Immigration of religious fanatics

[Argus]

Just now, GostHacked said:

The bible has some nasty things to.  But it's the followers and not the book that is the problem.  That is how you need to phrase this.

If the followers took the old testament literally that would be a problem. Fortunately, they do not.

[GostHacked]

48 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Here is just one. Out of many. 

http://m.clarionproject.org/news/muslim-gangs-enforcing-sharia-london-streets

It's unknown how many Sharia law councils are in the UK alone, most reports say 80-100. The UK government has asked for an investigation as there are many reports of women being discriminated against or told they must remain in abusive relationships.

In Montreal, there is a Muslim housing development planned. Non-Muslims are told they can live there as long as they abide by muslim laws. They are alsodoing it to try to get around having mortgages.

That won't happen. Quebec is less tolerant of other cultures compared to the rest of Canada.  And there is no way that Montreal housing development for Muslims is going to happen.

[GostHacked]

Just now, Argus said:

If the followers took the old testament literally that would be a problem. Fortunately, they do not.

Well we see a lot of blame placed on the book rather than the actions of said group who follows the book.

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

So you were a sexual bigot?

Sure, why not?  

[drummindiver]

17 hours ago, Rue said:

 

 

 

 

 

Your radicals are most likely to be Sunnis from Pakistan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Chechnya, other former Soviet states, Nigeria, Algeria, Chad, Niger, Malawi, Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen or other countries or Wahhabi from Saudi Arabia or Shiites from Iraq, Iran or Lebanon.

 

r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really. Philippines are our number one contributor to immigration. With  a bullet.https://www.cicnews.com/2015/05/philippines-top-source-country-immigrants-canada-2014-055253.html

 

 

[Goddess]

15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Clarion Project.  I get their newsletter too, because they claimed to be unbiased, presenting both sides, but its clearly not.  I was duped, oh well.

Yes, I've read that Muslim patrol story numerous times.  Three guys over a week or two who were rather quickly shut down by police, and also denounced by local Muslims.  Notice Clarion doesn't mention those additional facts?

Again, this was just one article, one incident. It's harder to excuse when this is going on so many different places- no go zones. I don't think it's as rare as you believe.

A housing project for Muslims; why is that a problem?   We already have religious groups who set up their own communities, usually outside of urban areas.  They also have rules you'd have to follow if you wanted to live there.   But I don't see anyone getting all concerned about those groups; is that because they're not Muslim and we're used to them?  

I'm not too concerned because I haven't seen the Amish flying planes into buildings or the Mormons strapping on dynamite vests. This could be because the media is not covering it, though. I guess. Also I don't have to throw a blanket over my head to bicycle past their place. Do I agree with their religions? No. But they leave us alone.

But in all of these cases, the rules of the community do not trump the rules of the land.   This means that if it's illegal in Canada to assault someone, its illegal even in an Amish, Mormon or Muslim community.

Is it illegal in the Muslim community? It doesn't seem to be.

 Did you know that charging interest is against the tenets of Islam, and that borrowing money is discouraged for Muslims?   This is one aspect of Sharia law that I would think fiscal conservatives would embrace!  

Yes, that part about not paying interest would be great.

Last I read, there were 84 Muslim councils that could be investigated.   I think its great that the people who saw a problem were able to do something about it, something that would be impossible in many countries.  

Yup. It's a good thing someone is watching out for the women

 

This looks to me like strength; a country flexible enough to allow some differences and strong enough to ensure abuses are not tolerated.

I do not understand the thinking that we are such a weak country that we'll just fall over at the whim of some religious people.   We haven't done so for Christians and there's no reason to think we will for Muslims either.

I don't understand the thinking that somehow Canada is special and what's going on in Europe won't happen here. We're certainly not learning from their mistakes.

Having trouble with formatting on my phone, sorry.

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

The Muslim population has been essentially doubling every ten years.

The Canadian population is essentially doubling every 60-70 years, are you suggesting that suddenly that will change?

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

The bible has some nasty things to.  But it's the followers and not the book that is the problem.  That is how you need to phrase this.

How's this?

And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

The Quran: 8:39

https://quran.com/8/39

 

Importing Islam means importing the above.

Edited December 28, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

32 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

How's this?

And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

The Quran: 8:39

https://quran.com/8/39

 

Importing Islam means importing the above.

100% bullshit. However I do at the least appreciate a link before I asked for it.  Good job Dog! Proud of you.

[drummindiver]

14 hours ago, GostHacked said:

100% bullshit. However I do at the least appreciate a link before I asked for it.  Good job Dog! Proud of you.

Here's a link from the other story. I had also seen the article, but they show'd her with her head cut off.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/12/woman-beheaded-for-leaving-house-without-husband/

Edited December 29, 2016 by drummindiver

[kactus]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

Why? Do you think they don't believe in their own religion? Do you actually think they wear those uncomfortable robes around every day of their life yet ignore basic laws of Islam?

 

I think generalising it for the whole muslim population at large shows ignorance...

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, kactus said:

I think generalising it for the whole muslim population at large shows ignorance...

 

Muslims follow Islam: the Quran and Hadiths.

What other versions are there?

[Argus]

11 hours ago, kactus said:

I think generalising it for the whole muslim population at large shows ignorance...

So people who identify themselves as Muslim don't believe in Islam or its laws?

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

So people who identify themselves as Muslim don't believe in Islam or its laws?

Some do, some don't, lots have varying views.  Just like those who follow other religions.  The worst of them are just a lot worse than those who follow other religions, that's all.

Edited December 29, 2016 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

I submitted an offer for people to agree that religion has neither EVERYTHING nor NOTHING to do with Islam problems but people didn't want to let go of the entertainment value of arguing absolutes I guess.

[Rue]

21 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Really. Philippines are our number one contributor to immigration. With  a bullet.https://www.cicnews.com/2015/05/philippines-top-source-country-immigrants-canada-2014-055253.html

 

 

Do you have a point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_Philippines

http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_12802-544-2-30.pdf?080116144143

http://time.com/4293395/isis-zamboanga-mindanao-moro-islamist-terrorist-asia-philippines-abu-sayyaf/

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/philippines-travel-warning.html

The regions in the Phillippines  beset with terrorism are the Muslim regions.

It doesn't make all Fillippinos terrorists or for that matter all Muslim Fillippinos terrorists but it does raise a security issue for people from that country originating from high terror areas who are on the move.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I submitted an offer for people to agree that religion has neither EVERYTHING nor NOTHING to do with Islam problems but people didn't want to let go of the entertainment value of arguing absolutes I guess.

Yah well you are a Satanist.  Just thought I would throw that in for the hell of it. I agree with thou.

 

[DogOnPorch]

21 hours ago, Argus said:

If the followers took the old testament literally that would be a problem. Fortunately, they do not.

Only the red bits in the Bible have any claim to divinity. The rest of the Bible is written by humans.

Jesus really had only one message: Go and do thou likewise. WWJD?

The Quran, however, was dictated to Mohammad by Allah via the angel (lol) Gabriel after a night-flight aboard a winged beast to the 'furthest mosque'. The very word of Allah...unchanging...perfect.

In Islam, Jesus comes back and slays all the Christians...for those 'interfaithers'.

After sacking Jerusalem in 637 AD, the victorious conqueror, Companion/Caliph Omar, declared the ruins of the Jew's Second Temple the (convenient)  location of said 'furthest mosque'. He built a victory mosque on-top the ruins. This is why Jerusalem is 'holy' to Muslims.

 

You import Islam...you get all that thinking that goes along with it. Watch out for Genies...they're everywhere.

Edited December 29, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

12 minutes ago, Rue said:

Do you have a point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_Philippines

http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_12802-544-2-30.pdf?080116144143

http://time.com/4293395/isis-zamboanga-mindanao-moro-islamist-terrorist-asia-philippines-abu-sayyaf/

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/philippines-travel-warning.html

Was gonna say...

Aren't the 'radical Muslims' lopping-off heads in the Philippines?

Edited December 29, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I submitted an offer for people to agree that religion has neither EVERYTHING nor NOTHING to do with Islam problems but people didn't want to let go of the entertainment value of arguing absolutes I guess.

It sounds like you are the one who wants to argue absolutes, while "people" are arguing for less than that.

[dre]

On 12/27/2016 at 4:06 PM, Argus said:

Yeah, that's not actually true. Sorry. There is nothing in the screening criteria which even hints at things like anti-social 'disposition'. We screen for criminal records and terrorist affiliation, and even that is just a matter of reviewing records. That's it. only 1 in 10 is ever interviewed face to face by an immigration agent. The only time CSIS gets involved is AFTER suspicion has already been aroused, usually because their name is the same as someone on international watch lists, or in the case of the marriage fraud people, when the alleged happy couple causes suspicion through some sort of error.

You are just flat out wrong... The screening levels are exactly as I described and cover all those things. Here's an accurate description of the process.

 

Quote

Background & Security Checks

Note: Our Background Check comprises of 2 parts: 
1. The Standard Documentation Checks, 
2. The Security & Criminality Checks.

Standard Documentation Checks: 
Our background check is done at the CHC stage. It commences the moment our file gets the 1st BFD by the VO. An indicator of which is the e-CAS that shows "In Progress". All docs been checked & our NOC being tallied against the MI, if the VO finds our case 'eligible' for Canadian PR, the file becomes 'Accepted'; and then it goes for standard background checks, viz. Exp, Quals, Adaptability, Qualitative Considerations etc. 

The process involves many things. If our case file is well presented and the enclosures vouch the quality-quantity, adequate POF docs etc., there might not be a requirement of 'actually' calling the employers, references etc. The VOs have a way with that, they are experienced enough to ascertain the logical disposition of our case. But, if there are any concerns of his/her, s/he is likely to ask for additional docs, do further scrutiny vide any means [calling, visiting etc.] & might ask for an Interview. 

-Culmination: When 'fully' satisfied, we get the 'Medical Request'. 
-Timeframe: Can be anything around 3-8* months, for the 'fast track' system (Avg. 4-5 months). 
-eCAS: Continues to Show 'In Process'. 
 *The older system has a queue, thus can be longer. 

Security & Criminality Checks: 
A part of the b/ground checks is the 'Security Check'. It commences after our med results are submitted to the CHC. This is a major activity -mainly concerning our 'safe inclusion' into the Canadian Soil; vis-a-vis, Political, Socio-Econmical, Anti-Social disposition, perceived Threat to Canada's integrity etc. This gets us the SDEC, CDEC & SECCRIM. 

This is a serious & time-consuming stage, involving many agencies, including CSIS, Interpol, NASC, Database Checking & touch-base with Local Police. Many things are considered here... the No. of countries visited, Applicant coming from 'certain' countries, ex-Servicemen [including Law Enforcement services], Prolonged stay in a country w/out sufficient docs to prove cause, frequent traveling to certain nations, your *Name (?), Inter-Religion/Nationality Marriages etc. 

If everything is simple & straight, the file soon gets into the 'final review' stage. If there are any 'red flags', our case goes into a 'spin'. Then our file might go to the local Police/CID agencies; the outcome/timeframe of which is beyond the control of CIC. And thereby the timeframe can be anything [sometimes beyond 1yr]. But, usually this stage should be over by 5 months max. However, a point to be noted is that we can also be called for an Interview [at this stage], due to this reason. 

-Culmination: Only upon security clearance we receive the PPR. 
-Timeframe: Around 2-6 months. Avg. 3 months. [With new system, sometimes PPR is clubbed with Meds] 
-eCAS: Still 'In Process', but 'Med Results Recd.' inside. 

*Yes, that's how a certain Mr. Sharukh Khan was detained for 4.5 hrs in an US port. He was a VIP, thus 4.5 hrs. For u & me -things could be different. 
...
The Process in a Nutshell:

Stage-1: [CIO stage] Send Initial Apps+Processing Fees to CIO-NS > Qualitative Check > Issue of AOR+120 days Letter >

Stage-2: [CHC stage onwards] Send Full Docs+RPRF to the Local Visa Office > File on Queue > e-Cas: "Received by Visa Office" > Eligibility Check+PSDEC > Issue of 2nd AOR > Background Check > Issue of Additional docs Request [if any] > 1st BF'D > e-Cas: "In Process" > Send Addnl. Docs > Issue of Med Request > 2nd BF'D >

Stage-3: Meds Sent > e-Cas: "Medical Results Recd." > Issue of PPR* > Send Passport/s > Security Check > Visa/s Stamped > e-Cas: "Decision Made" >
*The Meds & PPR are sometimes 'clubbed' together.

Stage-4: Return of 'Stamped' Passport/s+COPR > Landing at the POE > e-Cas: "Completed".

 

[Argus]

18 minutes ago, dre said:

You are just flat out wrong... The screening levels are exactly as I described and cover all those things. Here's an accurate description of the process.

And then you quote a whole page of stuff without a cite. I want the cite so I can see what you left out.

But right off the bat it looks very much, in the description, as if they are clearly checking mostly for terrorist links, not for simple social values and views.

This is a serious & time-consuming stage, involving many agencies, including CSIS, Interpol, NASC, Database Checking & touch-base with Local Police. Many things are considered here... the No. of countries visited, Applicant coming from 'certain' countries, ex-Servicemen [including Law Enforcement services], Prolonged stay in a country w/out sufficient docs to prove cause, frequent traveling to certain nations, your *Name (?), Inter-Religion/Nationality Marriages etc. 

And honestly, if they actually DID check for social values and views, wouldn't the Liberals have said something when Leitch came out with her proposal? Instead all the Liberals were opposed to doing values screening. Don't you think at least someone would have said "well, we do that already". But not one person did on any political panel show, in any column, or in any quote from the government, despite virtually all of them being opposed to values screening.

and also

But, if there are any concerns ..... & might ask for an Interview. 

indicates they usually don't unless there are concerns, and even then it's only a 'might't. I would think screening for values and hard-line cultural beliefs would START with an interview. How do you screen for social values hostile to our own by checking documentation and what countries they visited?

Note also there are two categories. Standard Documentation checks, and Security and Criminality Checks.

Neither of those is likely to be checking for values like being anti-gay, anti-jewish or misogynistic.

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Argus

[?Impact]

38 minutes ago, Argus said:

Neither of those is likely to be checking for values like being anti-gay, anti-jewish or misogynistic.

Canadians said a big no to the Harper bigotry of so called "Canadian values", we saw that it was just a front for the Northern Foundation.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

It sounds like you are the one who wants to argue absolutes, while "people" are arguing for less than that.

No, I am against the absolutes.  I don't want to argue those extremes and nobody else does either.

Yet we have people putting out strawmen for the other side, ie. "you want to say Islam has nothing to do with..." etc.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Neither of those is likely to be checking for values like being anti-gay, anti-jewish or misogynistic

How would you do that?  What kind of questions would you ask or tests would you give?