming back to form...so to speak. So we might be excused to think it a non-threat to our great Rome...errr...West. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Moonlight Graham Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 A killed or a terrorized person in France is worth the same as a killed or terrorized person in Syria or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Yemen, etc. Of course but not to the vast majority of people in the West. "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Hal 9000 Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 So, "Canada's larger culture is completely dependent on the people who live here. It has always been thus. Richmond is part of what makes Canada what it is, just as much as (probably more than) Kim city". If this is true that the chinese can take over Vancouver/Richmond and have chinese only signs, speak only chinese and hold meetings in the chinese language among other things, what makes you think that once we have a large enough muslim population, they won't do the exact same thing? And you'll allow it, you'll allow Sharia law based on the aforementioned thought "it's what makes Canada what it is". The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) I assure you, in 1929 Pakistan didn't exist and the British were firmly in charge India. They made the laws. You know...the same Empire that made the rules here in Canada. That's my recollection too. I wonder what Canada's "First Nation's" called their "phobia" upon the arrival of all those pale faces and Sharia English common law ? I don't think they got to vote on it. How does "Islamophobia in Canada" square with an official and glowing pride in a forced policy of "multiculturalism" ? Edited January 18, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 Out my way it was partly "whew" as the arrival of the dreaded "white man" put an end to the dreaded Haida's predations. Plus, our first governor as such was a black fellow rather than white. The natives who first met him thought he was the Devil. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 No one will be setting up Sharia courts in Canada. Why not? I'd imagine it's just a matter of politics like anything else. Is there something wrong with a Sharia court? Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 Why not? I'd imagine it's just a matter of politics like anything else. Is there something wrong with a Sharia court? Canada is also a nation of firmly entrenched constitutional requirements. Granted, they can be changed, but it's unlikely that they will be for even things that make sense.
DogOnPorch Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 Canada is also a nation of firmly entrenched constitutional requirements. Granted, they can be changed, but it's unlikely that they will be for even things that make sense. Granted they can be changed. Is there something wrong with a Sharia court? Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 Granted they can be changed. Is there something wrong with a Sharia court? Though I can see a court being set up as those that exist for aboriginals and certain religious sects for in community matters, it would be impossible for it to surpass the actual courts in criminal matters without some real constitutional change. It just isn't compatible. Muslim society in other countries isn't great. In Canda, despite growth, it hasn't caused a problem.
Argus Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 Where was that claim made? Or are you assuming that when someone (such as myself) points out that the those things you are using as a reason to limit or eliminate immigration from the Middle Eastern region, is also practiced in your culture/region, they are somehow also claiming it doesn't happen anywhere else? What you ignore is that while things are practiced in our culture, they are highly illegal, and all of society is against them. Meanwhile, when they are practiced in your culture they are neither illegal, nor does society disapprove. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 But you're confusing the situation with men who seek out little kids, usually under 10 year olds for sexual gratification. This is of course, against the law. In non-Muslim states, yes. Not so much in Muslim states. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 Why was sex tourism brought into this discussion, again? To attempt to excuse and defend Muslim misogyny and sexual violence against women and children. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 I think it started with the condemnation of refugees entering Canada and committing sex crimes while at the same time Canadian men travel abroad to obtain sex with underage children. No, it started with the deliberate attempt at excusing, denying and explaining away the tendency of Muslims from middle east countries (in particular) towards extreme misogyny. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 They are retarded. What exactly are you looking for? Are you saying the entire country of Pakistan is made up of retarded people? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 I don't know but what does it have to do with this thread? Because the reason given was that it would be un-Islamic, go against Sharia law, and thus be blasphemous. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 as was highlighted in an earlier post; in... Canada... children of 16 are legally allowed to marry with parental consent. Until 2008, that age was 14... why... 16... that's the same current age as in Pakistan today. and... in Canada? . It is not now nor has it ever been legal to marry 9 year olds in Canada. Not so in many Muslim countries. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 Actually nothing to do with it. The news story said that a law was proposed to raise the legal age of marriage from 16 to 18, and to bring in harsher penalties for child-marriage. The law was not passed, in part due to the efforts of clergy who would prefer no limit be imposed. Your attempt to make this into "see, Muslims are pedophiles" fails badly for the following reasons: 1. Canada allows marriages of 16-year-olds; if you condemn Iran, you must also condemn Canada. Yet Iran allows marriages below 13 as long the parents consent. How is that like Canada in any way? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 I think your perspective and view of change is wrong. We are always changing as a culture. You cannot stop time. I can't think of many people in Canada who think our culture should change to be more reflective of Islamic values. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) The larger point being missed; Canada's larger culture is completely dependent on the people who live here. It has always been thus. Richmond is part of what makes Canada what it is, just as much as (probably more than) Kim city. Therefore, the more Muslim who come here the more our larger culture will come to reflect the cultural and religious biases and values of the Islamic world. Edited January 18, 2016 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 That these are pretty poor examples being used to justify fear of others - a common theme throughout history. No one will be setting up Sharia courts in Canada. There is no evidence to support your conclusion. The Ontario Liberals already proposed such a thing a few years back in an effort to curry favour among Muslims. With the Muslim population doubling every ten years that urge to suck up to this very socially conservative group will only grow among politicians. Muslims will soon outnumber aborigines in Canada, and they are generally concentrated in certain large cities where their votes can be very helpful to politicians. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) Though I can see a court being set up as those that exist for aboriginals and certain religious sects for in community matters, it would be impossible for it to surpass the actual courts in criminal matters without some real constitutional change. It just isn't compatible. But we already have alternative criminal sentencing for aboriginals under their own tribal elders, and Muslims will soon outnumber them. Why shouldn't they too get special consideration, and sentencing under their own culture and laws? Edited January 18, 2016 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Big Guy Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 I believe that it is more refugeeophobia that periodically affects Canadians. The fear of people who speak and look different from us is nothing new. We get the same reaction from a small minority of Canadians at every refugee wave: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/refugees/ <sarcasm warning> I remember in the 1950's when those "commies" from Hungary and Czechoslovakia flooded Canada with all those spies from Moscow. In 1970 those Ugandian Asians invaded Canada but at least we could tell them apart from the real Canadians. Later all those poor people from Portugal and Italy snuck over to take over the Canadian construction industry. Later, when our government allowed over 70,000 Vietnamese to infiltrate Canada we were subjected to weird cultural foods like octopus and squid. We could never absorb such a large number of poor people and they were little people who did not even look like us! And worst of all, we did not have the electronic social media to warn and protect us from these hordes of barbarians who were attacking our Canadian values and culture. Fear is a strong motivator and has always been used by racists, bigots, xenophobes and misogynists to try to recruit new members into their decreasing numbers. Oh, by the way, there are provinces which are asking for more refugees than have been allocated to them: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/n-l-looking-to-boost-number-of-refugees-by-60-says-clyde-jackman-1.3222226 We have heard the same arguments against the post war refugee wave and with the next wave of refugees. These folks who warn us that the sky is falling and the Canadian culture is threatened have been proven to be wrong again and again and again. But it is a free country and there will always be those uninformed who will fall for their empty warnings. By the way - the sky is not falling. Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Smallc Posted January 18, 2016 Report Posted January 18, 2016 But we already have alternative criminal sentencing for aboriginals under their own tribal elders, and Muslims will soon outnumber them. Why shouldn't they too get special consideration, and sentencing under their own culture and laws? I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. Those bodies though, never trump actual courts.
Recommended Posts