Should Canada screen potential immigrants/refugees for Canadian Values

[CITIZEN_2015]

Historically Canada had to do what it probably had to do. Canada probably rejected most people from coming to Canada because they were not required or needed at the time. Would you flood your home with tenants that left no place for you to move around in? Today we now flood Canada with immigrants that we don't need or want, and are flooding Canada with immigrant tenants where there is no room for them. Historically, I am pretty sure that there are many countries around the world that most likely have had less than stellar immigration policy. So, leave Canada out of that equation. Canada was no better or worse than any other country in the world.

But your goal and what you are promoting is not to stop flooding Canada with immigrants but rather only accept immigrants from white countries and as I recall you named those countries as Britain, US, Australia and stop those from China, Africa, Middle East, Asia.

What is funny is that you are me when I was in my teens and 20's and a few of my family still believe in that. I used to believe that only white people should be around and used to regard them as the better race. Then I started meeting some people from other races also mixed up more with so called white people. Then I realized that they all have their goods and bads. Nobody or no race is perfect. You may be right if you say certain people with certain beliefs or culture harmful to Canada and Canadian values should be banned but you never be right if you say certain people from certain regions or race should be banned because there are both good and bad among them and so are among whites.

Edited September 4, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[jacee]

"Tory leadership candidate Kellie Leitch has asked if Canada should start screening immigrants on their values, and in particular on their views of Canadian values."

It will shock no one here that I'm very strongly in favour. As for the suggestion they will simply lie, there are numerous carefully calculated personality screening tests out there which will give us a view of just how hostile potential newcomers are to basic freedoms, to accepting others views, to challenges to their own beliefs, not to mention their views on Jews, gays, and women.

http://news.national...canadian-values

Two thoughts:

1)

Argus ... I am quite surprised that you would have that much faith in a simple survey. Do you believe that Social Science research is sophisticated enough to guarantee reliable results on simple surveys of opinions and attitudes?

I'd be willing to try it. God knows we need to try something to ensure the people we bring in are more interested in adapting to life in Canada than perpetuating their old life here but with more money. Of course, another solution is to simply ban immigration from regions with backwards social values like, well, the Muslim world.

Argus, there are no magically valid "screening tests" out there.

It's absolute nonsense.

And the irony of Conservatives screaming for a test of homophobia and misogyny is ... quite rich.

Leitch better have all Conservative MP's tested on that magic test first.

2)

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b ) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c ) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

The Canadian charter has no application to foreigners living abroad.

Wow. Now we've really come full circle.

OK ... So we're going to test applicants for immigration

using tests we don't have

for values that some Canadians don't have, including some MP's and the Catholic church

and those values aren't extended to applicants.

Gee ... sounds quite a boondoggle wrapped up in a dilemma to me.

I say scrap it.

.

Edited September 4, 2016 by jacee

[Guest]

I say go with Spanky's Dutch solution. Show 'em some boobs, and some guys kissing, and say, if you don't like it, fine. However, If you do anything about it, your arse is back where it came from so fast your head will spin. Then stick to it.

[jacee]

See, your carefully articulated reason has persuaded me. Who will be first in line to take the test?

I vote Argus.

.

[Hal 9000]

I can't believe that people will actually argue that we have values in Canada. Just because some dude hit his wife doesn't mean we don't value women, just because someone yelled fag or rag head at some point doesn't mean that we are collectively intolerant.

We do have values and a belief system, one that people have worked hard to achieve and some here want to diminish or completely discredit those efforts? In France, England, Sweden and many other places across europe and scandinavia, those values that people worked hard for and in cases died for are being marginalized. Germany for example, women have rights - but wait, the authorities are covering up for sexual assaults and telling women to stay home or travel in groups.

Give you're head a shake people.

[Benz]

The Supreme Court of Canada has forced Québec government to allow a sikh student into the public school with a religious knife called Kirpan and therefore, the education system has to use public money to manage the security for of all students of the school having this armed kid along. A decision based on the constitution stating that one individual has an absolute right to apply its religious beleifs and practices above all.

No wonder why you want to make a test for the immigrants. Your own constitution is a flaw itself and you are afraid that people will use it against you too.

I understand that you want to make sure you accept only people agreeing with your values but, what about the people already here that do not share those values. How do you make sure this will be respected? Which brings the 1 million dollars question, who's values are you talking about? How do you set those values and based on what? Will they are going to be the ones of the political party in power at that moment? Are they going to be the choice of a constituent asembly? A major Survey or a referendum with multiple questions?

How about the person taking the test answers whatever you want to hear and then does otherwise once within your borders? Do you think you have everything in place to manage and monitor them? If a man beats his woman, what difference does it make if he is born in Timmins or Chennei?

Don't get me wrong. I understand what you are trying to do and I get your point. However I do not think such test will bring you the secure feeling you are looking for. I do not think you go deep enough to the real source of the problem. I also think you under estimate the problems we might have to set those suppose Canada wide values you are refering to. It's ok to debate about it but, maybe it's not the priority if you want to make sure the current fondamental values are respected.

Just saying...

[poochy]

Come again?

Please stop playing dumb when you've lost an argument.

[Argus]

I say go with Spanky's Dutch solution. Show 'em some boobs, and some guys kissing, and say, if you don't like it, fine. However, If you do anything about it, your arse is back where it came from so fast your head will spin. Then stick to it.

Not possible. We are not in control of our court system and have no means of deporting immigrants quickly, and often at all.The courts are far, far more tolerant of criminal immigrants than this and very reluctant to approve them being deported for any reason.

[Argus]

I can't believe that people will actually argue that we have values in Canada.

For progressives, who see themselves as defending minorities, nothing is more important then defending fundamentalist Islam, and if that means sacrificing gay rights, womens rights, or anything and everything else they'll do it in a heartbeat.

Why? Because conservatives don't like fundamentalist Islam. Simple as that. Whatever conservatives oppose progressive feel they must support.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Argus

[dialamah]

For progressives, who see themselves as defending minorities, nothing is more important then defending fundamentalist Islam, and if that means sacrificing gay rights, womens rights, or anything and everything else they'll do it in a heartbeat.

Why? Because conservatives don't like fundamentalist Islam. Simple as that. Whatever conservatives oppose progressive feel they must support.

I would oppose anyone of any creed or color who tried to eliminate gay rights, or women's rights. I oppose you because you want to trample on the rights of certain minorities in Canada, not because of what they actually do, but because of what you think they'll do.

[DogOnPorch]

Just like Argus wrote, eh?

[Argus]

I would oppose anyone of any creed or color who tried to eliminate gay rights, or women's rights. I oppose you because you want to trample on the rights of certain minorities in Canada, not because of what they actually do, but because of what you think they'll do.

What rights do I want to trample on?

[dialamah]

What rights do I want to trample on?

You refuse to see people from certain parts of the world as anything other than 'backward and barbaric'. You've said so many times - and so you do not accord them the basic right to respect. You want to subject them to intrusive methods of vetting, based on where they are from - that is racist. And if you support the right of the state to dictate what women should or should not wear (the hijab, niqab, burka, etc), that is sexist.

[DogOnPorch]

There is no such thing as 'right of respect'. Nobody deserves not to be offended.

[dialamah]

There is no such thing as 'right of respect'. Nobody deserves not to be offended.

I disagree with you. I think everyone has the right not to be pre-judged or blamed for what other people do because they share a characteristic. Therefore, I do not blame you, a man, because I was raped by a man or because men carry out 99% of all rapes of women and children; I do not assume you are going to rape me as well. I do not think you should be subjected to additional security because you are a man. I give you the respect of not assuming you are as backward, savage and barbaric as are the rapists who live in your type of body.

[DogOnPorch]

I disagree with you. I think everyone has the right not to be pre-judged or blamed for what other people do because they share a characteristic. Therefore, I do not blame you, a man, because I was raped by a man or because men carry out 99% of all rapes of women and children; I do not assume you are going to rape me as well. I do not think you should be subjected to additional security because you are a man. I give you the respect of not assuming you are as backward, savage and barbaric as are the rapists who live in your type of body.

That's nice that you disagree.

There is STILL no such thing as the 'Right of Respect'...ie...forcing me to respect something.

[Argus]

You refuse to see people from certain parts of the world as anything other than 'backward and barbaric'. You've said so many times - and so you do not accord them the basic right to respect. You want to subject them to intrusive methods of vetting, based on where they are from - that is racist. And if you support the right of the state to dictate what women should or should not wear (the hijab, niqab, burka, etc), that is sexist.

There is no such thing as a right of respect. Did you really write that? LOL.

And vetting them before they come here has nothing to do with a violation of rights since as foreigners living abroad they have no rights here. Nor have I stated that we should ban what people wear, but rather, we should ban people with the attitude that says women must wear these from immigrating here. You are far more sexist than I am for you wholeheartedly support ideas that severely oppress women. Why, you can't even bring yourself to admit that such oppression exists in Egypt without saying it's just as bad in Canada!

Edited September 4, 2016 by Argus

[Guest]

I disagree with you. I think everyone has the right not to be pre-judged or blamed for what other people do because they share a characteristic. Therefore, I do not blame you, a man, because I was raped by a man or because men carry out 99% of all rapes of women and children; I do not assume you are going to rape me as well. I do not think you should be subjected to additional security because you are a man. I give you the respect of not assuming you are as backward, savage and barbaric as are the rapists who live in your type of body.

If you heard about a rape, you probably would assume it was a man who did it.

[DogOnPorch]

Of course: 'Right of Respect' would mean Blasphemy Laws....

[dialamah]

If you heard about a rape, you probably would assume it was a man who did it.

Yup. And in fact, there are a lot more rapists among men than there are terrorists among Muslims.

[dialamah]

That's nice that you disagree.

There is STILL no such thing as the 'Right of Respect'...ie...forcing me to respect something.

Rights aren't about 'forcing' people, what are you talking about?

[Argus]

I disagree with you. I think everyone has the right not to be pre-judged or blamed for what other people do because they share a characteristic. Therefore, I do not blame you, a man, because I was raped by a man or because men carry out 99% of all rapes of women and children;

Well, to start with, no men don't commit 99% of the rapes of women and children. In fact, women abuse children in substantial numbers, but that's neither here nor there.

Men share a 'characteristic' but Muslims share a belief. Only a small fraction of men want to rape women but the majority of Muslims believe women are inferior and must obey men and that gays should be punished for their wickedness. For that is what their religion says and they are true believers in whatever their religion tells them.

[DogOnPorch]

Rights aren't about 'forcing' people, what are you talking about?

A Right to Respect would entail forcing respect where there was none.

[Guest]

Yup. And in fact, there are a lot more rapists among men than there are terrorists among Muslims.

Nevertheless, you would make that assumption. It seems a little unfair to rail against similar assumptions.

Myself, if I hear of fighting outside today's England-Slovakia match, I'll wait for confirmation of the perpetrators before blaming football hooligans.

[CITIZEN_2015]

What is wrong with the NO side???

It surprises me that though an expected start (we had 6 yes votes and just one No vote at the beginning) but now only slightly more citizens vote for a yes to screening out based on values!!!!!!. What is wrong with the citizens??? You wish to have those as Canadian citizens who force their daughters (likely Canadian born) to wear hejab or like the Afghan trash father who killed her daughters for having boyfriends or who walk in swimming pools and called the ladies in the pool as whores or assault women and girls in street parties like in Germany or bans alcohol or bomb theaters and bars and strip clubs because they are against their beliefs??? What s wrong with you???????.

Edited September 4, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015