Should Canada screen potential immigrants/refugees for Canadian Values

[Machjo]

My point was, should religious accommodation allow people to do worse things than they normally might under the current cultural practices where they live?

Now, full disclosure here. I don't like animal cruelty, so I haven't watched your video, nor DoP's of the Eid slaughter. I'm assuming one is worse than the other based on the banter alone. If it is your contention that the way we treat animals in our system is as cruel as the Halal system, then I have no argument with you. If you think it is worse, why should we allow that religious accommodation?

Edit> My ethnocentrism is pretty benign. I just assume that all the things about my culture that are better than other cultures, are better than other cultures.

An EEG study was done by the Veterinary University of Berlin that showed that the halal slaughter method inflicted less pain on the animal than the common western methods. We shouldn't let anti-Muslim sentiment distract from hard scientific proof.

That said, I still eat vegan since even the Halal method inflicts pain on the animal. It's all relative But if I had to eat meat knowing what I do, I'd definitely choose halal over other methods.

The Kosher method also inflicts less pain. Then again, the halal and kosher methods are nearly identical escept for details.

In principle, if someone truly objected to a Muslim prayer being recited as the animal is slaughtered and he didn't like Jews either, even just secular exsanguination would reveal comparable results. Playing baroque string music in the bakcground would probably likewise calm the animal in a compararably similar way as reciting a Muslim prayer would.

[Machjo]

Only culture.

Whose culture? I trace my roots back to New France, yet consider the consumption of meat, any meat, to be cruel if it's done unnecessarily.

Does that make the consumption of meat an un-Canadian value?

Edited September 16, 2016 by Machjo

[Machjo]

I was unaware the Jewish community demands universal Kosher Certification. So items deemed Kosher are being sold either unmarked or poorly marked without a non-Kosher choice for non-Jews? Is that's what is happening?

Though Muslims consider Jewish kosher meat to also be halal. Muslims also consider vegan food untainted with alcohol or any other mind-altering substance to also be halal.

That means that though not all halal food is kosher, all kosher food except alcohol is halal.

And though not all halal food is vegan, all vegan food except alcohol is halal.

Bicycles are 'halal' too. The Arabic word halal translates into English as 'permissible.' Just a fancy word with a basic meaning.

[Guest]

An EEG study was done by the Veterinary University of Berlin that showed that the halal slaughter method inflicted less pain on the animal than the common western methods. We shouldn't let anti-Muslim sentiment distract from hard scientific proof.

That said, I still eat vegan since even the Halal method inflicts pain on the animal. It's all relative But if I had to eat meat knowing what I do, I'd definitely choose halal over other methods.

The Kosher method also inflicts less pain. Then again, the halal and kosher methods are nearly identical escept for details.

In principle, if someone truly objected to a Muslim prayer being recited as the animal is slaughtered and he didn't like Jews either, even just secular exsanguination would reveal comparable results. Playing baroque string music in the bakcground would probably likewise calm the animal in a compararably similar way as reciting a Muslim prayer would.

You didn't provide a link, so I copied and pasted your words I have highlighted above into Google, and the first response was this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter/

I think, at the very least, it casts doubt on your assertion.

Edited September 16, 2016 by bcsapper

[DogOnPorch]

Though Muslims consider Jewish kosher meat to also be halal. Muslims also consider vegan food untainted with alcohol or any other mind-altering substance to also be halal.

That means that though not all halal food is kosher, all kosher food except alcohol is halal.

And though not all halal food is vegan, all vegan food except alcohol is halal.

Bicycles are 'halal' too. The Arabic word halal translates into English as 'permissible.' Just a fancy word with a basic meaning.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26037-should-canada-screen-potential-immigrantsrefugees-for-canadian-values/?p=1186995

[Machjo]

You didn't provide a link, so I copied and pasted your words I have highlighted above into Google, and the first response was this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter/

I think, at the very least, it casts doubt on your assertion.

Interesting. The study I referred to is mentioned at the end of your article. I guess it shows science is always evolving. However, we're also talking about apples and oranges. A slaughter method is a slaughter method. Stunning is stunning.

When comparing slaughter methods without stunning, the halal method is still preferable.

As to whether stunning prior to slaughter could further reduce the pain, the jury appears to still be out on that even according to your article. But again, stunning and slaughter are two separate things. If we forget stunning for a moment and focus on slaughter methods, halal and kosher methods are still more humane than other methods due to the fact that they have a certain stunning effect on their own even without prior stunning.

So as for slaughter methods, there appears to be not much debate on that front. Now the debate has moved on to whether stunning should precede slaughter regardless of what slaughter method is used.

[Benz]

Wahabists, Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood and fundamentalists are Muslims, right?

So what? You are aware that most of the Muslims are do not belong and do not approve any of them, right? Otherwise we would be already in a civil war.

Among all the muslim people I know, all of them condemn those groups. They are also not happy with Trudeau's choice to hang out with them. Do not ignore that or you will be a pawn of their chess board. They want you to hate muslims so the muslims will feel more secure and belong to the fundamentalists.

[Guest]

So what? You are aware that most of the Muslims are do not belong and do not approve any of them, right? Otherwise we would be already in a civil war.

Among all the muslim people I know, all of them condemn those groups. They are also not happy with Trudeau's choice to hang out with them. Do not ignore that or you will be a pawn of their chess board. They want you to hate muslims so the muslims will feel more secure and belong to the fundamentalists.

No, that's not what I meant. You seemed to imply that they were not. They are. Right thinking people are able to tell the difference, however.

No pawn I.

[Benz]

No, that's not what I meant. You seemed to imply that they were not. They are. Right thinking people are able to tell the difference, however.

No pawn I.

I do not understand how you could come to the conclusion that I think the Salafists are no Muslims. What do you think I am? A liberal? lolll

Those extremists are giving a different interpretation of Islam and are trying to grab all Muslims into their darkness. I do not care about Islam. People have the spirituality they want. What I care though, is that we do not put the Muslims and the extremists in the same bag. It would be as stupid as saying all christians are bad because of the crusaders.

[Guest]

I do not understand how you could come to the conclusion that I think the Salafists are no Muslims. What do you think I am? A liberal? lolll

This statement does seem to imply you think that:

Muslims are our allies. Islamists like Wahabists, Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood and fundamentalists are not. Anyone still does not understand the difference?

Edited September 16, 2016 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

Muslims are our allies. Islamists like Wahabists, Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood and fundamentalists are not. Anyone still does not understand the difference?

Apparently some people don't.

[Guest]

Apparently some people don't.

Well, Islamists like Wahabists, Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood and fundamentalists are Muslims, so, Muslims are not our aliies?

Heaven knows, I try to differentiate between the good and the bad, but people like you and Benz sure make it difficult.

Of course, only one of you is trying to be difficult.

[Argus]

John Robson had an excellent column in today's Post where he decried the effort of the elites to dismiss common values and history in favour of an amorphous internationalism. Two thirds of Canadians like the idea of screening immigrants to ensure those with hostile values don't come here. Opposition is mainly from those who don't believe in Canada or its values anyway.

Leitch’s proposal has proved popular with actual people, who understand, as historian Daniel Boorstin once said, that, “Planning for the future without a sense of history is like planting cut flowers.” They want immigrants to share genuine Canadian roots. But the elite is busy hacking through those very roots because, to borrow a phrase from theologian N.T. Wright, they think “trees should be entirely visible and obviously fruitful, no part of them buried in dirty soil.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-on-canadian-values-lets-keep-canada-canadian

[Smallc]

John Robson had an excellent column in today's Post where he decried the effort of the elites to dismiss common values and history in favour of an amorphous internationalism. Two thirds of Canadians like the idea of screening immigrants to ensure those with hostile values don't come here. Opposition is mainly from those who don't believe in Canada or its values anyway.

It's better just to invent a position than actually have to face one, I suppose.

[msj]

Came across this link via Twitter: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1903#Enforcement

Yep, not very effective.

History. Repeat. Rhymes. Etc.

[Argus]

Came across this link via Twitter: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1903#Enforcement

Yep, not very effective.

History. Repeat. Rhymes. Etc.

Oh well, if something didn't work in 1903 it can't possibly work here now...

[jacee]

The reality sinks in:

conservative_leadership_candidate_says_conservatives_could_fail

_anti_canadian_values_test

Leitch herself has suggested she would ban immigrants who hold beliefs displaying "intolerance towards other religions, cultures and sexual orientations." And while most people have taken this as a dog whistle aimed at Muslims, Leitch recently admitted she's not closing the door on a ban on Catholics either.

But as the Canadian Press reports, all this talk of tolerance for "sexual orientations" may be a tad too cosmopolitan for Trost's tastes:

"But another threat to social conservatives, Trost suggested, could come from ideas like the one proposed by Leitch, who has defined Canadian values as including tolerance for all sexual orientations.

'If Canadian values all of a sudden become a screen for liberal values, that is going to keep out a lot of Canadians,' he said.

Hmmm ... I don't have a problem with screening out anti-gay conservative Canadians.

But where do we deport them to?

Edited September 25, 2016 by jacee

[msj]

Oh well, if something didn't work in 1903 it can't possibly work here now...

Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

The point is to be informed of some history as it is usually best to be informed than not.

Some people appreciate history others prefer to ignore it. Hence the "repeat, rhyme" part.

You seem to be one who would be into repeating bad policy so I'm not surprised you would pooh pooh any attempt to try and learn from the past.

[Argus]

You seem to be one who would be into repeating bad policy so I'm not surprised you would pooh pooh any attempt to try and learn from the past.

On the contrary. I learned from the policy of the first nations which opened their doors wide to embrace as many newcomers who wanted to come here.

And look what happened to THEM.

[Argus]

Hmmm ... I don't have a problem with screening out anti-gay conservative Canadians.

But where do we deport them to?

And once again we see this cultural equivalency thing at work. You don't have a problem screening out social conservatives who don't believe gays should marry but are horrified at the thought of screening out third world types who think gays should be executed.

[DogOnPorch]

I think this video sums-up the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BzkJVk7nqw

The only thing missing was a beheading. But sure...values are all the same...lol.

[herples]

On the contrary. I learned from the policy of the first nations which opened their doors wide to embrace as many newcomers who wanted to come here.

And look what happened to THEM.

Apples and Oranges.

FN were not a unified force and the nations that are involved in colonizing the Americas only had colonizing in mind regardless of the people that lived there. The FN were not strong enough or had the same military knowledge the Europeans did in order to fight them it. It would not matter if the FN had the welcome mat out or not. The Europeans wanted to colonize the Americas and so they did.

[jacee]

And once again we see this cultural equivalency thing at work. You don't have a problem screening out social conservatives who don't believe gays should marry but are horrified at the thought of screening out third world types who think gays should be executed.

So I guess you get my point: both are ridiculous.

.

.

[Argus]

So I guess you get my point: both are ridiculous.

No, your point is ridiculous. There is the Canadian Let, Centre, and Right, and then there is way the freaking fracking out there in the distance.

We want to keep people from that last category out of Canada as much as we can.

[jacee]

No, your point is ridiculous. There is the Canadian Let, Centre, and Right, and then there is way the freaking fracking out there in the distance.

We want to keep people from that last category out of Canada as much as we can.

They would be the extremist right wing who 'don't believe' in homosexuality, women's rights, etc.

We already have such far right 'social conservatives' in Canada.

If they can't pass the screening, should they be deported, and if so, where?

Hint: I'm being facetious Argus.

My point is that you can't screen out and refuse immigrants who hold views that are also held by right wing Canadians.

This ridiculous idea from Kellie Leitch, a Conservative MP, has already been shot down by another Conservative MP who holds the very views that she wants to screen out.

The whole ides is ridiculous, a non starter.

.