Should Canada screen potential immigrants/refugees for Canadian Values

[DogOnPorch]

That's the Canada they want. No less valid than my vision of Canada.

Right??

[Argus]

What is wrong with the NO side???

There are more progressives on this site than conservatives or middle of the road people.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Argus

[dialamah]

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

*shrugs* I don't rail so much against making an assumption that a terrorist attack was perpetrated by someone claiming to be Muslim.

What I rail against is advocating for policies based on assumptions about what a person, or even a group of persons, believe in. Argus is right that many Middle Eastern people come from a very conservative culture, but that does not justify assuming all of them are savage, backward or barbaric. I rail against the assumption that we, in the West, are so much better than those in the ME when the Western news media regularly features stories of sexual assaults, pedophile rings, gang-warfare, slut-shaming, gay-bashing, or white people spitting on black people on local buses. We do live in a progressive country, thank goodness, and we are 'progressed' farther than Egypt, or Saudi or Eritrea, but we are by no means any 'better' than those some of us want to call down.

Edited September 4, 2016 by dialamah

[Guest]

*shrugs* I don't rail so much against making an assumption that a terrorist attack was perpetrated by someone claiming to be Muslim.

What I rail against is advocating for policies based on assumptions about what a person, or even a group of persons, believe in. Argus is right that many Middle Eastern people come from a very conservative culture, but that does not justify assuming all of them are savage, backward or barbaric. I rail against the assumption that we, in the West, are so much better than those in the ME when the Western news media regularly features stories of sexual assaults, pedophile rings, gang-warfare, slut-shaming, gay-bashing, or white people spitting on black people on local buses. We do live in a progressive country, thank goodness, and we are 'progressed' farther than Egypt, or Saudi or Eritrea, but we are by no means any 'better' than those some of us want to call down.

Isn't the point just to separate those who do from those who don't, so to speak? I can't imagine why there would be opposition to that.

A line could be added, just for men, that they are not allowed to rape. As a male immigrant who has never even considered rape, I would be okay with that.

[dialamah]

Isn't the point just to separate those who do from those who don't, so to speak? I can't imagine why there would be opposition to that.

A line could be added, just for men, that they are not allowed to rape. As a male immigrant who has never even considered rape, I would be okay with that.

I think you are missing the point; perhaps I am not explaining it well or perhaps you are being obtuse. Anyway, it's time to walk the dog.

[Guest]

I think you are missing the point; perhaps I am not explaining it well or perhaps you are being obtuse. Anyway, it's time to walk the dog.

Obtuse perhaps, never deliberately. Enjoy your walk. I have to go watch Englang lose to Slovakia anyway.

[herples]

I said no since most of the values we have are also found in western Europe and south of the border so how do we define Canadian values if the values are not necessarily Canadian. Another point is there are some people born in Canada that do not agree with some of our values.

[CITIZEN_2015]

There are more progressives on this site than conservatives or middle of the road people.

Not so because the Yes side is still ahead. That said I wouldn't call the No side as progressive rather not informed of the facts on how things are in Europe these days as a result of massive unscreened North African and Middle Eastern immigration.

[Hal 9000]

*shrugs* I don't rail so much against making an assumption that a terrorist attack was perpetrated by someone claiming to be Muslim.

What I rail against is advocating for policies based on assumptions about what a person, or even a group of persons, believe in. Argus is right that many Middle Eastern people come from a very conservative culture, but that does not justify assuming all of them are savage, backward or barbaric. I rail against the assumption that we, in the West, are so much better than those in the ME when the Western news media regularly features stories of sexual assaults, pedophile rings, gang-warfare, slut-shaming, gay-bashing, or white people spitting on black people on local buses. We do live in a progressive country, thank goodness, and we are 'progressed' farther than Egypt, or Saudi or Eritrea, but we are by no means any 'better' than those some of us want to call down.

Would you agree with statistics that show that about half of middle eastern people believe in sharia law?

[dialamah]

Would you agree with statistics that show that about half of middle eastern people believe in sharia law?

Sure, especially if you gave me a link. It would also be helpful if the link identified which application of Sharia law they believed in, since every country does it a little differently.

And, what about the half that do not believe in Sharia law? Should we assume they do?

[?Impact]

Canadian values listed so far in the conversation:

1. We don't stone women.

Seems a little short to me, perhaps we can do the screening in a couple of seconds. Do you think we can enlarge the list?

b.t.w. How does equality fit into the equation? Do we stone men? Is this about capital punishment (which we certainly have many who seem to have differing opinions), is it about method of capital punishment, or is it about crimes that are subject to capital punishment?

[Hal 9000]

Sure, especially if you gave me a link. It would also be helpful if the link identified which application of Sharia law they believed in, since every country does it a little differently.

And, what about the half that do not believe in Sharia law? Should we assume they do?

Oh, different applications of Sharia - I get it now. Sorta like different applications of rape (as you brought in earlier), some rape isn't as bad as other types of rape - right?

Which application are you comfortable with? The kind like in your beloved Egypt which indicates that 70% believe in Sharia including 90% who agree with execution for leaving Islam. Some Sharia law is "good Sharia law" then; maybe you should explain the Sharia law that we all seem to be missing.

[dialamah]

I do agree with the notion that some screening is good to keep the riff-raff out - people with serious criminal backgrounds, and/or associations with hate-groups, aka extremist groups.

As for banning people based on what they believe, that's a lot harder to do fairly. For instance, if an Egyptian wanting to emigrate to Canada believed in the whole "Two women for one man witness" nonsense, does that really matter? As long as this person isn't part of the court system, that belief is pretty irrelevant. If by chance that person ended up in the legal system and tried a case on that belief, they'd quickly find out how unacceptable it was. Kinda like the judge who said to a rape victim: "Did you keep your legs closed?" Or another judge who felt that a toddler behaved 'sexually' and therefore the accused man was less blameworthy. I think banning people based on attitudes or personal beliefs is unfair and unnecessary, if only because people do change their minds and attitudes when faced with new or different information and experiences. (With the possible exception of the people on this forum. )

If we are going to devise tests to identify people who do not hold to whatever progressive values we deem important before being let into Canada, I think that test should also be applied to every Canadian over the age of 21. Harvard does have implicit association tests, which seeks to identify subconscious biases one has based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Immigrants who did not score well on such tests could be denied entry; Canadians who did not score well could be sent to 'sensitivity' workshops, or maybe just to retraining camps. Perhaps this way we'll also get rid of our own troublemakers - pedophiles, rapists, murderers,etc - along with only bringing in the most like-minded from other parts of the world. How long would it take for Canada to become the envy of the world, where nobody disagreed and peace and tranquility reigned? (Would there even be a use for a forum such as this, since we'd all agree on so much! )

Edited September 4, 2016 by dialamah

[bush_cheney2004]

.....If we are going to devise tests to identify people who do not hold to whatever progressive values we deem important before being let into Canada, I think that test should also be applied to every Canadian over the age of 21. Harvard does have implicit association tests, which seeks to identify subconscious biases one has based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Interesting suggestion to import a foreign testing methodology to screen immigrants and refugees in Canada.

[Guest]

I do agree with the notion that some screening is good to keep the riff-raff out - people with serious criminal backgrounds, and/or associations with hate-groups, aka extremist groups.

As for banning people based on what they believe, that's a lot harder to do fairly. For instance, if an Egyptian wanting to emigrate to Canada believed in the whole "Two women for one man witness" nonsense, does that really matter? As long as this person isn't part of the court system, that belief is pretty irrelevant. If by chance that person ended up in the legal system and tried a case on that belief, they'd quickly find out how unacceptable it was. Kinda like the judge who said to a rape victim: "Did you keep your legs closed?" Or another judge who felt that a toddler behaved 'sexually' and therefore the accused man was less blameworthy. I think banning people based on attitudes or personal beliefs is unfair and unnecessary, if only because people do change their minds and attitudes when faced with new or different information and experiences. (With the possible exception of the people on this forum. )

If we are going to devise tests to identify people who do not hold to whatever progressive values we deem important before being let into Canada, I think that test should also be applied to every Canadian over the age of 21. Harvard does have implicit association tests, which seeks to identify subconscious biases one has based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Immigrants who did not score well on such tests could be denied entry; Canadians who did not score well could be sent to 'sensitivity' workshops, or maybe just to retraining camps. Perhaps this way we'll also get rid of our own troublemakers - pedophiles, rapists, murderers,etc - along with only bringing in the most like-minded from other parts of the world. How long would it take for Canada to become the envy of the world, where nobody disagreed and peace and tranquility reigned? (Would there even be a use for a forum such as this, since we'd all agree on so much! )

Nobody should ever be banned based on what they believe. They should be allowed to enter based on their ability to refrain from acting on their beliefs.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Canadian values listed so far in the conversation:

1. We don't stone women.

Seems a little short to me, perhaps we can do the screening in a couple of seconds. Do you think we can enlarge the list?

b.t.w. How does equality fit into the equation? Do we stone men? Is this about capital punishment (which we certainly have many who seem to have differing opinions), is it about method of capital punishment, or is it about crimes that are subject to capital punishment?

I listed what values are you simply not listening.

Capital punishment which I firmly believe for those who commit crimes against women and children and terrorist related crimes are electric chair. It is very different with barbaric stoning to death.

[dialamah]

I listed what values are you simply not listening.

Capital punishment which I firmly believe for those who commit crimes against women and children and terrorist related crimes are electric chair. It is very different with barbaric stoning to death.

Although I admit to occasional feeling murderous urges, it's also true that I do not want to be complicit in murdering people - so I don't support capital punishment, whether by stoning or electric chair.

Also, I fail to see why women should be deemed more valuable than men; if there is going to be punishment for crimes against women, then there should equally be the same punishment for crimes against men.

Crimes against kids, yeah, throw the book at them.

[?Impact]

based on their ability to refrain from acting on their beliefs.

This is a good distinction. For example i believe that marijuana should be legal, but I refrain from using it because it is illegal; Health is entirely tangental to the discussion. I don't consider myself a criminal because I believe marijuana should be legal. Should I be denied entry into the US because of my beliefs?

[Guest]

This is a good distinction. For example i believe that marijuana should be legal, but I refrain from using it because it is illegal; Health is entirely tangental to the discussion. I don't consider myself a criminal because I believe marijuana should be legal. Should I be denied entry into the US because of my beliefs?

No. As I said, nobody should be denied entry because of their beliefs. I don't care if a person believes the most vile, reprehensible things. As long as they don't act on them in a manner that affects others, what does it matter?

[Argus]

As for banning people based on what they believe, that's a lot harder to do fairly. For instance, if an Egyptian wanting to emigrate to Canada believed in the whole "Two women for one man witness" nonsense, does that really matter? As long as this person isn't part of the court system, that belief is pretty irrelevant.

Yes. If we bring over one guy, then no. His deep belief in such things is unimportant. A hundred, a thousand, are not a lot of problem. A hundred thousand, a million, now you're talking influence.

Law? What is law? Law in a democracy is whatever the voters want. Can 1% of the population really have a heavy impact on what laws politicians bring in? Maybe not. What about 2%, voting in tandem for only those politicians with the most strongly conservative social views? What about 4% now? 8%? 10%

There is no question Muslim numbers are growing. They have doubled every seven to ten years for the last four decades. According to stats Canada they constituted 3.2% of the population in the 2011 census. That means by the next census, in 2021 in five years, their numbers will be about 6.5%. By way of comparison, natives are 4.3% So in five years we will have a Muslim population of 6.5%, and if nothing alters, in 15 years that will be 13% of the population.

And you don't think such a voting group if voting in a block are going to have an enormous influence on what laws are passed in this country?

Not that they'll be entirely alone, of course. Sikhs, for example, make up 1.4% of our population. I haven't tracked their growth, but I do know they're extremely socially conservative and would likely be heartily in favour of whatever measures Muslims want which would force more restrictive clothing and behaviour on women - to protect them. In fact, we have a lot of very socially conservative immigrants coming in from all over who might welcome such proposals.

[Argus]

No. As I said, nobody should be denied entry because of their beliefs. I don't care if a person believes the most vile, reprehensible things. As long as they don't act on them in a manner that affects others, what does it matter?

What happens when that group starts demanding the laws they want? What happens when a sizeable percentage of them don't want to take no for an answer and start blowing things up?

At their current growth rate the Muslim numbers will be over 10% of our population within the next 20 years. Can you name me a single nation on earth with that high a Muslim population where there isn't violent agitation for Sharia laws?

France's Muslim population is 11% and every Jewish school, temple or community centre now has to have police with machine guns guarding it.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Argus

[Guest]

What happens when that group starts demanding the laws they want? What happens when a sizeable percentage of them don't want to take no for an answer and start blowing things up?

At their current growth rate the Muslim numbers will be over 10% of our population within the next 20 years. Can you name me a single nation on earth with that high a Muslim population where there isn't violent agitation for Sharia laws?

Beats me. What do we do when anyone blows something up?

[Argus]

Beats me. What do we do when anyone blows something up?

So you're like, eh, let's just ignore the problem until people are being murdered in the streets, then maybe we should consider, well, doing something, I guess.

Have I summed up your attitude properly? No point in weeding extreme fundamentalist views out of our immigrant stream. Heck, let them bring those view here in whatever numbers. What could happen?

[Argus]

Canadian values listed so far in the conversation:

1. We don't stone women.

I gave you a list and you ignored it. I assume that's because you can't dispute it.

[Guest]

So you're like, eh, let's just ignore the problem until people are being murdered in the streets, then maybe we should consider, well, doing something, I guess.

Have I summed up your attitude properly? No point in weeding extreme fundamentalist views out of our immigrant stream. Heck, let them bring those view here in whatever numbers. What could happen?

You've summed up my attitude perfectly, if yours is, like, let's treat people based on the assumption that allowing them to immigrate will mean murder in the streets.