Immigration of religious fanatics

[The_Squid]

Atheism should be the top indicator of whether or not we allow someone to immigrate to Canada.

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, Rue said:

I am very sorry to hear that for you and I myself I have never doubted your consistent approach to not stereotyping an entire group for the bad behaviour of a minority within it. I also suspect although I do not speak for Dog he is not as extremist against innocent Muslims as his words may otherwise appear to say but I won't speak for either of you other than to say I too have witnessed some bad things to me and others and I would hope I can be like you, someone who transcends their pain. I want to leave it at that and to say, the issue on this thread is how do we screen ANYONE who is potentially dangerous in a fair manner. I mean surely none of us believe Muslims escaping from Muslim terrorists are to be lumped in the same category as them. Surely we can agree on that. Surely we can agree no one wishes the children we've seen in Alleppo killed the way they have?

I hate the pain and suffering of people appropriated for partisan arguments. We have to find ways to protect the vulnerable and innocent and the public from terorism, extremism, violence. The question is how do we go about balancing the basic freedoms we cherish in the West with counter-terorist/intelligence operations.

Its a problem all Western governments are now faced with. I don't want to hurt anyone innocent, Muslim Christian, whoever but how do we scren out or detect the bad apples so to speak? That's the question to focus on. Well in that regard we may have to do things we don't like in democratic societies such as storing dna, finger-prints, eye patterns. We may end up like in New York City where there's a surveillance camera on every street corner and where people are asked ot put tracking devices in cars, undergo far more physical searches when visiting any area of high population movement, etc.

I worry that each time we do one of these measures we lose an individual right to privacy that you cn never get back and these individual ri ghrs are eroding as terrorism and extremism spread.

I mean it may already be too late with the sheer volume of population movement across the world to be able to screen people properly. Maybe we are already involve din exercises tatamount to looking for a needle in a haystack.

What I do know is in Israel people have had to learn to live with many security limitations that are placed on everyone and yet people get up, they go to work they survive and they will be damned if terrorism stops them. We saw the British in WW2 refuse to give in to a kind of terrorist warfare of bombing London and then later the IRA. People have learned to live in conflict zones. I've met say Lebanese coming out of suburbs of Beirut who never knew what could happen next.  They to this day won't sit with their back to an entrance or window like many people who come from conflict zones. Such people fear people in uniformt hey stay away from crowds if they can help it. They don't like not being able to see an exit, a way out.

Sometimes its called ptsd or seige mentality but people from conflict zones or whpo have lived as civilians during wars like many of your relatives have or had it.

Its part of life. Its not good but its life. Its true women and we men forget this, basically have to always be vigilante for security issues. We men forget that. Well we have to learn from it. We have to learn to overcome fear and live with certain limitations now that will have to apply to all.

I am not comfortable at all let's say when I hear Trump make a blanket statement he's going to do away with sanctuary settlements. Who the hell knows what that means. He said a lot of things that sounded Hiltlerian Mussolini-Stalinesque during the campaign. Did he say it to get elected or did he mean it? I do not know. What I do know is we can't be stupid and think we will arrrest every Muslim in Canada and send them to internment camps like we did Japanese, Germans and Italians during WW2. I know some want that yes. I think most of us don't and just want to find a way to balance safety with individual rights and be realistic we ar egoingt o have to be more vigilant about certain things including screening measures of anyone coming to Canada and people in Canada associating with people who adviocate extremist views. 

That said, a true terrorist, a true extremist bent on killing or violence, will remain invisible. The last thing they will do is be visible and be noticed and so that requires sophisticated counter-intelligence measures that probably will never be discussed in public so as to give away what those tactics are.

Thanks Rue.  This really makes sense to me.  I agree that terrorism is something that needs to be addressed, both at its source and for ongoing mitigation.  

But I don't like measures that target a particular group; that does seem to "Hitleresque" to me. So for example, if we're going to ask regugees if they disaprove of homosexuality and deny them entry into Canada if they say yes, then what about the many non-Muslim Canadians that also disaprove of homosexuality?  Shouldn't they also be sanctioned in some way?  Or, aren't people free to believe what they want, as long as they don't behave in a way that threatens others?  

I think our current system does work; my very racist next door neoghbor was charged with uttering death threats and ultimately they sold and moved away.  The threat they posed to our neighborhood is gone.   But should we have had the right to poll them, before they moved in, to ensure they wouldn't call brown neighbors terrorists, or refuse entry of South Asian workmen for strata-related repair, or physically threaten a pregnant woman and her husband because he's not white?   Certainly, it would have saved one family from moving and a half-dozen other families from living in fear to vette them ahead of time, but is that the kind of society we want?

Punishing people for what they *think* might really prevent a lot of crime, terror-related or not, but then can we really call ourselves a free society?  Shouldn't individuals be judged on what they actually do, instead of what some authority thinks they might do?

There may be a way that effectively increases security without needlessly and unfairly targetting a specific group, but I haven't seen any suggestions along those lines.   

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

How old is conservative thinking ?

It's been with us since we climbed down from the trees. It's nothing more than that little voice of caution that says be careful when we're faced with something different or new. It was a useful survival trait that's served us well but now it's evolved into a fear-filled political force that is leading us off a cliff.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

I think there is a difference between "Conservatives" in a political sense, and 'conservatism' in a sociological sense.

Of course there's a difference but by pretending there is no difference or playing Mr Potato Head with definitions and context you can deflect and derail a conversation until the cows come home.

This is where moderators need to be more assertive and unwilling to coddle the willful stupidity that's so often on display around here.

Edited December 22, 2016 by eyeball

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Left and Right wing politics are from France.

Anybody who took history classes knows that.

Yes but anyone who confuses conservative with Conservative has no business pretending they're smart enough to discuss history.

[drummindiver]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes but anyone who confuses conservative with Conservative has no business pretending they're smart enough to discuss history.

This from the man who thinks the crusades etal are opinion based.

[drummindiver]

59 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

Atheism should be the top indicator of whether or not we allow someone to immigrate to Canada.

You jest, but why are our immigrants predominately muslim?

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Are you suggesting Islam is a result of conservatism? 

 

No, Islam's extremism is a result of conservatism. Further evidence of this can be seen by the complete absence of progressiveness.

 

[Argus]

11 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

You jest, but why are our immigrants predominately muslim?

I don't know that they are. Mind you it isn't always easy to tell. The Philippines are our top source country, but how many of them are Muslims? Probably not a lot. After that comes India - a country whose immigrant applicants ought to be screened, imho, then China. After that, though, we have Iran, Pakistan, and Syria. These are from parts of the world rife with religious fanaticism. They are also from an area of the world which Canada's immigration system says produce the least economically successful immigrants. Now these are for 2015. Given we took in 40,000 Syrian refugees in 2016 that would probably make Syria our top source country for this year. If not, then number two for sure. And the Trudeau Liberals appear to be intent on bringing in more Muslims (and Chinese) apparently because statistics show most Muslims (and Chinese) voted Liberal last election.

Among our other top source countries for immigrants: Bangladesh, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, Morocco, Somalia, Lebanon, Jordan and Afghanistan

So you might be right.

http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-immigration-by-source-country-2015/

Edited December 22, 2016 by Argus

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

This from the man who thinks the crusades etal are opinion based.

Citation please. Put up or shut up.

[drummindiver]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Citation please. Put up or shut up.

I've cited you o  this multiple times. I have put up,so shut up.

[drummindiver]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

They aren't.

Immigration.com says they are,  but I don't know the site so not linking. Can't find the info on stats Canada so who is? 

Let me qualify. ..present immigrants. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by drummindiver

[Argus]

Just now, drummindiver said:

Immigration.com says they are,  but I don't know the site so not linking. Can't find the info on stats Canada so who is? 

Re-read my post. I changed it a lot after looking into it.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

I've cited you o  this multiple times. I have put up,so shut up.

Show me where you cited this many times.

Word for word.

[carepov]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

To remind people what the actual topic IS:

I think we can look around the world and see which countries work and which don't. The ones that work, in terms of both economic success and quality of life, nearly always have values which include tolerance and secularism. Maybe someone can think of one that doesn't, but I can't see it offhand.

Therefore, importing hundreds of thousands of people every year whose religious values are completely and violently incompatible with both secularism and tolerance is, in my opinion, culturally suicidal. These people are making up a growing percentage of the population, and thus the electorate, and there is little evidence polite Canada is shifting their views much on these basic subjects.

First of all, hyperbole hinders your argument: "hundreds of thousands of people every year whose religious values are completely and violently incompatible with both secularism and tolerance"

http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-immigration-by-source-country-2015/

Second, odds are that most people leaving their "intolerant and theocratic" home countries (eg: a combined 32,000 from Iran, Syria and Pakistan in 2015) are those that would rather live in a more tolerant and secular country like Canada.

Finally, the greatest eroders of Canadian tolerance are not immigrants it is those that are intolerant of immigrants.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe it is, but the challenge came from a poster saying 'in absence of any other causes'.  I am wondering what other causes there are.  You seem to be saying conservatism is the same thing as religion, which is a new angle to our discussion.

I am not saying that.  It just makes sense that if one's religion calls for barbaric inhuman things, to not do them would be to try and invoke change.  Which would not fit the definition of "conservative". 

[drummindiver]

2 hours ago, carepov said:

First of all, hyperbole hinders your argument: "hundreds of thousands of people every year whose religious values are completely and violently incompatible with both secularism and tolerance"

http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-immigration-by-source-country-2015/

Second, odds are that most people leaving their "intolerant and theocratic" home countries (eg: a combined 32,000 from Iran, Syria and Pakistan in 2015) are those that would rather live in a more tolerant and secular country like Canada.

Are you saying those countries are tolerant and non-theocratic?

[Argus]

3 hours ago, carepov said:

First of all, hyperbole hinders your argument: "hundreds of thousands of people every year whose religious values are completely and violently incompatible with both secularism and tolerance"

We do import hundreds of thousands of people each year. I'm not sure how many have religious values I would consider incompatible with ours but it's looking like about 150,000 at a minimum.

3 hours ago, carepov said:

Second, odds are that most people leaving their "intolerant and theocratic" home countries (eg: a combined 32,000 from Iran, Syria and Pakistan in 2015) are those that would rather live in a more tolerant and secular country like Canada.

That is an assumption with no basis in fact. As I have already pointed out, one visible aspect of Muslim religious dedication is those who choose to wear the hajib or burquas, and the use of both is rising in Canada, not falling.

3 hours ago, carepov said:

Finally, the greatest eroders of Canadian tolerance are not immigrants it is those that are intolerant of immigrants.

Really? I'll ask you the same question Omni ran away from. Do you support bringing in large numbers of people who hate Jews and gays and think women must obey men and wear modest clothing?

[poochy]

4 hours ago, carepov said:

First of all, hyperbole hinders your argument: "hundreds of thousands of people every year whose religious values are completely and violently incompatible with both secularism and tolerance"

http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-immigration-by-source-country-2015/

Second, odds are that most people leaving their "intolerant and theocratic" home countries (eg: a combined 32,000 from Iran, Syria and Pakistan in 2015) are those that would rather live in a more tolerant and secular country like Canada.

Finally, the greatest eroders of Canadian tolerance are not immigrants it is those that are intolerant of immigrants.

Yea, I mean, clearly the only reason to come here is to be more tolerant, it's never to exist in a more tolerant society while disagreeing for other, say, monetary considerations. 

Yes clearly intolerance can only be the fault of people who don't like the intolerant.  With circular arguments like that everyone else should clearly just accept you as the winner...wow.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Really? I'll ask you the same question Omni ran away from. Do you support bringing in large numbers of people who hate Jews and gays and think women must obey men and wear modest clothing?

Here's the answer a lot of people like to hide and occupy a safe space away from;  No of course not, Canada is already over-polluted with racists and homophobic misogynists.

We can make it clear to immigrants this isn't tolerated but if they see old-stock Canadians behaving this way anyway then what's the point?

In the meantime what about Canada's export of religious and fanatical not to mention homophobic misogynists?

Quote

Anti-gay religious group gets funding from Canadian government for work in Uganda, where gays face severe threats

This particular funding choice may also conflict with the federal government’s own statements.

Yep, you see an awful lot of conflicting statements around here too, speaking of old-stock ideology and setting atrocious examples.

Edited December 23, 2016 by eyeball

[carepov]

3 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Are you saying those countries are tolerant and non-theocratic?

No, I am saying 32,000 is not hundreds of thousands...

[Omni]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Really? I'll ask you the same question Omni ran away from. Do you support bringing in large numbers of people who hate Jews and gays and think women must obey men and wear modest clothing?

No, you asked me if I wanted to import a bunch of KKK while you tried to conflate them to Syrian refugees. Keep your facts straight otherwise you just waste time.

[Omni]

Here's a bit of what those terrible Syrian terrorists are up to in our country. 

http://www.karamkitchen.com/our-vision

[carepov]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

We do import hundreds of thousands of people each year. I'm not sure how many have religious values I would consider incompatible with ours but it's looking like about 150,000 at a minimum.

That is an assumption with no basis in fact. As I have already pointed out, one visible aspect of Muslim religious dedication is those who choose to wear the hajib or burquas, and the use of both is rising in Canada, not falling.

Really? I'll ask you the same question Omni ran away from. Do you support bringing in large numbers of people who hate Jews and gays and think women must obey men and wear modest clothing?

I would be surprised if there are more than 80,000 Muslims per year.

Canadian Muslims are certainly more religious than the average Canadian.   I have no problem with that.

Canadian Muslims are blending in fine as per the Pew survey, I see no evidence of hatred of gays and Jews.

[dialamah]

Right-wingers are more of a threat to gays and Jews than Muslim refugees ...

Quote

 

In February, a study published in the journal Studies in Conflict & Terrorism described a right-wing extremist movement existing in Canada. Some members, it found, pose a very real public threat of carrying out random acts of violence, while others specifically target their attacks to Muslims, Jews, people of colour, aboriginals and LGBTQ people.

 [ ]

According to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI statistics for 2015 showed a six per cent increase in reported hate crimes. Victims included Jewish people, African Americans and LGBTQ individuals. Hate crimes against Muslim Americans increased 67 per cent.

 

Those who support testing refugees for intolerant views of those gays and Jews, do they also support such testing for right-wing individuals?   If we are going to prevent intolerant Muslims from entering Canada, how shall we sanction the intolerant right-wingers who are already here?  

 

.