Should Canada screen potential immigrants/refugees for Canadian Values

Argus · September 12, 2016

Doesn't matter, you've had several people show you a different interpretation, which is followed by a billion or more Muslims.

I'll ask you again where these billion or more Muslims come from. According to every poll the great majority of the Muslim world is strongly in support of the death penalty for gays, of women being worth a quarter the value of a man, of death for adultery, apostasy and blaspheme and other aspects of Sharia law.

So you are for the death penalty and against gay marriage?

No. But that's not the point. They're not values.

Argus · September 12, 2016

Here are a few values which the main bulk of Canadians ascribe to. It's not an exhaustive list, just some I jotted down. People might quibble about the limits of support in this or that case but they still support almost all of them.

Fundamental justice, fairness and compromise, respect for individuality (within limits), helping those who need help, an open society which treats everyone equally, regardless of wealth, race, religion or politics, secularism and self-reliance, social mobility, non-violence, the rule of law.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Argus

Smallc · September 12, 2016

None of which mention capital punishment, gays or euthanasia. But thanks for trying.

You don't seem to know what the word implicitly means, or how Constitutions actually work. Each of those things is illegal/protected because of language in the Constitution.

None of them, in this poll, rated more than 25%, and bilinigualism and multiculralism were below 10%.

But again, thanks for making it clear you have no idea what a value is, just like the people who created this poll.

Here's a hint. The Charter of Rights is not a value. Neither is health care, bilingualism or multiculturalism.

Of course the tenants of the Charter are values. Of course the principles of universal healthcare, bilingualism, and pluralism are Canadian values. They shaped the very foundation of this country.

As for the poll - they could only pick one selection. With that many choices, that they scored as high as they did speaks volumes.

Smallc · September 12, 2016

No, they are not. First of all the death penalty was not banned. Second, gay marriage was not 'upheld'. It was written into the constitution by judges due to their own ideological biases. The people who actually wrote the constitution discussed including gays and deliberately chose not to do so. So this isn't even a case of the judges trying to figure out what the writers wanted. It's a case of the judges replacing parliament's decisions on what should be in the constitution for their own.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The list of things that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of was never meant to be exhaustive - it was simply made with those examples as those examples were thought to be acceptable to people at the time. It was never meant to be all encompassing.

Secondly - the right to life is in obvious contradiction to the death penalty, as is the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

Thirdly - Constitutional interpretation is the exclusive jurisdiction of the SCOC - not you, and not Parliament.

dialamah · September 12, 2016

I'll ask you again where these billion or more Muslims come from. According to every poll the great majority of the Muslim world is strongly in support of the death penalty for gays, of women being worth a quarter the value of a man, of death for adultery, apostasy and blaspheme and other aspects of Sharia law.

My reply was specifically in context of DoP's continuous claim that Muslims are *obligated* to wage war on and kill apostates and unbelievers.

The governments which claim Qu'ranic support for the things you bring up, as well as their citizenry who believe it, are not always supported by the Qu'ran. Sharia law is not implemented exactly the same across all jurisdictions and there is opportunity within it to uphold more humanistic values and practices. That governments/people choose not to is a problem for them, but not for us in Canada. For example, even if someone comes from the Middle East and tries to cut off a thief's hand because 'that's the way they do it in my country', it's still against the law here. So is killing any member of one's family, or anyone who isn't a member of your family.

If I saw some actual proof that within the Muslim community that people were getting their hands chopped off as a matter of course, and there were honor killings as a matter of course, then maybe I'd consider your concerns more credible. I've never heard of anyone in Canada having their hand removed for thievery; I could find perhaps a dozen reports of honor killings in Canada since 2000. By contrast, in 2012 alone, there were 73 cases where a woman was killed by her male partner.

That doesn't mean I'm willing to accept 'honor killings', any more than I'm willing to accept 'wife-killings'. They are equally wrong. Still, I'm not about to penalize every single man because some of them kill their wives. In the same way, I'm not going to penalize every single Muslim because some of them carry out honor killings.

And when it comes to the killing of women, consider this from an article about honor killing in Canada:

Yet both kinds of murders have a common root. Both are honour killings, reflecting a twisted, pathological male sense of honour. Both are executed by men who feel they haven't received their due deference, men who consider "their" women, whether daughter or partner, to be their chattel, to do with as they choose. Have we smug white Canadians forgotten that you don't have to be a Muslim or South Asian to regard women this way?

As for the less violent cultural practices - patriarchy and misogyny specifically - I'm not in favor of them either. But just as I don't accuse every Christian male of harboring misogynistic beliefs and tendencies, so I'm not going to accuse every single Muslim male of the same thing.

I welcome these people to Canada because I believe it's a way we can help those with less progressive values move toward more progressive values, and support those those who already want more freedom, but know they cannot find it in their own country.

I don't excuse those immigrants or refugees who take it upon themselves to judge others as 'less than', and take action to express their opinion any more than I support Canadians who do the same. I don't care if it's a Muslim teenager calling a woman a whore, or a White teenager calling his schoolmates sluts. If a South Asian family kills their daughter because she dated the wrong man, they should be jailed - just as a Christian family should be jailed if their kid dies because "God would heal him".

Edited September 12, 2016 by dialamah

Smallc · September 12, 2016

Here are a few values which the main bulk of Canadians ascribe to. It's not an exhaustive list, just some I jotted down. People might quibble about the limits of support in this or that case but they still support almost all of them.

Fundamental justice, fairness and compromise, respect for individuality (within limits), helping those who need help, an open society which treats everyone equally, regardless of wealth, race, religion or politics, secularism and self-reliance, social mobility, non-violence, the rule of law.

It's certainly not exhaustive. None of those are uniquely Canadian values. They do not in any way separate us from other western countries.

Argus · September 12, 2016

Of course the tenants of the Charter are values. Of course the principles of universal healthcare, bilingualism, and pluralism are Canadian values. They shaped the very foundation of this country.

We had none of that for the first 100 years of this country. Not much into history, I take it?

It's certainly not exhaustive. None of those are uniquely Canadian values. They do not in any way separate us from other western countries.

They separate us from a lot of other countries, though.

Smallc · September 12, 2016

We had none of that for the first 100 years of this country. Not much into history, I take it?

We had bilingualism from the very beginning. We had multiculturalism from the very beginning as well - we just finally recognized it. Similarly - your own list includes helping others that need help. That was the very idea on which universal healthcare was based.

They separate us from a lot of other countries, though.

Sure, but they aren't universally shared by even native born Canadians. The values that many of us see as central to our identity and way of life aren't even shared by you. Do you not see the issue here?

DogOnPorch · September 12, 2016

Well if Canada becomes like France...some folks will be right ticked.

I liked France.

Argus · September 12, 2016

You have no idea what you're talking about. The list of things that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of was never meant to be exhaustive - it was simply made with those examples as those examples were thought to be acceptable to people at the time. It was never meant to be all encompassing.

It was discussed and rejected. If it was acceptable to people at a latter time they had a means to insert it into the constitution but that didn't happen.

Secondly - the right to life is in obvious contradiction to the death penalty, as is the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

Who says the death penalty is cruel and unusual for killers? The phrase you are referring to is the right to 'life, liberty and security of the person', yet we know that in some cases liberty can be denied, else we'd have no prisons, as can security of the person, which is why strip searches and body cavity searches are acceptable. Or if you read it as a prohibition on violence, police are still allowed to use whatever level of force is require to compel your obedience to the law.

Thirdly - Constitutional interpretation is the exclusive jurisdiction of the SCOC - not you, and not Parliament.

Yes, who are appointed depending on their bilingualism, whether they have a uterus, the color of their skin, their religion, and perhaps their region. In other words, they're not appointed to the SC because they know the law or constitution very well. I could appoint nine people to the SC tomorrow and suddenly the Charter would okay executing blondes or people with glasses. It's a crummy piece of paper and wide open to any interpretation you care to put on it.

Argus · September 12, 2016

We had bilingualism from the very beginning.

No, we did not. Unless you mean some people spoke English and some spoke French.

We had multiculturalism from the very beginning as well

We had one acceptable culture and that was British. In Quebec, they had their own. And neither thought much of the other.

Sure, but they aren't universally shared by even native born Canadians. The values that many of us see as central to our identity and way of life aren't even shared by you. Do you not see the issue here?

They are pretty universally shared, though the degree of support for each varies by person. And as I said before, since you don't understand the difference between a value and a government policy I'm afraid your belief I don't share Canadian values is laughable.

Smallc · September 12, 2016

It was discussed and rejected. If it was acceptable to people at a latter time they had a means to insert it into the constitution but that didn't happen.

Written Constitutions in Commonwealth countries are abnormal, and were never meant to be exhaustive. It's always been their strength - that they are flexible.

Who says the death penalty is cruel and unusual for killers? The phrase you are referring to is the right to 'life, liberty and security of the person', yet we know that in some cases liberty can be denied, else we'd have no prisons, as can security of the person, which is why strip searches and body cavity searches are acceptable. Or if you read it as a prohibition on violence, police are still allowed to use whatever level of force is require to compel your obedience to the law.

An exception can be made on the basis of Part 1 of the Charter. The basis has to be rooted in reason. There is nothing reasonable gained through the death penalty.

Yes, who are appointed depending on their bilingualism, whether they have a uterus, the color of their skin, their religion, and perhaps their region. In other words, they're not appointed to the SC because they know the law or constitution very well. I could appoint nine people to the SC tomorrow and suddenly the Charter would okay executing blondes or people with glasses. It's a crummy piece of paper and wide open to any interpretation you care to put on it.

The judges that make up the Supreme court are also eminently qualified. They have legal and judicial experience going back years. In other words, they're more qualified than you to judge.

Smallc · September 12, 2016

No, we did not. Unless you mean some people spoke English and some spoke French.

The Constitution Act, 1867, specifically established both English and French as the languages of the judiciary and legislatures in Canada and specifically in the province of Quebec. The Manitoba Act of 1870 established that services in Manitoba must be provided in both official languages.

We had one acceptable culture and that was British. In Quebec, they had their own. And neither thought much of the other.

Canada was a nation of immigrants from all over Europe and indeed the world from the very beginning. We simply finally made the legal recognition.

They are pretty universally shared, though the degree of support for each varies by person. And as I said before, since you don't understand the difference between a value and a government policy I'm afraid your belief I don't share Canadian values is laughable.

Where do you think that government policies come from?

Big Guy · September 12, 2016

So these constitutional geniuses on this board have decided that our laws do not reflect Canadian values. Now I understand how they come to their unique conclusions. !!

The_Squid · September 12, 2016

First of all the death penalty was not banned.

Who says the death penalty is cruel and unusual for killers?

In 2001 the Supreme Court ruled that Canada couldn't extradite someone who faced the death penalty because it was a violation of the Constitution.

That's a pretty clear indication (explicitly so) that the death penalty violates the Constitution despite the SCC never needing to rule on the death penalty since it was removed prior to the Constitution being enacted.

Edited September 12, 2016 by The_Squid

cybercoma · September 12, 2016

Insults are all you have. You have no rebuttal to the statement.

My rebuttal is that Catholics seem to follow our laws just fine and so do more than 1 million Muslims who live in this country. Some of them are even Members of Parliament, judges, lawyers, cops, doctors, and military personnel. Their only allegiance is to Islam? You're wrong, just as the Orangemen were wrong about Catholics.

cybercoma · September 12, 2016

So is your opinion: Sharia Law doesn't really matter to Muslims?

So in your opinion: The Vatican doesn't really matter to Catholics?

Of course it matters. They can also follow our laws and participate in our institutions. Believe it or not following laws and religion are not mutually exclusive. Only someone who is a radical anti-theist would think that religion precludes people from following the law.

DogOnPorch · September 12, 2016

My rebuttal is that Catholics seem to follow our laws just fine and so do more than 1 million Muslims who live in this country. Some of them are even Members of Parliament, judges, lawyers, cops, doctors, and military personnel. Their only allegiance is to Islam? You're wrong, just as the Orangemen were wrong about Catholics.

Literally...all you can do to explain away Islamic violence across the globe is to blame me.

Shooting the messenger.

So in your opinion: The Vatican doesn't really matter to Catholics?

Of course it matters. They can also follow our laws and participate in our institutions. Believe it or not following laws and religion are not mutually exclusive. Only someone who is a radical anti-theist would think that religion precludes people from following the law.

Never argued that at all....but you know that.

cybercoma · September 12, 2016

Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM your Medieval woman hating religious ways.

Who's imposing their religion on you? Nobody. You're free to follow whatever religion you want in Canada. You're even free to be an atheist or in your case a radical anti-theist.

cybercoma · September 12, 2016

Literally...all you can do to explain away Islamic violence across the globe is to blame me.

Shooting the messenger.

Never argued that at all....but you know that.

How am I blaming you for anything? I'm saying your argument that Muslims have no allegiance to our laws is stupid and wrong. Now you're saying you never argued that when that's exactly why I likened your comments to that of the Orangemen in the 1800s.

DogOnPorch · September 12, 2016

Who's imposing their religion on you? Nobody. You're free to follow whatever religion you want in Canada. You're even free to be an atheist or in your case a radical anti-theist.

Islam imposes itself on non-believers.

How is that Halal section in your store? Visible or invisible? Do you know where to look for the Halal certification mark? Is it a product that needs a mark?

Either way, you're paying for it at the till.

How am I blaming you for anything? I'm saying your argument that Muslims have no allegiance to our laws is stupid and wrong. Now you're saying you never argued that when that's exactly why I likened your comments to that of the Orangemen in the 1800s.

My source is the Quran.

cybercoma · September 12, 2016

Join the club. Calling folks who disagree a racist is SOP for those who support Islamic mass immigration. This even though Islam has nothing to do with skin colour.

Wait a minute, so screening for Canadian values is only about screening out Muslims? What about all the other cultures and ethnicities around the world?

DogOnPorch · September 12, 2016

Wait a minute, so screening for Canadian values is only about screening out Muslims? What about all the other cultures and ethnicities around the world?

Islam is a religion.

cybercoma · September 12, 2016

Islam imposes itself on non-believers.

How is that Halal section in your store? Visible or invisible? Do you know where to look for the Halal certification mark? Is it a product that needs a mark?

Either way, you're paying for it at the till.

My source is the Quran.

I have no idea what you're even on about now. The Halal section in the grocery store is forced on you? Product labelling forced you to convert to Islam?

You're literally delusional.