I Dont Care Where Imigrants Come From

[Riverwind]

The Hells Angels guy uses violence to profit himself, or because of issues with rage and temper, or because he's drunk or cruel. The policeman uses violence under societal guidelines related to the protection of society, its members and property, using only the minimum amount of violence necessary to enforce widely agreed-upon societal laws.

That is why 99.9% of people would agree that violance by the police is morally acceptable but violance by gang members is wrong. However, there is nowhere near the same social consensus when it comes to violance by soliders during pre-emptive invasions. There is not a lot of difference between someone who justifes the killing of civilians during a preemptive war and someone who justifies killing of civilians during a terrorist attack. Both people claim that killing of innocents can be justified in the name of the 'greater good'.

[Argus]

The Hells Angels guy uses violence to profit himself, or because of issues with rage and temper, or because he's drunk or cruel. The policeman uses violence under societal guidelines related to the protection of society, its members and property, using only the minimum amount of violence necessary to enforce widely agreed-upon societal laws.

That is why 99.9% of people would agree that violance by the police is morally acceptable but violance by gang members is wrong. However, there is nowhere near the same social consensus when it comes to violance by soliders during pre-emptive invasions. There is not a lot of difference between someone who justifes the killing of civilians during a preemptive war and someone who justifies killing of civilians during a terrorist attack. Both people claim that killing of innocents can be justified in the name of the 'greater good'.

When the soldiers deliberately attack civilians for no other purpose than to kill people, your argument will have some credence.

[Riverwind]

When the soldiers deliberately attack civilians for no other purpose than to kill people, your argument will have some credence.

You miss the point. I am not arguing that it is right to equate terrorism with the acts of soldiers. I am saying that many people do believe that they are equivalent and no amount of huffing and puffing by those of us in the West is going to change that belief. More importantly, violence justified under the guise of the 'war on terror' or 'spreading democracy' will simply cause the gap to widen.

What we need to do in Canada is provide a society which allows Muslims to be proud of both their Canadian and Muslim identity. Targeting all Muslims with oppressive laws or discriminatory immigration measures because of the actions of few would simply make the problem worse.

[August1991]

There is not a lot of difference between someone who justifes the killing of civilians during a preemptive war and someone who justifies killing of civilians during a terrorist attack. Both people claim that killing of innocents can be justified in the name of the 'greater good'.

By another name, this is just the same argument about whether a coercive state is justified or not. If you want, we can resurrect that thread and debate the issue there. (I don't think the question should depend entirely on social consensus either.)

I would not defend any action of the US Army and situations like Haditha (if the allegations are true, I thought ther were disproved), My Lai or illegal arrests here in Canada. But Riverwind, if we are to have a civilized society, then we must resort to force as a deterrent against criminals. That doesn't justify any use of force.

Don't be so open-minded liberal to lose your moral compass.

What we need to do in Canada is provide a society which allows Muslims to be proud of both their Canadian and Muslim identity. Targeting all Muslims with oppressive laws or discriminatory immigration measures because of the actions of few would simply make the problem worse.

I agree completely. In any case, this "solution" would not only make the problem worse by not solving it but the idea is wholly impractical anyway.

Atta and the others did not immigrate to the US, they were simply visitors. Is Argus suggesting that we forbid all Muslims entry to Canada? That's beyond ridiculous.

[Argus]

What we need to do in Canada is provide a society which allows Muslims to be proud of both their Canadian and Muslim identity. Targeting all Muslims with oppressive laws or discriminatory immigration measures because of the actions of few would simply make the problem worse.

I agree completely. In any case, this "solution" would not only make the problem worse by not solving it but the idea is wholly impractical anyway.

Banning Muslim immigration is not merely because of the occasional terrorist act. It is because of the refusal of Muslims to integrate, their burgeoning numbers, and the fact that society, as they see it, as they desire it, goes almost completely against everything Canadians believe in. What affect does a million Muslim voters have on our government? What about five million Muslim voters? Are you ready to put homosexuals into prison, August, and to ban abortion upon pain of death? Are you ready for clothing regulations for women and criminalizing adultery?

Atta and the others did not immigrate to the US, they were simply visitors. Is Argus suggesting that we forbid all Muslims entry to Canada? That's beyond ridiculous.

Hardly. It is quite possible. Muslims can't come to Canada, generally speaking, without a visa. They're also at a great disadvantage when planning terrorist acts in that they don't know the geography, the culture, or the system, and stand out like a sore thumb. Homegrown terrorists face none of these difficulties. Besides, Atta and the others succeeded because of lousy security at airports, lousy investigative work, and lousy enforcement of immigration laws. So let's not pretend that their success makes any measure to defeat them impossible.

[newbie]

Don't be so open-minded liberal to lose your moral compass.

I know you were responding to River but your comments disturb me. I could say don't be so close-minded conservative that you lose sight of human rights. Sorry if I sound rude, but to link one being open minded or liberal to one having little morality is ludicrous.

[Riverwind]

It is because of the refusal of Muslims to integrate, their burgeoning numbers, and the fact that society, as they see it, as they desire it, goes almost completely against everything Canadians believe in.

Do you have any evidence that this is true for the majority of Muslims in Canada? I realize that some Muslims resist integration - but that is true of many immigrant groups. You cannot make a policy that discriminates an entire religion based on a stereotype.

[betsy]

What affect does a million Muslim voters have on our government? What about five million Muslim voters?

France is facing this problem.

Argus has a valid point. Just think about it. We let in thousands as immigrants, plus refugees on top of that....and they multiply at a fast rate. Thirty to fifty years from now, it is not far-fetched to imagine a government run by them. And to think that some already are trying to push for Sharia law even at this early stage.

Of course right now, apathy and complacency pervades, so by the time reality sets in....it would most probably be too late to do anything about it.

By that time, I'm probably quite close to the grave or dead anyway. It's you, younger generation...and your children...who will have to live and deal with it.

The pain of experiencing and knowing the freedom that you've once enjoyed....and lost.

[newbie]

Why don't we retitle this thread "PARANOIA!"

[betsy]

Why don't we retitle this thread "PARANOIA!"

...or, "DENIAL!"

[August1991]

Don't be so open-minded liberal to lose your moral compass.

I know you were responding to River but your comments disturb me. I could say don't be so close-minded conservative that you lose sight of human rights. Sorry if I sound rude, but to link one being open minded or liberal to one having little morality is ludicrous.

Newbie, I stated my idea awkwardly. I meant to say that a western liberal admirably has an open-mind and considers an alternative viewpoint. It is called the scientific method and involves critical thinking.

The western liberal approach should not be carried to the extreme of accepting any viewpoint however.

As to your comment about being conservative and forgetting human rights, we deprive people of their freedom when we put them in jail. We steal from people when we make them pay taxes. We tolerate people starving in our midst. All cases can be considered violations of human rights. I don't know if I want to get into a debate about this but ethics are not simply a question of human rights. A moral compass involves something more.

Argus has a valid point. Just think about it. We let in thousands as immigrants, plus refugees on top of that....and they multiply at a fast rate. Thirty to fifty years from now, it is not far-fetched to imagine a government run by them. And to think that some already are trying to push for Sharia law even at this early stage.

I agree that we must control better who enters Canada, and our police must work better to uncover any plots. And I'll also agree that we must make it easier for people to integrate into our society.

But Betsy & Argus, the problem is larger than Canada's immigration policy. Betsy, you mentioned France in your post. Well, how is changing Canada's immigration policy going to solve a problem in France? And you can't say a problem in France has no effect on us. It will. Isolationism is not a solution.

In any case, the whole idea of preventing people from entering Canada simply because they are of a certain religion is abhorent. It's also impractical and unenforceable. And it won't solve the problem.

----

Betsy, when Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson wrote the US Constitution, the US was a homogeneous society with some African slaves. The two had no idea that in 200 years, the US population would be over 200 million, the slaves would be free and joined by millions of people of many diverse origins. Yet, the institutions created in that constitution have stood the test of time and withstood various efforts to pervert them. Individual Americans are still free.

Betsy, God knows who will be living in Canada in 200 years or what kind of language, accent and slang they'll be using to communicate or what religion they'll be following, if any. I would hope however that those people are free to choose their own life, and they do not suffer under tyranny.

[gerryhatrick]

At this point in time, there is no reason to allow Muslims into Canada.........and every reason not to. If you disagree, I'm afraid your mind is defective.

I clearly hope you were having a bad day when you wrote this. Otherwise it is one of the most racist statements I've read yet on this forum.

Who says he's racist? He is stereotyping that's all and just stating his opinion.

No doubt others will say he's not being "racist" because being Muslim is a religion, not a race. He's being intollerant and narrow-minded though.

Is it UNREASONABLE to question muslims coming into our coutnry considering that a poll came out today with half of all Canadians saying that CSIS and police should start racially profiling Muslims.

It is unreasonable to say we should not allow Muslims into Canada, yes. And your poll has nothing to do with that.

[gerryhatrick]

France is facing this problem.

Argus has a valid point. Just think about it. We let in thousands as immigrants, plus refugees on top of that....and they multiply at a fast rate. Thirty to fifty years from now, it is not far-fetched to imagine a government run by them. And to think that some already are trying to push for Sharia law even at this early stage.

An anti-Muslim thread and betsy is never far away!

Betsy, all I can say is get extra locks, buy a gun, and start a petition to get all Muslims kicked out of your neighbourhood. Or have you done all that already?

[betsy]

In any case, the whole idea of preventing people from entering Canada simply because they are of a certain religion is abhorent. It's also impractical and unenforceable. And it won't solve the problem.

By your logic, we should do away with quotas. That there should never be any ceiling at all.

Talking about the reality of a burgeoning Muslim population, that could very possibly see you become an ethnic minority in Canada, thus could very well find yourself having a government wholly run by members of the dominant population.

I'm confused with what you mean that "it's also impractical and unenforceable. And it won't solve any problem." Please expand on that.

[betsy]

Betsy, you mentioned France in your post. Well, how is changing Canada's immigration policy going to solve a problem in France? And you can't say a problem in France has no effect on us. It will. Isolationism is not a solution.

France is starting to face the reality of a changing demographic with a certain etynic population increasing. I've read an editorial somewhere during the time of the nightly violent riots that they've had last year briefly explained about it. I cannot remember though what ethnic population it is.

Anyway, it is not my intention to find a solution for France. Their problem may affect us....but not directly.

We had been and are still constantlyaffected somehow of other countries that have problems and the effects vary from commodity prices going up the roof, stock market, mass exodus of immigrants and refugees) etc.,

[betsy]

Betsy, when Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson wrote the US Constitution, the US was a homogeneous society with some African slaves. The two had no idea that in 200 years, the US population would be over 200 million, the slaves would be free and joined by millions of people of many diverse origins. Yet, the institutions created in that constitution have stood the test of time and withstood various efforts to pervert them. Individual Americans are still free.

The slaves had adapted to their new country and though the process was wrought with struggles and pain, finally was able to integrate and assimilate into society. The blacks had strongly wanted to mix and integrate with society and to be part of what the country truly stands for. They embraced the values, including the religion of their new country.

I am not saying immigration is wrong....nor am I saying that immigration be stopped. But borrowing Liberal Anne McLellan's favorite word these days, we've got to have some "balance."

[betsy]

Betsy, God knows who will be living in Canada in 200 years or what kind of language, accent and slang they'll be using to communicate or what religion they'll be following, if any. I would hope however that those people are free to choose their own life, and they do not suffer under tyranny.

Yes, just hope it is another group that is not tyrannical in its idealogy or culture. What are the chances in this gamble, I wonder?

Actually, given the way our children are learning the various virtues being doctrined by the Liberal way of thinking, I think if we continue doing this great job, the future generation need not worry. If bending backwards til one lies flatly on the mat is quite preferable, and there's no opposition at all, nor the will to uphold....then there's no struggle. Problem solved.

[Argus]

Why don't we retitle this thread "PARANOIA!"

A long time ago, like probably twenty five years or more back, I was opposed to immigration, particularly third world immigration. I said that it would inevitably cause all sorts of problems, that people would bring their violence with them, and that with so many being brought in they would eventually come to outnumber us. People accused me of paranoia. Well, in Toronto, the foreign born now outnumber those born in Canada, and the numbers are close to that if not greater in Vancouver, with other cities rising year by year.

Examine the growth of Muslim numbers so far, and where their numbers are predicted to be in thirty years.

[betsy]

France is facing this problem.

Argus has a valid point. Just think about it. We let in thousands as immigrants, plus refugees on top of that....and they multiply at a fast rate. Thirty to fifty years from now, it is not far-fetched to imagine a government run by them. And to think that some already are trying to push for Sharia law even at this early stage.

An anti-Muslim thread and betsy is never far away!

Betsy, all I can say is get extra locks, buy a gun, and start a petition to get all Muslims kicked out of your neighbourhood. Or have you done all that already?

I am trying my best to just ignore your insulting personal slurs towards me, and there had been quite a number of them in various threads. Although it never had been my way to resort to "reporting"....in your case, I might make an exception.

I have opinions of my own that I would want to freely express without having to be concerned about you labelling me as a bigot or a hater-of-whatever-it-is-we're-discussing-at-the-moment, every time I express something that does not meet your approval.

You are in a public forum and opinions should not be stumped from being voiced out, otherwise what kind of a board will this be? So you don't agree with my opinion...then don't resort to start trashing me personally if you cannot come up with any sensible point to rebutt.

If you can't stomach me, then do us both a favor and skip my posts. I will do the same with yours.

You are duly warned.

[Rue]

Read back these two quotes;

"This is not a racial discussion! The overwhelming majority-sorry ALL of the terrorist plots/acts of mension these days are conducted by Muslims. Wake-up."

"There are tens of millions of non-muslim people of all colors and creeds that would give their lives to become a Canadian."

Hmm how is this not a racial discussion when the above two quotes clearly engage in racial discussion?

Now then, when I get to this next quote;

"At this point in time, there is no reason to allow Muslims into Canada.........and every reason not to. If you disagree, I'm afraid your mind is defective."

I must assume the poster has done what many do.

He has assumed because terrorists quote Islam or claim to be Muslims, that he can in one swoop lump all Muslims as terrorists.

How about if I were to change the name of the scapegoat and phrase it as such....

"The overwhelming majority of terrorists in the world are caucasian. At this point there is no reason to allow Caucasians into Canada...".

The poster may not see caucasians as terrorists but I would hesitate a guess and think many aboriginals might be tempted to think this way given the history of North America and the treatment of native peoples.

I also think many non Caucasians would make an arguement that the many years of imperialism at the hands of the Caucasian Europeans would constitute terrorism.

The point is the original post is nothing more then a racist slur against Muslims using the pretense of terrorism as an excuse to promote hatred.

This is precisely what innocent Muslims fear. This is no different then when people condemn all Jews but couch it in discussions about Israel.

This is also no different then stereotyping all Jamaican people or black people when talking about crime in Toronto.

More to the point, the vast majority of Muslims in Canada agree, if someone is advocating terrorism and is quoting Islam or claiming it is part of the Muslim religion, they do not support it. What these Muslims need is our support in feeling they can denounce it without being lumped in as terrorists.

Why would any Muslim feel safe to speak out against extremists in their midst if they feel society can't distinguish between them and terrorists.

More to the point, the above poster is doing exactly what the terrorists want. He is hate mongering, precisely the reaction they want from their actions to alienate and divide our society and make it easier to exploit the anger and division to recruit Muslims feeling hated and alienated.

You want to debate the subject then please do so without slurring all Muslims. Yes if terrorism is a problem within the Muslim community then let's talk about it openly and understand that it is not reflective of all Muslims, only a minor few deviants

who can not be allowed to be portrayed as being mainstream Muslims.

To portray all Muslims negatively as terrorists is racist.

[gerryhatrick]

Yes, just hope it is another group that is not tyrannical in its idealogy or culture. What are the chances in this gamble, I wonder?

Your fear mongering over Muslims multiplying and eventually outnumbering others (i.e. Christians) and then gaining control of government and enacting religious law is REPUGNANT.

If you truely believe that Muslims - 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation or otherwise - are going to vote en masse for religious law once they gain a majority status in Canada then you quite obviously know nothing about Muslims in Canada.

You are unable to see the realities of the world around you or who is living in it. Or you enjoy spreading hate and fear-mongering. Or both.

[gerryhatrick]

I am trying my best to just ignore your insulting personal slurs towards me, and there had been quite a number of them in various threads. Although it never had been my way to resort to "reporting"....in your case, I might make an exception.

You go right ahead and report me. I would be honored to be banned from a forum for having called out a person who openly attempts to marginalize and demonize Muslims in this great nation. It's a hateful web you weave.

[Charles Anthony]

More to the point, the vast majority of Muslims in Canada agree, if someone is advocating terrorism and is quoting Islam or claiming it is part of the Muslim religion, they do not support it. What these Muslims need is our support in feeling they can denounce it without being lumped in as terrorists.

Your fear mongering over Muslims multiplying and eventually outnumbering others (i.e. Christians) and then gaining control of government and enacting religious law is REPUGNANT.

If you truely believe that Muslims - 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation or otherwise - are going to vote en masse for religious law once they gain a majority status in Canada then you quite obviously know nothing about Muslims in Canada.

Along both of the above lines: most immigrants come to Canada primarily because they want peace and freedom -- escaping tyranny of various sorts. I can not say this as a scientific fact, but I would bet that it is only a tiny fraction of a sliver of a minority of immigrants who bring old-country hatreds with them to Canada. Although some do.

I believe that Canada will ultimately let in more people who value their freedom to counter any terrorists. However, racism and bigotry does not help and it should be denounced -- whether it is from born-Canadians or immigrants.

[betsy]

The root of the problem lies in the breakdown of our immigration policy.

I say "breakdown"....for as I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), the Chinese and the Japanese (aside from European ethnics), are among the oldest ethnic immigrants, and yet we've never seen the kind of head-aches we face now....proof that opening our doors to immigrants is not bad....for it does not necessarily have to lead to MAJOR problems.

It is the obligation to fulfill reaching quotas and refugees...and not having planned and prepared to the manpower and screening process needed....which attributed why we have criminals, whose crimes ranged from genocide attrocities, human rights violations, smugglers, drug traffickers, etc..,

THAT is the problem.

And it's been acknowledged by and expert or immigration official on a talkshow that there hardly was any screening done when the floodgates opened and immigrants/refugees piled right in. The backlog is astounding from that one....and still building up, because more are coming.

I watched a small segment of the Immigration Standing Comittee where-in a Liberal who was questioning Solberg referred to "meeting the quotas demanded by the UN." I was surprised by that...or maybe I've misunderstood.

So, it is the UN who dictates the quotas for the numbers of immigrants we have to receive?

Then, there is also the question of encouraging segregation among various ethnic groups, instead of encouraging assimilation and integration. We're like a nation comprised of various tribes, each practicing their own culture and tribal practices (focused inward instead of outward).

We've got Chinatown, Doomstown, Latino, Little Italy, Somalia, Jews, etc..,.....which could translate into "turfs."

And we wonder why there are gang and turf wars between Asians and Latinos, between Blacks and whatever...

[August1991]

We face a worldwide problem and banning all Muslims from entering Canada would no more solve the problem than making it illegal to ride a motorcycle would solve the problem of biker gangs.

You go right ahead and report me. I would be honored to be banned from a forum for having called out a person who openly attempts to marginalize and demonize Muslims in this great nation. It's a hateful web you weave.

Gerry, play the ball not the person. If you disagree with Betsy, then explain why she is wrong. Surely it is Betsy's comments you find offensive and not Betsy personally, whom we only know through her comments here.

The root of the problem lies in the breakdown of our immigration policy.

Are you joking? Root of the problem? What do our immigration policies have to do with riots and demonstrations in front of Danish Embassies because of cartoons?

Betsy, if you don't like Canada's immigration policies, then fine. It is your right to disagree. But don't pretend that changing Canada's immigration policy will solve the problem of fanatical Muslim terrorism. That's like me saying that I think the federal Liberals are crooks and if we arrest them all, that will solve the problem of global warming.