Islamophobia in Canada

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

The experts who actually deal with such things point out the huge costs of hiring/training people who MAY be effective trying to conduct such questioning, and even at that you might still end up wasting time. They point out that as quickly as we could piss away a lot of tax money setting up such questioning, "schools" would be created abroad to advise would be immigrants how to deal with those questions, whether they were lying or not. 

Do you regard job interviews as a waste of time?

[Rue]

23 hours ago, Hydraboss said:

Idiot-lovers voted for him?  You asked what was thought of Nenshi, not how he got elected.

And I couldn't care less if he's Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist or Atheist.  He's still an idiot with no regard for taxpayer money.

I agree  with Hydraboss he's a big government spender part of the liberal Canada political network where all solutions begin and end with gov. spending. He is right now an example of a moderate Muslim in Canadian politics however so whether he likes it or not liberals stereotype him precisely because he's a Muslim and try make a big deal out of it just like appointing a Siekh as defence Minister or a Muslim Somali as Immigration Mnr. Its Liberals playing it up as him being a future PM.

I agree with you his religion is totally immaterial. His political views are. I will even go so far as to say I doubt he wants his religion being an issue.

I hate the way the liberals trot him out as if he represents all Muslims and use him as a shiny example of a GOOD Muslim. Crap. He's a good person sure but his being Muslim is immaterial. He's a human, period and a dang nab liberal at that.

 

[Omni]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

Do you regard job interviews as a waste of time?

Think for a moment about the obvious differences, if you were applying for a job as ,say, a pilot, you might expect to be asked "what types of aircraft have you  flown, and for how long"? Under Leitch's silly program you would get asked "do you plan to work hard to support you and your family"? Now who do you think could get away with fake answers?

[Rue]

26 minutes ago, Argus said:

Do you regard job interviews as a waste of time?

Some of them yes Especially for partisan positions where Trudeau picks out who he wants way ahead of time.

Sorry but interviews can and are often a joke. People feedback what they anticipate they expected to say then revert back to their true behaviour the moment the test is over.

Now as for psychometric testing, the kind you see all kinds of human resources people now use to define people's personalities, most of them are designed by the same firm who has a copyright on all of them in Princeton, New Jersey and I have to tell you they are easy to lie to and get around.

The only sure way to get a feel for someone and their beliefs is to live and work side by side them and that takes time. Now  of course if  they tell you right to your face before they come to Canada or as they enter and demand a house and call  you a  dhimmi,  khafir-infidel Zionist ben zona of a camel....  well  its a good bet you don't need a test and you  might want a bullet proof vest and  learn how to use a gun and build a wall around your house because I promise you that kind of person won't be living in Justin's neighbourhood-just yours.

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by Rue

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, Rue said:

I will even go so far as to say I doubt he wants his religion being an issue.

So then why are you making it an issue?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

Think for a moment about the obvious differences, if you were applying for a job as ,say, a pilot, you might expect to be asked "what types of aircraft have you  flown, and for how long"? Under Leitch's silly program you would get asked "do you plan to work hard to support you and your family"? Now who do you think could get away with fake answers?

Every job interview I've participated in, on either side of the table, has primarily been designed to try and determine the personality of the individual applying. That they got as far as the interview means they've already demonstrated their job skills through a letter/application. The term 'best fit' came into play a lot, in seeing who would fit well within our organization in terms of being self-motivated, showing initiative, and having the proper personality to fit in with the people already there.

In addition to that, however, I think a proper interview for a prospective Canadian would also be used to demonstrate their language skills, since I do not trust third-party, third-world testing centers, and to ask quite a bit less obvious questions to determine whether the person's values are more in line with ours or not.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Sorry but interviews can and are often a joke. People feedback what they anticipate they expected to say then revert back to their true behaviour the moment the test is over.

A lot can be determined through getting them to deal with unexpected questions and suggestions, including a lot about personality. You can't tell anything about a person's personality through an application. I was once part of a board interviewing prospective employees and one came in speaking French. I didn't understand a word he'd said but I knew that we were going to hire him by the time he sat down, simply through the personality he demonstrated through his body language, his face and his voice.

In terms of a prospective Canadian you can learn something from asking about things he or she might not have even considered. Like, what will you do if you can't find a job once in Canada? Or can't find a job in your professional area? What about your spouse? What will she do? Where do you plan to live and why? What do you know about Canada and it's culture and values? How would you feel if you moved into an apartment and a X lived next door. Would you prefer to work for a Muslim, a Christian or a Hindu? Why? Would you prefer to work for a man or a woman? Why? In a conservative Muslim country you could say something like "Women in this country are usually covered head to toe whenever they go outside. This is done by all modest women as a reflection of the prophet's desire that women dress in a way which does not bring arousal from men. Do you think this is the proper way for women to dress? Do you realize this is not the custom in Canada? Have you ever seen how western women dress in summer? What do you think of this? How do you think you will react when you come upon women wearing such clothing? Would it upset you if your wife or daughter wore such clothing?

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Now as for psychometric testing, the kind you see all kinds of human resources people now use to define people's personalities, most of them are designed by the same firm who has a copyright on all of them in Princeton, New Jersey and I have to tell you they are easy to lie to and get around.

It might be easy for a sophisticated person to figure out how to get around them, or it might not. I've read some on these tests which show some have built in questions designed to tell if someone has practiced. And not everyone is a good liar, or can remember what they're supposed to say, or even wants to lie. Schooling your spouse and children to lie in exactly the same way can be difficult too. And a great deal of our immigrants lack sophistication in these sorts of things.

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Every job interview I've participated in, on either side of the table, has primarily been designed to try and determine the personality of the individual applying. That they got as far as the interview means they've already demonstrated their job skills through a letter/application. The term 'best fit' came into play a lot, in seeing who would fit well within our organization in terms of being self-motivated, showing initiative, and having the proper personality to fit in with the people already there.

In addition to that, however, I think a proper interview for a prospective Canadian would also be used to demonstrate their language skills, since I do not trust third-party, third-world testing centers, and to ask quite a bit less obvious questions to determine whether the person's values are more in line with ours or not.

I've been on both sides of that table as well, and yes, there has to be some background to get there. The  current immigration system already does that and yes a face to face follow up to confirm those credentials is a sensible thing to do. Trying to make arbitrary decisions about personalities is not. 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Every job interview I've participated in, on either side of the table, has primarily been designed to try and determine the personality of the individual applying.

Ever been in an interview where one or more of the interviewers was hostile and clearly didn't want your application to see the light of day?

That's what would likely happen to refugees and immigrants under a government run by your harder-boiled right-winger.

[PIK]

On 5/4/2017 at 3:42 PM, Argus said:

When the clothing is a proclamation of their political beliefs I think we pretty much can.

You bet, do you? Based on what evidence? Wearing this stuff every day everywhere you go is a proclamation of seperateness from society and peers. It's not something done lightly. I think you, like so many other secular westerners simply cannot wrap your mind around the concept that people who are devoted to a religion might actually believe what the religion stands for, including its moral rules and laws.

Come on Argus , muslim women love to be covered heads to toe in black clothes on a very hot day.

[Hydraboss]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Ever been in an interview where one or more of the interviewers was hostile and clearly didn't want your application to see the light of day?

That's what would likely happen to refugees and immigrants under a government run by your harder-boiled right-winger.

Ever been in an interview where the candidate refuses to speak to the female that is part of the group conducting the interview?  I have - many times.  Care to guess what part of the world these candidates come from?

[carepov]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

Do you regard job interviews as a waste of time?

This is a good point.  Job interviews are certainly important but is hiring an employee analogous to accepting an immigrant?

I'm not so sure, the main difference I see is that when hiring you are typically filling an immediate or near term need whereas immigration is a much more long-term investment - even multi-generational.

What would be the "job description" of a good Canadian citizen?

[Rue]

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

Ever been in an interview where one or more of the interviewers was hostile and clearly didn't want your application to see the light of day?

That's what would likely happen to refugees and immigrants under a government run by your harder-boiled right-winger.

Yah and they are mean say things in the interview  like, sit up straight, on no wait that's homophobic not islamophobic.  Sorry never mind.

The current government has deliberately allowed people to crash and break the immigration and refugee laws creating chaos and a free for all and it hurts first and foremiost legitimate refugees and immigrants because of the criminals you claim are victims.  As for this insipid tone that  anyone who disagrees with you and Trudeau's idiocy is a harder boiled right winger (sic) get it clear-you spew elitist privileged silver spoon crap - your simplistic attempts to label people you disagree with and pose as a defender of the downtrodden is a joke. I doubt you've ever riden a bus let alone met anyone with a tan.

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

4 hours ago, Hydraboss said:

Ever been in an interview where the candidate refuses to speak to the female that is part of the group conducting the interview?  I have - many times.  Care to guess what part of the world these candidates come from?

Trudeau's neighbourhood?

[Rue]

6 hours ago, PIK said:

Come on Argus , muslim women love to be covered heads to toe in black clothes on a very hot day.

Well love is a strong word.

4 hours ago, carepov said:

This is a good point.  Job interviews are certainly important but is hiring an employee analogous to accepting an immigrant?

I'm not so sure, the main difference I see is that when hiring you are typically filling an immediate or near term need whereas immigration is a much more long-term investment - even multi-generational.

What would be the "job description" of a good Canadian citizen?

...a professional NHL hockey player. ...was that a trick question?

[Rue]

19 hours ago, Omni said:

I've been on both sides of that table as well, and yes, there has to be some background to get there. The  current immigration system already does that and yes a face to face follow up to confirm those credentials is a sensible thing to do. Trying to make arbitrary decisions about personalities is not. 

I would agree with you Omni but the current system has crashed because Trudeau is allowing illegal migrants to crash the system and avoid following the above laws. That's the point. I personally agree with you that questioning for desirability of personality traits is impractical.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

I would agree with you Omni but the current system has crashed because Trudeau is allowing illegal migrants to crash the system and avoid following the above laws. That's the point. I personally agree with you that questioning for desirability of personality traits is impractical.

From some of the reading I have done on the issue recently, I reckon our immigration system needs more resources, such as in increasing staff, but certainly not in such a way as to enact the Kellie Lietch version of screening.

[Argus]

On 5/11/2017 at 9:06 PM, Omni said:

I've been on both sides of that table as well, and yes, there has to be some background to get there. The  current immigration system already does that and yes a face to face follow up to confirm those credentials is a sensible thing to do. Trying to make arbitrary decisions about personalities is not. 

The follow up doesn't just confirm the details.  We wouldn't need boards of three to five people interviewing a subject if that were the case. 

[Argus]

23 hours ago, carepov said:

This is a good point.  Job interviews are certainly important but is hiring an employee analogous to accepting an immigrant?

I'm not so sure, the main difference I see is that when hiring you are typically filling an immediate or near term need whereas immigration is a much more long-term investment - even multi-generational.

What would be the "job description" of a good Canadian citizen?

The entire reason given for our immigration program is economic. Therefore, an immigrant who will come here and go on pogey or welfare is a net loss. We want immigrants who are likely to succeed to the point they are actually paying taxes. That generally requires job skills, most especially including language/communication skills which can only really be tested in an face-to-face interview. In addition, and especially for those coming from vastly different cultural backgrounds, I would suggest that success requires a degree of flexibility and adaptability. Every job interview I've been involved in has attempted to discern the applicant's skill set, but also their level of initiative and, particularly in office settings, an understanding of office culture and the behavioural traits the organization seeks. The government ones all put a lot of emphasis on finding applicants who could get along with people, who understood when to go to management for a problem with colleagues and when and how to handle it themselves. The higher the job, the more emphasis there was on this. I've never been involved in them but I understand those for executives even have role playing where the executive is faced with personnel issues he or she is required to deal with and will be graded on.

The office is, in a sense, simply a mini society. Employers don't want to bring in people who are going to upset everyone. I don't see that as being a bad thing for our greater society, either. If we have such a great mass of people who want to come here that we can be extremely selective than we should be, not just on economic but on cultural grounds.

As to what would make a good Canadian citizen, it is easier to suggest what would not. A mindset which sneers at everyone around you and dismisses them as whores or infidels who should be put in their place would certainly be among them.

[Hydraboss]

21 hours ago, Argus said:

We want immigrants who are likely to succeed to the point they are actually paying taxes

The equivalent to paying taxes would be hiring someone into a job to produce "something" - to do the tasks required by the job.  I would never hire anyone to one of my teams that wasn't capable and willing to carry their own weight.  If I inadvertently did, they'd find themselves skidded in the first month if not faster.  Someone who can't help the "team" is just a boat anchor for everyone else.

Non-productive immigrants are just that....boat anchors.  Too many and the boat sinks.

[jbg]

On 5/12/2017 at 4:57 PM, Omni said:

From some of the reading I have done on the issue recently, I reckon our immigration system needs more resources, such as in increasing staff, but certainly not in such a way as to enact the Kellie Lietch version of screening.

We need to beef up the system enough that deportation hearings and actual deportations take a short rather than long time. And that applies to both countries. The "build a wall" types don't want to acknowledge that this means spending real money and resources.

[OftenWrong]

On 2017-05-13 at 0:29 PM, Argus said:

Every job interview I've been involved in has attempted to discern the applicant's skill set, but also their level of initiative and, particularly in office settings, an understanding of office culture and the behavioural traits the organization seeks. The government ones all put a lot of emphasis on finding applicants who could get along with people, who understood when to go to management for a problem with colleagues and when and how to handle it themselves. The higher the job, the more emphasis there was on this. I've never been involved in them but I understand those for executives even have role playing where the executive is faced with personnel issues he or she is required to deal with and will be graded on.

The office is, in a sense, simply a mini society. Employers don't want to bring in people who are going to upset everyone. I don't see that as being a bad thing for our greater society, either. If we have such a great mass of people who want to come here that we can be extremely selective than we should be, not just on economic but on cultural grounds.

As to what would make a good Canadian citizen, it is easier to suggest what would not. A mindset which sneers at everyone around you and dismisses them as whores or infidels who should be put in their place would certainly be among them.

I've conducted many interviews and hired many people over the years and I can tell you, it is most difficult to come to a firm conclusion about what someone is like in a short meeting with them. After short-listing the people whom I think have the skills, I want to meet them and see if they're telling the truth. This can be done by using skill-testing questions. I am constant;y observing their behaviour as well all the time, to try and get a sense of their personality but this is very difficult. Most people are always on their best behaviour, and know what to say and what not to say. Some can be very quiet and reserved, that doesn't necessarily make them "bad". In the end I can only go with a gut feeling to choose the best candidate.

I am not in favour of a test for immigrants since any jackass can answer the basic questions that makes them look like perfectly reasonable people. Perhaps attendance in a mandatory training course is better, some kind of cultural conditioning. That might be more useful than a single-point examination.

Edited May 14, 2017 by OftenWrong

[dialamah]

32 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Perhaps attendance in a mandatory training course is better, some kind of cultural conditioning. That might be more useful than a single-point examination.

 

This makes more sense to me as well.   That way, regardless of what their personal opinions may be, they clearly understand what the expectation is for their life in Canada.

[DogOnPorch]

35 minutes ago, dialamah said:

This makes more sense to me as well.   That way, regardless of what their personal opinions may be, they clearly understand what the expectation is for their life in Canada.

 

Aren't there already such "programs" in the UK, Germany, Sweden, etc?

How are they working out?

[Argus]

3 hours ago, jbg said:

We need to beef up the system enough that deportation hearings and actual deportations take a short rather than long time. And that applies to both countries. The "build a wall" types don't want to acknowledge that this means spending real money and resources.

You can do both. You can do your best to keep them out while also speeding up the processing. Unfortunately, here in Canada, since the Bertha Wilson decision, anyone who sets one inch across the border has all the rights of native born Canadians. Which means they have multiple ways to appeal and delay being removed, and their legal fight to stay is paid for by us.