Screening for Canadian Values

[DogOnPorch]

26 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, talk about the biggest jokes out there.

Islam, religion of peace, with some of the most violent terrorists

Christianity, religion of love, with some of the most vile hatred expressed

Conservatives, (currently) preaching tolerance, and some of the most intolerant of all people

I'm neither Christian nor Conservative. And you know I'm not a Muslim...

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

It's an intellectually bankrupt argument anyway. It's like saying we have criminals in Canada, so what business do we have screening out criminals from potential immigrants? Duh!

Here is an opportunity to examine the practicality of a screening test, how it might be implemented, how to solve the problems - such as Impact setting up a Canadian Values coaching business, thus letting immigrants pass the screening whether they should or not.  

This is your pet project, your moment to shine and stand behind for what you say you believe, so why are you wasting time on old arguments?

[DogOnPorch]

Freedom from religion should trump freedom of religion.

If your cult happens to be a world-wide murderous problem...why import ANY members of said cult?

Screening as follows: Are you a member of Cult X?

Yes = rejected

No = proceed to next stage of process.

Anything else is taking an unneeded gamble with our lives and lifestyles.

As Argus has already detailed...why bother? Because we're super-nice?

Edited January 3, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[dialamah]

Here's the Harvard Implicit Association test.  Perhaps something like this would work to screen out newcomers with anti-Canadian values?   It allows testing for inherent values related to things like race, skin tone, sexuality, etc, but we would have to develop additional tests for some things that may be specific to immigrants.   There is an ethics consideration page as well, which specifically addresses 'misusing' the test to make decisions about others.  But is that really misuse when it comes to assuring the security of our country?

Link to Harvard Implicit Test (Canada)

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I'm neither Christian nor Conservative. And you know I'm not a Muslim...

You're as right wing and conservative as any extremist you write about.

As evidenced by the complete lack of progressiveness in either case.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

You're as right wing and conservative as any extremist you write about.

As evidenced by the complete lack of progressiveness in either case.

I'm here to counter Islam.

My liberal views are quite apparent: pro-woman's rights...pro-gay rights...pro-animal rights.

All the things that Islam hates.

And I count you among its defenders.

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Freedom from religion should trump freedom of religion.

If your cult happens to be a world-wide murderous problem...why import ANY members of said cult?

Screening as follows: Are you a member of Cult X?

Yes = rejected

No = proceed to next stage of process.

Anything else is taking an unneeded gamble with our lives and lifestyles.

As Argus has already detailed...why bother? Because we're super-nice?

So your screening would not allow any Muslims into Canada?   Not even say, third generation Muslims from the States, who's values around gays/patriarchy/apostasy/etc. are indistinguishable from Christians?   

After the initial expulsion due to being Muslim, would your screening test continue to test other applicants for anti-Canadian values?   Would you be interested in screening out eco-terrorists or white supremacists?  

 

[DogOnPorch]

Replace Muslim w/ Nazi for your answer.

[dialamah]

FYI, I have reported off-topic posts, right-wing or left-wing.  I really want to talk about how a screening system might work, or how it might not work.  I don't want to argue about Islam-Evil:Westerner-good.   

 

[?Impact]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

Replace Muslim w/ Nazi for your answer.

Nazi, or German? We may screen out SS members, but thousands of Germans were welcomed with open hands after the war.

[dialamah]

11 hours ago, hernanday said:

It is silly because it could never withstand any challenge.  You cannot make immigrants face a morality test Canadians don't have to.  Plus people would just lie.  As long as they are not an active isis member, they'd be fine by me.

I do agree that people would try to hack the test if they could; Impact could probably become quite wealthy.  

Why do you not think it would withstand any challenge, or that we can't make immigrants take a test that Canadians don't have to?   We already make applicants for citizenship take a test that many Canadians would fail if they had to take it.   

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Nazi, or German? We may screen out SS members, but thousands of Germans were welcomed with open hands after the war.

Nazi

National Socialism...like the religion* of Islam...is not limited to one group of people.

* Islam is not a race/skin colour/ethnicity

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

FYI, I have reported off-topic posts, right-wing or left-wing.  I really want to talk about how a screening system might work, or how it might not work.  I don't want to argue about Islam-Evil:Westerner-good.   

 

 

I laid-out my plan. I'm very on-topic.

I realize you don't like such a plan as you have family who are members of Islam who might be affected by such a drastic move.

That doesn't invalidate it. If Islam turns-out to be the deadly problem in Canada it has become EVERYWHERE else we must act or submit.

Islam does mean submission in English...after-all.

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I laid-out my plan. I'm very on-topic.

I realize you don't like such a plan as you have family who are members of Islam who might be affected by such a drastic move.

That doesn't invalidate it. If Islam turns-out to be the deadly problem in Canada it has become EVERYWHERE else we must act or submit.

Islam does mean submission in English...after-all.

Actually, as far as I'm concerned, you are quite right to explain how you'd operate a screening test in this thread - I'm merely asking for more details.  My family doesn't come into it; my sister is a Canadian citizen, so she'd be able to come back into Canada regardless.   Maybe not her husband, but he hasn't been able to get a visitor's Visa the couple of times he's tried anyway because from what we can tell,  the authorities thought he was using his marriage to a Canadian to do a run-around the process.   Or maybe it's his surname, which is related to a bygone (long bygone) political personna in Egypt.   Who knows for sure?  So, really, my family is irrelevant to people's ideas about what a screening process might look like.

So I'll assume the third generation Muslim with essentially identical values to Christians in Canada would not pass your screening.   

Still, I'm curious - would your test screen out others such as people who might commit violence in the name of saving the planet or saving the White Race?

ETA:  Yes, I did not report your on-topic post.   That would be counter-productive to my goal here.  

Edited January 3, 2017 by dialamah

[DogOnPorch]

One could always leave Islam.

You wouldn't call me white in person.

 

And...for the record...there's no such thing as Third Generation Muslim. This isn't a race or country or skin colour...it's a religion/cult.

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[?Impact]

11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

We already make applicants for citizenship take a test that many Canadians would fail if they had to take it.   

Just tried the 20 question chapter 1 of one of the commercial on-line tests, fairly easy but it would be interesting to see what the average Canadian would do. Maybe one day I will get the patience to try the entire test. I don't think that the regular contributors to this forum are a good sample of the average Canadian in these matters.  There were about 2-3 questions where you really had to read the wording closely, but the choice was clear. The rest were obvious from first read. There was one question that while I got it 'right', I debate if it is really true:

Question 14 out of 20 

French and English do not have equal status in Parliament and throughout the government

If we consider 'the government' as all levels of government then I don't think many (most?) municipalities give equal status to both official languages.

-

The point is however these kind of tests really don't do much other than establish that someone spent a few hours studying, and of course as I already pointed out created a market for commercial companies like the one I linked to above. I don't see any difference for a 'Canadian Values' test either. I think we should eliminate all such testing as they are essentially useless. Far better would be to have citizenship classes, and the 'mark' is your attendance and perhaps participation (although that is harder to measure and has more to do with personality than content). I'm not sure how you would do the same thing for immigrants, but then immigrants do not (or at least should not) automatically become citizens. Maybe there needs to be more focus on temporary work visas (not as has been done with TFWs) as a part of a path to immigration and eventual citizenship.

[dialamah]

12 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The point is however these kind of tests really don't do much other than establish that someone spent a few hours studying, and of course as I already pointed out created a market for commercial companies like the one I linked to above. I don't see any difference for a 'Canadian Values' test either. I think we should eliminate all such testing as they are essentially useless. Far better would be to have citizenship classes, and the 'mark' is your attendance and perhaps participation (although that is harder to measure and has more to do with personality than content). I'm not sure how you would do the same thing for immigrants, but then immigrants do not (or at least should not) automatically become citizens. Maybe there needs to be more focus on temporary work visas (not as has been done with TFWs) as a part of a path to immigration and eventual citizenship.

I like the idea of a long-term 'learning' situation, including interaction with others, rather than just 'studying' as a way of ensuring newcomers understand, share and will honor Canadian values.   There could be classes on the history and effect of patriarchy on people and societies, the science behind gender and sex, the value of tolerance in a multicultural country, the statistics resulting from unfettered access to guns, the downside of gang affiliations and other classes based on cultural attitudes and beliefs from the applicant's home country.  

 Would a debate forum similar to this one help in terms of integrating newcomers, or would the variety of opinions and beliefs be confusing to newcomers?

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I like the idea of a long-term 'learning' situation, including interaction with others, rather than just 'studying' as a way of ensuring newcomers understand, share and will honor Canadian values.   There could be classes on the history and effect of patriarchy on people and societies, the science behind gender and sex, the value of tolerance in a multicultural country, the statistics resulting from unfettered access to guns, the downside of gang affiliations and other classes based on cultural attitudes and beliefs from the applicant's home country.  

 Would a debate forum similar to this one help in terms of integrating newcomers, or would the variety of opinions and beliefs be confusing to newcomers?

I think "this one" would not only become confusing but could become downright insulting in some cases. I like the idea of classes were there is interaction between those seated, and a well informed instructor properly qualified to discuss many of the issues you have listed. That way questions that arise could be answered with consistency instead of opinions ranging from all over the map. 

[dialamah]

Just now, Omni said:

I think "this one" would not only become confusing but could become downright insulting in some cases. I like the idea of classes were there is interaction between those seated, and a well informed instructor properly qualified to discuss many of the issues you have listed. That way questions that arise could be answered with consistency instead of opinions ranging from all over the map. 

I share your concern that an unregulated forum could be counterproductive.   But I have to ask - does the 'well-informed' instructor providing consistent feedback provide that feedback from the right or the left?   Or both?   For example, Argus and TimG would want the newcomers to understand that Canada is not obligated and should not be expected to provide (financial) assistance to those who don't work; WCR and myself may want to impress on them that society, through taxes, takes care of those who may be facing challenges.   Is one less of a Canadian value than the other?   

[Omni]

19 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I share your concern that an unregulated forum could be counterproductive.   But I have to ask - does the 'well-informed' instructor providing consistent feedback provide that feedback from the right or the left?   Or both?   For example, Argus and TimG would want the newcomers to understand that Canada is not obligated and should not be expected to provide (financial) assistance to those who don't work; WCR and myself may want to impress on them that society, through taxes, takes care of those who may be facing challenges.   Is one less of a Canadian value than the other?   

I would say from neither the right or the left and political opinions, especially the extreme types, should not be a part of the curriculum. Rather a guide to the systems and programs we have in place to help them on their way to being productive Canadians. Some, such as the refugees from Allepo will likely need some financial assistance since everything they had has probably gone up in smoke in a war. Others may need some guidance as to how they can validate their foreign license to practice the medical profession they left behind in their native country. I'm sure there are a wide range of issues to be covered, but from what I hear and read etc., I get the impression most of the people who arrive here want to just get settled and then get to work. I don't think any long winded lectures on this or that opinion about this or that religion would be in any way productive. Our Constitution and Charter of Rights should definitely be discussed. 

[?Impact]

46 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Would a debate forum similar to this one help in terms of integrating newcomers, or would the variety of opinions and beliefs be confusing to newcomers?

I believe debate is always beneficial. That said, I agree with Omni that there needs to be some formalization where the concrete fundamentals be understood as the formation of our society. A good example is someone might challenge what is said by citing something the Bible or Koran says. The facilitator/instructor is there to remind them that while we have freedom of religion, Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. Now while I am one of those that thinks putting in the "supremacy of God" as almost an afterthought was a big mistake, lets save that discussion for elsewhere. The main point to emphasize here is that man does not interpret the supremacy of God, that is what the rule of law is for.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

I would say from neither the right or the left and political opinions, especially the extreme types, should not be a part of the curriculum. Rather a guide to the systems and programs we have in place to help them on their way to being productive Canadians. Some, such as the refugees from Allepo will likely need some financial assistance since everything they had has probably gone up in smoke in a war. Others may need some guidance as to how they can validate their foreign license to practice the medical profession they left behind in their native country. I'm sure there are a wide range of issues to be covered, but from what I hear and read etc., I get the impression most of the people who arrive here want to just get settled and then get to work. I don't think any long winded lectures on this or that opinion about this or that religion would be in any way productive. Our Constitution and Charter of Rights should definitely be discussed. 

So it would be more of a course of what already is in place in this country, and less the values held by the immigrant themselves.   Ensuring the applicant clearly understands his/her responsibilities according to the Constitution and Charter, that should suffice?       

Perhaps Impact will need to modify his business plan to "Coaching for the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights".  

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I believe debate is always beneficial. That said, I agree with Omni that there needs to be some formalization where the concrete fundamentals be understood as the formation of our society. A good example is someone might challenge what is said by citing something the Bible or Koran says. The facilitator/instructor is there to remind them that while we have freedom of religion, Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. Now while I am one of those that thinks putting in the "supremacy of God" as almost an afterthought was a big mistake, lets save that discussion for elsewhere. The main point to emphasize here is that man does not interpret the supremacy of God, that is what the rule of law is for.

Perhaps debate among only the class participants - especially if there were a few from different countries, and there was good control of off-topic/trolling/insults etc.      

I think emphasizing "and" in the phrase "Supremacy of God and the rule of law" would be important for complete understanding.   Those who do believe in a deity might stop hearing beyond the part that says "Supremacy of God" .... 

And, yeah, for a secular nation to add anything about God is a bit of an unnecessary sop to the religious among us.  

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by dialamah

[Omni]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So it would be more of a course of what already is in place in this country, and less the values held by the immigrant themselves.   Ensuring the applicant clearly understands his/her responsibilities according to the Constitution and Charter, that should suffice?       

Perhaps Impact will need to modify his business plan to "Coaching for the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights".  

I think it would certainly be a good start. I don't think you want an instructor  weighing in with their particular opinion on individual values but rather to give a clear description of what our laws state. If a particular individual in the class concludes our charter and his/her values clash somehow, then they could consult further, perhaps with the instructor, maybe after class. at home with their family, or simply with themselves to come to a resolution that works within the framework of what has been explained to them.    

Edited January 3, 2017 by Omni

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

I like the idea of a long-term 'learning' situation, including interaction with others, rather than just 'studying' as a way of ensuring newcomers understand, share and will honor Canadian values.   There could be classes on the history and effect of patriarchy on people and societies, the science behind gender and sex, the value of tolerance in a multicultural country, the statistics resulting from unfettered access to guns, the downside of gang affiliations and other classes based on cultural attitudes and beliefs from the applicant's home country.  

 Would a debate forum similar to this one help in terms of integrating newcomers, or would the variety of opinions and beliefs be confusing to newcomers?

I thought of that same idea, but I think this would be better if done BEFORE they get here, so they understand what our goals are for Canadian society.

Edit to add:  It should probably continue well after they arrive.

I also think there needs to be better understanding on OUR part of exactly what we're dealing with.  I remember a case in the UK of a couple who moved there from the Sudan - Omar and Afaf.  The wife was 15 (at the time of the  marriageand already a victim of FGM) and the husband was in his 30's.  She integrated quite well, going from being a subserviant wife to an independant, accomplished woman, and he did not.  She went to school, made freinds and got a job.  When she was 38, she filed a restraining order against him and asked for a divorce.  He killed her and basically got off in court due to "diminished capacity".   What was missing, wasn't evidence, it was understanding of the prejudices and social baggage of the Islamic religion.  The jury was unprepared to comprehend that it was an honor killing. Court watchers reported that each day at trial,  he gave a clenched fist victory salute to his brothers who came to support him from the Sudan.

Britain did a study of family violence after Afaf's death and found that women married to Muslim men were 8 times more likely to be killed by their husbands than other women in Britain.

Our yardstick for assessing these crimes is woefully inadequate. And there seems to be a serious lack of support networks for women who arrive with husband who have these views.

That being said, I think it is much easier for people to change/modify certain cultural practices when they immigrate to a new country but very difficult to explain the history of patriarchy and the science behind gender and sex, etc when an immigrant's religious beliefs overrule all of that.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Goddess