Is gang rape a part of Islamic culture?

[Argus]

Yeah. These guys are probably to muslims what Timothy McVeigh was to Christianity.

Whacko radicals that have taken the wrong path of life using religion as a basis of their actions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

McVeigh was one man. It rather sounds like, while these rapists might be an exception, they are not exactly rare. I mean, if Muslim immigrants are responsible for 3/4 of rape charges - well, what is that saying?

[crazymf]

Well Argus,

To me, if you segregate someone based on religion, such as Muslims, that's at least discrimination. The minute that you statistically label these folks as a group, the line gets really thin as to where racism starts.

And Kimmy, when you come from the farm like me, trolling is merely a non derogatory term for 'fishing', which can be equated to making ones self available to socialize and seeing what transpires. You never know who you'll meet right? No insult intended.

[newbie]

but a lot of arab guys (usually wearing gold chains, untucked microfibre sport-shirts, and too much cologne...) and they're trying to score with white women.

Kimmy,

When you paint a picture for us like that, you are at the very least, categorizing, and at the worst, racially profiling these fellows. You insinuate they dress and smell a certain way distinguishing them from everyone else.

Unless you are stating that they are some part of a gang or group, then you are insinuating they are this way because of their religion or race.

???????????? It's that easy to do.

Me though, I'm not racist. I hate everyone the same. Just kidding.

My view is clearer. These guys as individuals must not be able to circumvent our societies laws based on their beliefs and customs. Just like I don't believe Pakkie RCMP officers should be able to wear turbans either, or indian police to wear their hair down their back.

HOWEVER!!!!!

If the radical Muslims keep impressing their lack of respect for our society and laws, and we in turn cannot deal with them using the restraints of our same laws, then it's time for another CRUSADE!! First we'll sweep Europe killing looting and maiming Muslims, push them back through Turkey and meet up with Georges guys in Iraq and finish them all off in the Middle East.

It's really up to them how they want to behave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This has got to be the most racist post yet on this forum. Are you deliberately plotting to get thrown off the board? Seems to me there is a rule on respect.

[crazymf]

No, actually I wasn't. But seeing as how there doesn't seem to be room here for a sense of humor, I think it's time to leave anyway.

See ya.................

[Black Dog]

If you, in any other case, involving anything else, were able to determine that a given... toaster... car, airplane, toilet bowl cleaner, television, or whatever, had a significantly higher failure rate than other types, would you still buy it if you had a choice and the prices were equal? If you knew that a car had a worse safety record than the otheres, that a restaurant had been cited much more often than others for safety violations, that a certain surgical technique was more likely to fail, would you still, given a choice, go with them? Why? Why should we?

Because people aren't products?

Canada is not obligated to be nice to foreigners who have no relation with us. We are not obligated to give them all an equal shot at immigrating. Our immigratoin system should be designed purely to benefit Canada as much as possible. That means that we should be choosing immigrants who give us the most benefit for the least cost and the least social upheaval. Why is that not obvious to you? We should be going after people who are as skilled/educated as possible, and as young as possible, with the best attitudes to fit seamlessly into our nation without undue difficulty and expense.

How is that any different from what I said? I think immigrants should be vigorously screened on an individual basis (which is simple common sense) instead of soley on the basis of nationality.

What's so hard about screening individuals?

[Riverwind]

What's so hard about screening individuals?

Look at our refugee system - it is a mess and frequently makes bad decisions. An immigration system set up to select individuals based on cultural suitablity would not be any better. You exclude one community you may exclude 1 worthwhile immigrant but block 10 PIA immigrants - the net effect is we are better off even if we lose the worthwhile immigrant. It is not perfect but better than the alternatives.

[Black Dog]

Look at our refugee system - it is a mess and frequently makes bad decisions. An immigration system set up to select individuals based on cultural suitablity would not be any better. You exclude one community you may exclude 1 worthwhile immigrant but block 10 PIA immigrants - the net effect is we are better off even if we lose the worthwhile immigrant. It is not perfect but better than the alternatives.

Well to me that's a call for fixing the system not resorting to the kind or practices that, in the past, have been used to exclude such "undesirables" as Chinese, South Asian, and Jewish immigrants.

[Argus]

Well Argus,

To me, if you segregate someone based on religion, such as Muslims, that's at least discrimination. The minute that you statistically label these folks as a group, the line gets really thin as to where racism starts.

Everyone is statistically labelled one way or another. It's just that we're too precious in Canada to do it based on race - except, of course, for when we decide it's okay. We do record the conviction record involving aborigines, for example, but won't for other ethnic or racial groups. We certainly record the hiring percentages, though, for affirmative action purposes So keeping race-based statistics is fine then.

And I don't like the term discrminating when applied against foreign countries. It's a bit inane to suggest we can't discrminate against one country or another because we're required to treat all nations, friend or foe, the same.

[Riverwind]

Everyone is statistically labelled one way or another. It's just that we're too precious in Canada to do it based on race

You forgot to mention that the entire concept of aboriginal land claims is racist. Racism is perfectly acceptable in our society - the only question is whether is whether the racism benefits society or harms society. A pragmatic approach to selecting immigrants that is not afraid to use crime and poverty statistics would definitely help society.

[Argus]

If you, in any other case, involving anything else, were able to determine that a given... toaster... car, airplane, toilet bowl cleaner, television, or whatever, had a significantly higher failure rate than other types, would you still buy it if you had a choice and the prices were equal? If you knew that a car had a worse safety record than the otheres, that a restaurant had been cited much more often than others for safety violations, that a certain surgical technique was more likely to fail, would you still, given a choice, go with them? Why? Why should we?

Because people aren't products?

They are the raw material to an immigration system and industry. And as such we should be seeking the best raw material we can find - which is the cheapest, but with the lowest rate of defects.

Canada is not obligated to be nice to foreigners who have no relation with us. We are not obligated to give them all an equal shot at immigrating. Our immigratoin system should be designed purely to benefit Canada as much as possible. That means that we should be choosing immigrants who give us the most benefit for the least cost and the least social upheaval. Why is that not obvious to you? We should be going after people who are as skilled/educated as possible, and as young as possible, with the best attitudes to fit seamlessly into our nation without undue difficulty and expense.

How is that any different from what I said? I think immigrants should be vigorously screened on an individual basis (which is simple common sense) instead of soley on the basis of nationality.

What's so hard about screening individuals?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For one thing, you're trying to assess a member of an entirely different culture, whose language skills are likely not very good. For another, you'd have to resort to the kind of controversial "loyalty tests" which have recently been introduced in one section of Germany to test newcomers attitudes to things like homosexuals and women. Which would probably offend a lot of people. Then there's the certainty that those seeking to immigrate would simply give you the answers they knew you wanted to hear. "Oh sure, I love homosexuals and have nothing but respect for the equality of women. Uh huh".

Then there's the family reunification aspect of immigration. For every "skilled" immigrant we let in who perhaps has the right attitude we get at least one more who, under the family reunification system, does not have to satisfy any criteria at all. You'd learly have to make massive changes to that. How do you tell that Syrian guy who returned to Syria to find a wife, and now wants to bring her to Canada that she doesn't have the right attitude? For that matter, the guy who has to return home to find a bride probably doesn't have the right attitude about Canada either.

So doing a case by case thing is very complicated, time-consuming, and expensive, and would almost certainly wind up getting all sorts of challenges in courts anyway. Why should we bother when there are plenty of potential immigrants available from other countries which produce far fewer problems?

[Black Dog]

You forgot to mention that the entire concept of aboriginal land claims is racist

WTF?

For one thing, you're trying to assess a member of an entirely different culture, whose language skills are likely not very good. For another, you'd have to resort to the kind of controversial "loyalty tests" which have recently been introduced in one section of Germany to test newcomers attitudes to things like homosexuals and women. Which would probably offend a lot of people. Then there's the certainty that those seeking to immigrate would simply give you the answers they knew you wanted to hear. "Oh sure, I love homosexuals and have nothing but respect for the equality of women. Uh huh".

Superior language skills and a decent level of education should be prerequsites. Those usually go along with attitudes that are more in line with Canadian values.

You seem to be under he impression that I'm oppossed to stricter immigration standards. I'm not. I'm oppossed to unneccesary discrimination.

[Riverwind]

You forgot to mention that the entire concept of aboriginal land claims is racist

WTF?

The premise behind aboriginal land claims is that certain Canadians have special rights based on their race. It is basically reverse apartheid. You can justify it any way you want but you cannot deny that it is basically racism dressed up to sound pretty to our politically correct ears.

[Black Dog]

You forgot to mention that the entire concept of aboriginal land claims is racist

WTF?

The premise behind aboriginal land claims is that certain Canadians have special rights based on their race. It is basically reverse apartheid. You can justify it any way you want but you cannot deny that it is basically racism dressed up to sound pretty to our politically correct ears.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh. No. The premise is that certain Canadians are entitled to certain rights based on past, unfulfilled, agreements with the Canadian government.

"Reverse apartheid"?

[Riverwind]

Uh. No. The premise is that certain Canadians are entitled to certain rights based on past, unfulfilled, agreements with the Canadian government.

So would it be racist if the Canadian gov't signed a deal the white settlers in western Canada promising their descendants the exclusive access to resources in return for joining confederation?

[GostHacked]

My view is clearer. These guys as individuals must not be able to circumvent our societies laws based on their beliefs and customs. Just like I don't believe Pakkie RCMP officers should be able to wear turbans either, or indian police to wear their hair down their back.

Nice racial slur, you piece of crap.

The guy was Sihk. And I agree that he should throw the turban away. Put on that hat. it is OUR tradition, and if you want to be a part of it, Put the hat on. Or find another job.

[Riverwind]

And I agree that he should throw the turban away. Put on that hat. it is OUR tradition, and if you want to be a part of it, Put the hat on. Or find another job.

If we allow Sikh immigrants then we need RCMP officers that know the culture. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. The RCMP has a uniform turban that looks as formal as the traditional hat. Sikhs are not allowed to wear whatever turban they please.

[Black Dog]

The guy was Sihk. And I agree that he should throw the turban away. Put on that hat. it is OUR tradition, and if you want to be a part of it, Put the hat on. Or find another job.

Paki is a racial slur, moron.

So would it be racist if the Canadian gov't signed a deal the white settlers in western Canada promising their descendants the exclusive access to resources in return for joining confederation?

Uh let's see. Did the Canadian government displace any white settlers? Did the Canadian government sign treaties in good faith with any white settlers that were subsequently not honoured? When you analogies, try to find ones that are, well, analagous.

[Riverwind]

Uh let's see. Did the Canadian government displace any white settlers? Did the Canadian government sign treaties in good faith with any white settlers that were subsequently not honoured? When you analogies, try to find ones that are, well, analagous.

My point is that any agreement with the gov't that grants rights to people based on their race is racist. Just because you think such agreements are justified does mean they are not racist.

[Black Dog]

My point is that any agreement with the gov't that grants rights to people based on their race is racist. 

Except the government is granting anyone rights based on race. Land claims settlements are generally based on treaty obligations. Those treaties were the result of white settlement on native lands.

[fellowtraveller]

The premise behind aboriginal land claims is that certain Canadians have special rights based on their race

Land claims are based on simple contract law, between the Crown and groups of people across Canada. Treaties, ya know?\

So would it be racist if the Canadian gov't signed a deal the white settlers in western Canada promising their descendants the exclusive access to resources in return for joining confederation?

Well, didn't the government do just that with hundreds of thousands of white Europeans, not so long ago?

It was called homesteading.

[Riverwind]

Except the government is granting anyone rights based on race. Land claims settlements are generally based on treaty obligations. Those treaties were the result of white settlement on native lands.

There are two types of land claims: those supported by actual treaties signed between the British Crown and the Natives and those supported by nothing other than the presumption that natives are entitled to special rights by virtue of their race.

[Black Dog]

There are two types of land claims: those supported by actual treaties signed between the British Crown and the Natives and those supported by nothing other than the presumption that natives are entitled to special rights by virtue of their race.

You ar e referring to comprehensive claims, which involves the extinguishment of title or claim in exchange for specific rights (such as exclusive use) or cash compensation. Given that this process applies to land that was aquired without the agreement of the native population, then it's reasonable for them to claim some rights in exchange. Or do you not support the theory of fair compensation?

[Riverwind]

Or do you not support the theory of fair compensation?

Can you think of any other situation where the gov't offers compensation to distant descendants of the people originally wronged? Do the Angles deserve compensation from the Saxons for the invasion of 1066? At some point in time history is history and we have to move on. Creating two classes of Canadians based whether they can trace their ancestry back to some native group is racism.

[Argus]

And I agree that he should throw the turban away. Put on that hat. it is OUR tradition, and if you want to be a part of it, Put the hat on. Or find another job.

If we allow Sikh immigrants then we need RCMP officers that know the culture. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. The RCMP has a uniform turban that looks as formal as the traditional hat. Sikhs are not allowed to wear whatever turban they please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really mind the Sikhs wearing a turban instead of the regular RCMP patrol cap. I do mind them wearing the turban instead of the wide brimmed dress cap they wear with their red coats. That is so much a part of the tradition of Canada I don't think it should be messed with.

[Argus]

The guy was Sihk. And I agree that he should throw the turban away. Put on that hat. it is OUR tradition, and if you want to be a part of it, Put the hat on. Or find another job.

Paki is a racial slur, moron.

Yeah... and not necessarily. It kinda depends on where you come from.

I used it once in a story I was writing (fiction) where a guy calls a taxi driver a "Paki". But the US editor had me take it out, not because it offended her, but because, she said, nobody in that setting (a mid western US city) uses the word or would likely be familiar with it, at least, as a racial epithet. The word "canuck" is not an epithet either, just a sort of nicname. I'm not sure about "mick" as to the Irish. I am half Irish and wouldn't at all mind being called a Mick. Anyway, people don't tend to be overvly familiar with the racial epithets directed at groups where no such groups live near them. Prejudice against aborigines, for example, is greatest near reservations, or where there are substantial numbers of aborigines. Prejudice against, say, Hispanics, is very great in some parts of the US, but not others, depending on how many of them there are in a given area. Familarity, it seems, does indeed breed contempt.