Asylum System "not sustainable" - Immigration Minister

[dialamah]

 

These are not fringe views

When we interrned Japanese Canadians, and took their peoperty during the war, it wasn't "fringe views" that led politicians to take this step; it was Canadians who responded to propaganda about how alien and dangerous Japanese were.  We started small, removing a right here and there, and ended big - tossing them into camps, separating families, disallowing them freedom to work or go to school.   Later we apologized and paid something like $12,000,000.00 to Japanese Canadians because we were wrong.  

When Canada imposed a head tax on the Chinese, the result of anti-immigrant sentiment, that was not a "fringe view" either.  None the less, we ended up apologizing and paying money - because we were wrong.

We've apologized to Sikhs and Jews because of widespread racism that led governments to discriminate against them, not because of "fringe views". 

If anything, it was "fringe views" that advocated not interning the Japanese, not putting a head tax on the Chinese, and for accepting the Sikhs and Jews.  If "fringe views" had been leading the way, Canada would not have had to make apologies, pay money or have these black marks against our country. 

Just because an idea is "mainstream" doesn't mean it's right and governments should act.  

Edited September 17, 2018 by dialamah

[turningrite]

 

Just because an idea is "mainstream" doesn't mean it's right and governments should act.  

Dialamah: Interesting logic. Couldn't one just as easily say that just because something is categorized as "fringe" doesn't mean governments shouldn't act? The whole exercise becomes circular. The more important issue is who gets to apply these labels. Trudeau decries the tyranny of fringe views to the extent of ditching promised electoral reform in order to silence them. But if, say, half the population actually believes something to be true - such as believing that immigration levels are too high - is this actually a fringe view? It's certainly cast as a fringe view by Trudeau and the coterie of interest groups that support his party. The problem we've developed here in the West is categorizing the political views and perspectives of others in ways that suit our own views and interests rather than considering the various aspects of these matters in open and rational contexts. Those who believe that our leaders are the only ones equipped to render these determinations aren't serving the interests of democracy.

[dialamah]

 

Dialamah: Interesting logic. Couldn't one just as easily say that just because something is categorized as "fringe" doesn't mean governments shouldn't act? 

Sure, fringe views can be wrong.  The only point I am trying to make is that the popularity of an idea doesn't automatically make it right.  If it's wrong to infringe on personal freedoms, than it's wrong.  Even if 99% of the people think it's the right thing to do this time.  It was wrong when we removed the first freedom from Japanese Canadians, it was wrong for every freedom removed thereafter and it was wrong to intern them based on nothing more than fear and propaganda.  Banning burkas, inasmuch as it removes a personal freedom, is wrong, regardless of how many countries have done it or how many people support it.  There is no credible security threat from burka-clad women, there is only fear and dislike.  The same was true of Japanese Canadians: fear and dislike led to the government enacting freedom-limiting laws. Decades later, we apologized and compensated them.  Do we want to follow the same path with Muslims?  I don't.  

[Bonam]

 

Banning burkas, inasmuch as it removes a personal freedom, is wrong, regardless of how many countries have done it or how many people support it.

Banning burkas is a difficult issue I think. In the most basic sense, yes, people should be free to wear anything they want, and the government shouldn't interfere. On the other hand, the burka is associated with the oppression of women and their deprivation of rights and freedoms by a misogynistic culture. By banning the burka, on the one hand, you interfere with the freedom of those people who genuinely want to wear it of their own choice, but you increase the freedom of those who would otherwise be forced to wear it.

It is tempting to take the libertarian stance that the government should infringe on freedoms as little as possible, period, regardless of the context. But if infringing on the freedom of garment choice for some individuals who might genuinely want to wear it vastly increases the freedom from abuse and oppression for many other individuals, there's a strong argument for that to be considered. 

[dialamah]

 

Banning burkas is a difficult issue I think. In the most basic sense, yes, people should be free to wear anything they want, and the government shouldn't interfere. On the other hand, the burka is associated with the oppression of women and their deprivation of rights and freedoms by a misogynistic culture. By banning the burka, on the one hand, you interfere with the freedom of those people who genuinely want to wear it of their own choice, but you increase the freedom of those who would otherwise be forced to wear it.

It is tempting to take the libertarian stance that the government should infringe on freedoms as little as possible, period, regardless of the context. But if infringing on the freedom of garment choice for some individuals who might genuinely want to wear it vastly increases the freedom from abuse and oppression for many other individuals, there's a strong argument for that to be considered. 

How does banning the burka increase the freedom of those who either want to wear it or are forced to wear it?   If a woman, by family decree or religious belief, must wear a burka in order to leave the house, but the government disallows burkas on the street, where is her freedom increased exactly?  

Edited September 17, 2018 by dialamah

[Bonam]

 

How does banning the burka increase the freedom of those who either want to wear it or are forced to wear it?   If a woman, by family decree or religious belief, must wear a burka in order to leave the house, but the government disallows burkas on the street, where is her freedom increased exactly?  

There's a lot of Muslims that are religious but not fanatical. By default of their beliefs, they may force the woman to wear the burka. But realizing it is against national law, most of them being law abiding citizens, and being pragmatic enough to realize that never allowing women to leave the house period is impractical, will change their ways. 

[dialamah]

 

There's a lot of Muslims that are religious but not fanatical. By default of their beliefs, they may force the woman to wear the burka. But realizing it is against national law, most of them being law abiding citizens, and being pragmatic enough to realize that never allowing women to leave the house period is impractical, will change their ways. 

Are you sure?  This article notes that burka banning results in more women wearing the veil, more women staying home, and increases attacks on Muslim women.   

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by dialamah

[taxme]

 

In a previous post, I calculated that it was probably about $200 a day for food and lodging - that's about $6000 a month or $72,000 a year for each. So $50K would be a "bargain". Most will be here for years until they are finally deported.....and then a good number will be allowed to stay on compassionate grounds. $$$$$$. Crazy stuff.

Well, it would appear as though your calculations may be a bit off here. I think that Canadians are rich enough to afford to bring in another 100,000 more new refugees every year. We Canadians really do care and just love to help all the world's refugees with our tax dollars. Now, just get back to work and pay those taxes so others can live off of your tax dollars for free. 

Aw well, it's only money, eh?   

[taxme]

 

When we interrned Japanese Canadians, and took their peoperty during the war, it wasn't "fringe views" that led politicians to take this step; it was Canadians who responded to propaganda about how alien and dangerous Japanese were.  We started small, removing a right here and there, and ended big - tossing them into camps, separating families, disallowing them freedom to work or go to school.   Later we apologized and paid something like $12,000,000.00 to Japanese Canadians because we were wrong.  

When Canada imposed a head tax on the Chinese, the result of anti-immigrant sentiment, that was not a "fringe view" either.  None the less, we ended up apologizing and paying money - because we were wrong.

We've apologized to Sikhs and Jews because of widespread racism that led governments to discriminate against them, not because of "fringe views". 

If anything, it was "fringe views" that advocated not interning the Japanese, not putting a head tax on the Chinese, and for accepting the Sikhs and Jews.  If "fringe views" had been leading the way, Canada would not have had to make apologies, pay money or have these black marks against our country. 

Just because an idea is "mainstream" doesn't mean it's right and governments should act.  

An apology should have been enough if at all. There should not have been any payoffs. The Canadian taxpayer's of today had nothing to do with what happened way back when and should not be held responsible for what others did over a century ago. Canadians of today are such idiots to say the least. They are easily conned by politicians who just want to look good and to do so they take their tax dollars and payoff others who do not deserve it. This is my impression of most Canadians. ZZZZZZZZZZZ. 

[turningrite]

 

Sure, fringe views can be wrong.  The only point I am trying to make is that the popularity of an idea doesn't automatically make it right.  If it's wrong to infringe on personal freedoms, than it's wrong.  Even if 99% of the people think it's the right thing to do this time.  It was wrong when we removed the first freedom from Japanese Canadians, it was wrong for every freedom removed thereafter and it was wrong to intern them based on nothing more than fear and propaganda.  Banning burkas, inasmuch as it removes a personal freedom, is wrong, regardless of how many countries have done it or how many people support it.  There is no credible security threat from burka-clad women, there is only fear and dislike.  The same was true of Japanese Canadians: fear and dislike led to the government enacting freedom-limiting laws. Decades later, we apologized and compensated them.  Do we want to follow the same path with Muslims?  I don't.  

Dialamah: It's bizarre to use extreme examples to draw general conclusions. Japanese internment was practiced in both Canada and the U.S. during WWII, presumably premised in both cases on assumptions of divided loyalties. In diverse societies, of course, this will always be a concern in instances of serious conflict such as during wartime, however unfair this might be. It might also be a more serious problem now in countries like Canada that practice open-ended multiculturalism and thus encourage greater degrees of ethno-racial and ethno-cultural polarization and ghettoization. Where ordinary politics is concerned, majority rule isn't generally an illegitimate notion and in fact failure to accommodate majority views could well lead to the demise of representative democracy if voters come to believe that the available political options aren't reflective of public opinion. Many see this as the basis for the emergence of populist parties in the West. Traditional parties can't simply dictate their interpretations of "acceptable" views to voters. That majoritarianism has from time-to-time had negative consequences doesn't delegitimize the concept. The fact that dictators like Hitler and Mussolini started out as elected parliamentarians doesn't mean we ban elections, after all.

As for the burqa and niqab, I tend to see their use not in terms of religious "freedom" but more in terms of religious chauvinism and division. The most vehement opponent of such wear that I've met, as I've pointed out elsewhere, was a woman who came to came to Canada after fleeing post-revolutionary Iran. She thought Western views about religious freedom to be naive and daft, noting the accoutrements of religious fundamentalism to be inherently patriarchal and heavily political. I think the only practical basis for achieving religious freedom in a diverse democracy is secularism. Religion should remain a private matter, to be practiced privately. We'd all be better off were this the case.

Edited September 17, 2018 by turningrite

[Bonam]

 

Are you sure?  This article notes that burka banning results in more women wearing the veil, more women staying home, and increases attacks on Muslim women.   

That article doesn't provide any numbers, just opinions, no more authoritative than yours or mine. It doesn't compare how many women now leave their homes without burkas to how many decide to wear one in protest or stay home. It just notes that maybe some women stay home. And it says that a few interviewed individuals wear it in protest. 

[Goddess]

 

  There is no credible security threat from burka-clad women, there is only fear and dislike.  

Then why is there a requirement to remove motorcycle helmets, balaclavas and scarves that cover the face in banks, airports, government buildings, etc?

All this time, I thought it was a security issue but I guess it's just that Westerners "fear and dislike" motorcycle helmets and balaclavas.

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/international/pakistan/peshawar-university-attack-three-killed-at-least-5-wounded

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/incident-canadian-tire-rcmp-toronto-police-islamic-state-1.4147750

Edited September 17, 2018 by Goddess

[dialamah]

 

That article doesn't provide any numbers, just opinions, no more authoritative than yours or mine. It doesn't compare how many women now leave their homes without burkas to how many decide to wear one in protest or stay home. It just notes that maybe some women stay home. And it says that a few interviewed individuals wear it in protest. 

True, it is not authoritative.  Even so, it has more data demonstrating that a burka ban is not effective in its stated goals than any argument I've seen claiming that it's in women's best interest to ban burkas.

Further, there is research showing that things like burka bans correlate to more terror attacks in that country.  (For example, France's burka ban has been used in ISIS propaganda as proof that Western nations seek to oppress Muslims and destroy Islam and Muslims must fight back). 

Previous research shows that state repression on religious grounds as well as minority discrimination are strong predictors of terrorist attacks in countries (Piazza 2017; Choi and Piazza 2016). Existing literature on terrorism has also established that the way regimes treat and respect their citizens’ rights and minority rights have an effect on the patterns of terrorism in countries (Piazza 2017). When it comes to responding to terrorism, indiscriminate counterterrorism measures that target whole population or a group of people instead of only targeting terrorists themselves have been found to increase terrorist activity (Bueno de Mesquita and Dickson 2007; Gill, Piazza and Horgan 2016).

Repression and Terrorism: A Cross-National Empirical Analysis of Types of Repression and Domestic Terrorism

Ethnic Groups, Political Exclusion and Domestic Terrorism

The Propaganda of the Deed: Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Mobilization

While it's true that correlation is not causation, there isn't even this much evidence that banning the burka adds to security or even helps the women it's proponents claim it will.

 

 

[Argus]

 

Just because an idea is "mainstream" doesn't mean it's right and governments should act.  

Yeah, in a democracy, it pretty much does.

 

[dialamah]

 

Then why is there a requirement to remove motorcycle helmets, balaclavas and scarves that cover the face in banks, airports, government buildings, etc?

All this time, I thought it was a security issue but I guess it's just that Westerners "fear and dislike" motorcycle helmets and balaclavas.

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/international/pakistan/peshawar-university-attack-three-killed-at-least-5-wounded

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/incident-canadian-tire-rcmp-toronto-police-islamic-state-1.4147750

*eye roll*

None the less, people can appear in public, on the street, in motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, and scarves, unlike Muslim women in France and other places, where even appearing on the street in a burka will get them a fine.   

[dialamah]

 

Yeah, in a democracy, it pretty much does.

 

Democracy = mob rule.

[Argus]

 

Democracy = mob rule.

So you're opposed to democracy? Or just opposed to democracy when the majority of people disagree with you?

[dialamah]

 

So you're opposed to democracy? Or just opposed to democracy when the majority of people disagree with you?

You are the one who said that a democracy means that the "majority rules" regardless of the rightness/wrongness of whatever that 'ruling' is.  My distilling that idea into it's basic form says nothing about how I feel about democracy, whether or not the majority agree with me.

[Argus]

 

You are the one who said that a democracy means that the "majority rules" regardless of the rightness/wrongness of whatever that 'ruling' is.  My distilling that idea into it's basic form says nothing about how I feel about democracy, whether or not the majority agree with me.

 Democracy is to mob rule what the criminal justice system is to lynch mobs.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Argus

[Guest]

 

How does banning the burka increase the freedom of those who either want to wear it or are forced to wear it?   If a woman, by family decree or religious belief, must wear a burka in order to leave the house, but the government disallows burkas on the street, where is her freedom increased exactly?  

It doesn't, and that's why I'm against any law that bans it.  All that will do will force those women who are currently oppressed into wearing one to be oppressed into just staying at home instead.  The burka is only a symptom of a problem, and the problem is a religion that makes some of its proponents think they have the right to influence the behaviour of others.  That is the problem that should be addressed. 

First we have to admit there's a problem.  I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[dialamah]

 

 Democracy is to mob rule what the criminal justice system is to lynch mobs.

I see.  So does the 'mob' rule democracy, right or wrong, or does the government sometimes ignore the 'majority' because what the majority (say they) want isn't feasible due to money, legal or moral reasons?

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by dialamah

[dialamah]

 

The burka is only a symptom of a problem, and the problem is a religion that makes some of its proponents think they have the right to influence the behaviour of others.  That is the problem that should be addressed. 

I agree, that is the problem that needs addressing.  And in my opinion, that problem needs to be addressed whether the woman is Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Hindu or secular.  There are far too  many people (men and women) who think they  have the right to impose behavior on other women (and to a lesser extent, other men) for 'religious' reasons, or no reason at all.

 

[Guest]

 

I agree, that is the problem that needs addressing.  And in my opinion, that problem needs to be addressed whether the woman is Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Hindu or secular.  There are far too  many people (men and women) who think they  have the right to impose behavior on other women (and to a lesser extent, other men) for 'religious' reasons, or no reason at all.

Well, I would certainly agree with any efforts on the part of anyone to make sure all people, everywhere, are fully apprised of their absolute lack of any right whatsoever to control the behaviour of any other person, anywhere, regardless of what they think of such behaviour.

Within some laws, of course.

 

[Goddess]

 

*eye roll*

None the less, people can appear in public, on the street, in motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, and scarves, unlike Muslim women in France and other places, where even appearing on the street in a burka will get them a fine.   

Roll your eyes all you want.  It is a security issue. I know you'd love for it to be only about fear and dislike.  But as Sapper dude pointed out, it's a symptom of a bigger problem, it's not racism or islamophobia on the part of Westerners.  It's a societal view that is the antithesis of everything we stand for.

You will also get a fine if you don't wear your seatbelt or smoke in a public place.  Sometimes stupidity needs to be regulated.

Or maybe, just maybe.....it's time for Muslim wants, desires and preferences to take the backseat to Western wants, desires and preferences and do some bending of its own instead of Westerners constantly having to bow and bend to what Muslims want. 

[turningrite]

 

Or maybe, just maybe.....it's time for Muslim wants, desires and preferences to take the backseat to Western wants, desires and preferences and do some bending of its own instead of Westerners constantly having to bow and bend to what Muslims want. 

Goddess: But we're so nice that we simply can't say such things, right?