Should Canada screen potential immigrants/refugees for Canadian Values

[dialamah]

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.

I don't think they're a homogeneous enough group to influence our secular system to any degree. Certainly, some of them are going to be very conservative, but just as many are going to be extremely progressive - believing in the equal rights for women, gays, dogs, dolphins, whatever. There are already many such activists in those countries, and there is certainly support for creating a more progressive society. So, I think most people immigrating from those countries will be more middle-of-the-road, if slightly on the conservative side. There's a lot of room in Islam for a progressive society; why not focus on that instead of focusing on the regressive sad, and forcing that down our throats as if it were the only option?

I agree that if there ever going to be changes that affected the rights of minority groups, it would definitely come from the more conservative elements of society - but I think they'd have to combine forces. Abortion, for instance: If the conservative Muslims and Christians and non-religious but morally opposed joined forces, they might - over time - be able to reverse our current laws and make abortion harder to get, if not outright illegal. That is certainly the direction the right is heading in the States, even without Muslim assistance.

[taxme]

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.

This is what I mean when I say that they are members here who like to take things out of context. I have never said that all immigrants to Canada must all and only come from white countries. What I did say is that the majority of our new immigrants should not be coming from non-white countries. 80% - 85% of Canada's new immigrants are coming from non-white countries. I do not have a problem with non-white immigrants coming to Canada, it's the numbers that I have a problem with. With the present day immigration policy of more non-whites and less whites coming to Canada from those white countries mentioned, it is plain as day that whites are headed towards a white minority situation in a country where just over fifty years ago whites were in a huge majority status.. Do you understand now? You need to stop trying to find words in my posts that are not there.

I have a doctor who is Asian. I have a good friend who is Asian. I had a good black friend in my past. I have worked with non-whites, and I got along fine with them. Believe it or not when I say that I even talk to non-white people in my travels and go to non-white restaurants. I do not have anything against non-whites. I have a problem with our immigration policy of which it would appear as though our politically correct politicians are trying to put white people into a minority status, in their own country which concerns me. Do I dare say there is a conspiracy going on here? Indeed I think there is.

[Argus]

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.

My assumption is if hundreds of thousands of people affiliated with a Nazi party want to come to live in Canada we should say no. I presume that members of the Nazi party would hold fairly well-known and well-described views which I would rather not see spread in Canada.

Why is that an unreasonable understanding in your view?

Edited September 4, 2016 by Argus

[Guest]

My assumption is if hundreds of thousands of affiliated with a Nazi party want to come to live in Canada we should say no. I presume that members of the Nazi party would hold fairly well-known and well-described views which I would rather not see spread in Canada.

Why is that an unreasonable understanding in your view?

Because I don't care what people believe. Only what they do. Edited September 4, 2016 by bcsapper

[Argus]

I don't think they're a homogeneous enough group to influence our secular system to any degree. Certainly, some of them are going to be very conservative, but just as many are going to be extremely progressive - believing in the equal rights for women,

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the view that 'just as many hold progressive views'. None. Find me any random group of Muslims and plunk an openly gay man down in their midst and see them recoil in disgust and anger.

Because I don't care what believe. Only what they do.

Of course, by the time they start doing its a little late to stop it without enormous cost. What is France spending trying to curb their extremist Muslim problem and how many lives will it wind up taking?

Edited September 4, 2016 by Argus

[?Impact]

I do not have a problem with non-white immigrants coming to Canada, it's the numbers that I have a problem with.

How very progressive of you, willing to accept that one token black family onto your street (town). As long as we can outnumber them we feel safe.

[Guest]

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the view that 'just as many hold progressive views'. None. Find me any random group of Muslims and plunk an openly gay man down in their midst and see them recoil in disgust and anger.

Of course, by the time they start doing its a little late to stop it without enormous cost.

Sure. But you would stop them doing something they aren't doing. I just can't see it myself.

[dialamah]

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.

So far, all the reports I can find about Muslims agitating violently for Sharia law have been stories that are completely blown out of proportion, or outright lies. Maybe you can provide a link.

I tried to find a credible source for the claim about Jewish schools and armed guards, but nothing came up on Google search. Maybe you can provide a link.

[Argus]

Sure. But you would stop them doing something they aren't doing. I just can't see it myself.

Maybe because I'm a little more forward looking than you, and believe in ameliorating risks when doing so costs so little.

[Guest]

Maybe because I'm a little more forward looking than you, and believe in ameliorating risks when doing so costs so little.

No, I don't think that's it. Maybe it's because you don't regard people as individuals, innocent until proven guilty, as I do.

[Argus]

So far, all the reports I can find about Muslims agitating violently for Sharia law have been stories that are completely blown out of proportion, or outright lies. Maybe you can provide a link.

I tried to find a credible source for the claim about Jewish schools and armed guards, but nothing came up on Google search. Maybe you can provide a link.

Eighty five Shariah courts in the UK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3358625/Inside-Britain-s-Sharia-courts-EIGHTY-FIVE-Islamic-courts-dispensing-justice-UK-special-investigation-really-goes-doors-shock-core.html

Two thirds of Muslims in Europe want Shariah law and believe it should take precedence over the laws of their nations.

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/most-european-muslims-want-sharia-not-european-laws/

Soldiers now guard Synagogues.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/a-year-after-attack-frances-jews-learn-to-live-under-armed-guard/

France's Jews learn to live under armed guard.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-02-08/frances-jews-are-thankful-armed-guards-outside-their-synagogues-say-it-makes-them

[Argus]

No, I don't think that's it. Maybe it's because you don't regard people as individuals, innocent until proven guilty, as I do.

Someone who is a member of the Nazi party might well be an 'individual' but I think I can fairly predictably say what kind of beliefs he holds and not want more of them living around me.

The views of fundamentalist Muslims are similarly well-documented.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Argus

[taxme]

How very progressive of you, willing to accept that one token black family onto your street (town). As long as we can outnumber them we feel safe.

Ten white new immigrants to one non-white new immigrant works for me.That way the non-white person will have to learn to assimilate fast. Right now it is eight to two in favor of non-whites entering Canada today. How progressive is that? It is more like racial suicide, and nothing more.

See, I have no problem with non-white immigration. As long as white people outnumber non-whites, I won't have to worry anymore about multiculturalism and about supporting non-white culture and language with my tax dollars anymore. They will then have to live in and accept my culture, traditions and heritage and language if they want to continue to live in Canada. That is the way it use to be many decades ago and that is the way it should be today. I am pretty sure that if you did a poll on this, you would find that many white people would agree with me. Go ahead.

[dialamah]

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the view that 'just as many hold progressive views'. None. Find me any random group of Muslims and plunk an openly gay man down in their midst and see them recoil in disgust and anger.

If you aren't aware of the liberal and progressives movements within Islam, it's because you haven't looked, not because they aren't there.

http://www.mpvusa.org/

http://en.eohr.org/

http://ecwronline.org/

http://fis-iran.org/en/

http://www.stopfgmmideast.org/about-us/

These groups do have a struggle in asserting equal rights, certainly more so than groups in Canada, the US, Britain or other Western countries. But they exist, and so do the people who support them. You're failure to take them into account when you dismiss the region as 'barbaric, backward, and savage' speaks to your ignorance, not their reality.

By the way, you could find any random group of Canadians and drop openly gay men into their midst, and see them recoil in disgust and anger. I will agree that the chances are better you wouldn't, but I don't know if they're a lot better. Most people who are completely disgusted by gays don't go out bashing them; they simply avoid them and talk smack about them to each other.

Of course, by the time they start doing its a little late to stop it without enormous cost. What is France spending trying to curb their extremist Muslim problem and how many lives will it wind up taking?

We do hear a lot about France in the news. Many of the home-grown terrorists come from areas that have experienced decades of marginalization. Perhaps considering that as part of the overall equation would be beneficial.

I do not believe humans generally want to fight and kill their neighbors unless they are sociopaths. I think the answer isn't rejecting people out of fear of what they *might* do (but probably won't), but in understanding how extremists are created, especially in secular countries where certain freedoms are considered rights.

[Guest]

Someone who is a member of the Nazi party might well be an 'individual' but I think I can fairly predictably say what kind of beliefs he holds and not want more of them living around me.

The views of fundamentalist Muslims are similarly well-documented.

Well, if you want to continue the Nazi party analogy, one has to join. I still wouldn't deny entry based on their beliefs alone.

Most religious people are born into their religion, and I would judge them on their actions too.

[Argus]

Well, if you want to continue the Nazi party analogy, one has to join. I still wouldn't deny entry based on their beliefs alone.

Most religious people are born into their religion, and I would judge them on their actions too.

They were born into it but they're not making any attempt to leave it. Mind you, given that draws the death penalty in Muslim countries one can't blame them.

But those in Canada seem to be still quite dedicated to the beliefs of that religion.

[DogOnPorch]

One can't be born into a religion any more than a political party.

A child can be brainwashed, however.

[Argus]

If you aren't aware of the liberal and progressives movements within Islam, it's because you haven't looked, not because they aren't there.

None of your cites even begins to support your claim there are as many progressive elements as there are observant ones. I've never denied there are reformist elements in Muslim countries, but their numbers are small and dwarfed by those who want even more severe legal codes based on Shariah imposed on their countries.

[CITIZEN_2015]

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.

You are one of those who sees just punishment as murder. Where were you and those who oppose capital punishment and the damn lawyer and the judge when the sub-human bastard was raping and murdering an innocent defenseless woman or a child. Now (that is if he is caught and not released on technicality) he wears a tie and dress nicely to look like human whereas beneath that apparent human body is a beast. A sub-human bastard because A HUMAN DOES NOT MURDER AND RAPE DEFENSELESS INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN. HE IS A SUB-HUMAN and must be sent to like a dog with a rabies who attacks and bites people or a bear or wild animal. The fact that he walks on two legs does NOT make him a human but his behavior does.

Statistics show that many who go to prison in this unjust system for rape and/or murder of women and children THEY DO IT AGAIN. Are you more concerned about saving the life of a rapist and murderer OR you care more about HIS FUTURE Victims. Save the innocent (Future) victims by sending the guilty one to hell where he belongs the very first time that he commits a PROVEN crime because statistics show that there is a good chance he may take more victims once released or escapes. SO IF YOU OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT THEN YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS NEXT VICTIM'S DEATH or RAPE.

Yes women are deemed more vulnerable not more valuable because generally speaking they are physically weaker and hence defenseless (I say same for elderly) so any crime against them is more cowardly and deserves worse punishment. Same true for children (but you didn't question about children). I am astonished that you have to ask the obvious!!!!!

IS THERE A POLITICIAN WITH BALLS OUT THERE??? BRING BACK THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT if you are.

Edited September 4, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[Guest]

One can't be born into a religion any more than a political party.

A child can be brainwashed, however.

That's what I meant. I'm indebted to you for the clarification.

[dialamah]

Eighty five Shariah courts in the UK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3358625/Inside-Britain-s-Sharia-courts-EIGHTY-FIVE-Islamic-courts-dispensing-justice-UK-special-investigation-really-goes-doors-shock-core.html

You are kidding, right? The Dailymail as a credible source.

How about this:

While there are undoubtedly lots of different councils and tribunals dealing with Sharia principles, they aren't courts of law.

Most are Sharia 'councils' set up to make decisions on purely religious matters, although there are some bodies that mix Sharia principles with legally binding arbitration. But none can overrule the regular courts.

In case some are overstepping their bounds, the government is prepared to take action:

Similarly, the government now says that "there is evidence of a problem, but we have an inadequate understanding of all the issues involved". It has commissioned a review into whether Sharia is being "misused or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law", to report in 2017.

Wordpress - where anyone can say whatever they want. Very credible. Not.

Times Of Isreal - better, but still - this one talks about a neighborhood and not schools in particular. Perhaps the 'school' was your spin to make it all the more outrageous, or maybe you got it from somewhere else. Half points on this.

http://www.pri.org/s...y-it-makes-them -- is the best one, and I could even find supporting reports.

I agree that if Jews are being specifically targeted, they should have extra security.

Similarly, if peaceful Muslims are targeted in Canada, do you agree that they should they also have extra security? Right now it's limited to name calling, some pushing/shoving, but how long till someone is seriously hurt or killed?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/hate-crimes-ontario-paris-attacks-1.3328660

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/22/in-canada-muslim-woman-attacked-in-supermarket-severed-pigs-head-dropped-at-mosque/

http://globalnews.ca/news/2634032/hate-crimes-against-muslim-canadians-more-than-doubled-in-3-years/

Edited September 4, 2016 by dialamah

[DogOnPorch]

That's what I meant. I'm indebted to you for the clarification.

I'm not belittling you. Often we all hear the term 'Muslim child' or 'Christian child'...etc. I believe it was Dawkins who referred to it as child abuse.

[Guest]

I'm not belittling you. Often we all hear the term 'Muslim child' or 'Christian child'...etc. I believe it was Dawkins who referred to it as child abuse.

I know. I wasn't intimating such. I was just being funny.

Or not apparently.

[DogOnPorch]

[The_Squid]

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.

Please show that this is an actual problem on the scale you say it is.