Should Canada screen potential immigrants/refugees for Canadian Values

[Argus]

My point was that conservative values are un-Canadian, just to a lesser degree than Muslims.

Like I said, you're the missing link...

Again, you're setting YOUR values as Canadian values, and that just isn't true. A progressive simply discounts it when 30%-40%-50% of Canadians don't share their views. They like to pretend such people don't exist and their opinions simply don't matter.

Like the 67% who want us to test for values. To the progressives here, none of them matter. They're not important. Their views don't count.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

Tolerance is a pretty wide label. As I said earlier, Canadians vary between how much of a given value they embrace, but for the most part they embrace those values. You can be tolerant of many things, and not believe in gay marriage. You can even be tolerant of homosexuals and still not believe it's proper for them to marry. We're not talking about a rigid application of values here. As has been noted, Canadians vary pretty widely. We're talking, as I said, not about approving of gay marriage but of approving of gay executions.

That Canadian values vary makes it all the less likely that you could test for them.

Muslims are doubling every year, and according to the polls their kids are more religious than the parents, so they're getting more conservative, getting more likely to wear hijabs and burkas, and more likely to believe in the tenets of Islam, not less. And despite what secular minded progressives seem to be determined to convince themselves of, things like gender segregation are not the province of hard-liners but are a central belief of Islam.

First - Muslims are not doubling every year. There will not be 2M next year.

Second - Not many Canadian Muslims wear burkas. Not many middle eastern ones do.

Third - The same surveys showed that Muslims were more likely to accept the tenants of their faith, but were unlikely to see that as contradicting their view of Canadian values (probably different from yours), and were extremely proud of their country. They were proud of the diversity and freedom in their country. Worth noting:

“That’s misunderstood. People go to mosques for different reasons. Those who attend mosques are less likely to be radicalized because they are comfortable with their religious identity,” said the elementary school teacher from Brampton. “Going to a mosque doesn’t make you more devout.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2016/04/27/muslim-canadians-proud-of-their-countrys-freedom-diversity-survey.html

But they also see themselves as Muslims first and Canadians second, according to polls.

Which is not at odds with the views of Quebecois, Newfoundlanders or Islanders.

Like the 67% who want us to test for values.

Let us know when the 67% of you can agree on a test.

[scribblet]

My point was that conservative values are un-Canadian, just to a lesser degree than Muslims.

Like I said, you're the missing link...

Surely you are not serious, it is you who are missing a link... Liberals do not have a corner on Canadian values, they sure don't own them. Certainly our Liberal PM missing the 9/11 events is not a Canadian value, neither is segregating the women from the men in the mosque he went to on Monday morning, a mosque whose imam is a member of a group considered a terrorist organization abroad.

I'm Conservative but I consider my values which are believing in the equality of women with NO segregation is more Canadian than Trudeau's and the Mosque he attended.

............

Like the 67% who want us to test for values. To the progressives here, none of them matter. They're not important. Their views don't count.

Sure seems that way....

[Bob Macadoo]

Which is not at odds with the views of Quebecois, Newfoundlanders or Islanders.

That's the dirty secret Ontarians don't accept......we're not all extensions thereof.

[Guest]

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. !!

Not according to this you don't.

They are mutually exclusive but can be the same if their sameness is not mutual.

[Big Guy]

No one made any such statement. People are simply trying to point out to the less educated that there is a difference between a value and a law.

No. There is a difference between your values and Canadians.

Another suggested question of Canadian values to be asked of potential immigrants. Do you believe children should be forced into genital mutilation just because of the religion of the parent? Obviously a barbaric practice that should not be allowed in Canada and proponents should never be allowed in!!! The Argus's of the world have to agree.

Then most Jews would be shut out because of their celebration of the "Bris" - circumcision.

Are you saying that religious Jews should not be allowed into Canada?

Or do you have no real idea of what you believe in?

[Guest]

No. There is a difference between your values and Canadians.

Another suggested question of Canadian values to be asked of potential immigrants. Do you believe children should be forced into genital mutilation just because of the religion of the parent? Obviously a barbaric practice that should not be allowed in Canada and proponents should never be allowed in!!! The Argus's of the world have to agree.

Then most Jews would be shut out because of their celebration of the "Bris" - circumcision.

Are you saying that religious Jews should not be allowed into Canada?

Or do you have no real idea of what you believe in?

Is either male or female circumcision against the law in Canada? How does that jibe with your values?

Edited September 13, 2016 by bcsapper

[Big Guy]

Not according to this you don't.

No. You are mistaken, You are confused.

You stated that laws and values are not mutually exclusive but they just aren't the same. I stated that they can indeed be mutually exclusive but can be the same if their sameness is not mutual. From that it would follow that sameness and exclusiveness can be mutual but not necessarily the same especially if their sameness is exclusive to the individual. They can also be the same mutually exclusive.

That explains the process.

[Big Guy]

Is either male or female circumcision against the law in Canada? How does that jibe with your values?

I do not think so. It also has no effect on my values. They are Canadian values based on our laws and my beliefs. I am comfortable with my values, have no interest in asking you or anybody else about theirs nor do I feel they are any of your business.

For an explanation, see post #483.

Does that assist you in trying to decide on and articulate your values?

[Guest]

No. You are mistaken, You are confused.

You stated that laws and values are not mutually exclusive but they just aren't the same. I stated that they can indeed be mutually exclusive but can be the same if their sameness is not mutual. From that it would follow that sameness and exclusiveness can be mutual but not necessarily the same especially if their sameness is exclusive to the individual. They can also be the same mutually exclusive.

That explains the process.

You're right about the confused bit. However, laws and values are not mutually exclusive. They just aren't the same thing.

[Bonam]

As opposed to just some of their products as it adds a step.

Islam imposes itself on society by making everybody pay for Halal certification...among other ways.

You have a lot of valid points regarding Islam but I don't think you're gonna convince anyone with the Halal thing. I'd switch tacks if I were you.

[Guest]

I do not think so. It also has no effect on my values. They are Canadian values based on our laws and my beliefs. I am comfortable with my values, have no interest in asking you or anybody else about theirs nor do I feel they are any of your business.

For an explanation, see post #483.

Does that assist you in trying to decide on and articulate your values?

No. I needed no assistance in that.

I would be okay informing potential barbarians that FGM was against the law in Canada. Not so much with MGM, as it isn't. Although it goes against my values. Of course, laws are not the same as values.

[Big Guy]

You're right about the confused bit. However, laws and values are not mutually exclusive. They just aren't the same thing.

There should be no confusion: The statement "laws and values are not mutually exclusive" can be rewritten as "laws and values are mutually inclusive"

Mutually Exclusive

But of course that depends on your definition of what "are" means.

[Guest]

There should be no confusion: The statement "laws and values are not mutually exclusive" can be rewritten as "laws and values are mutually inclusive"

Mutually Exclusive

But of course that depends on your definition of what "are" means.

My definition of what "are" means is whichever one means I don't have to read that Wikipedia page...

[Big Guy]

No. I needed no assistance in that.

I would be okay informing potential barbarians that FGM was against the law in Canada. Not so much with MGM, as it isn't. Although it goes against my values. Of course, laws are not the same as values.

I might agree with you if I knew what a potential barbarian was. Is there some way to identify them through DNA or appearance or perhaps the cerebral Argus Disqualification Question System? I have enough difficulty identifying practicing barbarians and would have great difficulty with potential barbarians.

"Anyone can be a barbarian; it requires a terrible effort to remain a civilized man" - Leonard Woolf

[Guest]

I might agree with you if I knew what a potential barbarian was. Is there some way to identify them through DNA or appearance or perhaps the cerebral Argus Disqualification Question System? I have enough difficulty identifying practicing barbarians and would have great difficulty with potential barbarians.

"Anyone can be a barbarian; it requires a terrible effort to remain a civilized man" - Leonard Woolf

A potential barbarian, in this context, is anyone who has not already organized the mutilation of his or her daughter's genitalia, but is considering it.

A fully qualified barbarian being anyone who has gone ahead and done it, of course.

Edit> I think Leonard Woolf had it wrong. I find it so easy to be civilised. Being a barbarian might mean hurting someone and I would find that difficult.

Edited September 13, 2016 by bcsapper

[TimG]

After some thought have concluded that screening for 'Canadian Values' is too subjective and depends too much whoever is given the power to write the test.

I would rather see a test of Canadian Law wrt hate speech, equal rights, sexual assault. i.e. applicants should be forced to memorize material on Canadian law and then identify illegal acts in a multiple choice test (the questions would be designed to trip people up from cultures without the same attitudes towards equality). Those that fail to learn enough of the law don't get in. Re-tests are permissible since we don't care that someone is a slow learner - just that they learn.

Edited September 13, 2016 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

A fully qualified barbarian being anyone who has gone ahead and done it, of course.

That would exclude millions of existing immigrants...and dog owners.

[Guest]

That would exclude millions of existing immigrants...and dog owners.

I suppose considering one's dog one's daughter might be considered barbaric. Or loony.

[bush_cheney2004]

I suppose considering one's dog one's daughter might be considered barbaric. Or loony.

So it would be OK to have "mutilated' male genitals ?

[Guest]

So it would be OK to have "mutilated' male genitals ?

Not by me.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not by me.

So no circumcision or piercings ?

[Guest]

So no circumcision or piercings ?

Not if I was in charge. Unless consent was given, of course.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not if I was in charge. Unless consent was given, of course.

Do they get extra points for an intact hymen ? Who gets to visually check for such things...Justin Trudeau ?

[Guest]

Do they get extra points for an intact hymen ? Who gets to visually check for such things...Justin Trudeau ?

Is that what you meant by piercing? I misunderstood.