Immigration of religious fanatics

[Argus]

19 hours ago, marcus said:

"Muslims are dangerous, because they're Muslim."

Here's what the ineffectual debaters here do. Since they aren't capable of discussing an issue intelligently they trot out some hoary old cliche'd straw man and then huff and puff in all their self-righteous indignation as they fight against it.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, GostHacked said:

 

Argus, one of these quotes of your above is incorrect. You don't focus om Muslims, but you do focus on Muslims, is that what I am reading?

If you read the topic I have spoken of other religions. It's true that the majority of religious extremists coming here will be Muslims simply because Muslims tend to be more extreme in their religiously based social views than other religions in the world. But some Sikhs and Hindus can be pretty rigid in their social views, as well. I doubt we get many Haradim immigrants but I would definitely oppose any of them due to their extreme religious beliefs.

If the majority of those with such views coming here were ultra orthodox Jews I'm sure people would be calling me an antisemite, because I would be opposing their immigration just as strongly.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, marcus said:

How do you qualify that?

How do you measure these individuals' views? 

We know from surveys (already posted) that the majority of people in certain Muslim countries have what in Canada would be considered extremely backward social views. How do you measure these as individuals? You can start by interviewing them. Kellie Lietch started this question and among her statements, thus far not refuted, is that less than 1 in 10 immigrants to Canada ever even gets a face to face interview with an immigration officer. Generally this only happens when some aspect of their paperwork/documentation is questioned. Would an employer hire an employee without an interview? Yet we're bringing these people to live here for the rest of their lives, and once here it's almost impossible to get rid of them. It seems to me that interviewing them and giving them a personality test to assess their values and social views is not an unreasonable precaution.

[Omni]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

Here's what the ineffectual debaters here do. Since they aren't capable of discussing an issue intelligently they trot out some hoary old cliche'd straw man and then huff and puff in all their self-righteous indignation as they fight against it.

Who's huffing and puffing because their erroneous assumptions keep getting called out?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, carepov said:

Both the number and the expression "medieval social views" is an exaggeration.  Generally, attitudes towards women, gays and Jews in less developed countries today are comparable to Western attitudes well within the last century.

Really? You're saying that the view that apostates and heretics should be executed was a prevailing cultural value in the west in the last century? I also don't think our courts would ever specify how you should beat your wife or impose amputations for theft. Nor do I think honor killings or genital mutilation were ever part of western culture. Nor did we ever execute homosexuals.

Medieval is an apt description for such views.

2 hours ago, carepov said:

More importantly, there are civilized people in uncivilized countries and visa versa.People should be judged as individuals and thankfully the Canadian government does that and screens everyone with the same criteria:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/inadmissibility/who.asp

They do a criminal background check, and that's it. If someone isn't on a terrorist watch list and has no criminal record, they're in. There is nothing in your link which even hints at inadmissability due to social values or views which are hostile to our own. And as I said earlier, immigrants are rarely even interviewed.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

Who's huffing and puffing because their erroneous assumptions keep getting called out?

No one has yet managed to show any of my assumptions wrong, and if someone does it certainly won't be you.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

No one has yet managed to show any of my assumptions wrong, and if someone does it certainly won't be you.

I don't need to, already been done before I got here, and more than once.

[DogOnPorch]

22 hours ago, drummindiver said:

let's not forget taqiya. He preformed the necessary rites,   now he can lie to further the betterment of Islam.

Indeed, lying to the infidel is permitted. Kitman is the other Arabic term used. Dissimulation.

[Michael Hardner]

Folks, we had reports about off-topic posts - I am not going to hide all the posts but please stay on topic: education and democracy in general is tangental to the topic so please don't drift on it.

 

I did hide some sniping - keep it clean, please...

[carepov]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Really? You're saying that the view that apostates and heretics should be executed was a prevailing cultural value in the west in the last century? I also don't think our courts would ever specify how you should beat your wife or impose amputations for theft. Nor do I think honor killings or genital mutilation were ever part of western culture. Nor did we ever execute homosexuals.

Medieval is an apt description for such views.

They do a criminal background check, and that's it. If someone isn't on a terrorist watch list and has no criminal record, they're in. There is nothing in your link which even hints at inadmissability due to social values or views which are hostile to our own. And as I said earlier, immigrants are rarely even interviewed.

I argue that today's misogyny, homophobia and antisemitism in the Muslim world is comparable to the West in the last century.  In neither was/is it a prevalent cultural value but it certainly exists in an unacceptable degree.  In the West:

-Gay bashing was common
-Gays were jailed
-Violence against women was different but as bad
-Antisemitism was often worse and treatment of other minorities too

Yes, the "Muslim world" is decades behind.  However most individual Muslims fit right in with western values - in fact about one million Canadian Muslims do.

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, carepov said:

I argue that today's misogyny, homophobia and antisemitism in the Muslim world is comparable to the West in the last century.  In neither was/is it a prevalent cultural value but it certainly exists in an unacceptable degree.  In the West:

-Gay bashing was common
-Gays were jailed
-Violence against women was different but as bad
-Antisemitism was often worse and treatment of other minorities too

Yes, the "Muslim world" is decades behind.  However most individual Muslims fit right in with western values - in fact about one million Canadian Muslims do.

How was antisemitism worse? Most of the Muslim world has ethnically cleansed itself of Jews. Nor was the term 'honor killing' ever coined in the West, nor were women forced to cover themselves head to toe or be arrested. Certainly not in the last century in the West. Gays might have been jailed but weren't killed. Nor would anyone even consider genital mutilation on women, not even in 1920. And you know what... I don't think I'd be all that content with the social values of a hundred thousand Brits from 1920 coming over either.

More to the point, the general religious orthodoxy of Islam is trending towards more rigid interpretations of moral laws and rules, not liberalization. You can see pictures of Lebanese and Iranian women from the 1950s and find no sign of the hajib let alone burqua. Not today. The Saudis, with their billions and billions spent on proselytizing, are slowly winning over the Muslim (except the Shiites) world to their fundamentalist views and interpretations. And the example of Iran is hardly a clarion call to liberalization for Shiite Muslims either. Canadian Muslim women are more inclined towards religious garb than they were even ten years ago, and surveys show the second generation here is more conservative, not less, than their immigrant parents, so it's not like things are improving on that score.

The Left takes the view that since previous generations of immigrants sloughed off their old-world values and embraced Canada today's generation will too. But there's no certainty to that. Particularly with values which are inspired by religious beliefs. Again, I bring up the Haradim, who have shed none of their fundamentalist social views in Canada or the US. But we could also use the Amish or Mennonites. Of course, these groups are very small minorities. Islam is not. It's already twice as large a religious group as Jews in Canada, and will soon outstrip the number of natives, too. Do we really want a group with these kind of social values growing this quickly in Canada?

[carepov]

30 minutes ago, Argus said:

How was antisemitism worse? [at times in the West over the lat 100 years]

Do I really need to answer this?  Just do a body count...

32 minutes ago, Argus said:

Nor was the term 'honor killing' ever coined in the West, nor were women forced to cover themselves head to toe or be arrested. Certainly not in the last century in the West.   Nor would anyone even consider genital mutilation on women, not even in 1920.

Violence against women was different but similarly prevalent and severe.

FGM is not a prevailing Muslim prevailing cultural value.

36 minutes ago, Argus said:

More to the point, the general religious orthodoxy of Islam is trending towards more rigid interpretations of moral laws and rules, not liberalization. You can see pictures of Lebanese and Iranian women from the 1950s and find no sign of the hajib let alone burqua. Not today. The Saudis, with their billions and billions spent on proselytizing, are slowly winning over the Muslim (except the Shiites) world to their fundamentalist views and interpretations. And the example of Iran is hardly a clarion call to liberalization for Shiite Muslims either. Canadian Muslim women are more inclined towards religious garb than they were even ten years ago, and surveys show the second generation here is more conservative, not less, than their immigrant parents, so it's not like things are improving on that score.

The Left takes the view that since previous generations of immigrants sloughed off their old-world values and embraced Canada today's generation will too. But there's no certainty to that. Particularly with values which are inspired by religious beliefs. Again, I bring up the Haradim, who have shed none of their fundamentalist social views in Canada or the US. But we could also use the Amish or Mennonites. Of course, these groups are very small minorities. Islam is not. It's already twice as large a religious group as Jews in Canada, and will soon outstrip the number of natives, too. Do we really want a group with these kind of social values growing this quickly in Canada?

Some conservative values are growing in Canadian Muslims - but no significant conservative practices.

[DogOnPorch]

Good gravy...look at Europe. That will be Canada.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, carepov said:

Do I really need to answer this?  Just do a body count...

Exclude the crazy man in Germany.

And anyway, we're talking about Canadian social values of today vs those of the Muslim world.

1 hour ago, carepov said:

Violence against women was different but similarly prevalent and severe.

You don't have a basis of information to say that.

1 hour ago, carepov said:

FGM is not a prevailing Muslim prevailing cultural value.

It is in certain countries like Egypt.

1 hour ago, carepov said:

Some conservative values are growing in Canadian Muslims - but no significant conservative practices.

The Muslim population in Canada is about 4.5% of the population. They're in no position to make demands. However, that number is doubling every ten years, especially with the large numbers of immigrants.

[drummindiver]

On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 3:55 PM, marcus said:

 

We need healthy, fact based discussions and we need proper education to start from an early age. We're seeing children, at least in Canada, learning about our impact on the environment. We need to bring the same type of attention and awareness towards humanity and compassion. Eventually, the old, crusty lazy thinkers will die off.

Please. Soon as facts are introduced chants of racism (wtf that means?) are bleated from SJWs.

You can't handle facts. 

[eyeball]

Teaching kids about awareness towards humanity and compassion is clearly wrongheaded from the perspective of your typical hard-boiled right-winger. They want kids given the sorts of education's you might expect from Spartans or Klingons - where the snowflakes are all killed off by grade three.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Exclude the crazy man in Germany.

Because it doesn't support your story that only Muslims do evil things?

1 hour ago, Argus said:

You don't have a basis of information to say that.

It was within my lifetime that beating up your wife was not considered grounds for divorce in Canada.  Nobody knew how many women were slapped around by hubby, because nobody cared.   No doubt, we are better now, but there are still plenty of stats demonstrating that some men are very slow learners.      

1 hour ago, Argus said:

It is in certain countries like Egypt.

FGM Is a pervading cultural tradition in Egypt and many other countries, regardless of the religion of the family.  Christians and other local religions practice FGM in nearly identical percentages as do Muslims.   For a short time, FGM was even practiced in the UK and the Americas.    FGM predates Islam, and may have originated among the Egyptian aristocracy, but nobody knows for sure.   While anyone can agree that FGM is an abhhorent practice and needs to be eliminated, your continued assertion that it is due to Islam is entirely unsupported by the facts and history of FGM.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/16/qa-female-genital-mutilation

http://www.fgmnationalgroup.org/historical_and_cultural.htm

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The Muslim population in Canada is about 4.5% of the population. They're in no position to make demands

Your assumption, not borne out by any facts or evidence whatsoever, is that Muslims are just waiting to gain critical mass to start changing Canada.   Yet, the most recent survey of Muslims in Canada shows that a higher percentage of Muslims are happy with Canada's direction than are non-Muslims. - why would they want to change something they are happy with?

Your contention that they are a bunch of gay-hating killers is also not born out by facts:  56% of Muslims either think homosexuality should be accepted by society or they didn't have an opinion; 43% do not think homosexuality should be accepted by society.   

http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uploads/institute-projects/survey of muslims in canada 2016 - final report.pdf

You keep claiming that you are presenting facts, but you are not; or at least, the facts you present are so one-sided as to be within a hairs-breadth of being falsehoods.   As long as you keep doing that, there is no discussion to be had with you.   

Here's an opening:  the study referenced above also notes that younger Muslims tend to be more devout than their parents.   I'd like to discuss why that might be, since that is one area where Muslims clearly go against the general population.

 

[Rue]

I will try provide statistics for this discussion.

The University of Maryland's Global Terrorism data base reported that:

• of 167,221 terrorism related facilities between 2001 to 2015, 98% of them (163,532) occurred outside the United States and Europe
• 25 Muslim majority countries accounted for 75% of all these fatalities
• in the above period of time there were 3,689 terror fatalities in the US and Europe and that includes the 2,977 who died in the Sept.11, 2001 Twin Towers attack in New York City
• private citizens and private property are most likely to be the objects of terror attacks
• in the majority of cases where Muslims die they were police, soldiers or citizens in public places
• the vast majority of people killed in the above attacks were Muslims
• the no. of people killed by terrorists worldwide in 2013 rose by 60 percent compared to the previous year – from 11,133 to 17,958 – with four Sunni Muslim extremist groups responsible for two-thirds of all fatalities
• those 4 Sunni Muslim extremist groups were responsible for 66% of all terror fatalities
• those 4 groups listed in order of deadliness were the Taliban (in Afghanistan), Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) (in Pakistan), al-Quaeda, ISIL (Iraq) and Boka Haram (Nigeria)                                                                                         
• The Institute for Economics and Peace analyzed the above data base looking for patterns and identified 2 features they say were common to countries where terrorism flourishes and they said:
• 92% of all terrorist attacks in the past 25 years have occurred in countries with widespread state sponsored political violence
• 88% of attacks occurred in placed with violent conflicts
• the link between state sponsored violence + violent conflict zones is so strong that less than .06% of all terrorist attacks have occurred in countries without any on-going conflict or form of political terror

The US State Dept.'s annual COUNTRY REPORTS ON TERRORISM 2015 which you can find for your self released in June of 2016 stated:

• there were 11,774 terrorist attacks in 92 countries in 2015
• the total deaths due to terrorist attacks were 28,328 in 2015
• of the above killed, 6,924 (24%) carried out terrorist attacks
• more than 55% of these attacks took place in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria

The New York Times ran graphs  in articles in 2015, to establish and prove that since 9-11, only 40-60% of the fatalities from terrorist attacks in the US were Islamic terrorist ones. That is true but since Muslims only made up 2% of the US population for that time period analyzed, if the above percentage is true, that means Muslim Americans would be 25 times more likely to kill someone in a terrorist attack in the UDS than non Muslims.

That said the vast majority of violent crimes in the US are committed by white men, and some have presented statistics to say one is as likely or more likely to die from a terrorist act committed by a white male or while male Christian from an extremist right wing group.

So based on the above and without smeering innocent Muslims who are most likely to die from attacks by Muslim terrorists the above statistics would show a very real concern that individuals originating from majority Muslim nations and in particular Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon. Bahrain, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Yemen, Chechnia, would be of security concern as they come from sites with high conflict and yes the majority of these people would be Muslim and therefore in their midst would be the terrorists.

So for those reasons I would say we would be naïve not to think we need to screen and be aware of the above patterns.

Can we discuss that without saying all Muslims are bad people, evil or terrorist, yes. I just have. By showing the above, it shows a good reason for needing to screen and profile but no I do not contend nor should anyone stereotype all Muslims as bad people or violent. The reality though is, this is where we will find terrorists and there is a high likelihood they will be of a type of Muslim religion connected to extremist thoughts and terrorists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 25, 2016 by Rue

[dialamah]

36 minutes ago, Rue said:

Can we discuss that without saying all Muslims are bad people, evil or terrorist, yes. I just have. By showing the above, it shows a good reason for needing to screen and profile but no I do not contend nor should anyone stereotype all Muslims as bad people or violent. The reality though is, this is where we will find terrorists and there is a high likelihood they will be of a type of Muslim religion connected to extremist thoughts and terrorists.

I don't know all the ins and outs of screening refugees or immigrants, but I do know that for the refugees past associations were part of the screening process.  In your info above, you noted four main sects from which spring the majority of terrorists; perhaps association with such groups was one way in which people 'failed' the come-to-Canada screening?   They also screened out single men as part of the security process, which makes sense to me since young men are the most likely to resort to violence.   Any screening Canada does is in addition to the initial screening by UNHCR and/or the refugee's host country; ultimately, UNHCR considers about 1% of refugees eligible for resettlement.   

Here is info on the screening process:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/overview.asp

http://globalnews.ca/news/2349421/heres-how-refugees-are-screened-before-arriving-in-canada/

http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/how-the-unhcrs-refugee-resettlement-process-actually-works/

As I said, I don't know all the details but I think it might be worth discussing the safeguards we already have in place as a start.  It seems to me we already do a lot of screening, though I fully expect the usual suspects to declare that neither Canada nor the UNHCR has any clue what they are doing.

I'd also like to mention that if I were a terrorist intent on harming Canadians, I would use a plane to come into Canada, not the refugee system.   A plane takes about 24 hours; refugee system takes up to three years.   What are the safeguards in place for preventing terrorists from just flying into Canada?

 

[marcus]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

We know from surveys (already posted) that the majority of people in certain Muslim countries have what in Canada would be considered extremely backward social views. 

I remember you once posted some questionable survey, where something like 10 Muslim countries were surveyed. Not only did this survey show how countries and cultures differ in how they view certain ideas despite being Muslim, pointing to the exact problem with your generalization, but the survey was done in only a few Muslim countries and not the 50 in the world.

If that's your so-called 'fact' to try to explain away your continuous generalization of Muslims, then you're failing.You still have not been able to qualify your characterization of Muslims and so the basis of your argument is flawed from the beginning.

Edited December 25, 2016 by marcus

[marcus]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

Here's what the ineffectual debaters here do. Since they aren't capable of discussing an issue intelligently they trot out some hoary old cliche'd straw man and then huff and puff in all their self-righteous indignation as they fight against it.

I paraphrased you with: "Muslims are dangerous because they are Muslims".

How is that not what you're saying when making blanket comments like the following when describing Muslim migrants and their "medieval social views"?

Quote

taking in hundreds of thousands of people with medieval social views, and this is an ongoing thing, happening every year

 

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, marcus said:

I paraphrased you with: "Muslims are dangerous because they are Muslims".

How is that not what you're saying when making blanket comments like the following when describing Muslim migrants and their "medieval social views"?

 

I suspect Argus believes that every Muslim who lives and breathes is a disciple of Osama Bin Ladens, and he will dredge up any old thing he can that will endorse his beliefs. Trouble is, there are probably a certain segment of the population that will buy in and xenophobia continues.  

[carepov]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

Exclude the crazy man in Germany.

And anyway, we're talking about Canadian social values of today vs those of the Muslim world.

You don't have a basis of information to say that.

It is in certain countries like Egypt.

The Muslim population in Canada is about 4.5% of the population. They're in no position to make demands. However, that number is doubling every ten years, especially with the large numbers of immigrants.

We were talking about your hyperbole of "hundreds of thousands of people per year  with medieval social views" entering Canada.  I say social views in the Muslim world are decades behind the West - but OK lets move on to today.

Muslims in Canada are very diverse: " the community is large and diverse with well over 60 ethno-cultural groups." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Canada

and includes Liberal groups and progressive individuals like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Fatah

What "Muslim demands" are you so afraid of?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, carepov said:

What "Muslim demands" are you so afraid of?

Using loudspeakers for the call to prayer?

[dialamah]

43 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Using loudspeakers for the call to prayer?

I'm told that it is possible to learn to sleep through the dawn call to prayer.