The Left invites terrorists into our home

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah calling someone a 'drunk' who has gone through rehab is insulting slander and OT.  I wanted to move on, did you really need to reply?  A military leader who drinks too much, wow that's a new thing...

Yeah, because you're wrong about it being slanderous or insulting. It's a simple statement of fact. And because it's relevant in that most people would consider that a major negative in promoting someone to an important position with hefty responsibilities. Military guys who drink too much aren't unusual. My father was one, after all. Generals who are known alcoholics who only recently got our of rehab are, and are rarely, if ever promoted. I mean, rehab was just last year. Normally you'd want to have some major pluses to offset that before making such an appointment. So what are the pluses other than him being gay?

Edited August 30, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

I doubt there are many out there that treat everyone equally. Not just government.

Probably right. But Trudeau makes equality as much a part of who he is as Republican conservatives do with the bible. When you set such a high standard of pious belief you are held to high standards.

[taxme]

21 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Can women pee standing up?

Men are so lucky. We can stand up or sit down when we need to go pee. 

[Argus]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think I have found a defining difference of understanding in your last two sentences, and if resolved we could agree 100%.  If indeed we can get immigrants 'anywhere' then I would be fine with a 'risk averse' policy to only allow people from, say, G20 countries.  I don't believe that to be the case, and the theoretical exercise would prove that out.  At this point, we are agreeing on principles and there's nothing explicitly liberal or conservative about the policy we're designing - it's pure numbers.[/quote]

I'm not saying only the G20 or even only European. I'm after merit+safety, wherever I find it. And I would remind you that Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and China, among others, are in the G20. But that's quibbling with terms.

It would seem to me the theory, though is not something which be tested, only qualified using logic and numbers. We kind of know the numbers, and we kind of know why the numbers are higher for Europe(more exposure to English/French among them, thorough familiarity and grounding in the technology and requirements of modern work, cultural familiarity with Canada, secular beliefs and values.) and lower for the Middle East (lower familiarity with English/French, often poor or non-existent grounding in technology and requirements of modern work, cultural antipathy with Canadian secular beliefs and values).

Quote

It's just an analogy, but to follow it to the other extreme: if we made driver's test so difficult, and driving so safe as for there to be near-zero risk then the transportation system would be prohibitively expensive.  And this plays out in the immigration example in terms of there being an unlimited supply of applicants.  I would assume there isn't, and therefore we have to make calculated risks to accept the target number.

Given the disparity in lifestyle between Canada and basically all the third world I would presume we would have little difficulty recruiting as many immigrants as we want. Supporters of immigration seem to think so too as they often call on us to increase immigration to 500,000 or even 1 million immigrants a year. As to the target countries I would most favor I have said for some time now that many have had economic issues which would make emigration to Canada a worthwhile alternative. The unemployment rate in France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy and a number of other countries is in double digits. In Spain it's over 20%! The youth unemployment rate is far worse. In Greece it's 46%, in Spain 39%, in Italy 37%. Even in France its over 20%. Add the geopolitical problems in much of Eastern Europe, from Poland to Ukraine to Belarus, not to mention Russia, and I have zero doubt that with a little recruiting we'd have no issues bringing in as many immigrants as we wanted.

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by Argus

[taxme]

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You have already advised the sensible people on this board that you follow crackpot extremist sites that appeal to a narrow margin of one side of the political spectrum.  I read stories from the National Post and Globe and Mail - and if they print something, then a wide swath of Canadians pay attention.   Politics means engaging and discussion based on agreed-upon facts, which your sources won't/can't provide.

2. Ok.  Read my #1.

3. Got it, read my #1 also.

4. Actually, I addressed this.  Reducing population/growth would improve system load in the short term, but in a few years we would be back at capacity and our public would still be ignorant about how to get changes though, mostly because they pay too much attention to the type of issues you mention: "multiculturalism".  It's an identity fight with no winning possible: just state your case on that and move on.  The important discussions on services aren't happening.

1. Ya-ya. Of course with you all right nationalist people or groups are always a bunch of crackpots to you. It sounds like you and the ilk that you appear to support will never try to report the other side of the story and people like you will only believe what the mainstream liberal corporate media tells you what you need to believe and know like what you are getting from the likes of the liberal National Post or the liberal Globe and Mail. Their version of the story and events is all fact based. Politics does mean engaging and discussing all aspects of politics and getting to hear and know both sides of every story which people like you refuse to accept or willing to try and get the other side of the story. My sources provide the truth where your sources will not. They enjoy making up stories and lying about them. 

2. Ya-ya.

3.Ya-ya. 

4. Stop all immigration now. It is time to have a moratorium on immigration. Canada is full. Enough already. 

[-TSS-]

1 minute ago, taxme said:

4. Stop all immigration now. It is time to have a moratorium on immigration. Canada is full. Enough already. 

That reminds of the former Swedish PM Reinfeldt who said that as he was flying over Sweden and saw vast spaces of fields and forests and then thought how can anyone say that Sweden is full when there is enough space for millions of more people.

Fair enough if you believe that people live in fileds and forests but people usually live in houses and building them costs money which is in a limited supply.

This "there is so much space there"-argument could be used to Africa itself.

[Michael Hardner]

52 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. And because it's relevant in that most people would consider that a major negative in promoting someone to an important position with hefty responsibilities.  

2. Normally you'd want to have some major pluses to offset that before making such an appointment. So what are the pluses other than him being gay?

1.  Realllllly.  Well, maybe that's so in the military but I would be surprised.  But I don't know.  Not that way in business, no way.

2. This is about the slanderous comment, not about the individual.  Again, the whole thing is OT, so shall we stop now ?

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, taxme said:

1. ...know like what you are getting from the likes of the liberal National Post or the liberal Globe and Mail.

2. My sources provide the truth where your sources will not. They enjoy making up stories and lying about them. 

3. Stop all immigration now. It is time to have a moratorium on immigration. Canada is full. Enough already. 

1. liberal NP and liberal G&M... ok

2. Those papers supported Harper in elections but not good enough for you I guess.  Your truth comes from anonymous sites with no reputation to uphold.... strangers.... bullshitters.  But like Jack who bought the magic beans from that beanstalk you can forever be hopeful.

3. That's it ?  Ok.

[-TSS-]

Correct me if I'm wrong but as here in Finland we get told by the tree-huggers how our carbon-footprint is so high and all in all even living in Finland is an environmental crime but yet the same people who say things like that are all in favour of bringing in more and more people from much more benign environments.

I personally don't have kids, I don't own a car nor do I fly across the world on pointless journeys so I guess my carbon-footprint must be less harmful than many other average Finns who are guilty of all three above-mentioned "sins" but yet the very fact that I don't freeze to death in winter in Finland because my house is heated probably puts my carbon-footprint well above the average globally.

But having said all this, isn't Canada even worse in that sense? The northern latitudes of your country are totally uninhabitable and the latitudes where the majority of the population live are at the same level as Southern-European countries which are known for being warm and mild winters but your winters are even harsher than in Finland.

So, envitonmentally speaking moving people from better climates into Canada is just as harmful, or probably even worse, than doing so in case of Finland.

i

[taxme]

38 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

That reminds of the former Swedish PM Reinfeldt who said that as he was flying over Sweden and saw vast spaces of fields and forests and then thought how can anyone say that Sweden is full when there is enough space for millions of more people.

Fair enough if you believe that people live in fileds and forests but people usually live in houses and building them costs money which is in a limited supply.

This "there is so much space there"-argument could be used to Africa itself.

 

38 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

That reminds of the former Swedish PM Reinfeldt who said that as he was flying over Sweden and saw vast spaces of fields and forests and then thought how can anyone say that Sweden is full when there is enough space for millions of more people.

Fair enough if you believe that people live in fileds and forests but people usually live in houses and building them costs money which is in a limited supply.

This "there is so much space there"-argument could be used to Africa itself.

The problem is that all those so-called refugees don't want to go to Africa because there they will not get all the freebies handed to them like they can get from all the sucker western countries. They are not stupid. It is the western countries that are stupid. 

[-TSS-]

1 minute ago, taxme said:

 

The problem is that all those so-called refugees don't want to go to Africa because there they will not get all the freebies handed to them like they can get from all the sucker western countries. They are not stupid. It is the western countries that are stupid. 

I don't think they are stupid. They are carrying the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan. It seems like a tin-foil hat stuff but everything that has been going on is just too consistent to be co-incidental.

[dre]

32 minutes ago, taxme said:

The problem is that all those so-called refugees don't want to go to Africa because there they will not get all the freebies handed to them like they can get from all the sucker western countries. They are not stupid. It is the western countries that are stupid. 

So what? That's the same reason Europeans came here. The chance at a better life, and the promise of some perks. European settlers used to get 150 acres for free, just for showing up.

[drummindiver]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You don't understand pluralistic society or reasonable accommodation.  Religions are permitted to discriminate on such things as gender, and sexual orientation in hiring and such.  

I do understand pluralistic societies. Tolerating is not the same as succumbing.  I guess I'll have to say the Shahada before I go to Bramalea again.

And religions are free to discriminate? Asides from Muslims who have impunity from everything, please share some examples. (against the law by the way)

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

And religions are free to discriminate? Asides from Muslims who have impunity from everything, please share some examples. (against the law by the way)

They can refuse to hire women priests, or gay teachers for example.  Women and men can be segregated in prayer services.  Homosexuals and unmarried couples can be refused service.  People who leave a church can be shunned.  They can refuse people who are not in their religion from being hired.  I guess you didn't know this, and that's ok: it explains why you think Muslims get special accommodation for their religion.  

[drummindiver]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You don't understand pluralistic society or reasonable accommodation.  Religions are permitted to discriminate on such things as gender, and sexual orientation in hiring and such.  

Check out limitations section. Religious beliefs are no grounds for discrimination. This should be obvious.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-based-creed

[dre]

I find the immigration debate pretty boring and unimportant, but when I wrote my last post it got me thinking...

Maybe we should have a modern version of homesteading, where we can use immigrants and refugees to achieve national goals, and improve their lives at the same time.  For example... "sure you can come and live here, but only if you spend your first 5 years at THIS location, where we are trying to develop a remote mining community".  You will get a piece of land to live on, and if stay there past 5 years you will own it free and clear. If you don't... you go back to Asscrackistan. This might stop immigrants from only living our large cities, and help develop resources in areas where Canadians don't want to live. Right now its so expensive to get Canadian workers in these locations that companies end up paying double what they should be, or the resources don't get developed at all.

This is just an example, and maybe not the best one, but the general idea is... Sure... you can come here... and you WILL have a better life. But you have to do what we want, where we want it done... for the first few years. 

[drummindiver]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They can refuse to hire women priests, or gay teachers for example.  Women and men can be segregated in prayer services.  Homosexuals and unmarried couples can be refused service.  People who leave a church can be shunned.  They can refuse people who are not in their religion from being hired.  I guess you didn't know this, and that's ok: it explains why you think Muslims get special accommodation for their religion.  

See my previous post. All those examples are illegal.  

Sorry, muslims do segregate, which is illegal. .

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Check out limitations section. Religious beliefs are no grounds for discrimination. This should be obvious.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-based-creed

Yes.  You missed this:

Quote

The Code also provides organizations with certain defences that allow behaviour that would otherwise be discriminatory. For example, such exemptions in the Code apply to special programs, special interest organizations (including religious organizations), special employment, solemnization of marriage by religious officials, and separate school rights. An example might be restricting employment in a Sunday school to a teacher of the same faith. Many of these exceptions recognize and protect the associational rights of creed-based groups in certain circumstances to enact or abide by creed-based standards and requirements. Organizations will still need to show that they meet the requirements of the exception.

That's the exemptions for religions that allows discrimination.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

See my previous post. All those examples are illegal.  

Sorry, muslims do segregate, which is illegal. .

Sorry - see my post above.  A Jew can be disallowed from being a priest, believe it or not, although the comedy potential is massive.

[dre]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They can refuse to hire women priests, or gay teachers for example.  Women and men can be segregated in prayer services.  Homosexuals and unmarried couples can be refused service.  People who leave a church can be shunned.  They can refuse people who are not in their religion from being hired.  I guess you didn't know this, and that's ok: it explains why you think Muslims get special accommodation for their religion.  

I'm not sure I would attribute that to a pluralistic society though. I think that a few decades ago this kind of discrimination existed everywhere. Religion has used protections that were meant to prevent overt persecution, or preference by the government for one religion over another, to prevent society from demanding they act in accordance with modern common decency.

The point being... its an accident. Not some good thing we as a pluralistic society determined was in our interests. They should play by the same rules as any other private interest. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, dre said:

1. I'm not sure I would attribute that to a pluralistic society though. I think that a few decades ago this kind of discrimination existed everywhere. Religion has used protections that were meant to prevent overt persecution, or preference by the government for one religion over another, to prevent society from demanding they act in accordance with modern common decency.

2. The point being... its an accident. Not some good thing we as a pluralistic society determined was in our interests. They should play by the same rules as any other private interest. 

1. Modern common decency meaning... the Catholic Church should be forced by law to hire female priests ?  I think the pluralism comes from tolerance of different metaphysical views.

2. It's by design.  The state will not impose its will on churches and allow them to pursue their ideology.  Not sure how that can be an accident when it was a deliberate and necessary plan from the outset of western democracy.

[drummindiver]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes.  You missed this:

That's the exemptions for religions that allows discrimination.

No, I did not. Exemptions are not Carte Blanche for discrimination. 

What are competing rights?

In general, competing human rights involve situations where parties to a dispute claim that the enjoyment of an individual or group’s human rights and freedoms, as protected by law, would interfere with another’s rights and freedoms. This complicates the normal approach to resolving a human rights dispute where only one side claims a human rights violation. In some cases, only one party is making a human rights claim, but the claim conflicts with the legal entitlements of another party or parties.

While many situations may at first appear to involve competing rights, one must recognize that not all claims will be equal before the law: some claims have been afforded a higher legal status and greater protection than others. For example, international conventions, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial human rights legislation and legal decisions all recognize the paramount importance and unique status of human rights.

[drummindiver]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sorry - see my post above.  A Jew can be disallowed from being a priest, believe it or not, although the comedy potential is massive.

Not really that funny.https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/catholic-priest-serves-he-honors-his-jewish-roots

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

No, I did not. Exemptions are not Carte Blanche for discrimination. 

Of COURSE they're not carte blanche.  But your statement: "All those examples are illegal.  " is false.

Give it up, are you seriously going to dig in on this one ?  The competing rights section isn't as relevant as the one I posted.  

Here's a transgendered teacher who was legally fired - updated from June 2017:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2017/06/23/transgender-teachers-fight-for-human-rights-complaint-hearing-dismissed

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Not really that funny. 

Larry David as a priest.  It writes itself.