Immigration of religious fanatics

[WestCoastRunner]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

What happens if so many of them come here that they change the laws to be more ... friendly to their views?

Goodness. Then we better hide under our beds. Not much left to do. 

Edited January 3, 2017 by WestCoastRunner

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

The danger is only in your mind and spreading hatred towards Muslims. 

Let's see. I've already posted the stats on the degree of hatred for Jews and gays in many of the Muslim countries which supply us with immigrants. I've posted stats showing Canadian Muslims are becoming more religious and are wearing hijabs and niquabs in growing numbers, and I've posted stats showing the Muslim population is doubling every 7-10 years. I suppose fact-based logic is just something you are incapable of dealing with.

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

Please name the extremist groups in Sweden, France and Spain which enslave women and girls as part of their ideology. 

Sweden

France

Spain

What ideology is it that thinks its ok to sell human beings in Western countries?  Oh yeah, capitalism.   Criminal, yes, but certainly money-making.

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

That hasn't stopped antisemitism from skyrocketing in Europe, hasn't stopped the rape and sexual assault of women, and hasn't stopped terrorism.

Anti-Jewish sentiment is rising in Europe (and in the Americas) thanks to the far-right, conservatives and nationalists.   People much like yourself, except you specifically are focusing on Muslims.

The wave of rape and sexual assault of women has been demonstrated to be more right-wing hyperbole.  I posted links the other day; go re-read them.

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

But screening them would only deprive the ones who haven't rethought their cultural beliefs, who are firmly devoted to the harsh intolerance of Islam. After all, that's the purpose of screening them.

I said somewhere early on in the thread that I wasn't against screening in principle; I just don't think it would be effective and inasmuch as you are so focused on anti-Muslim rhetoric, I also don't think it would be fair.  Neither you nor Kellie Leitch have come up with any practical or realistic suggestions for screening; as far as I've, neither of you have a clue.  The only difference is Leitch is doing it for political points, and you're doing it because you are blinded by fear and prejudice.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

What happens if so many of them come here that they change the laws to be more ... friendly to their views?

Revolution, I guess. 

I'll probably be dead, but I'll make sure my girls are armed and dangerous.

[Smallc]

38 minutes ago, Argus said:

Of course it's correct. Do you think Canadian law applies to people in foreign countries? It doesn't.

I think it applies to any dealings by the Government of Canada, including immigration.

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Sweden

France

Spain

You are equating the trafficking of willing people with slavery. It's not the same thing and never has been. The people brought to Western countries, usually illegally, are coming here willingly. They might be overworked, might be beaten, might even be, in the case of young women, forced into prostitution where they expected to be doing something else, but they're here willingly, and in most cases all they have to do is tell a cop to get out of their current situation.

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Anti-Jewish sentiment is rising in Europe (and in the Americas) thanks to the far-right, conservatives and nationalists.   People much like yourself, except you specifically are focusing on Muslims.

Nope. It's Muslims and left wingers. Left wingers hate Israel, and many have transferred that hatred onto Jews in general.

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The wave of rape and sexual assault of women has been demonstrated to be more right-wing hyperbole.

That would be a surprise to the Europeans, including their government. Did you see where the police in Cologne had hundreds of police at the train station celebration this year, and that they arrested or kept out many hundreds of north africans? Do you think they were simply responding to 'hyperbole'?

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

  Neither you nor Kellie Leitch have come up with any practical or realistic suggestions for screening; as far as I've, neither of you have a clue.  The only difference is Leitch is doing it for political points, and you're doing it because you are blinded by fear and prejudice.

I've already patiently explained to you that screening involves skilled people who put together cultural questions designed to ask around the subject in order to get the test subject's actual feelings, not what he wants people to believe. And I've already explained why I would like to see screening. Your opposition, it seems to me, has a lot more to do with your own family situation than anything that is related to the best interests of Canada.

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, Smallc said:

I think it applies to any dealings by the Government of Canada, including immigration.

It doesn't.

[Smallc]

So the government can discriminate based on fundamental freedoms for immigration applicants?  I doubt it.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Smallc said:

So the government can discriminate based on fundamental freedoms for immigration applicants?  I doubt it.

It can't discriminate against Canadians, or against anyone within Canada. It can certain discriminate against foreigners in their own country and set whatever criteria it wants for immigrants.

[Smallc]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

It can't discriminate against Canadians, or against anyone within Canada. It can certain discriminate against foreigners in their own country and set whatever criteria it wants for immigrants.

Sorry, no Jews - I can't help but feel such a thing wouldn't be legal.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Sorry, no Jews - I can't help but feel such a thing wouldn't be legal.

It would be okay if it was limited to those who won't sit next to women on an aeroplane.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Sorry, no Jews - I can't help but feel such a thing wouldn't be legal.

We're not discriminating on the basis of religion but on the basis of hostility towards Canadian values. And in any event, we turn down tens of thousands every year. Have you ever heard of any of them suing the Canadian government?

[Argus]

Posted again to settle any quibbles. These are the reasons for being inadmissible to Canada. Nothing in there about social values or views, however extreme they might be.

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

Edited January 3, 2017 by Argus

[Rue]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

Corner Gas is great!   So I've got one out of three.  Am I in or out??   

 

Don't encourage me. Trust me on one thing though, Argus is no racist. I wish there was away to discuss this topic and make it clear some of us are concerned about security concerning everyone. Its a nasty topic-aint no way to discuss it without offending someone.

I wish I knew how to discuss it in a way where we could make it clear security issues  whether we like it or not will heavily involve Muslims, and ironically probably most are innocent and will be tarnished as terrorists perhaps no differently than innocent Japanese were in WW2  precisely because terrorists camouflage themselves as the innocent to blur the line and  distinction between innocent and extremist. By blurring that line, innocent Muslims suffer, and that is what Muslim terrorists want. With that suffering comes alienation the prime ingredient for recruiting Muslim  terrorists.

I know an analogy in the sense that I had to get in the head of pedophiles. They recruit as well and they look for the alienated who feel isolated. Terrorists and pedophiles use the same recruiting techniques. So do pimps. Been in their heads. They aren't creative. Their recruiting techniques  aint so genius but the problem is they work. Nothing gets the innocent abducted into their web faster then playing on their feelings of being loathsome.

Terrorists, pedophiles, pimps, all the same to me. Cowards. Pathetic cowards who love to exploit the young.

Excuse the humour but its a coping mechanism. You don't ever want to be the soldier or cop whose got a split second to decide, is that person innocent or guilty.

Problem is that's what we face trying to find which grain of sand on the beech is radioactive and lethal.

Israel's struggled with in since 1949. Canada and the West are just beginning to deal with it although the British have had their share of the IRA, the Spanish the Basques, Germany the Bader-Meinhoff gang, France, its share of Algerian and later terrorists and so on.  The enemy is within us now and could be anyone. The irony is a Muslim terrorist probably will look anything like a stereotype Muslim when he or she attacks.  He or she won't have a big nose or brown skin or be wearing a Khaftan. They're more likely to be  some pimply faced loner, male. range in age from say 15 to 35, be unable to form intimate relationships, probably be unemployed and marginal in society, sexually impotent or insecure, a smoker, have control issues, and hate themselves. That's the basic profile of pedophile, pimp and terrorist ironically.

 

 

[Smallc]

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

We're not discriminating on the basis of religion but on the basis of hostility towards Canadian values. And in any event, we turn down tens of thousands every year. Have you ever heard of any of them suing the Canadian government?

I'm sure some of them do.  I doubt the government criteria violates any of the fundamental freedoms.

[Omni]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Wait, I thought you said they already WERE being screened, and now you're saying well, it would be a waste of time. Which is it?

They are being screened with regard to realistic and verifiable issues, not some arbitrary questions about what Kellie Leitch reckons could determine what Canadian values are.   

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I've already patiently explained to you that screening involves skilled people who put together cultural questions

Maybe re read the article I posted earlier and you will see that there are skilled people doing the screening. I can only imagine what kind of a mess you might make of it left to your own xenophobic devices.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Revolution, I guess. 

I'll probably be dead, but I'll make sure my girls are armed and dangerous.

If they've been raised with your values in mind they're probably already dangerous, never mind the fact those values have also endangered them.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If they've been raised with your values in mind they're probably already dangerous, never mind the fact those values have also endangered them.

Toothache?

[eyeball]

Pissed off.

[Guest]

Yeah, I gotta go back to work tomorrow too.

[Omni]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

We're not discriminating on the basis of religion but on the basis of hostility towards Canadian values. And in any event, we turn down tens of thousands every year. Have you ever heard of any of them suing the Canadian government?

OK so exactly what are these Canadian Values you speak of and how would you propose to question a potential immigrant/refugee in such a way as to confirm they would uphold those values in such a way as to appease you?

[GostHacked]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

You are equating the trafficking of willing people with slavery. It's not the same thing and never has been. The people brought to Western countries, usually illegally, are coming here willingly. They might be overworked, might be beaten, might even be, in the case of young women, forced into prostitution where they expected to be doing something else, but they're here willingly, and in most cases all they have to do is tell a cop to get out of their current situation.

And they would be back on a plane to where they came from. If you are here illegally, I want you out of this country.

[Rue]

22 hours ago, dialamah said:

Sweden

France

Spain

What ideology is it that thinks its ok to sell human beings in Western countries?  Oh yeah, capitalism.   Criminal, yes, but certainly money-making.

Anti-Jewish sentiment is rising in Europe (and in the Americas) thanks to the far-right, conservatives and nationalists.   People much like yourself, except you specifically are focusing on Muslims.

The wave of rape and sexual assault of women has been demonstrated to be more right-wing hyperbole.  I posted links the other day; go re-read them.

I said somewhere early on in the thread that I wasn't against screening in principle; I just don't think it would be effective and inasmuch as you are so focused on anti-Muslim rhetoric, I also don't think it would be fair.  Neither you nor Kellie Leitch have come up with any practical or realistic suggestions for screening; as far as I've, neither of you have a clue.  The only difference is Leitch is doing it for political points, and you're doing it because you are blinded by fear and prejudice.

I agree with everything you said. Look I agree with screening, but I think it has to be based on tangible objective criteria, something more than someone is Muslim. As well the Charter of Rights makes it clear anyone stepping forth on Canadian soil has the same rights as Canadian citizens. So religious profiling won't pass the charter test, i.e., simply being Muslim in itself will not meet the test..

Mr. Wishy washy here also agrees with Argus that someone who has religious beliefs that hate gays, Jews, women, that's a disaster coming into Canada-its a conflict we are taking on that is going to cause problems across generations and certain Muslims have those beliefs. The question though remains, how do you screen them out and not label say Ammidyahh or Ismaili Muslims as terrorists simply because they are Muslim?  Both sets of Muslim are as peaceful and as ideal a citizen as you would want in any democracy. So just how would you test someone to determine if they have prehistoric views on women gays, Jews, even fellow Muslims,  etc.? The problem is the ones that are nasty, won't they just lie so they can get in? You can't do a blood test..so how you  screen them?

I mean you can have a criteria that says if they are related to or a member of specific groups, they get screened which is what we do now. We also profile based on age, gender and region they come from. What else?

 Screening for values as to sexual behaviour, hatred of others,  etc., from a practical perspective, from a practical perspective won't work.

You have to get hard evidence, i.e., objective evidence beyond reasonable doubt  and quite frankly we don't have the humanpower to properly surveille or screen people overseas before they come to Canada to get that kind of info and  once they get here its damn near impossible to say bye bye without hard evidence.

I mean Trump can talk all he wants about a moratorium on all Muslims. Its one way to avoid all the complex issues  I mentioned but whether its the US or Canada our constitutions won't allow a blanket moratorium on an entire people.

I don't even think the Charter now that it exists would allow the Canadian government to round up all Canadian Muslims like it did Japanese during WW2 if we went to war with Muslim nations. The Charter changes things. It prevents today's Trudeau's from exercising  The War Measures Act like his Papa, which ironically was the single most fascist action our government has ever taken and ironically it was Robert Stanfield the Conservative who warned it was unwarranted and he was widely ridiculed  about when he challenged Trudeau for invoking it.

The balance between state security and individual human rights, its damn precarious an looking back people ridiculed Stanfield but his words were prophetic in terms of warning against too much government power.

Conservatism was created to challenge the extent, role, size and intrusiveness of government in individual rights. Liberalism envisioned the state as the panacea, the magic pill to initiate positive change not individuals. The extreme of Conservatism is libertarianism then anarchy. The extreme of Liberalism is fascism or communism. We have to guard against the extremists of both in our values.

I would like to think I am a typical wishy washy Canadian smack dab in the middle wanting to balance the appropriate amount and size of government to help make our lives better but at the same time not getting  so big as to crush our individual rights and liberties.

The sad thing is it takes a crisis, a tragedy, a terrorist act to unify people and give them a common vision. Our affluence is what has made us so devoid of common vision. If we were all struggling, believe me we would have a common vision.

Why it takes a tragedy to create a common vision I do not know. It could be that because we are by nature apes and therefore pack animals we can't conceive of just one pack we are all members of. That would be antithetical to basic primate behaviour.

Some argue the Chinese have a hive mentality not a primate one brought on my sheer population size.

I am not so sure about that because India has a huge population as well and is anything but a hive mentality.

Is it a cultural conditioning that causes us  to think collectively?

Maybe.

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Rue

[?Impact]

46 minutes ago, Rue said:

The Charter changes things. It prevents today's Trudeau's from exercising  The War Measures Act like his Papa, which ironically was the single most fascist action our government has ever taken and ironically it was Robert Stanfield the Conservative who warned it was unwarranted and he was widely ridiculed  about when he challenged Trudeau for invoking it.

The War Measures Act was repealed years ago, you must mean the Emergencies Act.

No the single most fascist act was Stephen Harper at his gala party for 19 of his friends in 2010 that cost mega billions and resulted in the arrest of 1000 innocent civilians, including some being shot with rubber bullets by mentally ill cops. There was no act of terrorism, unlike the FLQ crisis that involved years of violence and kidnapping and murder.