Immigration of religious fanatics

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Smallc said:

According to some such people (extremist Christians) don't exist - I think that was the reason for bringing them up.

That would be the people who never bothered to read my OP, I presume? I made it clear I meant ANY religious fanatics of any type from any country.

Hey, I'm perfectly  fine with us screening potential immigrants from Christian countries known to produce extremists. Why then, are progressives so desperate to avoid screening potential immigrants from Muslim countries known to produce extremists?

Edited January 2, 2017 by Argus

[Smallc]

I agree with you in theory but given our values and rights, it's hard to agree with you in practical reality.

[Argus]

Just now, Smallc said:

I agree with you in theory but given our values and rights, it's hard to agree with you in practical reality.

They're not Canadians and don't live here. They are not entitled to any of the rights of Canadian citizens. And our values don't prohibit examining theirs before letting them in. Two thirds of Canadians agree with that. Which makes what our values say on the subject self-evident.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Argus

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

That would be the people who never bothered to read my OP, I presume? I made it clear I meant ANY religious fanatics of any type from any country.

Hey, I'm perfectly  fine with us screening potential immigrants from Christian countries known to produce extremists. Why then, are progressives so desperate to avoid screening potential immigrants from Muslim countries known to produce extremists?

Except, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, they ARE screened.

[Smallc]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

They're not Canadians and don't live here. They are not entitled to any of the rights of Canadian citizens. And our values don't prohibit examining theirs before letting them in. Two thirds of Canadians agree with that. Which makes what our values say on the subject self-evident.

Most charter rights do not only apply to citizens.

[GostHacked]

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

That would be the people who never bothered to read my OP, I presume? I made it clear I meant ANY religious fanatics of any type from any country.

Hey, I'm perfectly  fine with us screening potential immigrants from Christian countries known to produce extremists. Why then, are progressives so desperate to avoid screening potential immigrants from Muslim countries known to produce extremists?

Your OP does mention that, but then your own words go on mainly about Muslims.

Edited January 2, 2017 by GostHacked

[Argus]

17 minutes ago, Omni said:

Except, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, they ARE screened.

I don't subscribe to your evident belief that because you say something that makes it a fact.

I have already posted the criteria Immigration Canada uses to screen potential immigrants. It says absolutely nothing about their values or beliefs, only criminality or associations with terrorist groups or agencies. I also posted an email from Kelly Leitch a few days ago quoting the book on immigration, as well as  the Senate report recommending face to face interviews. No one has yet chosen to take any issue with it, much less produce any information which disagrees with it.

[Argus]

16 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Your OP does mention that, but then your own words go on mainly about Muslims.

The problem IS mainly Muslims since almost all the religious extremists, an estimated 100,000 a year who come here are Muslims.

[Argus]

18 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Most charter rights do not only apply to citizens.

ALL charter rights apply only to people in Canada, not foreigners who simply wish to immigrate.

[Argus]

20 minutes ago, Omni said:

Except, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, they ARE screened.

Flat out lie with zero supporting evidence. I, on the other hand,  have already produced several cites to say otherwise.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Omni said:

Except, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, they ARE screened.

Cite please - since this seems to be a major blocker to the discussion here.

[GostHacked]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

The problem IS mainly Muslims since almost all the religious extremists, an estimated 100,000 a year who come here are Muslims.

So why even make the OP under the guise of all extremist when you are really just concerned about one group?

[Argus]

1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

So why even make the OP under the guise of all extremist when you are really just concerned about one group?

I am concerned with all extremists. I'd be fine with screening immigrants from Sweden for their attitudes too. I think that would probably be a waste of time, though. But as far as any country known to have a lot of extremists, sure, we should be screening them. In fact, it's ludicrous that only a small fraction of immigrants are ever even given a face to face interview with an immigration officer.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Cite please - since this seems to be a major blocker to the discussion here.

He can't. Don't you think that if we actually DID screen them for values someone along the way in the huge media kerfuffle over Leitch's survey would have said so? Yet here she is months later still going on about it and sending out emails, and no one has ever suggested we already do it. In fact, all they've said is it doesn't need to be done.

 

Edited January 2, 2017 by Argus

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Cite please - since this seems to be a major blocker to the discussion here.

Here is one of a number.

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

[Michael Hardner]

Checks out for me.  Argus ?

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Checks out for me.  Argus ?

That's for refugees, not immigrants. We're talking about immigrants. Note the name of the topic. Refugees make up a part of the immigration stream, but they are treated differently. For example, they are NOT screened for their health, their wealth, their job skills or language skills or ability to ever support themselves in Canada. The refugee system has it's own flaws.

And btw, even that says NOTHING about refugees being screened for their social and cultural values.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Argus

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

He can't. Don't you think that if we actually DID screen them for values someone along the way in the huge media kerfuffle over Leitch's survey would have said so? Yet here she is months later still going on about it and sending out emails, and no one has ever suggested we already do it. In fact, all they've said is it doesn't need to be done.

 

And I would say it's pretty naive to think that if we concocted some sort of Kellie Leitch style list "Canadian Values" questions that even those who may have some "non Canadian Values" would be stupid enough not to fake their answers, so a waste of time. I think that the majority of the people who want to come to Canada do so because they respect and want to become part of the greater community.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

That's for refugees, not immigrants. We're talking about immigrants. Note the name of the topic.  

Noted.  Omni ?

[Smallc]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

ALL charter rights apply only to people in Canada, not foreigners who simply wish to immigrate.

That doesn't seem to be correct:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

• (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

• (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

• (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

• (d) freedom of association.

• Edit - i don't know how to remove that.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Smallc

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I suppose the question to ask is, if these people were not Christians or Muslims, would they still be doing the things they do?  If so, other reasons would be found, such as culture, etc, that would upset just as many people when brought up.

Consider this:  regardless of where you are in the world, there are extremist groups who enslave women/girls/children as part of their ideology, whatever it is.  David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, Boko Haram, Lord's Army, ISIS, are just a few examples of well-known groups.   But there are countless others, individuals and groups, who keep the worldwide slave trade alive.   There are upwards of 30 million slaves in the world today, and it's not just limited to backward, socially oppressive countries.  Why is that?      

Female Genital Mutilation is thought to have originated in ancient Egypt, showing up around the world at different times, including in Victorian England and America for a short time.   Why has FGM existed for so long a time?    

Oppression of women is practiced worldwide, in all political and religious ideologies.   We are not immune in Canada; we're still working on eliminating it.  But it's much worse in many other countries, and I'm glad I don't live in those countries.  But why is oppression of women so ubiquitous?

We could select almost any barbaric or oppressive practice and no doubt trace it backwards through antiquity, whatever religion or ideology it is cloaked under at any given time, but the question is why do they still exist in any form at all?    I suggest that it is due to superstition, fear and ignorance - mostly ignorance.  Countries lacking the Western focus on education and knowledge, lacking the infrastructure to teach people to read and to think beyond their cultural limitations, eliminating centuries old beliefs and practices is a herculean task.

But people who choose to come here are already open to more than what they've known all their life; they have to be,  or they'd never leave their country.  By definition, they are already among the most progressive of their culture.    The OP's goal to deprive these people of the opportunity to rethink their cultural beliefs, to increase the pool of knowledge to send back to their countries is a mistake, as far as I'm concerned.   Instead of shutting these people out and increasing ignorance and superstition in the world, we should be welcoming them and in that way decreasing ignorance and superstition.

 

 

 

 

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Noted.  Omni ?

The thread title is loaded from the outset. It assumes that immigrants or refugees are religious fanatics. The screening that occurs is a guard against that. And of course refugees immigrate if they are successful during the screening process so therefore become immigrants. 

[WestCoastRunner]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

That's for refugees, not immigrants. We're talking about immigrants. Note the name of the topic. Refugees make up a part of the immigration stream, but they are treated differently. For example, they are NOT screened for their health, their wealth, their job skills or language skills or ability to ever support themselves in Canada. The refugee system has it's own flaws.

And btw, even that says NOTHING about refugees being screened for their social and cultural values.

Here you go if you want a cite of immigrants being screen for their health:

Quote

Chapter 4: Immigration Medical Examination (IME)

This chapter provides panel members with a step-by-step method for completing an IME and associated forms.

The IME consists of a medical history, physical examination, age-specific laboratory tests and age-specific chest x-ray.

Mandatory age-specific laboratory and radiologic tests include:

1. Urinalysis – clients ≥ 5 years
2. Chest x-ray (postero-anterior view) – clients ≥ 11 years
3. Syphilis – clients ≥ 15 years
4. HIV – clients ≥ 15 years

Note: Screening of clients below the ages indicated may also be required. Consult the IMEI’s for more information.

With the launch of eMedical, the IME will be conducted, where technologically feasible, in a Web-based computer program designed for the electronic recording, transmission, processing and temporary storage of the IME and its associated results.

Panel members performing IMEs in a region where eMedical has been implemented must use the system to complete and submit all IMEs. Designation as a panel member is dependent on the ability to use the eMedical system. Only in the event of a system outage should paper IMEs be used by eMedical-enabled panel members.

Differences between the paper process and the eMedical process have been pointed out throughout this document.

IME paper forms have been redesigned to ensure consistency between eMedical IMEs and paper-based IMEs.

Much more information is available Panel Members’ Handbook 2013

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

You don't have any facts worth replying to. Everything with you is cultural equality. If ten million women are raped in Cairo you'll eagerly find one, ONE that was raped in New York and then say "See!? See!? The west is JUST AS BAD!"

If there are tens of thousands of terrorist incidents in the Muslim world you'll desperately scour the internet for one or two involving Christians. "See! They're just as bad!"

But they're not. And everyone but you seems to realize that.

Yes, i do point out inaccuracies in right-wing, fear-mongering sources.  Yes, I do point out the prevalence of human bad behavior.   Yes, it is true that women are raped in Cairo and in New York.  If the woman is in Cairo, it's probably a Muslim who raped her.  If the woman is in New York, it probably isn't a Muslim, and there's a 70% chance it's a self-identified Christian.     

Just because I don't want to deprive people of a chance to be better doesn't mean I don't understand the problems that exist where these people come from.      Just because I can see both the good and the bad in Islam and in Muslims doesn't mean I'm panting for a chance to wear the niqab and embrace female subjugation.   Just because I have more faith in Canadians and our government not to succumb to oppressive laws just because a few people might think it would be 'better' doesn't mean I support the implementation of religiously inspired laws, whether those laws are proposed by fundie Christians or fundie Muslims.   

I've stated multiple times that I'm aware of the issues women (and gays and minorities) face in these countries and that we are much better off in terms of human rights and freedoms in Canada than in places like Egypt or Saudi.  I've cited numerous times the many organizations in those countries, and in the States that are working to change that.   That you continue to misrepresent what I say in the hopes of discrediting me is exactly the same tactic you are using to discredit the entire Muslim world.   I provide proof based in facts and reality to balance out your hyperbolic, one-sided presentation.   I'm so sorry this is a problem for you.  Not.

 

 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Consider this:  regardless of where you are in the world, there are extremist groups who enslave women/girls/children as part of their ideology, whatever it is.  David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, Boko Haram, Lord's Army, ISIS, are just a few examples of well-known groups.   But there are countless others, individuals and groups, who keep the worldwide slave trade alive.   There are upwards of 30 million slaves in the world today, and it's not just limited to backward, socially oppressive countries.  Why is that?      

Female Genital Mutilation is thought to have originated in ancient Egypt, showing up around the world at different times, including in Victorian England and America for a short time.   Why has FGM existed for so long a time?    

Oppression of women is practiced worldwide, in all political and religious ideologies.   We are not immune in Canada; we're still working on eliminating it.  But it's much worse in many other countries, and I'm glad I don't live in those countries.  But why is oppression of women so ubiquitous?

We could select almost any barbaric or oppressive practice and no doubt trace it backwards through antiquity, whatever religion or ideology it is cloaked under at any given time, but the question is why do they still exist in any form at all?    I suggest that it is due to superstition, fear and ignorance - mostly ignorance.  Countries lacking the Western focus on education and knowledge, lacking the infrastructure to teach people to read and to think beyond their cultural limitations, eliminating centuries old beliefs and practices is a herculean task.

But people who choose to come here are already open to more than what they've known all their life; they have to be,  or they'd never leave their country.  By definition, they are already among the most progressive of their culture.    The OP's goal to deprive these people of the opportunity to rethink their cultural beliefs, to increase the pool of knowledge to send back to their countries is a mistake, as far as I'm concerned.   Instead of shutting these people out and increasing ignorance and superstition in the world, we should be welcoming them and in that way decreasing ignorance and superstition.

 

 

 

 

No, I think the goal of the OP, and I'm just going by the title here, because I really had no idea which thread I was arguing in, is to prevent the immigration of religious fanatics.  I assume it's prevent.  It doesn't actually go into it that deeply.

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that, except said fanatics.

But then, I'm also okay with calling them that, amongst other, worse things, so we might disagree there too. 

I'm okay with anyone who does not believe in the oppression of anyone, for any reason, and who does believe in the freedom of expression, about anything, coming here.  After all, I did.