Increased Immigration not needed, will hurt workers

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

You will notice these countries with a high percentage of FGM are mainly Muslim, 91% in fact.

So? 

Let's say there is a town with 1000 people; 950 of those people call themselves Christian and 50 of them call themselves Muslim.  90% of the population believes that women should be subservient to their husbands.   Does that make it a 'Christian-only' practice?  Should only Christians be complimented (or criticized, depending on your POV) for this practice?  Should the Muslims in the town be ignored for believing and practicing the same be ignored?

If 74% of Christian Copts in Egypt think FGM is a requirement, that's 74% of 10 million people - 740,000.  Half of which (more or less) will likely be women - ~370,000.  Do we just pretend those 370,000 women/girls aren't at risk because they're "Christian"?  Or do we realize that FGM  isn't limited by religion and  eliminate the practice for both Christians and Muslims, especially for those who come to Canada?

And ask yourself, why is it so important to you to make FGM a "Muslim-only" problem?

 

[AntiConservative]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So? 

Let's say there is a town with 1000 people; 950 of those people call themselves Christian and 50 of them call themselves Muslim.  90% of the population believes that women should be subservient to their husbands.   Does that make it a 'Christian-only' practice?  Should only Christians be complimented (or criticized, depending on your POV) for this practice?  Should the Muslims in the town be ignored for believing and practicing the same be ignored?

If 74% of Christian Copts in Egypt think FGM is a requirement, that's 74% of 10 million people - 740,000.  Half of which (more or less) will likely be women - ~370,000.  Do we just pretend those 370,000 women/girls aren't at risk because they're "Christian"?  Or do we realize that FGM  isn't limited by religion and  eliminate the practice for both Christians and Muslims, especially for those who come to Canada?

And ask yourself, why is it so important to you to make FGM a "Muslim-only" problem?

 

Like I said, what I don't understand is why the men of these countries would want woman to have their clitoreses removed. It sounds like a great way to have their wives lose interests in sex, so they're end up with blue balls.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Arab countries are some of the most racist and bigoted in the world.

I agree with that; tribalism and religion do have a lot of common elements.  Given your support for humanity's natural tribalism, I'm surprised you'd criticize racism and bigotry in other countries.

[Moonlight Graham]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That sounds reasonable as a response to the current situation.  

Also, I am open to a true open discussion on immigration as a means to establish a new public forum to weigh complicated questions.  It would be interesting to see a democracy that could actually debate a complex topic without resorting to emotional whinging and yelling, but still holding to values.

There doesn't seem to be much of that anymore.  It's all emotion and rage these days it seems.  We used to have some of that in academia but now even that has become quite political and emotional.  Identity politics makes people angry.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

So? 

Let's say there is a town with 1000 people; 950 of those people call themselves Christian and 50 of them call themselves Muslim.  90% of the population believes that women should be subservient to their husbands.   Does that make it a 'Christian-only' practice?  Should only Christians be complimented (or criticized, depending on your POV) for this practice?  Should the Muslims in the town be ignored for believing and practicing the same be ignored?

If 74% of Christian Copts in Egypt think FGM is a requirement, that's 74% of 10 million people - 740,000.  Half of which (more or less) will likely be women - ~370,000.  Do we just pretend those 370,000 women/girls aren't at risk because they're "Christian"?  Or do we realize that FGM  isn't limited by religion and  eliminate the practice for both Christians and Muslims, especially for those who come to Canada?

And ask yourself, why is it so important to you to make FGM a "Muslim-only" problem?

 

I oppose FGM but it is mainly a Muslim practice, even though you brought it out that is is not limited by religion in those areas.  Surprisingly, one website says it is supported by a large percentage of girls and women.  There is obviously a lot of backward thinking in those countries.  The U.N. tries to warn against it but they can't seem to have much effect.

 Political Islam is still a backward oppressive religious-political ideology for many other reasons, but it is also a false religion.  The west has struggled with Islam trying to take over for 1,300 years but now is inviting them in and putting them in high positions in government.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

 

And ask yourself, why is it so important to you to make FGM a "Muslim-only" problem?

 

It is not important to make it a Muslim only problem.   It is just one of many problems which stem from political Islam.

[Moonlight Graham]

11 hours ago, dialamah said:

And ask yourself, why is it so important to you to make FGM a "Muslim-only" problem?

Not all Muslim countries do the practice, but there's a prevalence of FGM in many of them, especially in the northern half of Africa.  Ask yourself why Indonesia is the only country east of the middle east where the practice is widespread.

Muslims have an ideology of female purity and resistance of sexual temptations, which FGM seeks to accomplish by removing the clitoris and any anatomy that would give sexual pleasure for a female to dissaud her from wanting to have sex.  It's quite a disgusting practice aimed at controlling a woman's sexual behaviour.  Controlling women sexually is a very part of fundamentalist Muslim ideology.  It's the reason women are made to wear burkas and a niqab, can't sit in the same area as men in a Mosque or in some countries have separate female entrances to buildings than men, or can't shake a man's hand etc.  Sexual temptation is suppressed in every way possible.

Surgery to reconstruct a woman's hymen in order to make her a virgin again is also practiced by some Muslims because again of the purity factor that some men in the religion/culture enjoy.  These surgeries are on the rise in Europe among Muslim populations.  People don't automatically forget all cultural practices when moving from one country to another just because they've crossed over a border.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Not all Muslim countries do the practice, but there's a prevalence of FGM in many of them, especially in the northern half of Africa.  Ask yourself why Indonesia is the only country east of the middle east where the practice is widespread.

Muslims have an ideology of female purity and resistance of sexual temptations, which FGM seeks to accomplish by removing the clitoris and any anatomy that would give sexual pleasure for a female to dissaud her from wanting to have sex.  It's quite a disgusting practice aimed at controlling a woman's sexual behaviour.  Controlling women sexually is a very part of fundamentalist Muslim ideology.  It's the reason women are made to wear burkas and a niqab, can't sit in the same area as men in a Mosque or in some countries have separate female entrances to buildings than men, or can't shake a man's hand etc.  Sexual temptation is suppressed in every way possible.

Surgery to reconstruct a woman's hymen in order to make her a virgin again is also practiced by some Muslims because again of the purity factor that some men in the religion/culture enjoy.  These surgeries are on the rise in Europe among Muslim populations.  People don't automatically forget all cultural practices when moving from one country to another just because they've crossed over a border.

The idea of female purity and resistance to sexual temptation isn't limited to Muslims.  NGL, it frustrates me when people act as if a behavior that is practiced by everyone is assumed to be a Muslim-only issue.  

In Egypt, Christian Coptic women usually do not wear headscarves in public.  However, 50% of Christian Coptic women have indergone FGM.   Christian Copts are anti-gay, and practice honor killings.  Christian Coptics frown on marriages outside their faith, and fathers have killed daughters with Muslim boyfriends.  

In other countries in Africa and the ME, along with FGM, Christians practice polygamy with the support of their Christian leaders, practice honor killings, persecute and kill gay people.

If people object to Muslims bringing these kind of anti-Canadian values to Canada, then they should also be objecting to Christians bringing those values to Canada.  

But they don't because the goal isn't to protect Canada from anti-Canadian values, its to demonize Muslims.  

 

[blackbird]

The thinking of Liberals and the left is if they bring large numbers of Muslims in, they will somehow be influenced by western democracy and human rights and abandon their beliefs and become more like westerners.  A few might but many cling to their own enclaves and beliefs. This liberal ideology of friendly open-border multilateralism and multiculturalism is the same kind of belief the Liberals and left hold with Communist China.  They established diplomatic relations with Communist China in 1970 and started massive trading and bringing large numbers of immigrants in.  Liberals thought this would somehow change China to more of a western style liberal democracy.  Hah.  This changed nothing with China and now the chickens are coming home to roost.  China is just expanding it's influence and control in the west.  They have no intention of changing themselves.  If anything they are becoming more oppressive with their own populations like the Uyghurs.  They plan to grow their power and control in the world.

[dialamah]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The thinking of Liberals and the left is if they bring large numbers of Muslims in, they will somehow be influenced by western democracy and human rights and abandon their beliefs and become more like westerners.  A few might but many cling to their own enclaves and beliefs

There've been many long-term studies of immigrants; all of them find that by the third generation, the immigrants have overwhelmingly taken on the cultural norms of their host countries.   Some even start disliking immigrants, and object to bringing more in, even if it's from their grandparent's country of origin.  

This is true of all immigrant groups, including Muslims.

And sure, there are a few holdouts that insist on keeping to the "old ways", but humans are nothing if not diverse in their attitudes.  

Edited March 7, 2021 by dialamah

[Argus]

15 hours ago, AntiConservative said:

Well the men who want their women to undergo female genital mutulation are idiots. What good is having a less horny wife around? Imagine hearing, i'm sorry but i'm not in the mood all the time.

Muslim women do not have the right to deny their husbands. And their husbands have the right to beat them under Islamic law. So consent and 'headaches' aren't really an issue, now are they?

[Argus]

14 hours ago, AntiConservative said:

The tried destablizing a lot of countries at once. Look into the weapons smuggling out of Libya into Syria, and the Benghazi connection.

Your effort to portray that simpering liberal Obama as some ruthless imperialist intent on destabilizing nations he couldn't care less about is as silly as the Republicans claiming the big orange Cheeto won the election.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

I agree with that; tribalism and religion do have a lot of common elements.  Given your support for humanity's natural tribalism, I'm surprised you'd criticize racism and bigotry in other countries.

My support for my 'tribe' is predicated on my not wanting it to be overrun by people with barbarous cultures and values. Unlike you, I have no confidence such people will come here and immediately abandon the values of their homelands when those values are so heavily reinforced and often originate in their religion.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, dialamah said:

If people object to Muslims bringing these kind of anti-Canadian values to Canada, then they should also be objecting to Christians bringing those values to Canada.  

But they don't because the goal isn't to protect Canada from anti-Canadian values, its to demonize Muslims.  

 

That's why I like the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.  It doesn't discriminate.

But my goal isn't to protect Canada from anti-Canadian values, or to demonize Muslims.  It's to protect people who need protection.

[Argus]

28 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The idea of female purity and resistance to sexual temptation isn't limited to Muslims.

It is in the west. That's why I want fewer of them coming here.

28 minutes ago, dialamah said:

In Egypt, Christian Coptic women usually do not wear headscarves in public.  However, 50% of Christian Coptic women have indergone FGM.   Christian Copts are anti-gay, and practice honor killings.  Christian Coptics frown on marriages outside their faith, and fathers have killed daughters with Muslim boyfriends.  

You don't think living as a minority among the great mass of Muslims and Muslim/Arab culture might have influenced them somewhat?

 

[Argus]

25 minutes ago, dialamah said:

There've been many long-term studies of immigrants; all of them find that by the third generation, the immigrants have overwhelmingly taken on the cultural norms of their host countries. 

There have been precisely ZERO such studies done of Muslim immigrants. Those studies were on older generations of immigrants who were almost all Europeans and Christians.

The only study I've seen of the second generation of Muslim immigrants shows they are MORE religious than their parents. And given what the religion has to say about equality, tolerance, infidels, gays and women, that is not exactly hopeful.

Quote

If people object to Muslims bringing these kind of anti-Canadian values to Canada, then they should also be objecting to Christians bringing those values to Canada.  

Because as Ayaan Hirsi Aly points out, Arab Christians adapt well to western society, thrive, and assimilate. Lebanese Christians assimilate well, but Lebanese Muslims do not. Likewise, she says Hindus and Sikhs from India flourish, but Bangladeshis and Pakistanis do not. You continue to ignore the impact their brutal religion plays on their views and behaviour.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Argus

[Argus]

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

But my goal isn't to protect Canada from anti-Canadian values, or to demonize Muslims.  It's to protect people who need protection.

Mine too. And the best way to accomplish that is to keep the barbarians on the other side of the wall.

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

It is in the west. That's why I want fewer of them coming here.

You don't think living as a minority among the great mass of Muslims and Muslim/Arab culture might have influenced them somewhat?

 

In Christian majority countries in Africa, polygamy, honor killings and persecution of gays is also practiced.  In those countries where Muslims are the minority, should we blame Christians for Muslims who marry 4 women, kill disobedient daughters and jail (or kill) gays?

These people aren't so different, no matter how fondly you believe that changing a label from Muslim to Christian removes centuries of shared history and cultural belief.

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

Because as Ayaan Hirsi Aly points out, Arab Christians adapt well to western society, thrive, and assimilate. Lebanese Christians assimilate well, but Lebanese Muslims do not.

You've mentioned this before, and this time I tried to find out if its true. But it didn't show up in my Google search.  Do you have a cite?  

[Argus]

11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

You've mentioned this before, and this time I tried to find out if its true. But it didn't show up in my Google search.  Do you have a cite?  

https://unherd.com/2021/03/europes-guilty-conscience/

[blackbird]

35 minutes ago, dialamah said:

In Christian majority countries in Africa, polygamy, honor killings and persecution of gays is also practiced.  In those countries where Muslims are the minority, should we blame Christians for Muslims who marry 4 women, kill disobedient daughters and jail (or kill) gays?

These people aren't so different, no matter how fondly you believe that changing a label from Muslim to Christian removes centuries of shared history and cultural belief.

Your alleging Christianity is the same as Islam is a twisting of truth to a extreme extent.  I have no way of knowing what Christians do in places like Africa, but Biblical Christianity is the total opposite of what you claim.  Biblical Christianity does not practice polygamy, honour killings, or persecution of gays.  There are many denominations in Europe and north America and none of them practice those evils.  There have been a handful of people in a breakaway cult who practiced polygamy as in Bountiful, B.C.  But this is a handful of people out of millions of in the western world.

You deliberately misrepresent Biblical Christianity and lump them in with all other false religion and try to smear all Christians with the same brush.  There are many people in the world who use Christianity as a label for whatever reason.  Western Christians in Europe and North America do not do the kind of things you allege.   Maybe in some countries some of them are not really Bible believers, but don't want to be Muslims because they know the horror show that is.  So they become nominal Christians in some of those countries without having any idea what Bible believing Christians actually believe. 

Bible believing Christians are actually in a minority which is another thing to consider.  But you don't distinguish.  In your mind they are all bad.   Political Islam is a domineering ideology that would scare many people when they hear of what goes on.  It is understandable why they would reject that.

Edited March 7, 2021 by blackbird

[dialamah]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

There have been precisely ZERO such studies done of Muslim immigrants. Those studies were on older generations of immigrants who were almost all Europeans and Christians.

From a Harvard study examining how well Muslims integrate into Western culture:

Quote

we demonstrate that on average, the basic social values of Muslim migrants fall roughly mid‐way between those prevailing in their country of origin and their country of destination.   We conclude that Muslim migrants do not move to Western countries with rigidly fixed attitudes; instead, they gradually absorb much of the host culture, as assimilation theories suggest.

 

Quote

The multi‐level models used for analysis in this study, controlling for many other social characteristics, show that living within an Islamic or Western society has a far stronger imprint on values than individual‐level religious identities, or indeed the effects of an individual’s education, age, gender, and income. Some previous studies argue that Muslim migrants encounter particular difficulties with cultural integration into European societies.15  By contrast, the results of the analysis is largely consistent with previous studies based on other populations, such as the integration of Mexican migrants into the U.S., suggesting common underlying processes are at work. 

Several factors determine Muslim integration.  This study was carried out in the Netherlands and compares Dutch attitudes to second generation Turks and Moroccans in regards to gender roles, marriage and homosexuality.   The study  notes that:

Quote

 The gap between migrants and natives is smaller when native Protestants are the reference group, especially when Rereformed Protestants are considered. In comparison to the Rereformed, primarily the Sunnite Muslims seem more conservative than natives, not the other Muslim migrants. Note, however, that Rereformed Protestants currently comprise only a small fraction of the Dutch majority population of that age (15–47), that is, 15% in our sample. The large majority of natives in the Netherlands are secular and when comparing Muslims to secular natives, the gap is large. At the same time, we emphasise that differences are more strongly connected to religion, and especially orthodox religiosity, than to the Muslim faith per se.

Anyway, there have been plenty of studies done and the overall conclusion is that even Muslim migrants gradually take on the values of their host country.

45 minutes ago, Argus said:

The only study I've seen of the second generation of Muslim immigrants shows they are MORE religious than their parents.

Is that the same study where you claimed that someone going to Mosque more and/or wearing a hijab meant they were extremists, and rejected the finding in the study that 2nd gen and beyond were less conservative then their parents, more accepting of gays, and supported gender equality?  So, only accepting the part of the study that supported your pre-conceived notion?  You know, finding the part of the chamber that would echo back to you what you already believe.  

[blackbird]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

From a Harvard study examining how well Muslims integrate into Western culture:

 

Several factors determine Muslim integration.  This study was carried out in the Netherlands and compares Dutch attitudes to second generation Turks and Moroccans in regards to gender roles, marriage and homosexuality.   The study  notes that:

Anyway, there have been plenty of studies done and the overall conclusion is that even Muslim migrants gradually take on the values of their host country.

Is that the same study where you claimed that someone going to Mosque more and/or wearing a hijab meant they were extremists, and rejected the finding in the study that 2nd gen and beyond were less conservative then their parents, more accepting of gays, and supported gender equality?  So, only accepting the part of the study that supported your pre-conceived notion?  You know, finding the part of the chamber that would echo back to you what you already believe.  

Going to a mosque or wearing a hijab doesn't necessarily mean they are extremists, but it does mean they reject our western or Judeo-Christian culture.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Going to a mosque or wearing a hijab doesn't necessarily mean they are extremists, but it does mean they reject our western or Judeo-Christian culture.

Why would it matter if no laws are being broken, and no-one is getting hurt?

[Argus]

25 minutes ago, dialamah said:

From a Harvard study examining how well Muslims integrate into Western culture:

I stand (somewhat) corrected in that there have been stories. On the other hand, given that Muslims haven't been here in any  numbers until the previous generation, there's no way to actually predict if they will assimilate as previous groups have.

I don't have time to read a 40 page citation. I did, however, get through about 15 pages of this, most of which cites a variety of previous studies, some of which support your beliefs and some of which support mine. I refer you particularly to pages 9/10. Groups can retain their identity for centuries even in the face of a larger population, especially if supported by religion.

I would also point that many of the Muslims who immigrated to the West many decades ago had a different Islamic upbringing than the ones people are getting in the Islamic world today. The Islamic world of the 1960s was far less severe and fundamentalist on such things as gender equality and  blaspheme. You can find young women in shortish skirts in pictures from Tehran to Beirut to Cairo from that period, and damned near no burquas or niquabs or even jihabs, at least in the cities. Not today.

25 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Is that the same study where you claimed that someone going to Mosque more and/or wearing a hijab meant they were extremists,

I didn't say they were extremists. I pointed out that no one who isn't devoted to a religion is going to wear such things every single day of their lives everywhere they go. And that your belief that this didn't mean they actually agreed with the stuff in their religion was painfully illogical.

25 minutes ago, dialamah said:

and rejected the finding in the study that 2nd gen and beyond were less conservative then their parents, more accepting of gays, and supported gender equality? 

Again, as I recollect, the questions asked by that study were a lot softer and less precise than a study of British Muslims at the same time which revealed almost half wanted homosexuals imprisoned.

 

25 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

So, only accepting the part of the study that supported your pre-conceived notion?  You know, finding the part of the chamber that would echo back to you what you already believe.