Canadian Politics Today

Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: JMT on March 07, 2017, 05:21:35 pm


Title: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 07, 2017, 05:21:35 pm
We finally get Kellie Leitch's vaunted list of Canadian values.  It's rather short, and not all that inclusive:

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/03/06/leitch-reveals-what-she-wants-to-ask-during-canadian-values-screening/

Hey, at least if you follow these, you don't have to worry about being deported...errr, what?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 07, 2017, 05:22:39 pm
BTW, does Kellie believe that men and women are equal?  Are gays and lesbians equal to straight people?  Are trans gendered people equal to those of the usual genders?  So many questions for Kellie.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 07, 2017, 05:25:21 pm
That also brings up an interesting question - what are Canadian values?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on March 07, 2017, 05:55:44 pm
Why can't the potential immigrants just lie?  It's so, so easy to get around this.  It would do nothing substantial of value, and we'd waste a lot of money on these interviews.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 07, 2017, 07:33:28 pm
Clearly Leitch thinks immigrants are at the intellectual level of a 5-year-old.   

She's said her screening could also apply to white supremacists:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-values-test-could-apply-to-white-supremacists-leitch/article33854629/



Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 07, 2017, 07:59:44 pm
“Are men and women equal, and entitled to equal protection under the law?”

“Is it ever ok to coerce or use violence against an individual or a group who disagrees with your views?”

“Do you recognize that to have a good life in Canada you will need to work hard for yourself and your family, and that you can’t expect to have things you want given to you?”



lmfao She's kidding, right?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 07, 2017, 09:14:24 pm
“Are men and women equal, and entitled to equal protection under the law?”

“Is it ever ok to coerce or use violence against an individual or a group who disagrees with your views?”

“Do you recognize that to have a good life in Canada you will need to work hard for yourself and your family, and that you can’t expect to have things you want given to you?”



lmfao She's kidding, right?
Her "questionnaire" so far seems as much of an embarrassment for her as her latest speech. And apparently she is in second place in the leadership race. JT must be having a giggle too.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Peter F on March 07, 2017, 09:18:00 pm
“Are men and women equal, and entitled to equal protection under the law?”

“Is it ever ok to coerce or use violence against an individual or a group who disagrees with your views?”

“Do you recognize that to have a good life in Canada you will need to work hard for yourself and your family, and that you can’t expect to have things you want given to you?”



lmfao She's kidding, right?

No, I think she's actually serious. Man oh man.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 07, 2017, 09:40:10 pm
No, I think she's actually serious. Man oh man.

I am quite sure she is and let's see what's next. I assure you I have my first 3 answeres already figured out.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on March 08, 2017, 02:34:58 am
I assume that nobody objects to the questions themselves, and are laughing because the answers are patently obvious.

For the sake of argument, I'd suggest that this might be why Ms Leitch thinks its important that these issues be discussed in person with a human agent, as opposed to answered in a multiple choice questionaire.

Once upon a time I traveled to the US, and while having a routine Q&A with the customs lady, I noticed while looking in my purse for my ID that my bank card was missing. The customs agent immediately picked up on my sudden anxiety and the change in the tone of the interview was noticeable. She immediately took a much more aggressive tone and began to press me for details on everything I said. I felt defensive and somewhat flustered for the remainder of the interview and only later even figured out why she had become aggressive in her questioning.

I mention my own experience by way of pointing out that it's a lot harder to lie to a human than it is to lie to a multiple choice questionaire. A human can read your expressions as you talk. A human can ask follow-up questions. I mean, everybody knows the right and wrong things to say to a border agent too, yet a surprising number of people screw up.

Is it bad that she wants people to talk to a trained interviewer before coming into the country?

 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 08, 2017, 03:26:00 am
I assume that nobody objects to the questions themselves, and are laughing because the answers are patently obvious.

For the sake of argument, I'd suggest that this might be why Ms Leitch thinks its important that these issues be discussed in person with a human agent, as opposed to answered in a multiple choice questionaire.

Once upon a time I traveled to the US, and while having a routine Q&A with the customs lady, I noticed while looking in my purse for my ID that my bank card was missing. The customs agent immediately picked up on my sudden anxiety and the change in the tone of the interview was noticeable. She immediately took a much more aggressive tone and began to press me for details on everything I said. I felt defensive and somewhat flustered for the remainder of the interview and only later even figured out why she had become aggressive in her questioning.

I mention my own experience by way of pointing out that it's a lot harder to lie to a human than it is to lie to a multiple choice questionaire. A human can read your expressions as you talk. A human can ask follow-up questions. I mean, everybody knows the right and wrong things to say to a border agent too, yet a surprising number of people screw up.

Is it bad that she wants people to talk to a trained interviewer before coming into the country?

 -k
As you just pointed out the answers are patently obvious, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to know what to say. And as you also point out, your anxiety you say you demonstrated in the case you mentioned had nothing to do with your admissibility as a cross border traveller (why didn't you simply explain you just noticed your card was missing?) but im amy case, I can see these silly questions she suggests asking will be pretty much ineffective and possibly downright unfair. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on March 08, 2017, 06:00:02 am
I mention my own experience by way of pointing out that it's a lot harder to lie to a human than it is to lie to a multiple choice questionaire. A human can read your expressions as you talk.
Yes, there is certainly advantages of a human interview. I think your own experience however demonstrates that it is easy for the interviewer to pick up on totally unrelated/irrelevant issues and misunderstand them.

If Leitch had said we need to invest in improving our screening process then I think she would get a lot of support. The statement screen for Canadian Values raises more questions than it answers, and that is why people are turning on Leitch.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Peter F on March 08, 2017, 06:20:46 am
I assume that nobody objects to the questions themselves, and are laughing because the answers are patently obvious.

For the sake of argument, I'd suggest that this might be why Ms Leitch thinks its important that these issues be discussed in person with a human agent, as opposed to answered in a multiple choice questionaire.

...

I mention my own experience by way of pointing out that it's a lot harder to lie to a human than it is to lie to a multiple choice questionaire. A human can read your expressions as you talk. A human can ask follow-up questions. I mean, everybody knows the right and wrong things to say to a border agent too, yet a surprising number of people screw up.

Is it bad that she wants people to talk to a trained interviewer before coming into the country?

 -k

I do not dispute that the vetting process would include questioning - mostly just routine stuff. But Leitch isn't merely suggesting that something that is already in place be put in place. She has given us three examples of questions that aren't dealing with unmasking terrorists or criminals but the questions are aimed to expose people that supposedly don't share Canadian Values. I think its ridiculous since even the questions she proposes won't  get her the results she thinks they will. She has no sense of nuance or empathy for that matter.

Example 1: “Are men and women equal, and entitled to equal protection under the law?”
   Which law? Canadian law not sharia or (i guess) Roman Civl Law? Canadian law then...well Yes, in Canadian Law (so the interviewee has been told since she doesn't actually live in Canada to experience it) men and women are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law.
  That is not a question about Canadian values. That is a civics question about the law in Canada.  It may be that really what Leitch means is does the interviewee agree with the statement 'men and women are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law'.   If that is what she meant then she still has it wrong because many Canadians don't actually agree with that statement. They agree initially but then come up with many exceptions to the general rule. Gays, immigrants, poor people, ****, anyone named Khadr , natives and on an on ad nauseam. 
Such ideas are also Canadian Values which is why there are debates in the house of commons over gay marriages; abortion; equal pay legistlation; motions on Islamophobia; the Lords Prayer in schools etc etc. 
 
Example 2: “Is it ever ok to coerce or use violence against an individual or a group who disagrees with your views?”
Everyone immigrant in the world will answer No to that question. She thinks its a Canadian Value. Yet many Canadians, while agreeing to that statement, would then come up with exceptions to that general rule. If their views are a threat to their way of life like feminism, gays, muslims, atheists, the chinese language, hell even the French. Then there are all sorts of exceptions. Thus to disagree with the statement by assuming exceptions, is also a Canadian Value. Again its why there are debates and votes in the House of Commons because its a closely held Canadian Value that one gets to disagree.

Example 3: “Do you recognize that to have a good life in Canada you will need to work hard for yourself and your family, and that you can’t expect to have things you want given to you?”

Again, who would answer that stock Conservative Values loaded question negatively? why no one of course. But it is not a Canadian Value and has nothing to do with Canadian Values. Everyone would agree with the statement but then there'd also be all the exceptions to the rule: Tax breaks, Student loans, Health-care, subsidized housing, Lotteries !.  Hell, even Leitch would have a raft of exceptions to that particular supposed Canadian value.

It all boils down to Leitch , amongst others, assuming her values are Canadian values and then losing an election when standing up to promote those values. But I don't think she is thoughtful enough to ever wonder why that happened.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 08, 2017, 08:45:34 am


Is it bad that she wants people to talk to a trained interviewer before coming into the country?

 -k

Other than the cost being prohibitive, I don't think there's a problem with interviewing people who want to come into Canada.  I seem to recall reading some years ago that Isreal is very good at identifying 'problem' people due to their observational skills, and that their security surpassed the US's more mechanized and rule-bound system. 

And has already been pointed out, for some people the very fact of being questioned by someone in authority might make their anxiety skyrocket regardless of how closely their values matched the 'rest of us' and trigger the interviewer.  This could be especially true of people who are coming from a country in which any contact with authority is something to be avoided and feared. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on March 08, 2017, 08:49:27 am
She's an MD, and yet she can't cure her own stupidity....

I don't actually disagree that we need to weed out undesirable, backwards thinking people....   but 3 yes/no questions is sheer idiocy. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on March 08, 2017, 11:35:14 am
She's an MD, and yet she can't cure her own stupidity....
What is it with MD's and stupidity? Listen to Ben Carson the other day in his HUD speech, the entire speech.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 08, 2017, 02:57:41 pm
You can't get hired for a job at McDonalds without a face to face interview with the manager. But why? Aren't all the answers obvious!? What good are interviews!? Why do all employers seem to think they're of any value!? Couldn't they save money by simply hiring whoever looked most qualified on paper?

Nobody ever answers these questions. They simply mock the very idea that you can, in an interview, ask leading questions which guide applicants into revealing more about themselves than they would otherwise want to reveal.

How does the male applicant respond to a female questioner? Does he flinch at the thought of shaking hands? Does he refuse to meet her eyes? Suppose there are a pair of screeners in the room? Does he ignore the female and always look to the male to answer? Would a devout Muslim (or Christian for that matter) openly repudiate aspects of his or her religion? I mean, some of these people have been willing to die, burned at the stake or impaled or beheaded in the past, rather than repudiate their religion.  Yet everyone assumes that a devout Muslim would laugh and jeer at some aspect of Islamic law as if it were of no consequence.

"The majority of the population of Canada is Christian, and most of its values are based on that. Are you aware of that?"
What's in his eyes when you say this? What's in his voice when he replies?
"It might be that your children become attracted to aspects of Canadian culture which is different from Indian/Iranian/Somalian/Pakistani culture. Do you think you might have difficulty accepting this? For example, what if your daughter wanted to wear tight jeans like some Canadian teenage girls?"
How does he respond to that?
"What do you think of homosexuals?"
What does he look like when you ask that?
Quote the passage in the Koran which calls for homosexuals to be buried by having a wall pushed on them. Ask his opinion of that passage.

This really isn't as impossible as you people seem to be making it out.


Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: BC_cheque on March 08, 2017, 03:26:28 pm
A human can read your expressions as you talk. A human can ask follow-up questions. I mean, everybody knows the right and wrong things to say to a border agent too, yet a surprising number of people screw up.

A human is also prone to prejudice and bias, that's why a jury has more than one person.

Hey, I just solved the problem - a whole panel of interviewers with a vote afterwards.  And a panel of experts to put together a each panel.

Imagine the job-creation possibilities!  Plus, we could probably deport a good portion of CPC supporters!

 :D

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 08, 2017, 03:41:02 pm
What is it with MD's and stupidity? Listen to Ben Carson the other day in his HUD speech, the entire speech.
Yes his comments equating immigration and slavery certainly captured my attention. i guess a lesson here might be to keep MD's away from your immigration policy.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 08, 2017, 10:57:37 pm
Quote
Does he ignore the female and always look to the male to answer?

That's been my experience in almost any group in which there are both men and women.    So ... you'll have to scratch that one.

Quote
Hey, I just solved the problem - a whole panel of interviewers with a vote afterwards.  And a panel of experts to put together a each panel.

Imagine the job-creation possibilities!  Plus, we could probably deport a good portion of CPC supporters!

Problem solved!    :D



Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 09, 2017, 08:46:47 am
To be clear, short of having a NEXUS card (and even that is changing), no one gets in to Canada without talking face to face with a border services officer.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on March 09, 2017, 09:57:25 am
They simply mock the very idea that you can, in an interview, ask leading questions which guide applicants into revealing more about themselves than they would otherwise want to reveal.

I have consistently supported investing more resources into the whole immigration process. That however is not what we get from Leitch and friends, she is about "Canadian Values" and some dumb screening that will accomplish squat. Those are simple minded points designed to stir up emotions and not deal with the real issues. She is out to get votes, not address immigration.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 09, 2017, 03:16:47 pm
I assume that nobody objects to the questions themselves, and are laughing because the answers are patently obvious.
 -k
I absolutely disagree with the questions. They're predicated on xenophobic and frankly insulting assumptions. How are you going to whine about foreigners taking all the "good jobs" in one breath then imply that they're lazy free-loaders who expect things to be handed to them?

She should stick to medicine and leave the social science to social scientists. Maybe shut up and listen to the experts in those fields instead of being a fear-mongering idiot.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 09, 2017, 03:42:22 pm
I have consistently supported investing more resources into the whole immigration process. That however is not what we get from Leitch and friends, she is about "Canadian Values" and some dumb screening that will accomplish squat. Those are simple minded points designed to stir up emotions and not deal with the real issues. She is out to get votes, not address immigration.

You didn't address my point. Why can you not get a job at McDonalds without an interview? Why should we, in effect 'hire' someone we can't fire no matter what, without at least giving them an interview? Do you think job interviews are similarly pointless? The federal government certainly believes in them. Every process I've ever been through had an interview, usually before a panel. Then if you got into the pool there'd be another interview with the hiring manager. I've been on those panels. I've been the hiring manager. What was I looking for as a hiring manager? I knew every person in the pool had already been deemed to be qualified to do the job. I wanted to know what kind of a person they were, to try and decide if they had drive and motivation, if they would fit in with the group, if they were open minded and would do what needed to be done without someone looking over their shoulders all the time. Were the interviews useless? Nope. I considered them a very valuable tool in deciding which of the people in the pool to bring into our group.

Once we accept someone as an immigrant we're pretty much stuck with them. It's virtually impossible to get rid of them. That definitely merits an in-depth interview to see what kind of person they are.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 09, 2017, 03:50:34 pm
You want every last immigrant to be personally interviewed? Do you know how expensive that process would be? They interview ones that are flagged for concerns. That's enough, imo. You're not going to make the country any safer by interviewing everyone, considering crime amongst immigrants is lower than the native-born population anyway. What's the purpose? To test their language skills? That's already done in the first phase before they even move onto the security screening and it's done without an interview. Interviewing everyone is way too expensive for the returns to security or even linguistic competence.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 09, 2017, 05:01:28 pm
And again - no one gets into Canada without seeing a CBSA officer face to face.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 09, 2017, 06:18:06 pm
And again - no one gets into Canada without seeing a CBSA officer face to face.

Yeah, sure, at the airport, you mean, when they arrive? Because the senate panel was pretty clear that only a small fraction of potential immigrants ever get a face to face interview.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 09, 2017, 06:18:32 pm
You want every last immigrant to be personally interviewed?

I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this, but YES.

Quote
Do you know how expensive that process would be?

Aren't you that guy who wants us to honor native treaties regardless of cost?

The cost of interviewing them would be more than offset by having less failed immigrants and more successful ones.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 09, 2017, 07:02:58 pm

The cost of interviewing them would be more than offset by having less failed immigrants and more successful ones.
Pure speculation of course. Canadian immigrants are already quite successful w/o this silly questionnaire. And the questions so far proposed by Leitch would be a waste of time.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 09, 2017, 07:43:53 pm
Yeah, sure, at the airport, you mean, when they arrive?

That's right.  Leitch attempts to make it sound like no one even talks to them.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on March 09, 2017, 08:37:37 pm
You didn't address my point.

Once we accept someone as an immigrant we're pretty much stuck with them. It's virtually impossible to get rid of them. That definitely merits an in-depth interview to see what kind of person they are.

So how do we want to change the immigration process, and what will it cost? Where are they interviewed, and by who? How long are these interviews, how do we maintain standards in the interview process, and how do we train the interviewers? All I am doing is asking for a fully thought out process, not just whining and stirring up emotions to get votes.

You have been using the analogy of interviews by a hiring manager and those in the department for a new candidate, and I don't see any possible comparison to that at all. The only kind of interview we could do is what a human resource department does, and with the experience you relate answer me how effective the HR interview is?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 10, 2017, 02:42:04 pm
That's right.  Leitch attempts to make it sound like no one even talks to them.

Who talks to them?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 10, 2017, 02:48:49 pm
So how do we want to change the immigration process, and what will it cost? Where are they interviewed, and by who? How long are these interviews, how do we maintain standards in the interview process, and how do we train the interviewers? All I am doing is asking for a fully thought out process, not just whining and stirring up emotions to get votes.

The Americans seem to have no problem figuring all this out. And I remind you that this used to be the process. It was changed to save money.

Quote
You have been using the analogy of interviews by a hiring manager and those in the department for a new candidate, and I don't see any possible comparison to that at all.

Why? Both seek to find people with the right attitude to succeed in your organization, who will get along with other employees, be mature, responsible and self motivated.

Quote
The only kind of interview we could do is what a human resource department does, and with the experience you relate answer me how effective the HR interview is?

I'll tell you this, we had the best group I ever worked with. We got along like family. We not only had fun at work but helped each other and were much more successful in actually processing the work than other places I've worked at. This despite it being a clerical unit which necessarily had a high turnover (people were often promoted upward and onward from it).
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 10, 2017, 03:15:00 pm
Who talks to them?

Border services officers - when they enter Canada.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 10, 2017, 04:18:18 pm
Border services officers - when they enter Canada.

You mean like when they talk to me when I enter Canada, or say, a tourist from Finland?
You realize they already have their papers, by then, right?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on March 10, 2017, 04:35:50 pm
You mean like when they talk to me when I enter Canada, or say, a tourist from Finland?
You realize they already have their papers, by then, right?
Yes, but they still will send you to secondary screening. I have been sent to secondary screen twice on returning to Canada. Once back in the good old days, when the only identification I had on me was a credit card. The joke back then is if you could give the phone number to Pizza-Pizza then you were let in (no, that is not what they asked me but anyway it was only a couple of minutes and mostly for them to have the opportunity to chastise me and say I should really carry an ID). The other time was when I was returning from living abroad and had goods being shipped back separately (a little longer that time, I had detailed list already so they read through it and signed it off and I was on my way - when I picked up the goods at the customs warehouse a few weeks later it was also a quick process).
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 14, 2017, 11:36:28 am
You mean like when they talk to me when I enter Canada, or say, a tourist from Finland?
You realize they already have their papers, by then, right?

Entry to Canada is always at the discretion of the officer, no matter what documentation you may have.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 14, 2017, 02:20:42 pm
Entry to Canada is always at the discretion of the officer, no matter what documentation you may have.
Except for a passport. They can't deny a Canadian citizen entry.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 14, 2017, 03:23:55 pm
Except for a passport. They can't deny a Canadian citizen entry.

That's true - they can't deny entry to Canadians.  They can arrest them though.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 15, 2017, 03:46:53 pm
Entry to Canada is always at the discretion of the officer, no matter what documentation you may have.

It's still completely irrelevant to the discussion. Potential immigrants send in paperwork and get approved by a harried clerk, and never have to interview an immigration officer. An interview with border services as they enter is beside the point. Border Services isn't checking into what their views or politics are. And Canadians want such things checked and validated. Canadians want to screen potential immigrants before they're accepted.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 15, 2017, 03:55:41 pm
Canadians who think they want a test on someone's political or spiritual views don't understand the Constitution or actual Canadian values. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 15, 2017, 04:13:24 pm
It's still completely irrelevant to the discussion. Potential immigrants send in paperwork and get approved by a harried clerk, and never have to interview an immigration officer. An interview with border services as they enter is beside the point. Border Services isn't checking into what their views or politics are. And Canadians want such things checked and validated. Canadians want to screen potential immigrants before they're accepted.
Perhaps if you did a little reading on it you'd find out you are wrong on the interview comment. At least the Canadian government says you are.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 15, 2017, 04:58:54 pm
Perhaps if you did a little reading on it you'd find out you are wrong on the interview comment. At least the Canadian government says you are.

I did do a little reading on it. Apparently the senate did too, which is why they recommended interviews.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 15, 2017, 04:59:35 pm
Canadians who think they want a test on someone's political or spiritual views don't understand the Constitution or actual Canadian values.

So you're saying three quarters of Canadians don't understand Canadian values? Are you open to the possibility YOU don't understand Canadian values? Maybe you're spending too much time watching CBC.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 15, 2017, 05:06:41 pm
I did do a little reading on it. Apparently the senate did too, which is why they recommended interviews.
I wonder why the senate would waste time recommending things that already are in place?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 15, 2017, 05:22:43 pm
So you're saying three quarters of Canadians don't understand Canadian values? Are you open to the possibility YOU don't understand Canadian values? Maybe you're spending too much time watching CBC.
I don't know what 3/4 you're talking about, but I'm willing to bet it's pretty close to 3/4 of Canadians who think Leitch is batshit crazy.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 15, 2017, 06:02:13 pm
So you're saying three quarters of Canadians don't understand Canadian values? Are you open to the possibility YOU don't understand Canadian values? Maybe you're spending too much time watching CBC.

Probably at least that many. 

We as Canadians value (or claim to) diversity and freedom of political/religious/nonsense opinion.  Any interview that puts that into question is un-Canadian, full stop.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 15, 2017, 06:12:36 pm
I wonder why the senate would waste time recommending things that already are in place?

I wonder why, in all the dozens of articles that have been written about this, including many condemnations of the suggestion, in all the television panel shows discussing it, none of whom agreed with it, not a single person ever say "You know, we already do this". Not once. Somehow, you seem privy to information no one else in Canada has. Perhaps you'd care to share it. In the meantime, this is from an email Lietch sent out.



But is our immigration system doing the best that it can?

Do we meet the people who want to come here before they arrive?

Do we have an opportunity to understand what supports, if any, a person will need to help with integration?

Or are we simply making decisions based on a three minute review of documentation?

The little bit of information we have about how the immigration system actually works comes only from the persistent research of Dr. Victor Satzewich, a sociologist at McMaster University in Hamilton.

That's because our immigration system is a "black box". It is a nameless and faceless bureaucracy where questions are many and answers are few.

In the introduction to his book, Dr. Satzewich describes trying to gain access to Canada's immigration offices. It was a labyrinthine ordeal involving a man identified as Mr. X, chance encounters, and months of waiting.

Dr. Satzewich eventually got the access he required to write his book, Points of Entry: How Canada's Immigration Officers Decide Who Gets In, and, as a result, we now have valuable insight into how our immigration system works.

By and large our immigration system works well, but there are some things about the system that are concerning.

Immigration officers meet only a handful of the people whose applications they process. The result is the loss of "opportunities to assess credibility and risk" (page 216).

Testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence tells us that "only between nine and fifteen percent of immigrants receive an interview with a visa officer before they come to Canada" (page 14).

That means that, in a year like last year, when more than 300,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada, only about 30,000 people were interviewed by a trained immigration official.

The reason for the lack of interviews is the focus on achieving predetermined quotas. The immigration bureaucracy, led by immigration ministers of different stripes, has put greater importance on the number of people who are admitted to Canada each year, rather than ensuring that those who are admitted will integrate well into our communities.

As one of the immigration officers interviewed by Dr. Satzewich said:
 

When all you interview are the problematic cases, that influences your view of the applicants. It's easy to say they are all bad, and what happens is that you start refusing for all the wrong reasons. But the positive side effect of the quality assurance is that you get to see the good cases and the bad cases. When you bring someone in for an interview, you can tell right away, you get a gut feeling that there is something wrong here, or that it's good. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself whether you would want this person to be your neighbour. It's hard to put a finger on it but when you strongly feel that there is something about an applicant, there usually is. The positive thing about the quality assurance is that it helps an officer get around the idea that ‘everyone's a liar' attitude. It's easy to become cynical. You become immune to the hardship of local conditions (pages 135-136).
 

Another immigration officer quoted by Dr. Satzewich said:
 

There are so many things we miss. We only interview if we are leaning towards a refusal. We don't interview good applicants. This can make an officer sour. We don't get the sense of nation building that we used to have. It cuts into job satisfaction. There is no way of talking to clients, we don't counsel them anymore. In face-to-face circumstances, we are only dealing with likely refusals. This can lead to the development of a negative mindset. You start the whole interview process with a set of concerns that you have identified on the basis of the paper screening. The old way, you could come in having a visa, and in the interview you could talk yourself out of it! Young officers have not done that kind of interview. They tend to have an enforcement mentality. The system is set up to kind of sour your worldview (page 135).
 

This is not healthy. Not for the immigration officers, not for the applicants, and not for the country.

The focus on quotas is also a problem.

Canada's immigration officials are pressured to make decisions on at least seventy-five files a day meaning decisions are made in about three minutes — not including the time spent writing up notes.

As Dr. Satzewich writes, "time and productivity pressures provided the overarching context for decision making" (page 196). One immigration officer said, "Sometimes you have to overlook things to get the program numbers. … Risk management means closing your eyes" (page 136). Another officer said: "If we didn't have the time demands that are on us, the refusal rate would be much higher. If I had enough time, I would at least triple my refusal rate" (page 136).

A deputy manager in an overseas office put it this way:
 

We have become number freaks. We have to meet our targets, within +/- 3 percent. But you don't want to exceed your target either. If you reach your processing target by September, you can't issue any more visas, and that is a problem. And if you go over your target … they will say next time you can process the target numbers with fewer resources, or increase targets (page 134).
 

This is a problem. It is a problem because the priority is placed on numbers rather than individuals and some people are, in the words of immigration officers themselves, being allowed into the country that would otherwise not be admissible. The targets also keep out those who might otherwise be admissible because their application came to the top of the pile after the target visas had all been allocated.

We need a healthier approach to immigration — one that keeps the best interests of the country, the applicants, and the immigration officials in mind.

This is what I am hearing from Canadians.

That is why, when I become prime minister, I am committed to ensuring that all immigrants, refugees, and visitors to Canada receive a face-to-face interview with a trained immigration official.

This is in-line with the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. The committee called for a pilot project and I will ensure that this is implemented across the board.

This is not a radical suggestion. In fact, it was the procedure as recently as the year 2000.

To quote Dr. Satzewich: "Before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was introduced, nearly all applicants for a permanent resident visa were interviewed by an officer, no matter how strong or weak their paperwork" (page 170).

Interviews allow the opportunity to determine credibility through, as Dr. Satzewich writes, "verbal responses…demeanour and body language: how individuals enter an interview booth, how they answer questions, and how they address an officer's concerns…" (pages 55-56).

These interviews were conducted as part of the language proficiency test, which was conducted in-person, face-to-face, with immigration officers.

I will restore this procedure to ensure that we meet the people who want to come here.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 15, 2017, 09:26:30 pm
I wonder why, in all the dozens of articles that have been written about this, including many condemnations of the suggestion, in all the television panel shows discussing it, none of whom agreed with it, not a single person ever say "You know, we already do this". Not once. Somehow, you seem privy to information no one else in Canada has. Perhaps you'd care to share it. In the meantime, this is from an email Lietch sent out.

Perhaps a little reading will bring you up to speed.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/overview/security.asp
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 16, 2017, 03:02:44 pm
Perhaps a little reading will bring you up to speed.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/overview/security.asp

You realize we were talking about immigration, not refugees?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 16, 2017, 03:11:25 pm
You realize we were talking about immigration, not refugees?
Same procedures apply.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 17, 2017, 02:42:00 pm
Same procedures apply.

No, they don't. I've already posted you information taken from a book by a very immigration friendly academic, as well as information about how a senate commission proposed interviews. I assume you simply ignored it all.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 17, 2017, 09:17:13 pm
Despite our disagreements, you and I are bound by the common ties of citizenship to the idea of a tolerant and welcoming country. Citizenship binds you and me to the project of peace, order, and good government—and this project is indifferent to color or religion.

-----

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-kellie-leitch-an-open-letter-on-canadian-values_us_58bef438e4b05386ddc0ca6b?ir=Canada+Politics&

That line right there - that is far more Canadian than any of Leitch's "Canadian Values".
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 18, 2017, 11:36:37 am
Despite our disagreements, you and I are bound by the common ties of citizenship to the idea of a tolerant and welcoming country. Citizenship binds you and me to the project of peace, order, and good government—and this project is indifferent to color or religion.

-----

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-kellie-leitch-an-open-letter-on-canadian-values_us_58bef438e4b05386ddc0ca6b?ir=Canada+Politics&

That line right there - that is far more Canadian than any of Leitch's "Canadian Values".

The problem is where we are bringing in so many people who do not feel those ties or tolerance, who in fact, openly and defiantly reject them on favour of the values of their old countries, which are tightly bound up with their religion.

Also supremely unimpressed with a whiny immigrant complaining about 'racist rhetoric' where none was present in the suggestion we test the values of potential immigrants. Maybe he reads this in simply because the values of most Pakistanis, as revealed in polls, are such that any value test would disqualify most of them from every coming here.

And, I might add, his parents instilled such a love of Canada in him that he's at Yale law school. In case you didn't know it, Yale teachers American law, not Canadian law, so I have to presume he plans on making his life in the US not Canada.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 18, 2017, 12:09:01 pm
The problem is where we are bringing in so many people who do not feel those ties or tolerance, who in fact, openly and defiantly reject them on favour of the values of their old countries, which are tightly bound up with their religion.
Time and again interviews and research shows that immigrants are actually more loyal to the country than native-born citizens. Don't let that get in the way of your narrative that the Muslim hoards are here to destroy "your" country.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 18, 2017, 01:01:41 pm
The problem is where we are bringing in so many people who do not feel those ties or tolerance, who in fact, openly and defiantly reject them on favour of the values of their old countries, which are tightly bound up with their religion.

Also supremely unimpressed with a whiny immigrant complaining about 'racist rhetoric' where none was present in the suggestion we test the values of potential immigrants. Maybe he reads this in simply because the values of most Pakistanis, as revealed in polls, are such that any value test would disqualify most of them from every coming here.

And, I might add, his parents instilled such a love of Canada in him that he's at Yale law school. In case you didn't know it, Yale teachers American law, not Canadian law, so I have to presume he plans on making his life in the US not Canada.

Going to Yale is a terrible crime.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 18, 2017, 02:56:58 pm
Going to Yale is a terrible crime.

Pretty cheap reply. If you're taking law at Yale you don't plan on living in Canada.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 18, 2017, 02:57:40 pm
Time and again interviews and research shows that immigrants are actually more loyal to the country than native-born citizens. Don't let that get in the way of your narrative that the Muslim hoards are here to destroy "your" country.

When they abandon their backward old-country cultural beliefs let me know.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 18, 2017, 03:02:10 pm
Pretty cheap reply. If you're taking law at Yale you don't plan on living in Canada.

The Governor General went to Harvard Law....
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 18, 2017, 03:02:51 pm
Time and again interviews and research shows that immigrants are actually more loyal to the country than native-born citizens. Don't let that get in the way of your narrative that the Muslim hoards are here to destroy "your" country.

I'm not.  If England play Canada at anything, I want England to win.  Even Ice Hockey.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 18, 2017, 03:06:59 pm
When they abandon their backward old-country cultural beliefs let me know.
Cyber just did, you simply chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your personal narrative.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 19, 2017, 11:03:42 am
The problem is where we are bringing in so many people who do not feel those ties or tolerance, who in fact, openly and defiantly reject them on favour of the values of their old countries, which are tightly bound up with their religion.

What would immigrants have to do in order for you to be certain they were loyal and committed to Canada?   Would you have Chinese only speak English, and stop celebrating the Chinese New Year?   Would you have Sikhs stop wearing turbans, and Hindus stop attending Mandirs?  Should none of us observe St Paddy's day along with our Irish immigrants, or Robby Burns Day with our Scottish-Canadians?   Should all Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus be forced to dress entirely in Western attire?  Just what would make immigrants acceptable to you?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 19, 2017, 11:26:24 am
What would immigrants have to do in order for you to be certain they were loyal and committed to Canada?   Would you have Chinese only speak English, and stop celebrating the Chinese New Year?   Would you have Sikhs stop wearing turbans, and Hindus stop attending Mandirs?  Should none of us observe St Paddy's day along with our Irish immigrants, or Robby Burns Day with our Scottish-Canadians?   Should all Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus be forced to dress entirely in Western attire?  Just what would make immigrants acceptable to you?

I wouldn't let the Irish or the Scottish in at all!  We don't, do we?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 19, 2017, 11:38:48 am
I wouldn't let the Irish or the Scottish in at all!  We don't, do we?

Perhaps the cultural traditions of Haggis and believing in faeries ought to have given us pause ...

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 19, 2017, 03:11:49 pm
What would immigrants have to do in order for you to be certain they were loyal and committed to Canada?

Adapt to our culture and values and put aside their own. That includes, most visibly, not hiding women under bedsheets and letting them out of the house, even when there are men around not in their families. Recognizing that women don't hide their faces in Canada, nor even their hair, and stop assuming that Canadians are less moral than you are because they don't have your extreme sexual hangups.

Stop hating Jews. That would be good, too.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 19, 2017, 04:45:53 pm
All of the things that you are against are protected by the very Canadian values you claim to be defending.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 19, 2017, 05:28:35 pm
All of the things that you are against are protected by the very Canadian values you claim to be defending.

Crying shame.  I guess we need a new set of values.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 19, 2017, 07:19:23 pm
Crying shame.  I guess we need a new set of values.

Freedom or religion, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression?  Really?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 19, 2017, 07:25:58 pm
Adapt to our culture and values and put aside their own. That includes, most visibly, not hiding women under bedsheets and letting them out of the house, even when there are men around not in their families. Recognizing that women don't hide their faces in Canada, nor even their hair, and stop assuming that Canadians are less moral than you are because they don't have your extreme sexual hangups.

Stop hating Jews. That would be good, too.

So the only immigrant with whom you have a problem are women who wear burkas or niqabs?   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 19, 2017, 07:52:10 pm
Freedom or religion, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression?  Really?

When freedom  of religion means denying freedom of thought and freedom of expression, I'm against that one.  Really.  Not to mention the hiding women under bedsheets value.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 19, 2017, 07:54:06 pm
So the only immigrant with whom you have a problem are women who wear burkas or niqabs?

Not to speak for him, but it seems to me he's mainly against those who would make them.  Are you not?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 19, 2017, 09:04:49 pm
When freedom  of religion means denying freedom of thought and freedom of expression, I'm against that one.  Really.  Not to mention the hiding women under bedsheets value.

In theory, I see what you're saying.  In theory, I also see that disallowing such practices is just as oppressive.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 19, 2017, 09:23:43 pm
When freedom  of religion means denying freedom of thought and freedom of expression, I'm against that one.  Really.  Not to mention the hiding women under bedsheets value.

 It's easy for those outside the religion to look at those within and make judgements about what they should or should not think, or decide for them how much freedom they don't have.   But as long as they are not breaking any laws, we outside do  not have the right to impose upon them our beliefs what constitutes their freedom of thought or expression.    The best we can do is provide information and resources should they need it.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 19, 2017, 09:57:06 pm
It's easy for those outside the religion to look at those within and make judgements about what they should or should not think, or decide for them how much freedom they don't have.   But as long as they are not breaking any laws, we outside do  not have the right to impose upon them our beliefs what constitutes their freedom of thought or expression.    The best we can do is provide information and resources should they need it.

It sure is easy. I do it all the time.

Just tell them they can't come in unless they change completely. Just let their wives and kids in. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 19, 2017, 09:58:24 pm
It sure is easy. I do it all the time.

Just tell them they can't come in unless they change completely. Just let their wives and kids in.

How does that work?  Do we organize thought police?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 19, 2017, 10:02:40 pm
How does that work?  Do we organize thought police?

I think it would be at least as effective as a values test.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 19, 2017, 10:04:00 pm
How does that work?  Do we organize thought police?

Just do as I say. Tell any who flinch to p1ss off back from whence they came, and then send any you do let in back to the same hole as soon as they slip up.  Until someone comes up with a way of reading thoughts. Then use thought police.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 19, 2017, 10:34:47 pm
Just do as I say. Tell any who flinch to p1ss off back from whence they came, and then send any you do let in back to the same hole as soon as they slip up.  Until someone comes up with a way of reading thoughts. Then use thought police.

I'm certainly not in favour of that, sorry.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 19, 2017, 10:47:35 pm
I'm certainly not in favour of that, sorry.

No need to apologize. We all have our views. I don't apologize for mine.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: waldo on March 19, 2017, 10:55:24 pm
... and then send any you do let in back to the same hole as soon as they slip up.

even someone with citizenship? So, no 'Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian' for you?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 19, 2017, 11:23:12 pm
even someone with citizenship? So, no 'Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian' for you?

Even someone with citizenship. Even me.

The only reason we can't do it to someone born here, is there is nowhere to send them.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 19, 2017, 11:41:54 pm
What would immigrants have to do in order for you to be certain they were loyal and committed to Canada?   Would you have Chinese only speak English, and stop celebrating the Chinese New Year?   Would you have Sikhs stop wearing turbans, and Hindus stop attending Mandirs?  Should none of us observe St Paddy's day along with our Irish immigrants, or Robby Burns Day with our Scottish-Canadians?   Should all Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus be forced to dress entirely in Western attire?  Just what would make immigrants acceptable to you?

I suggest that unless/and until all immigrants find a way to magically turn their skins pasty white, that the xenophobes will continue to try to suggest we need to hide under our beds to avoid being overrun by devastating foreign cultural practices that will inevitably destroy our own culture. Of course they have yet to produce any evidence that this is in fact occurring in any real way, but hey, when you are hiding under the bed it's hard to get a handle on reality. Throw them a piece of vanilla cake, now pass me the curry.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 19, 2017, 11:45:35 pm
Just do as I say. Tell any who flinch to p1ss off back from whence they came, and then send any you do let in back to the same hole as soon as they slip up.  Until someone comes up with a way of reading thoughts. Then use thought police.

Ya voull Herr Commandant!
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 20, 2017, 12:51:36 am
Ya voull Herr Commandant!

Now you're talking. Funny, I just finished watching Valkyrie. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 20, 2017, 12:53:57 am
I suggest that unless/and until all immigrants find a way to magically turn their skins pasty white, that the xenophobes will continue to try to suggest we need to hide under our beds to avoid being overrun by devastating foreign cultural practices that will inevitably destroy our own culture. Of course they have yet to produce any evidence that this is in fact occurring in any real way, but hey, when you are hiding under the bed it's hard to get a handle on reality. Throw them a piece of vanilla cake, now pass me the curry.

Honestly, colour.  What crap.  And a cop out too, I might add.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 20, 2017, 05:49:49 am
When freedom  of religion means denying freedom of thought and freedom of expression, I'm against that one.  Really.  Not to mention the hiding women under bedsheets value.
All religion by your standards denies freedom of thought and freedom of expression. I have colleagues who study immigrants and in their interviews many of the women who wear hijabs did so against their families' wishes. The men were afraid it would reflect badly on them. Do you know why they wore the hijab anyway? Because for them it was an expression of their faith and devotion to God. They believed that in Canada they have the freedom to express their religion without persecution. Some women even convinced their mothers that they were "safe" to wear the hijab again here, long after the mothers had stopped wearing them.

It's tremendously hypocritical for people like you and Argus to complain that these Muslims cover their women in bedsheets, but you don't give a second thought to nuns wearing bedsheets or priest men being denies their sexuality due to their celibacy vows. Believe it or not, many Muslims women freely choose to wear hijabs and other coverings as an expression of their faith because it makes them feel closer to God. You would deny them that, then it is you who are against our values here. As Smallc mentioned, our values include freedom of religion and freedom of expression, as well as freedom of association.

Nitpicking about what clothes someone wears is so tremendously petty that any law passed dictating how a woman dresses would certainly be shot down, especially when the clothes they wear is part of their religious identities. It's like denying a Jewish man the peyotes or Sikh the turban or a Christian the crucifix.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 20, 2017, 05:52:11 am
Even someone with citizenship. Even me.

The only reason we can't do it to someone born here, is there is nowhere to send them.
That and we have a system of laws. We don't exile people like some primitive civilization.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 20, 2017, 09:55:34 am
That and we have a system of laws. We don't exile people like some primitive civilization.

Well, we should.  If only there was an island that nobody wanted somewhere.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 20, 2017, 10:53:31 am
All of the things that you are against are protected by the very Canadian values you claim to be defending.

What Canadian values consist of has changed over time and will continue to change. Keep bringing in masses of people who oppose those values from an extremely conservative religious point of view and the values will change in that direction. Look at how fast our values about gays changed. Do you really think they can't change again in the opposite direction?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 20, 2017, 11:09:12 am
I suggest that unless/and until all immigrants find a way to magically turn their skins pasty white, that the xenophobes will continue to try to suggest

Sam Harris and Bill Maher had a great conversation about how the Left are the allies of Islamists, fanatically defending the worst excesses of Islam and demanding we make no judgement about them ever. Those moderate Muslims who try to reform the religion find themselves denounced and opposed by the liberal Left time and time again. And anyone who tries to point out the bigotry and misogyny of Islamic theology finds themselves similarly attacked by the shrieking ignorance of the more brainless elements of the Left. Harris talks about the massive double standard of the Left who tolerate the rigid religious based values of Islam but would never tolerate a fraction of that attitude from Christians.

"The Left has allied itself with islamists and closet islamists," Harris said. "You don't have to be a fascist or a racist or even a trumpian to not want to import people who feel cartoonists should be killed for drawing the prophet. That's a totally rational thing not to want. And the Left has been demonizing anyone who wants to talk about this."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7eVvph69Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7eVvph69Y)
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 20, 2017, 11:17:19 am
It's tremendously hypocritical for people like you and Argus to complain that these Muslims cover their women in bedsheets, but you don't give a second thought to nuns wearing bedsheets or priest men being denies their sexuality due to their celibacy vows.

Oh give me a break. You're talking about an employment choice made with full knowledge of the requirements vs a demand of daily life for all people.


Quote
Believe it or not, many Muslims women freely choose to wear hijabs and other coverings as an expression of their faith because it makes them feel closer to God.

The only reason anyone I've ever seen has given for wearing these things is because it is a requirement that women dress modestly so as to not arouse men. Many experts in the religion say that does not include wearing hijabs, much less burquas. The whole idea is offensive, to begin with, especially since there is no such requirement for men. Islam says men should be modest too but nobody seems to interpret that to say they can't go around bare headed wearing short sleeves and shorts, or go for a swim in a bathing suit.

If a Muslim woman believes she is wearing the hijab because that's a requirement of a dedicated person in her religion then she is embracing the harsh, intolerant version of Islam we've seen coming from Saudi Arabia, which also means embracing all the other harshly intolerant aspects of that religion. I go back to when the silly NDP naively asked the wife of Maher Arar to be a candidate in an election, then were startled when she answered questions the media put and revealed that under no circumstances would she support any kind of gay rights.

Do people really not understand that wearing these garments and professing a dedication to Islam means accepting all those rigid interpretations of infidels and women and gays and such?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 20, 2017, 12:38:00 pm
I understand that your interpretation of someone else's religion is meaningless. I also understand that a woman can make the choice to wear a hijab without being abused by her family. Do you understand those things?

I read an interesting book about middle-aged women from New York converting to orthodox Judaism. Seems like the most bizarre thing for a modern American woman in the most cosmopolitan city in America to convert to orthodox Judaism, doesn't it?

You should think about why someone would do that.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 20, 2017, 12:46:12 pm
Here's the book if you're interested in the answer. http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520075450
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 20, 2017, 02:36:19 pm
I understand that your interpretation of someone else's religion is meaningless. I also understand that a woman can make the choice to wear a hijab without being abused by her family. Do you understand those things?

Do you understand the concept of judging by behavior and not wanting more of a group which exhibits a certain behavioural trait to come to Canada?
Quote
I read an interesting book about middle-aged women from New York converting to orthodox Judaism. Seems like the most bizarre thing for a modern American woman in the most cosmopolitan city in America to convert to orthodox Judaism, doesn't it?

You should think about why someone would do that.

Because they have an empty life and are looking for meaning? At one point it was smaller cults people joined. However crazy they were, people still joined them. I suppose they still do since the Moonies, Scientologists and Hare Krishna continue to thrive.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 20, 2017, 04:26:24 pm
Do you understand the concept of judging by behavior and not wanting more of a group which exhibits a certain behavioural trait to come to Canada?
A group that exhibits a behavioural trait? I'm sorry, do you think religious expression is something other than cultural?

Because they have an empty life and are looking for meaning? At one point it was smaller cults people joined. However crazy they were, people still joined them. I suppose they still do since the Moonies, Scientologists and Hare Krishna continue to thrive.
How utterly condescending. You're the reason people have freedom to practice their religions, as long as they're not violating the criminal code. You don't understand it. You don't care to understand it. What's worse is your arguments don't even account for the fact that many Muslim women choose this as an expression of their devotion to their faith, just like evangelical pentecostal women here in New Brunswick all wear denim skirts to their ankles and hair bonnets. It's not my place to tell someone else how to observe their faith nor is it yours. And last time I checked people had the liberty in Canada to practice their religions, whether you like it or not. It in fact a protected right, protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: waldo on March 20, 2017, 05:57:06 pm
What Canadian values consist of has changed over time and will continue to change. Keep bringing in masses of people who oppose those values from an extremely conservative religious point of view and the values will change in that direction.

I rarely see anyone wearing a Niqab; once in a while (but again rarely) I notice someone wearing a Shayla or a Hijab... what I usually see is a simple head scarf, which in itself, doesn't necessarily speak to the person being Muslim. I travel a fair amount between Alberta and BC but haven't been east for a few years. What part of the country do you live in that has you so bed-wetting?

When I do notice immigrant families together, I certainly haven't noticed any overt suppression of women. Again, what parts of the country are so stressing you?

I read and view examples tracking/following recent refugees to Canada. Unless there's some form of overt bias to only show refugees trying to settle in... trying to assimilate, I can only surmise these examples run counter to your personal experiences and raised concerns. Can you provide anything of substance to support your broad-based claims and raised concerns... here... within Canada?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 20, 2017, 06:22:42 pm
A group that exhibits a behavioural trait? I'm sorry, do you think religious expression is something other than cultural?

I don't give a **** what you want to define it by. I don't want to bring people into my country who have these religious based values.

Quote
How utterly condescending. You're the reason people have freedom to practice their religions, as long as they're not violating the criminal code

Oh give me a break. The Left snarls with indignant rage at anyone who exhibits the slightest, faintest trace of doubt about equality of gays and lesbians and yet when it comes to Muslims, even foreign Muslims wanting to come to Canada who make the worst Canadian born homophobes seem enlightened you're all desperately  eager to have them, in fact, the more the merrier! And you're angry anyone would question their 'freedom of religion'.

Quote
You don't understand it. You don't care to understand it. What's worse is your arguments don't even account for the fact that many Muslim women choose this as an expression of their devotion to their faith,

No, you don't understand, that as far as I'm concerned that alone means I don't want them here, and they're not Canadian. Because the faith they're expressing devotion to has far too many values which are inimical to any civilized, secular, democratic  or tolerant society.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 20, 2017, 07:13:45 pm
There's no discussing this issue with you whatsoever. You're literally too bloody thick to understand that Muslims don't all believe the same thing and most of the ones coming here are escaping the zealots you claim to be keeping out. I know plenty of Muslims and not any of them are the disgusting caricature you have in your mind. You wouldn't know that though because you're too busy spitting on women in hijabs to sit down and have a conversation with them.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 20, 2017, 07:17:05 pm
I rarely see anyone wearing a Niqab; once in a while (but again rarely) I notice someone wearing a Shayla or a Hijab...

Despite such controversy the practice of wearing head coverings is widespread and growing in Canada. More than half (53%) of Muslim women surveyed say they wear a hijab, chador or niqab in public, with this proportion up from 42 percent in 2006. Most wear the hijab (48%, up 10 points since 2006), with comparatively fewer wearing the chador (3%, unchanged) or niqab (3%, up 2). This practice has grown across the population, but most noticeably among women 18 to 34 where it is now most prevalent (comprising 60% of this group).

http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uploads/institute-projects/survey%20of%20muslims%20in%20canada%202016%20-%20final%20report.pdf (http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uploads/institute-projects/survey%20of%20muslims%20in%20canada%202016%20-%20final%20report.pdf)


Quote
I read and view examples tracking/following recent refugees to Canada. Unless there's some form of overt bias to only show refugees trying to settle in... trying to assimilate, I can only surmise these examples run counter to your personal experiences and raised concerns. Can you provide anything of substance to support your broad-based claims and raised concerns... here... within Canada?

Despite the beliefs of  people on the Left that all Canadians adore immigrants and have no qualms about their assimilating, every poll taken has shown that concern exists and is widespread. Canadians want immigrants to assimilate and are not confident they are doing so. Pretending everyone with such a belief is some kind of extremist or racist is childish.

In a national polling partnership between CBC and the Angus Reid Institute, 68 per cent of Canadian respondents said minorities should be doing more to fit in with mainstream society instead of keeping their own customs and languages. "That said, when nearly 70 per cent of people in this country are saying they would like to see minorities do more to fit in, it is something that bears watching, particularly because that view has hardened over the last 25 years."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/poll-canadians-multiculturalism-immigrants-1.3784194 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/poll-canadians-multiculturalism-immigrants-1.3784194)

Just over half of those surveyed agreed with the statement “too many immigrants don’t seem to feel connected to Canadian society,” while better than two of three Canadians believe immigrants should change their behaviour to be more like Canadians once they arrive here.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-not-so-exceptional-when-it-comes-to-immigration-and-refugee-views-new-study-finds (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-not-so-exceptional-when-it-comes-to-immigration-and-refugee-views-new-study-finds)

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 20, 2017, 07:18:56 pm
There's no discussing this issue with you whatsoever. You're literally too bloody thick to understand that Muslims don't all believe the same thing and most of the ones coming here are escaping the zealots you claim to be keeping out. I know plenty of Muslims and not any of them are the disgusting caricature you have in your mind. You wouldn't know that though because you're too busy spitting on women in hijabs to sit down and have a conversation with them.
I know, you're talking about only the fanatical zealots, even though Muslims themselves are a fraction of the immigrants coming here and the vast majority of those are escaping zealotry.

Keep up the good fight though. I'm sure you think you're promoting a safer Canada with all of that horrific terrorist activity we're subjected to daily. /s
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 20, 2017, 07:24:13 pm
There's no discussing this issue with you whatsoever. You're literally too bloody thick to understand that Muslims don't all believe the same thing and most of the ones coming here are escaping the zealots you claim to be keeping out. I know plenty of Muslims and not any of them are the disgusting caricature you have in your mind. You wouldn't know that though because you're too busy spitting on women in hijabs to sit down and have a conversation with them.

Well, I could talk with my neighbour's wife, except that according to his religion his wife isn't allowed to talk to anyone with a ****, unless they're a family member.
I'm sorry if my understanding of the Muslim religion, which is born out in countless texts and examples and polls from throughout the Muslim world, runs counter to your rainbows and unicorns view of the world, where all men are brothers and love one another. But I'm firmly grounded in reality.

If you wear the hijab then you're a conservative Muslim, and while they might not be outspoken to you, white boy, being a conservative Muslim means, among other things, that women are subservient and obedient to men and that gays are filthy creatures who should, at the least, be imprisoned, and that the world would be way better off if someone got rid of all the Jews. Among other things. I'm not making that up. They say it themselves. They even say it in their mosques in Canada - just not in English. And then whenever anyone who isn't a Muslim finds out they say "Oh, sorry about that. Tsk tsk. He was such a bad boy."


Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 20, 2017, 07:27:07 pm
I know, you're talking about only the fanatical zealots, even though Muslims themselves are a fraction of the immigrants coming here and the vast majority of those are escaping zealotry.

Keep up the good fight though. I'm sure you think you're promoting a safer Canada with all of that horrific terrorist activity we're subjected to daily. /s

I've told you many times it's not that I'm so concerned about terrorism. I'm concerned with creating a group of outsiders in our country who will not assimilate because of their religion, whose values are hostile to ours, and whose numbers and influence will continue to grow. These consist of not only "islamists' but as Sam Harris says, of Conservative Muslims who might not agree with the Islamists about violence, but who generally agree with them about their rigid values and things like Sharia law. When you add in the fact that people from the middle east are also the least economically successful immigrants to Canada I see absolutely no downside in changing our source countries off for better ones.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: msj on March 21, 2017, 12:08:28 am
Keep up the good fight though. I'm sure you think you're promoting a safer Canada with all of that horrific terrorist activity we're subjected to daily. /s

Reminds me of this image. 

Same "logic.".
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 21, 2017, 01:54:40 am
I've told you many times it's not that I'm so concerned about terrorism. I'm concerned with creating a group of outsiders in our country who will not assimilate because of their religion, whose values are hostile to ours, and whose numbers and influence will continue to grow. These consist of not only "islamists' but as Sam Harris says, of Conservative Muslims who might not agree with the Islamists about violence, but who generally agree with them about their rigid values and things like Sharia law. When you add in the fact that people from the middle east are also the least economically successful immigrants to Canada I see absolutely no downside in changing our source countries off for better ones.

You simply see t be afraid of anyone mot pasty white like yourself settling here. It's called xenophobia. If you have any actual data that shows the rest of why we should adopt your fears, please post it.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: waldo on March 21, 2017, 02:01:38 am
Despite the beliefs of  people on the Left that all Canadians adore immigrants and have no qualms about their assimilating

citation request

In a national polling partnership between CBC and the Angus Reid Institute, 68 per cent of Canadian respondents said minorities should be doing more to fit in with mainstream society instead of keeping their own customs and languages. "That said, when nearly 70 per cent of people in this country are saying they would like to see minorities do more to fit in, it is something that bears watching, particularly because that view has hardened over the last 25 years."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/poll-canadians-multiculturalism-immigrants-1.3784194 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/poll-canadians-multiculturalism-immigrants-1.3784194)

it's a survey... and an online one at that. For what meaning any single poll, er... survey has, care to speak to this apparent contradiction within your own quoted reference: "67% of Canadians indicated that they were satisfied with how well new immigrants were integrating into their communities"

any comments on this opinion critique: How Angus Reid, CBC got it wrong about multiculturalism (https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/10/12/how-angus-reid-cbc-got-it-wrong-about-multiculturalism.html) --- Survey questions leave only stark choices to choose from, resulting in misleading answers about our acceptance of diversity
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: waldo on March 21, 2017, 02:52:10 am
Despite such controversy the practice of wearing head coverings is widespread and growing in Canada. More than half (53%) of Muslim women surveyed say they wear a hijab, chador or niqab in public, with this proportion up from 42 percent in 2006. Most wear the hijab (48%, up 10 points since 2006), with comparatively fewer wearing the chador (3%, unchanged) or niqab (3%, up 2). This practice has grown across the population, but most noticeably among women 18 to 34 where it is now most prevalent (comprising 60% of this group).

http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uploads/institute-projects/survey%20of%20muslims%20in%20canada%202016%20-%20final%20report.pdf (http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uploads/institute-projects/survey%20of%20muslims%20in%20canada%202016%20-%20final%20report.pdf)

oh my! "Head covering"!!! And that's the generalized reference the word hijab can apply to. What do these following examples suggest to you?

(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGiFzatv.jpg&hash=6e0f4446940c7cc20a43eb7544b1bed2e4ced72e)

any thoughts on the burkini?  ;D
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 21, 2017, 04:11:17 pm
I'm concerned with creating a group of outsiders in our country
You're the one making them outsiders with your xenophobic lies and bigotry.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 21, 2017, 04:46:42 pm
You simply see t be afraid of anyone mot pasty white like yourself settling here. It's called xenophobia. If you have any actual data that shows the rest of why we should adopt your fears, please post it.

That always seems to be your default argument, probably because you're not smart enough to offer up anything substantive.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 21, 2017, 04:48:43 pm
oh my! "Head covering"!!! And that's the generalized reference the word hijab can apply to. What do these following examples suggest to you?

People who are not Canadian and do not share any of Canada's secular or cultural beliefs. Hostile foreigners.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 21, 2017, 04:51:12 pm
You're the one making them outsiders with your xenophobic lies and bigotry.

I'm not the one who forces them to devote themselves to a religious belief system which is inimical to our culture and values.

And let's face facts. If these people were White you'd hate their guts because of their beliefs about women, gays, abortion, etc., and demand none come over here. The only reason you are such a fanatical devotee to Muslim immigration is you perceive them to be non white and thus in need of your paternalistic protection. I judge everyone equally, without regard to ethnicity or skin colour. You're the racist here, bub.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 21, 2017, 05:12:17 pm
That always seems to be your default argument, probably because you're not smart enough to offer up anything substantive.

I'll take that as you do NOT have any actual supporting data. Thanks for playing though.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 21, 2017, 07:29:19 pm
oh my! "Head covering"!!! And that's the generalized reference the word hijab can apply to. What do these following examples suggest to you?

(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGiFzatv.jpg&hash=6e0f4446940c7cc20a43eb7544b1bed2e4ced72e)


A number of things.  They have Fathers and Brothers.  They are willing to wear a symbol of oppression as a fashion accessory.  They genuinely want to wear it, because they think their religion requires them to. They don't want to wear it, but they think their religion requires them to.  They are models/movie stars on a shoot.  I think the thing it suggests to me the most is that it's fairly pointless to try and make a point with a picture like that.  I mean, think of it the other way around.  Pretend I posted a picture of a few women in 40 degree heat wearing burkas, or some beheadings, stonings or shootings.  Wouldn't mean squat, would it?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 21, 2017, 08:39:26 pm
A number of things.  They have Fathers and Brothers.  They are willing to wear a symbol of oppression as a fashion accessory.  They genuinely want to wear it, because they think their religion requires them to. They don't want to wear it, but they think their religion requires them to.  They are models/movie stars on a shoot.  I think the thing it suggests to me the most is that it's fairly pointless to try and make a point with a picture like that.  I mean, think of it the other way around.  Pretend I posted a picture of a few women in 40 degree heat wearing burkas, or some beheadings, stonings or shootings.  Wouldn't mean squat, would it?

Or maybe they wear it not because they have to, but because they want to make a fashion statement, and to give the finger to all the gasping xenophobes who continuously jump to their cookie cutter conclusions.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 21, 2017, 09:05:15 pm
Or maybe they wear it not because they have to, but because they want to make a fashion statement, and to give the finger to all the gasping xenophobes who continuously jump to their cookie cutter conclusions.

I did mention the fashion statement thing. Does it really bother you so much that I am against the oppression of women by people who don't look like me that you think it's due to xenophobia, and not actually due to the oppression?  Why is opposition to oppression cookie cutter xenophobia if it's oppression by people who aren't white?  What kind of oppression do you oppose?  Are you really picky, or something?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 21, 2017, 09:12:27 pm
I did mention the fashion statement thing. Does it really bother you so much that I am against the oppression of women by people who don't look like me that you think it's due to xenophobia, and not actually due to the oppression?  Why is opposition to oppression cookie cutter xenophobia if it's oppression by people who aren't white?  What kind of oppression do you oppose?  Are you really picky, or something?
I think you seem to believe that every woman who has swarthy skin and who wears any sort of head scarf does so due to oppression.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 21, 2017, 09:31:41 pm
I think you seem to believe that every woman who has swarthy skin and who wears any sort of head scarf does so due to oppression.

But I don't. I just think some of them do. And some with skin that is not so swarthy.  I would hazard a guess that it's quite a few. Millions. I would also say that such oppression isn't the worst they face. You might disagree.  I bet deep down you don't, though.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 22, 2017, 08:00:29 am
I did mention the fashion statement thing. Does it really bother you so much that I am against the oppression of women by people who don't look like me that you think it's due to xenophobia, and not actually due to the oppression?  Why is opposition to oppression cookie cutter xenophobia if it's oppression by people who aren't white?  What kind of oppression do you oppose?  Are you really picky, or something?
I think it's pretty oppressive to deny someone their right to express their religious devotion in a manner of their choosing that doesn't break the law. You're telling Muslim women that their religion and culture is oppressive to them. Well isn't it a good thing that a bunch of Westerners can get on their high horse and tell them what their religion is. What would they know, being women devoted to that religion their whole lives and all that. Good thing there's white men in the west and white western feminists to tell them how oppressed they are.

Meanwhile, Muslim women have been leaders of their countries, while a woman with vastly superior qualifications couldn't even win the presidency from a loud-mouthed reality TV star who can't utter two words without lying. A woman has never been prime minister in our country, except for that one time she rose to the position by default when a man quit.

I guess those Muslim women who were leaders were flaunting their oppression on their heads too.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 22, 2017, 08:19:50 am
I think it's pretty oppressive to deny someone their right to express their religious devotion in a manner of their choosing that doesn't break the law. You're telling Muslim women that their religion and culture is oppressive to them. Well isn't it a good thing that a bunch of Westerners can get on their high horse and tell them what their religion is. What would they know, being women devoted to that religion their whole lives and all that. Good thing there's white men in the west and white western feminists to tell them how oppressed they are.

Meanwhile, Muslim women have been leaders of their countries, while a woman with vastly superior qualifications couldn't even win the presidency from a loud-mouthed reality TV star who can't utter two words without lying. A woman has never been prime minister in our country, except for that one time she rose to the position by default when a man quit.

I guess those Muslim women who were leaders were flaunting their oppression on their heads too.

Yeah, I think so too, that's why I oppose any kind of clothing ban.  It's strange how one can do that, and still know what covering up a woman means, eh? It's funny how some people can think two things at once.

That said, we don't have to tell them what their religion is.  They know.  It's made plain, pretty much everyday, to anyone with access to a newscast.  They don't have to like it.  They don't have to agree with it.  Lots don't, of course.  They can't really deny it, though. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 22, 2017, 11:51:28 am
I think it's pretty oppressive to deny someone their right to express their religious devotion in a manner of their choosing that doesn't break the law. You're telling Muslim women that their religion and culture is oppressive to them.

Are you saying it's NOT?

And if the answer is yes, can I ask, do you have the slightest, faintest trace of respect for women, or do you despise them?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 22, 2017, 12:48:45 pm
Yeah, I think so too, that's why I oppose any kind of clothing ban.  It's strange how one can do that, and still know what covering up a woman means, eh? It's funny how some people can think two things at once.

That said, we don't have to tell them what their religion is.  They know.  It's made plain, pretty much everyday, to anyone with access to a newscast.  They don't have to like it.  They don't have to agree with it.  Lots don't, of course.  They can't really deny it, though.
Why not oppose the clothing bam and leave it at that. Why wade into the muddy waters of presuming you can judge why the women chooses to express her religion her way. It's that one size fits all type of thinking that leads to problems.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 22, 2017, 03:26:29 pm
Are you saying it's NOT?

And if the answer is yes, can I ask, do you have the slightest, faintest trace of respect for women, or do you despise them?

It seems clear your respect for women stops right after the pasty white WASPy version you're probably most familiar with.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 22, 2017, 04:45:48 pm
It seems clear your respect for women stops right after the pasty white WASPy version you're probably most familiar with.

And if I had as much respect for you as I do for the ugly, mishappen three legged dog that keeps falling over while pissing on the mailbox out front that would perhaps be worth some consideration.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 22, 2017, 04:56:21 pm
And if I had as much respect for you as I do for the ugly, mishappen three legged dog that keeps falling over while pissing on the mailbox out front that would perhaps be worth some consideration.

Oh my my, I must have touched a nerve. I would imagine you have to field a lot of similar comments, xenophobia tends to attract them.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 22, 2017, 06:01:28 pm
Oh my my, I must have touched a nerve. I would imagine you have to field a lot of similar comments, xenophobia tends to attract them.

Uhm, no that's pretty much the way I've always thought of you. And since you think most Canadians are xenophobic that really only says you're uncomfortable in this country. I'm sure you would be WAY happier in say, Egypt, where people have the kind of values you respect.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 22, 2017, 08:11:38 pm
Uhm, no that's pretty much the way I've always thought of you. And since you think most Canadians are xenophobic that really only says you're uncomfortable in this country. I'm sure you would be WAY happier in say, Egypt, where people have the kind of values you respect.

See the difference is I've actually been to Egypt, so I can actually speak with a little authority. And no, most Canadians are not xenophobic, that's why those that are are easily identifiable.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 22, 2017, 08:26:09 pm
Why not oppose the clothing bam and leave it at that. Why wade into the muddy waters of presuming you can judge why the women chooses to express her religion her way. It's that one size fits all type of thinking that leads to problems.

It's the one size fits all type of thinking that says that photograph represents all Muslim women.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 22, 2017, 08:28:20 pm
****
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 22, 2017, 08:40:52 pm
****

Stub your toe?

Forgot to buy the 6/49 and your numbers came up?  Nah, not that, it's 10 minutes shy.

Testing to see if the censor is working?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 22, 2017, 08:46:01 pm
It's the one size fits all type of thinking that says that photograph represents all Muslim women.
Perhaps you may be catching on. One size fits all seldom works very well.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 22, 2017, 08:47:39 pm
Perhaps you may be catching on. One size fits all seldom works very well.

No, you are catching on.  That was the point I was making in my first post about the photograph.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 22, 2017, 08:49:58 pm
Stub your toe?

Forgot to buy the 6/49 and your numbers came up?  Nah, not that, it's 10 minutes shy.

Testing to see if the censor is working?

Mostly that last one.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on March 22, 2017, 08:59:35 pm
Mostly that last one.

Just use words the censor doesn't know, like Bollocks, and Pratt!
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 22, 2017, 09:10:46 pm
I paid money to temporarily kill the censor.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 23, 2017, 10:06:07 am
Are you saying it's NOT?

And if the answer is yes, can I ask, do you have the slightest, faintest trace of respect for women, or do you despise them?
I have more respect for them than you do, since apparently you think they can think for themselves. If it's not Muslim men telling them what to do, you think they need to listen to white men like yourself instead. How about you listen to these women's stories and let them decide for themselves. I give them the benefit that they're intelligent individuals with their own goals and aspirations. They can make choices for themselves, especially here in Canada where we don't force them into burqas, hijabs, segregation, etc. And neither do we force them to lose their cultural and religious identities because they offend the sensibilities of xenophobes.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 23, 2017, 03:46:32 pm
See the difference is I've actually been to Egypt, so I can actually speak with a little authority. And no, most Canadians are not xenophobic, that's why those that are are easily identifiable.

Like the three quarters of Canadians who want value testing for immigrants, you mean?
I'm sure you've been to lots of Muslim countries. I'm sure you're VERY sympathetic to them all.
I'm sympathetic to women, rather than vicious religious fanatics and  misogynists
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 23, 2017, 03:47:44 pm
I paid money to temporarily kill the censor.

You must REALLY like cursing. :o
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 23, 2017, 03:52:42 pm
I have more respect for them than you do, since apparently you think they can think for themselves.

And what I have is empathy for their plight, for the fact that as a member of a society whose whole structure is based on familiar obligation and relationships a woman who dares to go against a violent patriarchal insistence on how she must dress and behave risks alienating herself from everyone and everything she's known. You seem to feel that a woman can simply decide for herself not to wear a hijab or burka and tra-la-la-la-law get on with her life. It's just not that bloody simple. And how about YOU listen to those Muslim women who actually ARE moderates and trying to reform the value system when they tell you that their biggest obstacle is well-meaning white liberals who sympathize with and defend the oppressive system they're trying to fight?

Quote
If it's not Muslim men telling them what to do, you think they need to listen to white men like yourself instead.

First of all, I'm not talking to Muslim women. I've never advocated any rule or law which prevents them from wearing whatever they want here. My only continuing belief is that the members of this extreme religious group do not make the best potential citizens for Canada, do not adapt as well as others, are not as economically successful as others, and as such should be replaced as a source by members of other countries and societies we know have performed, in aggregate, better.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 23, 2017, 04:08:49 pm
Like the three quarters of Canadians who want value testing for immigrants, you mean?

I'm still not clear on what that would look like.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on March 23, 2017, 04:44:09 pm
I love spring, the snow is melting and I will soon be heading to my rural property and see how many of these immigrants have moved in. These women wear head covering due to their religion.

(https://canadaalive.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/mennonites.jpg)
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 23, 2017, 05:25:23 pm
Like the three quarters of Canadians who want value testing for immigrants, you mean?
I'm sure you've been to lots of Muslim countries. I'm sure you're VERY sympathetic to them all.
I'm sympathetic to women, rather than vicious religious fanatics and  misogynists
Lietch's own party members aren't even close to being on board with her silly little questionnaire, and she certainly doesn't seem likely to win the party, so that ill conceived plan seems pretty much dead in the water. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 23, 2017, 06:06:08 pm
I love spring, the snow is melting and I will soon be heading to my rural property and see how many of these immigrants have moved in. These women wear head covering due to their religion.

(https://canadaalive.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/mennonites.jpg)

Glad you pointed that out. Yes, the Amish have retained their old world culture and religious values through generation after generation in Canada. So why is it you think Muslims will simply forsake theirs within a generation again?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 23, 2017, 06:07:23 pm
Lietch's own party members aren't even close to being on board with her silly little questionnaire, and she certainly doesn't seem likely to win the party, so that ill conceived plan seems pretty much dead in the water.

Which is undemocratic. It's the elites closing ranks and turning up their noses at the will of the people because the elites are  far more dedicated to the idea of inclusiveness than to any consideration for Canada's culture, values or identity.

And what happens when elites ignore the will of the people? That's when you get the Trumps and Le Pens and Wilders. Think it can't happen here? Think again. The recent polls on attitudes towards immigration stated support was wide but very soft. Given the right rabble rouser and some further economic problems who knows what could happen here.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 23, 2017, 08:49:31 pm
Which is undemocratic. It's the elites closing ranks and turning up their noses at the will of the people because the elites are  far more dedicated to the idea of inclusiveness than to any consideration for Canada's culture, values or identity.

And what happens when elites ignore the will of the people? That's when you get the Trumps and Le Pens and Wilders. Think it can't happen here? Think again. The recent polls on attitudes towards immigration stated support was wide but very soft. Given the right rabble rouser and some further economic problems who knows what could happen here.
When a plan is set aside due to it's lack of merit, that's not undemocratic, that's just cooler heads avoiding wading into a swamp. Our immigration system has worked very well to date and will likely continue to do so without some sort of arbitrary "Canadian Values" addition. That choice will keep us away from the Trump's etc.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 24, 2017, 07:37:41 am
Lietch's own party members aren't even close to being on board with her silly little questionnaire, and she certainly doesn't seem likely to win the party, so that ill conceived plan seems pretty much dead in the water.
Considering she's now one of the bottom feeders in the leadership race, I'm pretty sure SirJohn's claims that 75% of Canadians support her idea doesn't even reflect 75% of Conservative Party membership, let alone the rest of the public.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 24, 2017, 08:22:06 am
I'm still not clear on what that would look like.

Nor are the 3/4 who 'support' it, but since they only had to check a box, they didn't have time to really think it through.   It sounds reasonable, but any real examination of the idea and one realizes how unworkable an idea it really is.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 24, 2017, 03:09:28 pm
When a plan is set aside due to it's lack of merit, that's not undemocratic, that's just cooler heads avoiding wading into a swamp. Our immigration system has worked very well to date and will likely continue to do so without some sort of arbitrary "Canadian Values" addition. That choice will keep us away from the Trump's etc.

And how are you evaluating whether our immigration system has worked 'very well' to date? What do you use to evaluate whether we could have gotten much better immigrants who would have made us more prosperous and not cost us $30 billion a year? Why do you believe we are taking in the right number of immigrants given the only reason our numbers are as they are is because Mulroney tripled immigration in hopes all those newcomers would vote for the PC party? Do you think tripling immigration for that reason was good for Canada? Is that the kind of reasoning you feel should be guiding immigration?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 24, 2017, 03:10:38 pm
Considering she's now one of the bottom feeders in the leadership race, I'm pretty sure SirJohn's claims that 75% of Canadians support her idea doesn't even reflect 75% of Conservative Party membership, let alone the rest of the public.

Well, given there have only been two actual polls of the attitudes of Canadians towards this issue, both done by Left wing organizaions, and both showed three quarters of Canadians support the idea, I have a high degree of confidence in that.

If you believe this is incorrect, on what do you base your belief?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 24, 2017, 03:18:18 pm
Nor are the 3/4 who 'support' it, but since they only had to check a box, they didn't have time to really think it through.   It sounds reasonable, but any real examination of the idea and one realizes how unworkable an idea it really is.

It's not unworkable at all. It's something we used to do and something other countries do.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 24, 2017, 03:56:20 pm
And how are you evaluating whether our immigration system has worked 'very well' to date? What do you use to evaluate whether we could have gotten much better immigrants who would have made us more prosperous and not cost us $30 billion a year? Why do you believe we are taking in the right number of immigrants given the only reason our numbers are as they are is because Mulroney tripled immigration in hopes all those newcomers would vote for the PC party? Do you think tripling immigration for that reason was good for Canada? Is that the kind of reasoning you feel should be guiding immigration?

I think now people have had the time to think it over they have concluded that the Leitch Plan would certainly not have done a thing to enhance our immigration system and so it died a natural death. I have never stated what I think the "right" number of immigrants is but I know that without some immigration our population would be dwindling and getting much older. We have a lot of successful economic immigrants who work, start businesses, and are less likely to be drawing on EI than born Canadians. $30 billion/year? sounds like you let yourself get led down the Fraser Institute garden path.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 24, 2017, 04:13:37 pm
It's not unworkable at all. It's something we used to do and something other countries do.

How useful would it be?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 25, 2017, 10:51:28 am
It's not unworkable at all. It's something we used to do and something other countries do.
You know there's still a citizenship test, right?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 25, 2017, 02:32:48 pm
I think now people have had the time to think it over they have concluded that the Leitch Plan would certainly not have done a thing to enhance our immigration system and so it died a natural death.

So... wishful thinking? The original poll by the Star showed 70% of Canadians liked the idea. The latest poll, by the CBC earlier this month, after many weeks of condemnation of this idea in the media  showed 75% in favour.

It does not seem very logical to me to suggest that people have changed their minds at all.

Quote
I have never stated what I think the "right" number of immigrants is but I know that without some immigration our population would be dwindling and getting much older. We have a lot of successful economic immigrants who work, start businesses, and are less likely to be drawing on EI than born Canadians. $30 billion/year? sounds like you let yourself get led down the Fraser Institute garden path.

The Fraser Institute is the only one which does this sort of studying from an economic perspective. There have been some challenges to their report, which the authors have dealt with and responded to, pointing out the areas where their data is drawn from.

I too support immigration. But the immigration of people who are going to be non-contributors their whole lives seems to be a very suboptimal result if we could instead get immigrants who would be highly skilled and earning sufficient money to actually be paying taxes. As for the numbers, they should be set by demographics people, not politicians looking to score points with ethnic groups. The source countries of those immigrants should also be set by someone other than politicians, probably a mix of demographics, economists and other experts. Certainly the study conducted by Immigration Canada showing where our best earning immigrants come from ought to be used as a guide.
 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 25, 2017, 02:35:32 pm
You know there's still a citizenship test, right?

Yes, but realistically, people who are permanent residents will never leave, even if they repeatedly fail the citizenship test. And if they've been on welfare since their first day here, they're even less likely to ever leave.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 25, 2017, 02:38:37 pm
How useful would it be?

I default to the fact that every organization in Canada uses personal interviews to decide who to hire. And judging the personality and aptitude of the applicant is considered more important than verifying their actual knowledge, in many cases. Are they all wasting their time?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on March 25, 2017, 02:42:19 pm
I default to the fact that every organization in Canada uses personal interviews to decide who to hire. And judging the personality and aptitude of the applicant is considered more important than verifying their actual knowledge, in many cases. Are they all wasting their time?
So you think that the government is qualified to judge personality and aptitude? Our government? The one that you claim is 100% incompetent in everything they do?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 25, 2017, 02:49:43 pm
So you think that the government is qualified to judge personality and aptitude? Our government? The one that you claim is 100% incompetent in everything they do?

Unless you've got a quote where I have ever said the government is 100% incompetent, don't act like I've said it.

I'm not saying such a test would be perfect. I'm willing to bet lots of people would slip through. But the worst offenders, the dumbest, most unsophisticated and fanatical would probably get caught by their own religious zeal. As I've said before, you don't ask open, direct questions. And a lot could be learned simply from forcing them to interact with a female immigration officer. A lot could be learned from seeing and interviewing their wife, too. Especially if she has to interact with a male officer.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 25, 2017, 03:10:02 pm
Unless you've got a quote where I have ever said the government is 100% incompetent, don't act like I've said it.

I'm not saying such a test would be perfect. I'm willing to bet lots of people would slip through. But the worst offenders, the dumbest, most unsophisticated and fanatical would probably get caught by their own religious zeal. As I've said before, you don't ask open, direct questions. And a lot could be learned simply from forcing them to interact with a female immigration officer. A lot could be learned from seeing and interviewing their wife, too. Especially if she has to interact with a male officer.

Assuming that the "most fanatical" are also the dumbest or least sophisticated is a mistake.   

"Forcing" a man to interact with a female officer might get you the "dumbest" ones, I agree - at least for a while.  But it won't be long till word gets out, and they'll just learn to hide their distaste well enough to get through.

We don't even force non-Muslim women to interact with men if they're uncomfortable with it.  This is mainly because even non-Muslim men in official positions have been known to behave poorly and assault women as part of the 'interview' process.   In any case, whether it's a male or female interviewing her, a woman who is under her husband's or family's thumb is extremely unlikely to suddenly confess all in an interview with strangers.




Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 25, 2017, 05:00:51 pm
Yes, but realistically, people who are permanent residents will never leave, even if they repeatedly fail the citizenship test. And if they've been on welfare since their first day here, they're even less likely to ever leave.
If. How many permanent residents fail the citizenship numerous times AND draw on welfare the entire time they're here?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 26, 2017, 11:56:26 am
Assuming that the "most fanatical" are also the dumbest or least sophisticated is a mistake.   

"Forcing" a man to interact with a female officer might get you the "dumbest" ones, I agree - at least for a while.  But it won't be long till word gets out, and they'll just learn to hide their distaste well enough to get through.

I doubt it. You think those Jewish guys who won't even sit next to a woman on a plane are going to be able to shake ones hand and act like everything is normal as they discuss things? You think some Pakistani  guy who's offended if a woman shows her hair is going to be able to converse with a woman dressed in normal western fashion without showing any sign of his distaste? And anyway, as I already said, you can tailor a series of questions to lead people into truthful answers, or at least, answers that tell you a lot about a person.

Quote
We don't even force non-Muslim women to interact with men if they're uncomfortable with it.  This is mainly because even non-Muslim men in official positions have been known to behave poorly and assault women as part of the 'interview' process.

That's probably the most stupidly sexist thing I've ever read. All I can say is if you're a woman who is afraid to interact with a man in an office we don't want you immigrating to this country. Why should we when we could take someone whose cultural background is far more cosmopolitan and broad-minded?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 26, 2017, 11:57:50 am
If. How many permanent residents fail the citizenship numerous times AND draw on welfare the entire time they're here?

Not a lot. It's not like it's hard to master the Citizenship test. It has a 96% pass rate. The point I was making, really, is once they're here, they're not going anywhere.

And hey, maybe we should make it a little harder... I mean, I understand passing the test to be a cabby in London is a real ****. But people really want to be London cabbies so they work hard at it.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 26, 2017, 01:08:56 pm
Dia said ...
Quote
We don't even force non-Muslim women to interact with men if they're uncomfortable with it.  This is mainly because even non-Muslim men in official positions have been known to behave poorly and assault women as part of the 'interview' process.

SirJohn said 
Quote
That's probably the most stupidly sexist thing I've ever read.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/22/us-border-agent-sexually-assaults-teenage-sisters-texas

http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/border-patrol-agent-identified-after-suicide-kidnapping-sexual-assault-of/article_c92ea728-aac1-11e3-8d91-0017a43b2370.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canada-border-services-sex-assault-charges-1.3521706

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/border-officer-charged-with-sexual-assault/article691193/

https://www.kelownanow.com/news/news/National_News/16/04/06/Canada_Border_Agent_Facing_Sex_Assault_and_Extortion_Charges/


Quote
All I can say is if you're a woman who is afraid to interact with a man in an office we don't want you immigrating to this country. Why should we when we could take someone whose cultural background is far more cosmopolitan and broad-minded?

I'm not even an immigrant, and I wouldn't want to be interacting with a male border guard in an office away from anyone else - and I'm even aware of rights I have in a free country.  Imagine how much more terrifying it would be for a woman from a patriarchal society?   Even if her absolute purpose in coming to Canada was to obtain freedoms for herself and her daughters, how do you suppose she's likely to react to a man in a uniform questioning her?    How do you suppose this is going to appear to a border guard who's supposed to determine if she or her family are a 'threat' to our values?   How is your 'value' test supposed to adjust for border guards who have their own biases or who have no clue what the person in front of them had to endure to get there? 

Your ignorance about human behavior would fill a book. 

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 26, 2017, 02:08:43 pm
Dia said ...
SirJohn said 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/22/us-border-agent-sexually-assaults-teenage-sisters-texas

Are you seriously trying to defend that idiotic statement by posting cites about sexual assault? As if you needed to prove that sexual assault happened? Why not post links that show teachers sexually assaulting women, or lawyers or doctors? Your position that a reasonable, normal woman would be too frightened of **** to speak to an immigration officer in an office is moronic. Do you seriously not understand the difference between border patrol agents intercepting illegals at the Texas border and an immigration officer in an embassy or consulate interviewing immigration applicants?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 26, 2017, 02:42:58 pm
Are you seriously trying to defend that idiotic statement by posting cites about sexual assault? As if you needed to prove that sexual assault happened? Why not post links that show teachers sexually assaulting women, or lawyers or doctors? Your position that a reasonable, normal woman would be too frightened of **** to speak to an immigration officer in an office is moronic. Do you seriously not understand the difference between border patrol agents intercepting illegals at the Texas border and an immigration officer in an embassy or consulate interviewing immigration applicants?

Any time one person has power over another - and all immigration officers have power over immigrants by definition - then you have the potential for abuse of that power.   Whether it's a CBSA Officer interviewing someone at an airport or crossing or an immigration officer in an embassy. 

 http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/immigration-officer-charged-with-sexually-assaulting-woman-facing-deportation

As for your other ridiculous comments - when we are talking about why a woman might be hesitant about seeing male docs/lawyers/teachers in private settings, then I'll post news stories about male doctors/lawyers/teachers abusing their power.    Right now, we're talking about why a woman, any woman, might be uncomfortable being interviewed by a male immigration officer in a private office.

Given the incidence of **** and sexual assault by Canadian men, I have every right to be cautious about being interviewed by Canadian men I don't know in private settings.  Even more so if I'm hoping for their goodwill in some way.  You are the moron if you think otherwise.   

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 26, 2017, 03:35:37 pm
Any time one person has power over another - and all immigration officers have power over immigrants by definition - then you have the potential for abuse of that power.   Whether it's a CBSA Officer interviewing someone at an airport or crossing or an immigration officer in an embassy.

You have the 'potential' for abuse in almost all situations. Do you live under your bed or something? Do you go shopping and then go "Eek! A man! I can't go into that store!" and scurry away?

Quote
Given the incidence of **** and sexual assault by Canadian men,

Which is tiny compared to Muslim nations whose virtues you trumpet at every possible occasion...

Quote
I have every right to be cautious about being interviewed by Canadian men I don't know in private settings.  Even more so if I'm hoping for their goodwill in some way.  You are the moron if you think otherwise.

Listen, if you're that frightened of men I suggest you go back to Egypt. From your posts you'd be WAY happier there anyway. It's where women are treated with more respect after all, and have more freedom. ::)
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on March 26, 2017, 03:51:02 pm
You have the 'potential' for abuse in almost all situations. Do you live under your bed or something? Do you go shopping and then go "Eek! A man! I can't go into that store!" and scurry away?

You need to read what I wrote - I'm referring to situations where: 
1. ONE PERSON HAS POWER OVER THE OTHER - immigrant officer/immigrant; border services/person trying to cross border - legally or illegally and it's a
2.  PRIVATE SETTING - alone with someone (or maybe two someones) - in an office, behind a closed door, in a shed, out back of the building. 

Public places such as stores do not fall under either situation - unless perhaps a male store employee takes me into a back room to rifle through my bag because he thinks I shoplifted something. 

Quote
Which is tiny compared to Muslim nations whose virtues you trumpet at every possible occasion...
Irrelevant to thisdiscussion. 

Quote
Listen, if you're that frightened of men I suggest you go back to Egypt. From your posts you'd be WAY happier there anyway. It's where women are treated with more respect after all, and have more freedom. ::)
Listen, if you're that frightened of immigrants, I suggest you move to the States.   There's an entire government there willing to pander to your fears; it's where old white guys are treated with real respect.  I'm sure you'd be WAY happier there.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 26, 2017, 04:10:28 pm
You need to read what I wrote - I'm referring to situations where: 
1. ONE PERSON HAS POWER OVER THE OTHER - immigrant officer/immigrant; border services/person trying to cross border - legally or illegally and it's a
2.  PRIVATE SETTING - alone with someone (or maybe two someones) - in an office, behind a closed door, in a shed, out back of the building. 

If you're afraid to have an interview with a man in an office setting, a man who is a representative of Canada's government, then you're not sane. You think he's going to jump you, for Gods sakes?!

Quote
Listen, if you're that frightened of immigrants, I suggest you move to the States.

I'm not frightened of them. I just want productive immigrants who don't have crazy assed cultural values which say men and women can never be together without a chaperon ebecause men are salivating beasts who would besmirch womens honor. Go back home where you'll be safe!
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 26, 2017, 04:17:50 pm


I'm not frightened of them. I just want productive immigrants who don't have crazy assed cultural values which say men and women can never be together without a chaperon ebecause men are salivating beasts who would besmirch womens honor. Go back home where you'll be safe!

And you think Lietch's silly questionnaire is going to help provide that? I'd say lets just leave it to the experts who already do a pretty good job.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 27, 2017, 07:38:51 am
once they're here, they're not going anywhere.
You just provided two links in another thread that showed even refugees can get deported if they're a risk. They don't even have to break any laws.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 27, 2017, 11:50:29 am
And you think Lietch's silly questionnaire is going to help provide that? I'd say lets just leave it to the experts who already do a pretty good job.

Yes, I think a properly put together series of questions in an interview gives quite a bit of information about an applicant. And once again I ask you to explain why every organization in this country puts such importance on interviews with potential employees if they're so easily to breeze through without giving anything unflattering away about yourself. Have you ever been in a position to interview job applicants?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 27, 2017, 11:51:24 am
You just provided two links in another thread that showed even refugees can get deported if they're a risk. They don't even have to break any laws.

Don't be petty. Both of them were terrorists, and the government has spent YEARS trying to deport them. We're speaking of ordinary refugees and immigrants.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 27, 2017, 12:23:49 pm
Yes, I think a properly put together series of questions in an interview gives quite a bit of information about an applicant. And once again I ask you to explain why every organization in this country puts such importance on interviews with potential employees if they're so easily to breeze through without giving anything unflattering away about yourself. Have you ever been in a position to interview job applicants?

Yes I have, and in those situations you are looking for specific talents, experience, training that relate to the job being applied for. That is a whole lot different than trying to narrow down what attributes someone needs in order to become a successful Canadian. Your ideas might be different than mine and Kellie Lietch's might be different again. You could try just asking them if they plan to blow stuff up or not I guess.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 27, 2017, 01:30:21 pm
Don't be petty. Both of them were terrorists, and the government has spent YEARS trying to deport them. We're speaking of ordinary refugees and immigrants.
I'm not being petty. I think your concerned is disproportionate to the actual level of the problem. I believe the government has been handling it well, as evidenced by the fact that terrorist attacks on Canadian soil basically never happen.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 28, 2017, 02:26:58 pm
I'm not being petty. I think your concerned is disproportionate to the actual level of the problem. I believe the government has been handling it well, as evidenced by the fact that terrorist attacks on Canadian soil basically never happen.

Well, as I've always pointed out, my concern is not primarily with terrorism. I was merely answering a question about whether refugees had ever turned out or been found out to have been terrorists. I think most terrorists who come here would probably just see the US next door and try to get in there to do their thing. My primary concern has been with cultural  degradation if we continue to import so many people who look on our culture and values as contemptible.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 28, 2017, 02:33:18 pm
Yes I have, and in those situations you are looking for specific talents, experience, training that relate to the job being applied for. That is a whole lot different than trying to narrow down what attributes someone needs in order to become a successful Canadian. Your ideas might be different than mine and Kellie Lietch's might be different again. You could try just asking them if they plan to blow stuff up or not I guess.

I think we all know what sorts of values we would prefer. Adaptability, flexibility, a lazier faire view of others behavior, tolerance, an interest in secularism, a belief that harsher religious values and the punishments in religious books are really things of the past, acceptance of the idea that women can do many jobs equally, and that there is no need to hide their hair, much less their faces in order to spare men being aroused, an absence of the sort of religious chauvinism which sees everyone not a member of their particular type of religion as an outsider with dangerous beliefs, an acceptance that their religious values are absolutely non-binding on people who don't worship as they do (which means that you don't kill people who draw pictures of the prophet, among other things). A belief in self reliance, and that it is for the immigrant to adapt to the new nation, not the new nation to adapt to the immigrant.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 28, 2017, 02:47:38 pm
Well, as I've always pointed out, my concern is not primarily with terrorism. I was merely answering a question about whether refugees had ever turned out or been found out to have been terrorists. I think most terrorists who come here would probably just see the US next door and try to get in there to do their thing. My primary concern has been with cultural  degradation if we continue to import so many people who look on our culture and values as contemptible.

It would seem a lot more logical to me that people who make the efforts to get to Canada do so because they appreciate our culture and values. The system works well without Lietch's input, although it could probably use further resources.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 28, 2017, 04:04:17 pm
It would seem a lot more logical to me that people who make the efforts to get to Canada do so because they appreciate our culture and values.

Heck, why would they when most of those I argue with on this issue on the Left refuse to even acknowledge we HAVE a culture or values?
No, I never met an immigrant who came here because they admired our culture and values. They admire our big, shiny cities and infrastructure that works, and the possibility of getting rich here as they believe we are rich. You claim to have travelled in third world countries a lot. Do you honestly think life there is as good as it is here? Of course people want to come here for the richer life, in a well-functioning society.

That does NOT mean they are foreswearing the values they grew up with and which they have been taught are required by their religion.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on March 28, 2017, 04:32:16 pm
Heck, why would they when most of those I argue with on this issue on the Left refuse to even acknowledge we HAVE a culture or values?
No, I never met an immigrant who came here because they admired our culture and values. They admire our big, shiny cities and infrastructure that works, and the possibility of getting rich here as they believe we are rich. You claim to have travelled in third world countries a lot. Do you honestly think life there is as good as it is here? Of course people want to come here for the richer life, in a well-functioning society.

That does NOT mean they are foreswearing the values they grew up with and which they have been taught are required by their religion.
I don't know where you have lived but I spent a number of years living in Toronto downtown and I was surrounded by lots of immigrants and the ones I got to know were very appreciative of life in Canada I also appreciated the vast array of interesting foods at my disposal with a short walk in any direction. And yes I have been in many third world country's where certainly some of the peoples lives were a struggle. All the more reason they appreciate Canada if and when they can get here. Why would they bring those struggles with them? 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 28, 2017, 04:53:51 pm
My primary concern has been with cultural  degradation
Cultural degradation. Good lord. How much influence do you suppose the Muslim population has over Canada's culture?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 28, 2017, 07:55:18 pm
Cultural degradation. Good lord. How much influence do you suppose the Muslim population has over Canada's culture?

Right now? Not much. If their numbers keep doubling....
In a few years when they have the census they'll probably find that Muslims outnumber natives (ie aborigines), doubling from 3.25 in the 2011 census to 6.5 million. I can see them getting to 10-12% of the population within 7-10 years of then, as per the doubling I've already demonstrated since 1971. That would give us a higher percentage of Muslims than France has right now.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 28, 2017, 09:02:19 pm
It's a good thing then, that we've done a better job of integrating them than France.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 29, 2017, 02:04:50 pm
It's a good thing then, that we've done a better job of integrating them than France.

Without question we have. Our Muslims are nowhere near as radicalized as the ones in France. And I'd like to keep it that way by not taking in more radicals from places like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran, thanks.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 29, 2017, 03:26:23 pm
Without question we have. Our Muslims are nowhere near as radicalized as the ones in France. And I'd like to keep it that way by not taking in more radicals from places like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran, thanks.

But that's where we've always brought them from.  Did you ever imagine that maybe we're just better at it?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 29, 2017, 04:01:47 pm
But that's where we've always brought them from.  Did you ever imagine that maybe we're just better at it?

Radicalization in the Muslim world is FAR worse than it was a generation ago. Pakistan, in particular, is FAR more radicalized now than it was twenty years ago, the product of the Saudis pouring money into the country for religious schools that teach their version of Islam. The fact that more and more Muslim women are donning those ridiculous garments the religious conservatives feel women should cover themselves with shows Canadian Muslims are embracing this new, harsh, intolerant version of Islam the Saudis have been pushing around the world.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 29, 2017, 04:21:12 pm
Radicalization in the Muslim world is FAR worse than it was a generation ago. Pakistan, in particular, is FAR more radicalized now than it was twenty years ago, the product of the Saudis pouring money into the country for religious schools that teach their version of Islam.

Are those the people that are coming here?  And as you say, the Muslim population is growing rapidly.  That means that most of the population is made up of relatively recent arrivals.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 29, 2017, 04:58:56 pm
Are those the people that are coming here?  And as you say, the Muslim population is growing rapidly.  That means that most of the population is made up of relatively recent arrivals.

Well, maybe if we gave them interviews and had some testing we'd KNOW how many of them were coming here. But since certain views are pretty prevalent in Pakistan, we can sure some of them are among those coming here.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 29, 2017, 09:11:15 pm
Well, maybe if we gave them interviews and had some testing we'd KNOW how many of them were coming here. But since certain views are pretty prevalent in Pakistan, we can sure some of them are among those coming here.

We have a robust criteria that we already require to be met.  People can't just come here when they feel like it and live here.  What you want is outside of what we've done in the past.  We don't have criteria for the way people feel or think, nor should we.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 30, 2017, 07:32:27 am
We do have laws and police for what people do though and those are frankly good enough.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 30, 2017, 06:38:08 pm
We have a robust criteria that we already require to be met.  People can't just come here when they feel like it and live here.

We accept as a refugee virtually anyone who comes here from a variety of countries, and they become permanent residents. As to immigrants, I don't regard it as very robust given all they have to do is submit paperwork, none of which is really checked out. You know, to get into the US as a skilled immigrant you need to prove you have a job offer. Maybe that's one of the reasons why their immigrants have a lower unemployment rate than their born citizens, while ours have a higher unemployment rate.

As for everyone NOT a skilled immigrant, which is the majority, there are basically no language, education, or job skill requirements.

Quote
What you want is outside of what we've done in the past. 

Immigration is not working as it did in the past. Immigrants' economic success continues to deteriorate. The gulf between the cultural values of many immigrants and those of Canadians has never been this great. The gulf between the technological levels of the societies in which we are recruiting, and ours, has never been greater. If you don't want to do a values test then I'm fine with simply excluding all the countries which have a poor economic success rate in Canada. Statistically, this should not only give us much more economically successful immigrants but would exclude most of the regions which are most problematic in terms of cultural issues.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 30, 2017, 06:41:18 pm
We do have laws and police for what people do though and those are frankly good enough.

France has laws too. And lots more police than us. Now they also have soldiers in the streets, lots of them. I don't want to have guys with automatic weapons patrolling in front of every stadium, arena and mall here. Think that won't happen? Of course you don't! Think the French thought that would happen twenty years ago? Of course they didn't! The Belgians didn't think they'd have soldiers in the streets either. The Germans didn't think they'd need to put concrete blocks in front of every Christmas fair!

And now it's too late. I don't see why Canada should continue on a path which is already unprofitable in that immigrants from the middle east perform poorly in terms of economic success to begin with, and HOPE that these scenarios don't play out in Canada. Why not simply take immigrants from regions which we have found perform better in economic terms, but whose cultural values are not so hostile to ours?


Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 31, 2017, 07:38:27 am
Good thing Canada is not France neither geographically nor legally.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on March 31, 2017, 04:44:53 pm
Good thing Canada is not France neither geographically nor legally.

I agree. But that doesn't change my point. Maybe we'll wind up like them and maybe we won't. There's no way of knowing. But why take the risk when the government itself has a study showing they perform worse than anyone else (economically) as immigrants?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on March 31, 2017, 05:46:39 pm
Because the problem isn't even remotely as bad as you seem to think it is.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on March 31, 2017, 08:56:53 pm
I agree. But that doesn't change my point. Maybe we'll wind up like them and maybe we won't. There's no way of knowing. But why take the risk when the government itself has a study showing they perform worse than anyone else (economically) as immigrants?


This isn't a game of chance.  Policy has to be based on relevant evidence.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 01, 2017, 04:05:34 pm

This isn't a game of chance.  Policy has to be based on relevant evidence.

And the relevant evidence is that study done by Canadian Immigration showing which source areas for immigrants tend to produce the most economically successful immigrants. It's not like it's a small amount of difference either. Those at the top made twice what those at the bottom did, on average, sometimes more. All by itself that should cause us to rethink our source areas for immigrants. After all, the entire justification for our huge immigration system is economic. And clearly people coming in who earn a lot pay taxes, and are less likely to need social services.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 01, 2017, 04:28:34 pm
The women have to wear those clothes, and be escorted by men in public and only allowed to go out in the daytime. The reason is if they don't they would get ****. **** is considered normal there, happens all the time and nothing will be done about it. It would be considered the woman's fault. These people are filthy dogs.

Where exactly is the "THERE" you speak of I wonder? Or are you one of the types who probably has never been further away from home than to go to a block party, but think they know all about the world? I have lived and worked in a number of Muslim country's and I can tell you from those experiences that labeling all the Muslim world with "THERE" is simply a demonstration of ignorance.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 02, 2017, 03:26:43 pm
Now this guy seems to be a fine, upright Canadian...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9DOh2JMshs& (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9DOh2JMshs&)
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 02, 2017, 03:53:31 pm
Now this guy seems to be a fine, upright Canadian...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9DOh2JMshs& (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9DOh2JMshs&)

Oh yes, The Rebel with Ezra. There's a "reliable" source.
cough, cough
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 02, 2017, 06:03:49 pm
Oh yes, The Rebel with Ezra. There's a "reliable" source.
cough, cough

What are you, some kind of racist?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 02, 2017, 09:34:23 pm
What are you, some kind of racist?
What does identifying far right fake news sites have to do with being racist?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 03, 2017, 10:52:44 am
Now this guy seems to be a fine, upright Canadian...
The "left" boogie men are coming to get you, hide under your bed.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 03, 2017, 11:54:19 am
What does identifying far right fake news sites have to do with being racist?

What fake news? He was giving an opinion, and you dismiss him out of hand because he's a Black man!  :o
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 03, 2017, 12:19:08 pm
What fake news? He was giving an opinion, and you dismiss him out of hand because he's a Black man!  :o
Perhaps you forgot, I'm the pro immigration guy. I have been able to dismiss about everything that comes out of the Rebel though.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 03, 2017, 04:43:30 pm
Perhaps you forgot, I'm the pro immigration guy. I have been able to dismiss about everything that comes out of the Rebel though.

More racism! Suggesting he must be an immigrant merely because he's Black! I'm shocked!
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 03, 2017, 04:54:25 pm
More racism! Suggesting he must be an immigrant merely because he's Black! I'm shocked!
Do you subscribe to Breitbart as well?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 03, 2017, 07:12:41 pm
Do you subscribe to Breitbart as well?

Nope. Only You Tube.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 03, 2017, 08:43:59 pm
Nope. Only You Tube.
Oh well that explains a lot as well.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 04, 2017, 09:28:42 am
Oh well that explains a lot as well.

You tube DOES explain a lot. Particularly from 1.35 on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UShk0DrTDpI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UShk0DrTDpI)
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 04, 2017, 12:19:16 pm
You tube DOES explain a lot. Particularly from 1.35 on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UShk0DrTDpI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UShk0DrTDpI)
Yeah, sounds like a rant meant to appeal to mostly, how does he describe them "right wing whack jobs and racists"
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 04, 2017, 04:42:46 pm
You tube DOES explain a lot. Particularly from 1.35 on.

Yes, it clearly demonstrates that the self-described right-wing wackjobs will confuse "concerned" as support for their fascist ideals.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 04, 2017, 08:03:57 pm
Yeah, sounds like a rant meant to appeal to mostly, how does he describe them "right wing whack jobs and racists"

Yes, that is the usual audience of gay men...
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 04, 2017, 08:06:08 pm
Yes, it clearly demonstrates that the self-described right-wing wackjobs will confuse "concerned" as support for their fascist ideals.

He's not all that right wing, really, certainly not by American standards. Nor was Christoph Hitchens. Do you regard him as right wing? What about Sam Harris? Is he right wing? All of them have, in fact, decried people they describe as illiberal, which is basically, well, you guys, and how you're destroying destroying liberalism. I'm fairly sure neither of you actually looked at it beyond the first few seconds, but he had an excellent line in saying he wished the left would show the same ire they demonstrate towards  people who won't let him marry to people who want to throw him off a cliff.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 04, 2017, 09:07:23 pm
He's not all that right wing, really, certainly not by American standards. Nor was Christoph Hitchens. Do you regard him as right wing? What about Sam Harris? Is he right wing? All of them have, in fact, decried people they describe as illiberal, which is basically, well, you guys, and how you're destroying destroying liberalism. I'm fairly sure neither of you actually looked at it beyond the first few seconds, but he had an excellent line in saying he wished the left would show the same ire they demonstrate towards  people who won't let him marry to people who want to throw him off a cliff.
Why would he marry someone who wants to throw him off a cliff?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 04, 2017, 11:08:29 pm
Now this guy seems to be a fine, upright Canadian...

So far off base I quit watching at about 1 min 30 sec.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 04, 2017, 11:26:44 pm
You tube DOES explain a lot. Particularly from 1.35 on.


At least this guy wasn't a total idiot.  I agree with some of what he says regarding people failing to give the other side a fair hearing.  He accuses "The Left" of doing this, but I think it goes both ways. 

I certainly do not feel that "The Right" hears me, or gives a **** what my concerns are.  Expressing any kind of support for taxation or immigration, or compassion for poor people gets me called libtard, unemployed, stupid, not paying my fair share of taxes, not caring about my country.  Express any support for Muslims who aren't violent, or try any kind of historical or cultural context in terms of practices in the Middle East and Africa, and some Right Winger will accuse me of supporting female oppression, FGM, gay-killing, honor killing and pedophilia.

"The Right" is really good at blaming, I notice, but they sure don't want to take a look at themselves.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 04, 2017, 11:27:56 pm
What specifically do you disagree with? He's definitely stereotyping since "the Left" is more of a spectrum when it comes to people. But I found it made some excellent points, in particular around 2 min.

The spectrum that he fails to allow for.   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 05, 2017, 11:33:11 am
Why would he marry someone who wants to throw him off a cliff?

He also talked about how illberals like to glibly dismiss those whose viewpoints run contrary to theirs. That would be you.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 05, 2017, 11:38:48 am
He also talked about how illberals like to glibly dismiss those whose viewpoints run contrary to theirs. That would be you.
Seems your guy didn't gt the ratings you had hoped for.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 05, 2017, 11:41:11 am
  Express any support for Muslims who aren't violent, or try any kind of historical or cultural context in terms of practices in the Middle East and Africa, and some Right Winger will accuse me of supporting female oppression, FGM, gay-killing, honor killing and pedophilia.


You know, people say that Hitler and the Nazis were horrible people, and if I express any support for Nazis who weren't violent, or for the good things they did for the German economy, somehow people feel I'm an apologist. Whyever they could imagine that is beyond me. I mean, just because every single time anyone brings up something bad the Nazis did I counter with something bad Roosevelt did or something bad the British did or something bad the Americas did, does that really suggest I'm making excuses for Hitler and Nazis?

Well... yes. In fact, if I did that, it would.

That is why I call you an apologist for every time of brutal, extremist social behavior, because if you see anyone daring to criticize it you'll immediately rush forward to try and change the subject to something bad in Canada or the US. Because you are, without question, a firm and zealous defender of all of the above. Not I think, because you approve of it, but because you cannot abide the thought that people who don't have white skin can be criticized for anything whatsoever by people who do. You, and people like you, assuming you are not, in fact, a Muslim which is something I have strong doubts about, are one of the great obstacles Muslim moderates face in trying to condemn and change such behaviour. They have said as much.

Christopher Hitchens, in a speech I saw recently on line, said that the barbarians don't get through the gates without inside help. And this insidious help with regard to the advancement of Islam in the West is being done by people like yourself.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 05, 2017, 11:44:24 am
Seems your guy didn't gt the ratings you had hoped for.

I didn't post him for you. I posted him for thinking people whose minds were open to consideration and understanding. You are a mindless creature of extreme identity politics, conformity and political correctness.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 05, 2017, 12:06:20 pm
You know, people say that Hitler and the Nazis were horrible people, and if I express any support for Nazis who weren't violent, or for the good things they did for the German economy, somehow people feel I'm an apologist. Whyever they could imagine that is beyond me. I mean, just because every single time anyone brings up something bad the Nazis did I counter with something bad Roosevelt did or something bad the British did or something bad the Americas did, does that really suggest I'm making excuses for Hitler and Nazis?

Well... yes. In fact, if I did that, it would.

That is why I call you an apologist for every time of brutal, extremist social behavior, because if you see anyone daring to criticize it you'll immediately rush forward to try and change the subject to something bad in Canada or the US. Because you are, without question, a firm and zealous defender of all of the above. Not I think, because you approve of it, but because you cannot abide the thought that people who don't have white skin can be criticized for anything whatsoever by people who do. You, and people like you, assuming you are no, in fact, a Muslim which is something I have strong doubts about, are one of the great obstacles Muslim moderates face in trying to condemn and change such behaviour. They have said as much.

Christopher Hitchens, in a speech I saw recently on line, said that the barbarians don't get through the gates without inside help. And this insidious help with regard to the advancement of Islam in the West is being done by people like yourself.

I would defend Germans from being held guilty for what Nazis have done.  I defend Muslims from being held guilty for what Extremists do.

Mu support has nothing to do with color.  It has to do with the insistence xenophobes have when they assume things about entire populations.  Trump does it with Mexicans and Muslims, you do it with Liberals and Muslims.  There is no room in your mind for the idea that people are individuals, not a bunch of clones that can be described by a label.

I've been mocked and attacked by people like you since I was 14 years old and befriended a Hindu girl in high school.   They were wrong and you are wrong about those people and about me.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 05, 2017, 03:19:04 pm
I would defend Germans from being held guilty for what Nazis have done.  I defend Muslims from being held guilty for what Extremists do..

Let me explain the core of Islam courtesy of Christopher Hitchens. The absolute bedrock core of Islam is that Muhammed was the prophet of God and was a perfect man, which is why God selected him to carry His word. The Koran was dictated to him by God, because he was perfect, and is a perfect book, coming straight from God. This is something all Muslims ascribe to. Now in the Muslim world, if you deny either of these things you are guilty of heresy and blasphemy and will be punished quite severely, possibly even killed. This is something not simply in the law of Muslim countries and in Islamic law but agreed to by the great majority of the world's Muslims as shown by polls and actions.

This is why anyone mocking or insulting the prophet or the koran infuriates Muslims. It's why there are bloody, murderous riots throughout the Muslim world over cartoons or the rumor some westerner burned a koran. The perfection of the koran and its words are not open for discussion or questioning. Period. And part of those words are a vast array of hostile instructions on what to do about infidels and how to treat them. They even divide the world into two - the house of peace and the house of war. The latter being anywhere not ruled by Muslims, and which is to be conquered, if possible, by whatever means necessary.

I do not like the closed mindedness taught by the koran. I do not like those who ascribe to it. You persist in pretending the vast majority of Muslims are innocent, ordinary folks, but they are innocent, ordinary folks who subscribe to a brutal, bigoted, misogynistic legal and moral code, and hundreds of millions of them are Islamists, openly accepting the darkest aspects of Islam and believing and saying the most barbaric things about non-Muslims.

And you grow outraged and indignant at the thought of even trying to screen such people out of Canada, welcoming them with open and eager arms.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 05, 2017, 03:39:46 pm
Let me explain the core of Islam courtesy of Christopher Hitchens. The absolute bedrock core of Islam is that Muhammed was the prophet of God and was a perfect man, which is why God selected him to carry His word. The Koran was dictated to him by God, because he was perfect, and is a perfect book, coming straight from God. This is something all Muslims ascribe to. Now in the Muslim world, if you deny either of these things you are guilty of heresy and blasphemy and will be punished quite severely, possibly even killed. This is something not simply in the law of Muslim countries and in Islamic law but agreed to by the great majority of the world's Muslims as shown by polls and actions.

This is why anyone mocking or insulting the prophet or the koran infuriates Muslims. It's why there are bloody, murderous riots throughout the Muslim world over cartoons or the rumor some westerner burned a koran. The perfection of the koran and its words are not open for discussion or questioning. Period. And part of those words are a vast array of hostile instructions on what to do about infidels and how to treat them. They even divide the world into two - the house of peace and the house of war. The latter being anywhere not ruled by Muslims, and which is to be conquered, if possible, by whatever means necessary.

I do not like the closed mindedness taught by the koran. I do not like those who ascribe to it. You persist in pretending the vast majority of Muslims are innocent, ordinary folks, but they are innocent, ordinary folks who subscribe to a brutal, bigoted, misogynistic legal and moral code, and hundreds of millions of them are Islamists, openly accepting the darkest aspects of Islam and believing and saying the most barbaric things about non-Muslims.

And you grow outraged and indignant at the thought of even trying to screen such people out of Canada, welcoming them with open and eager arms.

The actual facts show that the vast majority of Muslim's that immigrate to either Canada or the US do not follow in any way shape or form your conjured up version of their religion. Most terrorist activities in the States (94%) are carried out by non Muslims, and actually there are more terrorist acts committed by Jews. Perhaps you have bought in a little too heavily to the MSM who tend to have a similar bias. For instance if a Muslim kills someone it's immediately a terrorist activity. If a non Muslim does the same thing well then it's simply a criminal activity by a bad boy who maybe didn't have a happy home life. But it seems people continue to be swayed by such bias.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 05, 2017, 04:46:10 pm
The actual facts show that the vast majority of Muslim's that immigrate to either Canada or the US do not follow in any way shape or form your conjured up version of their religion.

Jesus Christ! (no pun intended). It's not conjured up! You cannot find a Muslim scholar to disagree with anything I've said! You are stuck in this dumb **** secular liberal mindset that insists that people can't really believe that ****, can't really be violently angry over little things like that, don't really take their religious beliefs that seriously, especially the ones you think are dumb (because they ARE dumb). Well, guess what? They do! People are being murdered because of it all over the world! ALL over the world.

As for how Muslims believe in lands where they are vastly outnumbered. Let me go to something Sam Harris said about the moral difference between Israel and Hamas.
Israel has the military might to do any damned thing it wants to do. Yet it hasn't slaughtered the Palestinians or expelled them. Their numbers continue to grow. Meanwhile, what would Hamas do if it had the military power? It's no secret. They say so in their Charter, which, btw, contains the protocols of the elders of zion. They want every Jew exterminated so that the end times can come.

So how do Muslims behave, then, when they have the numbers behind them? We know that too. There are fifty Muslim countries. Every single one of them openly discriminates against non-Muslims. Every single one very strongly discriminates against women and gays and any other minorities. None have freedom of speech, particularly with regard to anything that offends Islam. Yet somehow you believe that the immigrants who come here from those lands magically transform themselves into peaceable secular people with respect for all? Seriously!? Listen, when you make up 1% of the population you damned well learn to abide by the laws of the majority. But that doesn't mean you cast out your religious beliefs.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 05, 2017, 05:15:17 pm
Jesus Christ! (no pun intended). It's not conjured up! You cannot find a Muslim scholar to disagree with anything I've said! You are stuck in this dumb **** secular liberal mindset that insists that people can't really believe that ****, can't really be violently angry over little things like that, don't really take their religious beliefs that seriously, especially the ones you think are dumb (because they ARE dumb). Well, guess what? They do! People are being murdered because of it all over the world! ALL over the world.

As for how Muslims believe in lands where they are vastly outnumbered. Let me go to something Sam Harris said about the moral difference between Israel and Hamas.
Israel has the military might to do any damned thing it wants to do. Yet it hasn't slaughtered the Palestinians or expelled them. Their numbers continue to grow. Meanwhile, what would Hamas do if it had the military power? It's no secret. They say so in their Charter, which, btw, contains the protocols of the elders of zion. They want every Jew exterminated so that the end times can come.

So how do Muslims behave, then, when they have the numbers behind them? We know that too. There are fifty Muslim countries. Every single one of them openly discriminates against non-Muslims. Every single one very strongly discriminates against women and gays and any other minorities. None have freedom of speech, particularly with regard to anything that offends Islam. Yet somehow you believe that the immigrants who come here from those lands magically transform themselves into peaceable secular people with respect for all? Seriously!? Listen, when you make up 1% of the population you damned well learn to abide by the laws of the majority. But that doesn't mean you cast out your religious beliefs.

First of all there are so many assumptions in your post to keep track of, have you checked what the current Muslim population actually is in Canada overall, or what it is in Toronto or Montreal?  However, more importantly, I can't help but wonder why you seem to want to muster the same xenophobic attitude you are also rail against. But anyway, here is a little reading that may help allay some of your fears.

http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uploads/institute-projects/survey%20of%20muslims%20in%20canada%202016%20-%20final%20report.pdf
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 05, 2017, 06:09:02 pm
First of all there are so many assumptions in your post to keep track of,

Really? And yet you can't name one and dispute it.

Quote
have you checked what the current Muslim population actually is in Canada overall,

Clearly, since I only posted about it last week in this topic.

Quote
or what it is in Toronto or Montreal?  However, more importantly, I can't help but wonder why you seem to want to muster the same xenophobic attitude you are also rail against. But anyway, here is a little reading that may help allay some of your fears.

I've read it, posted it, and talked about already. Is posting a link to a poll the best you can come up with? Why do you even bother?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 05, 2017, 06:16:20 pm
Really? And yet you can't name one and dispute it.

Clearly, since I only posted about it last week in this topic.

I've read it, posted it, and talked about already. Is posting a link to a poll the best you can come up with? Why do you even bother?

Probably because I prefer more substantial references than rants from the likes of The Rebel.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 05, 2017, 08:17:23 pm
First of all there are so many assumptions in your post to keep track of, have you checked what the current Muslim population actually is in Canada overall, or what it is in Toronto or Montreal?  However, more importantly, I can't help but wonder why you seem to want to muster the same xenophobic attitude you are also rail against. But anyway, here is a little reading that may help allay some of your fears.

http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uploads/institute-projects/survey%20of%20muslims%20in%20canada%202016%20-%20final%20report.pdf

The only part of that report he'll accept as valid is the part that says "Younger generations are more religious".   He refutes and denies anything that suggests Muslims aren't on the verge of tipping over into extremism.


Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 05, 2017, 08:39:26 pm
The only part of that report he'll accept as valid is the part that says "Younger generations are more religious".   He refutes and denies anything that suggests Muslims aren't on the verge of tipping over into extremism.

Yes it seems there are those who, when they get the bit between their teeth on this type of issue will not be swayed by any evidence whatsoever. I assume it has to do with having to come to terms with the idea that your thoughts were somewhat bigoted, it's a bit harder than simply having to admit you were wrong when you suggested the Maple Leafs might actually win a game.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 06, 2017, 08:07:39 am

So how do Muslims behave, then, when they have the numbers behind them? We know that too. There are fifty Muslim countries. Every single one of them openly discriminates against non-Muslims. Every single one very strongly discriminates against women and gays and any other minorities. None have freedom of speech, particularly with regard to anything that offends Islam.

All of these things are true of non-Muslim countries, as well, including "Christian" ones.  This behavior isn't because they are "Muslims", it's because of cultural and social norms, and also authoritarian regimes.  I've provided you information about countries where they *do* have the numbers, and yet do not impose their beliefs on others.  I've given you the example of Tunisia where they are basing their constitution on the US constitution in seeking to improve and enshrine human rights for everybody.  You've ignored that information, or belittled it in some way.    That you ignore and dismiss the information and facts that refute your claims about Muslims and Muslim countries and claim that these oppressive behaviors are 'because they are Muslim' is due to your Islamaphobic beliefs.

Quote
Yet somehow you believe that the immigrants who come here from those lands magically transform themselves into peaceable secular people with respect for all? Seriously!? Listen, when you make up 1% of the population you damned well learn to abide by the laws of the majority. But that doesn't mean you cast out your religious beliefs.

The studies you have linked to says they do transform, over time, and develop beliefs and attitudes more in line with the larger Canadian society, even as they keep their religious beliefs.  That you take the only thing in that study that echoes your chamber doesn't mean the rest of the information doesn't count.   Even without that, many Muslims immigrate to Western countries because they are *already* more in line with our progressive values than they are with their home country's regressive values.  Your belief that they all come here with exactly the same beliefs and will never change is another example of your Islamaphobic belief. 

Your beliefs about Muslims, what drives them, their behavior and what they believe are based on ignorance and fear.  You take the word of media names who aren't Muslim, don't come from Muslim majority countries, don't know anything about all the different beliefs Muslims hold - who tell you what you already believe - and assume that those are 'right'. 

You take the information provided by myself, or by Muslims from Muslim-majority countries, or any Muslim scholar or cleric, which doesn't support what you already believe - and you dismiss it and ignore it.

Mostly you are smart and worth listening to, but in this instance, you have put yourself into an echo chamber where you only hear what already believe to be true.  Nothing makes it past the echoes of "Muslims are bad" in your chamber.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 06, 2017, 12:11:19 pm
Probably because I prefer more substantial references than rants from the likes of The Rebel.

Sam Harris, Douglas Graham and Christopher Hitchens are not the rebel.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 06, 2017, 12:14:43 pm
The only part of that report he'll accept as valid is the part that says "Younger generations are more religious".   He refutes and denies anything that suggests Muslims aren't on the verge of tipping over into extremism.

I have discussed many parts of that and other such surveys, and accepted and said as much, that Muslims in Canada appear to be much better integrated than they are in Europe, and less virulently dedicated to the darker aspects of Islam than in the Muslim world. So obviously your above statement is a flat out lie.

But I deny your blithe and repeated assurance that only a tiny, infinitesimal number of Muslims are to be worried about; namely those who are actually in the process of committing mass murder. There are hundreds of millions of Islamists out there, and your complete and utter lack of concern for them coming to Canada is among the reasons I tend to dismiss your arguments as nothing more than knee-jerk politically correct progressive blather.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 06, 2017, 12:20:01 pm
Yes it seems there are those who, when they get the bit between their teeth on this type of issue will not be swayed by any evidence whatsoever.

You have neither the intelligence nor the industry to provide evidence of any kind. Your responses to the copious amount of evidence and logic I have provided on this subject generally consist of smarmy insults and the occasional posting - without comment, of something which you appear to be suggesting is a sort of complete and all-purpose defeat of any and all arguments which have been made. I wonder, really, why you even bother to post on this subject. There are NO posters, in my experience, less capable than you in discussing this topic. And your behaviour of a sullen, lumpen boor lends no credit to whatever slim argument you do make.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 06, 2017, 12:45:21 pm
You have neither the intelligence nor the industry to provide evidence of any kind. Your responses to the copious amount of evidence and logic I have provided on this subject generally consist of smarmy insults and the occasional posting - without comment, of something which you appear to be suggesting is a sort of complete and all-purpose defeat of any and all arguments which have been made. I wonder, really, why you even bother to post on this subject. There are NO posters, in my experience, less capable than you in discussing this topic. And your behaviour of a sullen, lumpen boor lends no credit to whatever slim argument you do make.

I will simply use a quote from a previous post which sums up your approach:
 Nothing makes it past the echoes of "Muslims are bad" in your chamber.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 06, 2017, 12:50:24 pm
All of these things are true of non-Muslim countries, as well, including "Christian" ones.

There are explicitly NOT true of Western countries, and Canada in particular. More to the point, while there might be some Christian countries which discriminate there is not the same unanimity as we see in the Muslim world.

Quote
This behavior isn't because they are "Muslims", it's because of cultural and social norms, and also authoritarian regimes.

And you blithely ignore the fact that authoritarian regimes are what is called for in the koran, and that virtually all Muslim governments are authoritarian. Great progress has been made in other parts of the world, but virtually none in the Muslim world, whose cultures are varied since they are spread across the globe, and yet have a certain unanimity when it comes to the decrees of Islam.They all hate Jews, for instance.

Quote
I've provided you information about countries where they *do* have the numbers, and yet do not impose their beliefs on others.  I've given you the example of Tunisia where they are basing their constitution on the US constitution in seeking to improve and enshrine human rights for everybody.

This is another of your tactics. Rather than simply admit that the Muslim world is ruled by authoritarian regimes and that Islam infests the cultural value system of all of them you try to find one which is at least in a momentary moment of time somewhat more liberal and then hold that aloft in triumph as if its mere existence defeats the fact of all the rest.

Did you know that Tunisia has sent more fighters to join with ISIS than any other nation in the world? So how long will Tunisia's Arab Spring last? There's no telling.

Quote
The studies you have linked to says they do transform, over time, and develop beliefs and attitudes more in line with the larger Canadian society, even as they keep their religious beliefs.

You can't develop beliefs in line with Canadian society while continuing to hold the religious beliefs which say women are third class citizens and infidels have no rights. You can amend your behaviour, yes, but no one knows a man's mind from asking questions in a telephone poll.

You know, it's interesting but in your zealous arguments against screening you continually state that if you ask them direct questions they'll simply lie since they know what answers you want. I have never disagreed with that, suggesting cleverly indirect questions and progressively leading questions. Yet when it comes to a telephone survey asking people in Canada if they believe, say, women must always obey men or be beaten, or Jews must be killed, you presume these people are answering with complete honesty. Why?

Did you know Islam is the only major religion on Earth which comes with instructions on how you can lie to non-believers with complete impunity?

Quote
Your beliefs about Muslims, what drives them, their behavior and what they believe are based on ignorance and fear.

No, they're based on evidence, proof, and logic, none of which are ever shown much presence or respect in your counter arguments. I observe what is happening in the Muslim world and what Muslims are doing in the Western world, and the evidence as presented by intelligent men and women who have read and dissected the koran and are intimately familiar with it's teachings, including ex-Muslims and moderate Muslims.

And then there's that logic thing. You continue to try to explain away the growing number of Muslim women meekly covering their heads and sometimes their faces and bodies in obedience to a rigidly fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran as if it is meaningless, as if they're just doing it as a fashion statement, as if they all have complete freedom and no pressure, and that wearing it does not signify submission to the oppressive misogyny of Islam and all the other values which accompany it.

That is fundamentally illogical. It is bloody brainless nonsense.

[quoteYou take the information provided by myself, or by Muslims from Muslim-majority countries, or any Muslim scholar or cleric, which doesn't support what you already believe - and you dismiss it and ignore it.[/quote]

You are a Muslim propagandist as far as I'm concerned. Of course I don't take your word for anything. I always assume those with something at stake will twist the information they present so I'd be careful about what Muslim scholars or clerics say if it went against what I believe to be true. However THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED. Like much else of your arguments you simply do a Donald Trump and make it up. As for the views of Muslims from Muslim majority countries, I have presented those views repeatedly in the PEW surveys and you have rejected them out of hand.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 06, 2017, 12:58:09 pm
I will simply use a quote from a previous post which sums up your approach:
 Nothing makes it past the echoes of "Muslims are bad" in your chamber.

Glib and smarmy, with no logic or cohesive argument. Certainly this is in line with your normal efforts.

But my belief is not "Muslims are bad" but "Islam is bad". There is a distinction to be made were your mind subtle enough to understand it.

Ms. Hirsi Ali warns against use of the words “extreme” and “radical” to describe as peripheral an ideology which, she argues, is in fact quite prevalent in Muslim communities around the globe, and which leads easily to violence—whether in the form of female genital mutilation or honor killings or wife-beating or suicide bombings. She views the reliance on those words as self-delusion, a soothing, self-administered palliative whose effect is to mask evidence that violence is the largely natural extension of fundamentalist values sternly dictated and widely embraced in Muslim communities—values that encourage harsh treatment of women and strict, even brutal, punishment of non-believers. Her warnings, and those of others who risk their reputations and lives to criticize Islamic institutions, are distinctly unwelcome in many Western quarters, where they are regarded as grievously politically incorrect, and where the “few-bad-apples” narrative of Islamic extremism is vastly preferred.

http://observer.com/2016/04/why-ayaan-hirsi-alis-criticism-of-islam-angers-western-liberals/ (http://observer.com/2016/04/why-ayaan-hirsi-alis-criticism-of-islam-angers-western-liberals/)

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/wests-liberals-fail-to-help-says-hirsi-ali-20120415-1x1jh.html (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/wests-liberals-fail-to-help-says-hirsi-ali-20120415-1x1jh.html)
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 06, 2017, 01:05:21 pm
Glib and smarmy, with no logic or cohesive argument. Certainly this is in line with your normal efforts.

But my belief is not "Muslims are bad" but "Islam is bad". There is a distinction to be made were your mind subtle enough to understand it.

Ms. Hirsi Ali warns against use of the words “extreme” and “radical” to describe as peripheral an ideology which, she argues, is in fact quite prevalent in Muslim communities around the globe, and which leads easily to violence—whether in the form of female genital mutilation or honor killings or wife-beating or suicide bombings. She views the reliance on those words as self-delusion, a soothing, self-administered palliative whose effect is to mask evidence that violence is the largely natural extension of fundamentalist values sternly dictated and widely embraced in Muslim communities—values that encourage harsh treatment of women and strict, even brutal, punishment of non-believers. Her warnings, and those of others who risk their reputations and lives to criticize Islamic institutions, are distinctly unwelcome in many Western quarters, where they are regarded as grievously politically incorrect, and where the “few-bad-apples” narrative of Islamic extremism is vastly preferred.

http://observer.com/2016/04/why-ayaan-hirsi-alis-criticism-of-islam-angers-western-liberals/ (http://observer.com/2016/04/why-ayaan-hirsi-alis-criticism-of-islam-angers-western-liberals/)

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/wests-liberals-fail-to-help-says-hirsi-ali-20120415-1x1jh.html (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/wests-liberals-fail-to-help-says-hirsi-ali-20120415-1x1jh.html)

That wasn't my effort it was dia's but you keep on proving its accuracy.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on April 06, 2017, 03:16:08 pm
Quoting Sam Harris on the tenets of Islam is like quoting Hezbollah on the tenets of Judaism.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 06, 2017, 04:02:28 pm
Quoting Sam Harris on the tenets of Islam is like quoting Hezbollah on the tenets of Judaism.

Who would you have me quote? Justin Trudeau? If the likes of Sam Harris - Liberal, Christopher Hitchens - socialist/Marxist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (former Muslim) and Douglas Murray (gay conservative), Bill Maher (liberal)  are to be seen in the same light as the ravings of extremely violent, hate-filled Muslim extremists, then just who would the Left here accept in their judgement of Islam?

I doubt you have read much Harris or seen him speak. I urge you to do so. There are a number of You Tube videos where he talks about Islam and he is always extremely moderate and careful to insist that we speak of the ideology and that we show all due respect to individual Muslims, that we do everything possible to encourage moderate Muslims. Why would you compare him to the leader of a group which vows genocide against Jews and applauds any and all violent attacks on civilians?

Watch a couple of minutes of him talking about the need to empower moderate Muslims and how he thinks we need allies among Muslims to combat Islamism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7eVvph69Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7eVvph69Y)

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 06, 2017, 04:54:16 pm
Who would you have me quote? Justin Trudeau? If the likes of Sam Harris - Liberal, Christopher Hitchens - socialist/Marxist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (former Muslim) and Douglas Murray (gay conservative), Bill Maher (liberal)  are to be seen in the same light as the ravings of extremely violent, hate-filled Muslim extremists, then just who would the Left here accept in their judgement of Islam?

I doubt you have read much Harris or seen him speak. I urge you to do so. There are a number of You Tube videos where he talks about Islam and he is always extremely moderate and careful to insist that we speak of the ideology and that we show all due respect to individual Muslims, that we do everything possible to encourage moderate Muslims. Why would you compare him to the leader of a group which vows genocide against Jews and applauds any and all violent attacks on civilians?

Watch a couple of minutes of him talking about the need to empower moderate Muslims and how he thinks we need allies among Muslims to combat Islamism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7eVvph69Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7eVvph69Y)

Well there you go. They both agree that the violence comes from the fringes, which we have been able to screen out very well, that women coming to the US can throw off their head scarves if they like (as they can also in Canada, although surveys have shown that many choose to continue to wear them) and that immigration as well as welcoming refugees is a valid thing to do. So lets go ahead and get some of those folks out of the way of the next gas attack Assad may be planning.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 06, 2017, 07:20:58 pm
Well there you go. They both agree that the violence comes from the fringes, which we have been able to screen out very well, that women coming to the US can throw off their head scarves if they like (as they can also in Canada, although surveys have shown that many choose to continue to wear them) and that immigration as well as welcoming refugees is a valid thing to do. So lets go ahead and get some of those folks out of the way of the next gas attack Assad may be planning.

You are putting an interesting perspective on what was said, presuming, of course, you actually bothered to watch it. Harris pointed out that people are not wrong to not wish those who believe cartoonists should be executed to come and live among them, that, in fact, this was an entirely logical desire. Further, Harris has made the point in a number of speeches, that while actual jihadis are small in number, Islamists are not. He has taken what he says is an extremely conservative estimate based on polls, surveys, and election results in countries where people were given the opportunity of voting for Islamist parties, that 20% of all Muslims are Islamists. That's several hundred million people. So screening seems to be not only logical but most definitely needed, if we are going to bring Muslims into Canada to live among us.

As for getting 'some of those folks' out of the way of Assad's next gas attack, how many millions would you like to bring over? Because if you only want to bring over a few thousand that seems rather tokenish and pointless.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 06, 2017, 07:38:01 pm
An interesting discussion between Gad Saad and Douglas Murray. Saad is a Lebanese Canadian Jew with a PHD from Cornel. Saad makes the point that he's in favor of immigration, black, brown, white, yellow, purple, gay, tall, short, whatever, as long as they are committed to our values."If your beliefs, cultural, religious, or others, are inconsistent with that, you're not welcome here."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBtkrXeKpwA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBtkrXeKpwA)
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 06, 2017, 08:24:07 pm
You are putting an interesting perspective on what was said, presuming, of course, you actually bothered to watch it. Harris pointed out that people are not wrong to not wish those who believe cartoonists should be executed to come and live among them, that, in fact, this was an entirely logical desire. Further, Harris has made the point in a number of speeches, that while actual jihadis are small in number, Islamists are not. He has taken what he says is an extremely conservative estimate based on polls, surveys, and election results in countries where people were given the opportunity of voting for Islamist parties, that 20% of all Muslims are Islamists. That's several hundred million people. So screening seems to be not only logical but most definitely needed, if we are going to bring Muslims into Canada to live among us.

As for getting 'some of those folks' out of the way of Assad's next gas attack, how many millions would you like to bring over? Because if you only want to bring over a few thousand that seems rather tokenish and pointless.

So obviously your xenophobia would suggest we just close the borders and let Assad have his way. How sad.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 07, 2017, 07:35:38 pm
So obviously your xenophobia would suggest we just close the borders and let Assad have his way. How sad.

Glib and stupid, like most of your replies.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 07, 2017, 09:09:47 pm
Glib and stupid, like most of your replies.

Naw, I know xenophobia when I hear it. Classic symptom is they get testy and insulting when challenged.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 08, 2017, 10:54:46 am
Naw, I know xenophobia when I hear it. Classic symptom is they get testy and insulting when challenged.

WADR, that wasn't very challenging.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 08, 2017, 04:23:17 pm
Naw, I know xenophobia when I hear it. Classic symptom is they get testy and insulting when challenged.

You mean when insulted, right? Yes, I get insulting when insulted. SHOCKER!

Next you'll give us the breathless news that Barry Manilow is gay.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 08, 2017, 04:50:37 pm
You mean when insulted, right? Yes, I get insulting when insulted. SHOCKER!

Next you'll give us the breathless news that Barry Manilow is gay.


No, I meant challenged. The xenophobe part comes into it when you refuse to consider any information that questions your assumptions.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 08, 2017, 04:57:07 pm

No, I meant challenged. The xenophobe part comes into it when you refuse to consider any information that questions your assumptions.

Omni, you have never challenged me on immigration. Others have, but your arguments, such as they are, are lazy, simplistic, and generally consist of accusations of immorality on my part. You rarely read cites, including the ones you very occasionally post. Your only interest in immigration over the years,  at least  as I've been able to observe, is to sneer at those who care about it and strut around to demonstrate your superior morality. There is no intellectual quality to your arguments, and you bring basically nothing to the table but a snotty attitude.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 08, 2017, 05:49:31 pm
Omni, you have never challenged me on immigration. Others have, but your arguments, such as they are, are lazy, simplistic, and generally consist of accusations of immorality on my part. You rarely read cites, including the ones you very occasionally post. Your only interest in immigration over the years,  at least  as I've been able to observe, is to sneer at those who care about it and strut around to demonstrate your superior morality. There is no intellectual quality to your arguments, and you bring basically nothing to the table but a snotty attitude.

I assume you were too lazy to read the Environics data which certainly challenged your many assumptions of the failures and dangers of Muslim immigrants. As I pointed out in a previous post it seems that people who have bult in fears of races, religions, skin colors other than their own seem to cling to them regardless if actual data should deflate those fears.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 08, 2017, 06:45:47 pm
I assume you were too lazy to read the Environics data which certainly challenged your many assumptions of the failures and dangers of Muslim immigrants. As I pointed out in a previous post it seems that people who have bult in fears of races, religions, skin colors other than their own seem to cling to them regardless if actual data should deflate those fears.

Really? What did it challenge? I'm guessing you never looked behind the title.
You think you can simply post a link to some poll and that, without any commentary is an adult rebuttal? How did you ever get through school? Or did you?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on April 16, 2017, 12:10:55 am
"We meet individual visitors, tourists, at the border already. And there are some we do more extensive background checks on," she said.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/kellie-leitch-steps-back-from-visitor-screening-pledge-1.3368269

I guess Canadian values aren't so important after all.

BTW, can someone tell her that immigrants go through the same process?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 16, 2017, 12:21:02 am
Really? What did it challenge? I'm guessing you never looked behind the title.
You think you can simply post a link to some poll and that, without any commentary is an adult rebuttal? How did you ever get through school? Or did you?
t certainly challenged your comments, however as I've stated previously before in so many words, once a xenophobe, it seems always a xenophobe.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 16, 2017, 12:25:55 am
"We meet individual visitors, tourists, at the border already. And there are some we do more extensive background checks on," she said.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/kellie-leitch-steps-back-from-visitor-screening-pledge-1.3368269

I guess Canadian values aren't so important after all.

BTW, can someone tell her that immigrants go through the same process?

Sems to me she backed off om her silly questionnaire idea on Canadian values and them made equally stupid comments about marijuana law reform.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2017, 09:50:34 am
t certainly challenged your comments, however as I've stated previously before in so many words, once a xenophobe, it seems always a xenophobe.

You can call me all the names you want to. But your insults and your prissy, sanctimonious attitude don't  disguise the fact you have no intelligent response.They merely serves to emphasize it.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2017, 09:55:31 am
"We meet individual visitors, tourists, at the border already. And there are some we do more extensive background checks on," she said.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/kellie-leitch-steps-back-from-visitor-screening-pledge-1.3368269

I guess Canadian values aren't so important after all.

BTW, can someone tell her that immigrants go through the same process?

You don't understand how screening people who are going to come and live here permanently ought to be just a tad more onerous than screening visitors?

You lefties just are utterly brainless when it comes to anything related to race - and you insist on relating everything to race. None of you have a single intelligent thing to say on the subject, so you just substitute slurs and insults and this smug, superior attitude about how worldly and tolerant you all are.


Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on April 17, 2017, 11:10:33 am
I have no problem interviewing people that come here - it's simply that her position has become more and more inconsistent.  It isn't my position to defend.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 17, 2017, 01:34:33 pm
You can call me all the names you want to. But your insults and your prissy, sanctimonious attitude don't  disguise the fact you have no intelligent response.They merely serves to emphasize it.

Oh I think it's quite clear who tends to default to insults here, so we'll continue to leave that to you. Meantime I would suggest to you that the type of fear mongering you succumb to makes life more dangerous for immigrants from non white countries than they ever have made it for us.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2017, 06:02:49 pm
I have no problem interviewing people that come here - it's simply that her position has become more and more inconsistent.  It isn't my position to defend.

People who are supposed to be immigrants need to be interviewed BEFORE they come here, and BEFORE they are accepted as immigrants.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2017, 06:04:50 pm
Oh I think it's quite clear who tends to default to insults here, so we'll continue to leave that to you. Meantime I would suggest to you that the type of fear mongering you succumb to makes life more dangerous for immigrants from non white countries than they ever have made it for us.

I don't give a **** what you think. I haven't said anything which isn't provably true. Your responses always consists of nothing but slurs because you don't have a **** clue about how to debate a point and because you're too lazy to do any research.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 17, 2017, 07:18:44 pm
I don't give a **** what you think. I haven't said anything which isn't provably true. Your responses always consists of nothing but slurs because you don't have a **** clue about how to debate a point and because you're too lazy to do any research.

Thank you for proving my point...once again.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 17, 2017, 07:56:35 pm
People who are supposed to be immigrants need to be interviewed BEFORE they come here, and BEFORE they are accepted as immigrants.

Have you ever had any direct integration with the Canadian immigration process, because I have? After working a number of months in Ecuador I befriended a group of nationals, one of which I decided I would invite to visit me in Canada. Not to immigrate, not to work, simply to visit. I can tell you that the number of hoops the both of us had to jump through were numerous, and she was required to attend not one, but two interviews at the Canada Immigration office in Quito. This was a person with a job, a family, and certainly not the slightest kind of black mark on her history. Now Ecuador isn't on Trump's "blacklist" or anybody else's as far as I know, but it was certainly not a walk in the park to come here from there for a visit. So I think you should sleep soundly tonight knowing that Immigration Canada is doing it's job. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on April 18, 2017, 08:43:10 am
You lefties just are utterly brainless when it comes to anything related to race - and you insist on relating everything to race. None of you have a single intelligent thing to say on the subject, so you just substitute slurs and insults and this smug, superior attitude about how worldly and tolerant you all are.
This is so ironically lacking in reflexivity that I've got to assume you're some sort of performance artist like Alex Jones or something. Everything you criticize people for in the second half of this, you're doing in the first half.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 18, 2017, 10:29:44 am
This is so ironically lacking in reflexivity that I've got to assume you're some sort of performance artist like Alex Jones or something. Everything you criticize people for in the second half of this, you're doing in the first half.

Have you noticed that when someone starts off a comment with "you lefties" that you might just as well reach for the delete button right then rather than suffering through an "Alex Jones" blather, yet again? But then we "lefties" tend to be better listeners IMO so we suffer through to the end before hitting delete.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 18, 2017, 12:23:14 pm
You lefties just are utterly brainless when it comes to anything related to race - and you insist on relating everything to race. None of you have a single intelligent thing to say on the subject, so you just substitute slurs and insults and this smug, superior attitude about how worldly and tolerant you all are.

Oh my!
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on April 18, 2017, 01:28:15 pm
I think this is getting a bit more heated than it needs to be - it's just a discussion.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2017, 02:40:35 pm
Have you ever had any direct integration with the Canadian immigration process, because I have? After working a number of months in Ecuador I befriended a group of

This is what's known as arguing against facts with anecdotal evidence. I've never said no immigrants are ever interviewed. But the Canadian senate panel has said that 90% do not, today, get any kind of interview. And the government has clearly stated in its pushback against Lietch that even when something triggers and interview they do not interview for values and beliefs, or even what kind of a personality the potential immigrant has, ie, open, accepting, tolerant, as opposed to a religious fanatic.

This is basically due to the hatred lefties feel for the West. To admit we should interview potential immigrants would be to admit that our values might be superior to theirs. And given how most lefties loath everything about the West, its history, values, and capitalist mentality, they'd rather set themselves on fire first. Most lefties can't even bring themselves to admit we even HAVE any culture or values.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2017, 02:41:00 pm
This is so ironically lacking in reflexivity that I've got to assume you're some sort of performance artist like Alex Jones or something. Everything you criticize people for in the second half of this, you're doing in the first half.

The difference is mine is based on truth.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2017, 02:42:03 pm
I think this is getting a bit more heated than it needs to be - it's just a discussion.

Anything involving Omni degenerates into insults. You know this by now. It's the only way he knows how to 'discuss' things.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on April 18, 2017, 03:57:02 pm
This is what's known as arguing against facts with anecdotal evidence. I've never said no immigrants are ever interviewed. But the Canadian senate panel has said that 90% do not, today, get any kind of interview. And the government has clearly stated in its pushback against Lietch that even when something triggers and interview they do not interview for values and beliefs, or even what kind of a personality the potential immigrant has, ie, open, accepting, tolerant, as opposed to a religious fanatic.

I am not in favour of such interviews.  It has nothing to do with my hatred of the west. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2017, 06:26:46 pm
I am not in favour of such interviews.  It has nothing to do with my hatred of the west.

Your opinion is illogical. As I've already pointed out, you wouldn't hire someone to work at a fast food operation without an interview, notwithstanding the fact you can fire them instantly if they don't work out. We cannot get rid of immigrants once here, and if they turn out to be total failures we're stuck with them for the rest of their lives. And in a welfare state that means stuck supporting them.

Would you rent a room in your house to someone sight unseen, knowing that you can't ever get rid of them, no matter how unpleasant they are?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2017, 06:32:49 pm
If you reference the 'why are people liberal or conservative' topic in other discussions, it emerges that people with a certain social view of life (ie the left) tend to love diversity, novelty, and change, without regard to whether that change brings chaos. Other people with a different view of life (ie, the right) tend to value the traditional and take comfort in the familiar. These same people also have a high degree of affinity for social values which the Left largely disdains, including ingroup loyalty, which could be described as attachment to the group, to the nation, to the tribe, if you will.

This goes some way to explain why those on the left welcome newcomers from all walks of life and don't much care if they fit in or assimilate while those on the right are suspicious of too many foreigners who might not assimilate, and that the changes they bring might bring chaos and endanger traditions and the familiar world they value.

The Left, seeing no reason to not embrace open immigration, calls those who don't xenophobes and racists. The Right, seeing many reasons not to welcome immigration, call those who do idiots and traitors.

It's all in the values you hold, and how you see the world.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on April 18, 2017, 09:01:53 pm
Interviews are fine.  The questions you propose (on values and personality for example) are anathema to Canadian values.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on April 18, 2017, 09:03:23 pm
It's all in the values you hold, and how you see the world.

The thing is, you've done the same thing that you accuse others of.  You've decided that your values, and only your values, are right, and that there's no discussing it beyond that.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 18, 2017, 11:46:41 pm
Your opinion is illogical. As I've already pointed out, you wouldn't hire someone to work at a fast food operation without an interview, notwithstanding the fact you can fire them instantly if they don't work out. We cannot get rid of immigrants once here, and if they turn out to be total failures we're stuck with them for the rest of their lives. And in a welfare state that means stuck supporting them.

Would you rent a room in your house to someone sight unseen, knowing that you can't ever get rid of them, no matter how unpleasant they are?

You just don't seem to get that no one comes to Canada "sight unseen". 
Even if you are already a Canadian. Believe me, I know.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 19, 2017, 12:08:53 am
Anything involving Omni degenerates into insults. You know this by now. It's the only way he knows how to 'discuss' things.

I challenge, you insult. We all know that by now. Bottom line seems to be you are afraid of immigration, and I'm not. If not for immigration I wouldn't be here. Oh yeah, I'm white so I guess that's OK with you. A lot of people who come here, (whatever color they may happen to be) do so because they wish to live in, and contribute to, a country that supports the values/rules/laws we have in place. They don't come here to tie explosives on and then blow themselves up in a crowd of infidels, or to beat their wives because they spoke to another man. Wake up and smell the bacon man, unless that's against your religion of course.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 19, 2017, 11:52:17 am
The thing is, you've done the same thing that you accuse others of.  You've decided that your values, and only your values, are right, and that there's no discussing it beyond that.

No. I think closed and open/conservative and liberal, are locked into this value thing. I have tried to make arguments based on logic, on economics, on studies and statistics, on what demographics people say.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 19, 2017, 11:55:54 am
I challenge, you insult.

Henceforth I am going to call you Donald Trump. Your level of honesty and intelligence is similar to his, and the fact that the evidence to disprove you is right back in this very thread bothers you not at all. You are simply a fundamentally dishonest person.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 19, 2017, 12:42:52 pm
Henceforth I am going to call you Donald Trump. Your level of honesty and intelligence is similar to his, and the fact that the evidence to disprove you is right back in this very thread bothers you not at all. You are simply a fundamentally dishonest person.

Right, so anything that challenges your stance is "dishonest" but whatever the right wing conservative libertarian Fraser Institute says is honest. Got it.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 19, 2017, 04:00:50 pm
Henceforth I am going to call you Donald Trump. Your level of honesty and intelligence is similar to his, and the fact that the evidence to disprove you is right back in this very thread bothers you not at all. You are simply a fundamentally dishonest person.

Hmmm ... Seems like people who disagree with you are dishonest and, per other remarks you've made, stupid as well. That seems very Trumpesque.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 19, 2017, 04:43:30 pm
Hmmm ... Seems like people who disagree with you are dishonest and, per other remarks you've made, stupid as well. That seems very Trumpesque.

The thread makes it clear how dishonest he is. I don't expect that to impact your posting, though. Our history of immigration discussions is always me talking facts and figures, and people like you responding with slurs and insults while trying to sidetrack the discussion.

That's why this discussion of immigration is not about immigration but about me. Because none of you are capable of defending your ideologically based beliefs, resent it, and respond with insults.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 19, 2017, 06:45:41 pm
The thread makes it clear how dishonest he is. I don't expect that to impact your posting, though. Our history of immigration discussions is always me talking facts and figures, and people like you responding with slurs and insults while trying to sidetrack the discussion.

That's why this discussion of immigration is not about immigration but about me. Because none of you are capable of defending your ideologically based beliefs, resent it, and respond with insults.

We all know it's fairly east to find "facts and figures' to support whatever slant we wish to take on a particular subject. Try showing us some of those "facts and figures" to show us how immigration has ruined Canada.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2017, 06:51:31 pm
it emerges that people with a certain social view of life (ie the left) tend to love diversity, novelty, and change, without regard to whether that change brings chaos. Other people with a different view of life (ie, the right) tend to value the traditional and take comfort in the familiar.

You forgot that the right love chaos, and want to inflict it on everyone else.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 19, 2017, 07:14:43 pm
You forgot that the right love chaos, and want to inflict it on everyone else.

Trump has certainly fulfilled that concept. Oh and while I have you there, do you live near the coast and if so have you seen any aircraft carriers going by today?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 19, 2017, 08:57:33 pm
But I'm firmly grounded in reality.

You aren't, actually.   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 20, 2017, 02:59:57 pm
We all know it's fairly east to find "facts and figures' to support whatever slant we wish to take on a particular subject.

If it's fairly easy how come you can never manage it, Mr. Trump?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 20, 2017, 03:00:48 pm
You forgot that the right love chaos, and want to inflict it on everyone else.

In fact, according to Haidr it is the left that doesn't mind chaos, and the right which is devoted to order.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 20, 2017, 03:11:45 pm
If it's fairly easy how come you can never manage it, Mr. Trump?
I did but I guess it was just too much reading for you. I imagine Donald has a similar problem, but hey, look where he got to.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on April 20, 2017, 04:21:43 pm
Your opinion is illogical.
Actually, your position is a false dichotomy and you often make strawman arguments as a result. The assumption you make is that if someone disagrees that we need more intensive interview process, then they must just want people flooding into the country unchecked. That couldn't be further from the truth.

What has been said repeatedly to you in this thread and others is that a more intensive interview process is unnecessary given that the process we have now has worked really well so far. Not to mention the fact that refugees from zones like Syria are interviewed several times and given background checks by the UN before even getting here and then going through the process with our immigration department.

Oh and that's another thing. You are often conflating immigrants and refugees. The system operates differently for the different classes and you know that. But you still use the terms interchangeably when you get pressed in an argument.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 20, 2017, 06:44:02 pm
Actually, your position is a false dichotomy and you often make strawman arguments as a result. The assumption you make is that if someone disagrees that we need more intensive interview process, then they must just want people flooding into the country unchecked. That couldn't be further from the truth.

What has been said repeatedly to you in this thread and others is that a more intensive interview process is unnecessary given that the process we have now has worked really well so far.

Worked "well" so far.... Define "well", please. We know that the economic success of immigrants has been declining for years - decades, from numerous reports. We know there have been incidents of religious fanaticism in mosques http://www.torontosun.com/2016/05/24/canada-home-to-islamic-radicals (http://www.torontosun.com/2016/05/24/canada-home-to-islamic-radicals), and attempts at terrorism, even if the only ones which have made the major media outlets have involved plans caught by police before they came to fruition. Here's what we don't know. What is the incidence of **** among newcomers to Canada? I mean, I don't know an attractive woman who has been to clubs who hasn't had some really nasty come-ons from Muslim newcomers. We've seen lots of reports of **** and sexual harassment all over Europe, but we don't keep those statistics. How many newcomers become involved in violent crime? I'm sure you've seen my posting of the Ottawa most wanted poster http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawas-most-wanted-have-you-seen-these-men (http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawas-most-wanted-have-you-seen-these-men) and the RCMP most wanted posters. There aren't a lot of white people on them. And then there's the Fraser Institute report stating that immigrants are costing government $30 billion a year due to the disparity between what they pay in taxes and what they consume in government resources. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/immigration-and-the-welfare-state-revisited-fiscal-transfers-to-immigrants-in-canada-in-2014 (https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/immigration-and-the-welfare-state-revisited-fiscal-transfers-to-immigrants-in-canada-in-2014)

So how much more 'well' could it be if we screened newcomers a little more carefully, say like Australia has just announced plans to do? As Canadians WANT to do. Canadians see what's happening in Europe and do NOT want it happening here.

Quote
Not to mention the fact that refugees from zones like Syria are interviewed several times and given background checks by the UN before even getting here and then going through the process with our immigration department.

We've been over the argument of the refugees. They are not 'screened' for temperament, values or abilities, but only to see if they have criminal records or are known terrorists. Why should we want to accept refugees who are religious fanatics or have deep rooted hatred for Jews, gays and women? As I've said elsewhere, I'd rather bring in ten thousand Lebanese Christians and ten thousand Syrian Christians than one thousand Muslims from each country. Values matter, as does willingness to change.

Quote
Oh and that's another thing. You are often conflating immigrants and refugees. The system operates differently for the different classes and you know that. But you still use the terms interchangeably when you get pressed in an argument.

I generally do not. However, in years like last year and this year 20-25% of newcomers will be refugees - who inevitably become landed immigrants. Bringing them in by the tens of thousands deserves the same economic analyses as are made for immigrants. The government does its best not to do this because it doesn't want Canadians to know what the price tag for their generosity is.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on April 20, 2017, 07:14:21 pm
Yes. Just like livestock. Let's screen them for temperament. Can we deport you for your temperament the way you blow up and insult "lefties"?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 20, 2017, 07:45:22 pm
Yes. Just like livestock. Let's screen them for temperament. Can we deport you for your temperament the way you blow up and insult "lefties"?

Ha ha, good point. Although I imagine if Kellie Lietch was crafting the questionnaire, a finding of raging at "lefties" would be a plus in the overall tally. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 21, 2017, 01:48:17 pm
Yes. Just like livestock. Let's screen them for temperament. Can we deport you for your temperament the way you blow up and insult "lefties"?

See? I pay you the courtesy of replying with legitimate points on topic, with references and all you've got for a reply is slurs and sneers.

And you wonder why I insult lefties? Seriously? This is why. It's also why I put you on my ignore list on that other site. Because there was just no way of holding an adult discussion with you.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 21, 2017, 01:49:09 pm
Ha ha, good point. Although I imagine if Kellie Lietch was crafting the questionnaire, a finding of raging at "lefties" would be a plus in the overall tally.

Well, we could add an IQ test, and that would let you out. For starters you'd spend the whole test trying to pronounce "IQ".
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 21, 2017, 01:55:28 pm
Well, we could add an IQ test, and that would let you out. For starters you'd spend the whole test trying to pronounce "IQ".

I'm sure you and Kellie would figure it out, eventually.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 21, 2017, 02:39:50 pm
We know...

with references to Fraser Institute, Toronto Sun, and Ottawa Citizen.

When will you ever give real unbiased references?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 21, 2017, 04:36:09 pm


You mean like from the Government of Canada? From the Toronto Star? From TD Bank and the Conference Board of Canada?
Done it many times. It doesn't make any difference. As long as the majority of immigrants are not white the social justice warrior set will see it as their noble duty to defend immigration from any and all suggestions that it requires major changes. 

I mean, the government itself does a study, as reported in the Toronto Star, that says the least economically successful immigrants are from the Middle East. Does that alter any one's opinion? Not in the slightest. The Toronto Star and CBC report that 3/4 of Canadians want a values test. Does that have any impact? Not in the slightest. I post statements from very liberal people like Hitchens and Sam Harris, but nobody cares. As far as the Left is concerned ANYONE who has the slightest doubts about the wisdom of bringing masses of Muslims into Canada is basically Adolph Hitler. Actually, worse than Hitler, because Hitler only hated Jews, and a lot of Left wingers sympathize with that.
 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 21, 2017, 05:44:12 pm
And a lot of people got all panicky when the Vietnamese boat people arrived on our shores back in the day. The largest single group of refugees that had ever arrived here. Few could speak either English or French, most were simple farmers with little other skills. Many started successful businesses, had a lower unemployment rate than average and were less likely than average to require any type of social assistance. Almost all applied for and got citizenship and became contributing members of the country. So the panic turned out to be needless then, as it likely will be again.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 22, 2017, 10:06:40 am
You mean like from the Government of Canada? From the Toronto Star? From TD Bank and the Conference Board of Canada?
Done it many times. It doesn't make any difference. As long as the majority of immigrants are not white the social justice warrior set will see it as their noble duty to defend immigration from any and all suggestions that it requires major changes. 

I mean, the government itself does a study, as reported in the Toronto Star, that says the least economically successful immigrants are from the Middle East. Does that alter any one's opinion? Not in the slightest. The Toronto Star and CBC report that 3/4 of Canadians want a values test. Does that have any impact? Not in the slightest. I post statements from very liberal people like Hitchens and Sam Harris, but nobody cares. As far as the Left is concerned ANYONE who has the slightest doubts about the wisdom of bringing masses of Muslims into Canada is basically Adolph Hitler. Actually, worse than Hitler, because Hitler only hated Jews, and a lot of Left wingers sympathize with that.

You mean like the way you keep insisting that Muslims don't integrate because a survey says more younger women are wearing headscarfs, even though the same study tells us that these same young people are closer to the Canadian mainstream in their beliefs than their parents? 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 22, 2017, 11:25:27 am
You mean like the way you keep insisting that Muslims don't integrate because a survey says more younger women are wearing headscarfs, even though the same study tells us that these same young people are closer to the Canadian mainstream in their beliefs than their parents?

That is you choosing to interpret the data how you want it to look. To me, it seems blatantly obvious that if rising numbers are wearing headscarfs and burkas this shows a trend towards embracing more conservative beliefs in Islam.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 22, 2017, 12:29:03 pm
That is you choosing to interpret the data how you want it to look. To me, it seems blatantly obvious that if rising numbers are wearing headscarfs and burkas this shows a trend towards embracing more conservative beliefs in Islam.

Mo, that is what the Muslim women who have been surveyed to create the data have told us. Choosing to wear symbols of your religion is a whole different scenario than being forced. It is also quite common in many immigrant populations that subsequent generations integrate  more effectively than the initial arrivals, which appears to be the case with this group as well.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 22, 2017, 02:46:53 pm
That is you choosing to interpret the data how you want it to look. To me, it seems blatantly obvious that if rising numbers are wearing headscarfs and burkas this shows a trend towards embracing more conservative beliefs in Islam.

The study says:  More young Muslim women are choosing to wear a headscarf than their parents did and more young Muslim people are embracing mainstream "Canadian values" than their parents did. 

Argus' interpretation:  Assume that wearing a headscarf means that these women are embracing "anti-Canadian" values and ignore the part of the survey which says they are actually more in line with "Canadian values".

Dia's interpretation:  More young Muslim women are choosing to wear a headscarf and more young people are embracing 'Canadian values'.

I really fail to see how assuming things that are not stated and ignoring other things that are stated is a more accurate intrepretation than one which makes no assumptions and doesn't ignore anything.  Can you explain that, Argus?


Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on April 22, 2017, 07:28:23 pm
See? I pay you the courtesy of replying with legitimate points on topic, with references and all you've got for a reply is slurs and sneers.

And you wonder why I insult lefties? Seriously? This is why. It's also why I put you on my ignore list on that other site. Because there was just no way of holding an adult discussion with you.
You also have the luxury of being retired to go through sources and post out of context data. Some of us don't have the time to continuously debunk you by contextualizing your "data." More importantly, I've done it so many times in the past only for you to completely ignore what I'm saying and double down on your completely wrong interpretations of things that it's just not worth the effort anymore.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on April 22, 2017, 07:30:20 pm
That is you choosing to interpret the data how you want it to look. To me, it seems blatantly obvious that if rising numbers are wearing headscarfs and burkas this shows a trend towards embracing more conservative beliefs in Islam.
And your "blatantly obvious" interpretation is actually wrong. Muslim women who wear headscarves tend to embrace pluralism, something you steadfastly reject for "integration."
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 23, 2017, 11:20:58 am
Mo, that is what the Muslim women who have been surveyed to create the data have told us. Choosing to wear symbols of your religion is a whole different scenario than being forced. It is also quite common in many immigrant populations that subsequent generations integrate  more effectively than the initial arrivals, which appears to be the case with this group as well.

No, it does not. If the second generation was integrating more than those who arrived then they would be casting off these ridiculous, archaic sexist pieces of fabric and enjoying the sun on their hair. Whether they are forced to do so by ethnic group peer pressure or chose these things themselves, the fact they wear them when other Muslim women do not is absolute proof of growing adherence to the more conservative doctrines of Islam. There simply is no other sane way to look at it.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 23, 2017, 11:22:45 am
The study says:  More young Muslim women are choosing to wear a headscarf than their parents did and more young Muslim people are embracing mainstream "Canadian values" than their parents did. 

Argus' interpretation: 

Argus' interpretation is that actions speak louder than words. There are NO moderate Muslims who wear these things in western countries, aside from those forced to do so against their will.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 23, 2017, 11:29:19 am
You also have the luxury of being retired to go through sources and post out of context data. Some of us don't have the time to continuously debunk you by contextualizing your "data." More importantly, I've done it so many times in the past only for you to completely ignore what I'm saying and double down on your completely wrong interpretations of things that it's just not worth the effort anymore.

How is it 'out of context' to cite a report by the Immigration department that shows which countries produce the most economically successful immigrants and which produce the least economically successful, and suggest we should bring in more from the former and less from the latter?

How is it 'out of context' to state that if growing numbers of Canadian Muslim girls and women are wearing religious garb, and reports state they are more religious than their parents, that this indicates growing conservatism among them?

How is it "out of context" to point to detailed reports indicating that immigration will not have any meaningful affect on a declining birthrate or an aging population?

How is it 'out of context' to point to the Fraser Report which suggests the number of immigrants with poor economic outcomes is costing governments $30 billion a year?

How is it 'out of context' when I cite passages from a book on our immigration system by a pro immigrant writer, and a report from the senate, both pointing out that only a small fraction of immigrants ever see an immigration officer face to face prior to being accepted as an immigrant and arriving in Canada?

What exactly am I doing which is out of context with relation to making the point for the need for immigration reform and better screening?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 23, 2017, 11:34:38 am
And your "blatantly obvious" interpretation is actually wrong. Muslim women who wear headscarves tend to embrace pluralism, something you steadfastly reject for "integration."

This is the problem with so many of you people. You've grown up in a liberal secular society disdaining religion, and you simply cannot get it into your skulls that people who grow up in very religious cultures have an entirely different mindset than you do. Because western culture generally shrugs off the dictates of the bible you have convinced yourself that Muslims pay no real attention to the dictates of their religion either. So all those women putting on uncomfortable garments to wear EVERY SINGLE DAY EVERYWHERE THEY GO are not, to your mind, doing so because of religious devotion at all. No, no. It's an ideological devotion to pluralism!

But the problem is even if it were true, and it's not, you cannot have pluralism between a fiercely conservative religious people, and a liberal secular society. At least, you can't unless the former's numbers stay very small. The larger they get the more these two violently opposed cultural values will begin to cause friction, and eventually you get a society with soldiers in front of every shopping mall, church and Christmas market.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 23, 2017, 12:26:18 pm
No, it does not. If the second generation was integrating more than those who arrived then they would be casting off these ridiculous, archaic sexist pieces of fabric and enjoying the sun on their hair. Whether they are forced to do so by ethnic group peer pressure or chose these things themselves, the fact they wear them when other Muslim women do not is absolute proof of growing adherence to the more conservative doctrines of Islam. There simply is no other sane way to look at it.

You quite obviously regard your highly biased opinion higher than the actual results of surveys of these people. Stumbling around in such darkness must get a bit tiresome
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 23, 2017, 12:29:58 pm
Argus' interpretation is that actions speak louder than words. There are NO moderate Muslims who wear these things in western countries, aside from those forced to do so against their will.

So a woman who is voluntarily wearing headscarf can't possibly also tolerate or accept gays or support her own right not to be beaten or to equal treatment?   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 23, 2017, 12:38:13 pm
You quite obviously regard your highly biased opinion higher than the actual results of surveys of these people. Stumbling around in such darkness must get a bit tiresome

The results of the survey say they are more religious than their parents and more inclined to wear religious garments. I'm not sure why you believe this means they don't believe in Islam but I find that very unlikely.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 23, 2017, 12:39:19 pm
So a woman who is voluntarily wearing headscarf can't possibly also tolerate or accept gays or support her own right not to be beaten or to equal treatment?   

A woman would not voluntarily wear it unless she was a very conservative Muslim. There are certain predictable social values which go along with being a very conservative Muslim which are well-known since they are based on religious doctrine and known behaviour.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 23, 2017, 12:42:27 pm
The results of the survey say they are more religious than their parents and more inclined to wear religious garments. I'm not sure why you believe this means they don't believe in Islam but I find that very unlikely.

The results of the survey also say that their social attitudes are more in line with mainstream Canadians than were their parents.  Why do you continually ignore this part of the survey in favor of your unsubstantiated opinion that what they choose to wear also defines their social attitudes?   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 23, 2017, 12:54:29 pm
A woman would not voluntarily wear it unless she was a very conservative Muslim. There are certain predictable social values which go along with being a very conservative Muslim which are well-known since they are based on religious doctrine and known behaviour.

That is your assumption and is not borne out by facts, or by what Muslims themselves say.

Did you know that it's estimated that about 10% of the population in Egypt considers themselves gay?  Did you know that many of them also maintain their belief and practice in Islam - they reject the doctrine that homosexuality is wrong.   Some of these men and women have also come out to parents and friends, and these parents and friends - while disapproving - have not reported these people to the police, nor have they stoned them or thrown them off roofs.   Imagine that!  People not acting according to Argus' book of rules!

It is pretty arrogant and ignorant on your part to assume you know the minds and hearts of every Muslim in the country based on what they are wearing.     
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 23, 2017, 02:50:11 pm
then they would be casting off these ridiculous, archaic sexist pieces of fabric
Have you burnt your bra yet?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 23, 2017, 06:25:21 pm
The results of the survey also say that their social attitudes are more in line with mainstream Canadians than were their parents.  Why do you continually ignore this part of the survey in favor of your unsubstantiated opinion that what they choose to wear also defines their social attitudes?

Gee, maybe because it's really easy to lie to a survey? Maybe because regardless of how conservative their religious beliefs are they know better than to tell a survey "Why, yes, I do think those **** should all be killed."

As I said, actions speak louder than words.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 23, 2017, 06:29:41 pm
Gee, maybe because it's really easy to lie to a survey? Maybe because regardless of how conservative their religious beliefs are they know better than to tell a survey "Why, yes, I do think those **** should all be killed."

As I said, actions speak louder than words.

So, they lie about their connection to Canada and our mainstream values, but don't lie about why they wear a headscarf or how much they attend mosque?  Isn't it amazing how their lies absolutely support your conviction about what they believe!  Thank goodness you are here to tell us what people think!  Perhaps you should name yourself God, since you have so much infallible insight into other people.   ::)
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 23, 2017, 06:31:10 pm
That is your assumption and is not borne out by facts, or by what Muslims themselves say.

It's pretty **** well borne out by what they do, though. You can lie through your teeth all you want. Nobody who isn't a very conservative religious Muslim is going to wear those garments, and conservative religious Muslims hate gays and think women who don't cover their hair are ****. Let alone women who walk around in shorts and tank tops. Actually, it would not surprise me in the LEAST to find you wear a hijab yourself.

Quote
Did you know that it's estimated that about 10% of the population in Egypt considers themselves gay?

Oh bullshit. Gays don't even make up 10% of the population of any western country.

Quote
It is pretty arrogant and ignorant on your part to assume you know the minds and hearts of every Muslim in the country based on what they are wearing.     

It's pretty arrogant and ignorant of you to tell bald faced lies when anyone with more than half a brain knows better.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 23, 2017, 06:33:56 pm
So, they lie about their connection to Canada and our mainstream values, but don't lie about why they wear a headscarf or how much they attend mosque?

They see no reason to lie about whether they wear a hijab or not. They're proud to wear a hijab. Why would they lie about that, or about attending mosque?
But they know enough, from exposure to our culture, to know that expressing hatred towards gays, or a belief that women are inferior and must at all times obey men, will not go over very well among infidels. And, after all, their religion gives them permission to lie to infidels.

Quote
Thank goodness you are here to tell us what people think!  Perhaps you should name yourself God, since you have so much infallible insight into other people.   ::)

Your position that these women adorning themselves everywhere they go in religious garb are actually liberals who don't take their religion seriously  is so much complete and utter **** bullshit that nobody sane would believe it.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 23, 2017, 06:48:19 pm
It's pretty **** well borne out by what they do, though. You can lie through your teeth all you want. Nobody who isn't a very conservative religious Muslim is going to wear those garments, and conservative religious Muslims hate gays and think women who don't cover their hair are ****. Let alone women who walk around in shorts and tank tops. Actually, it would not surprise me in the LEAST to find you wear a hijab yourself.

When will you figure out that you can't possibly know what other people are thinking or what their motivations are?   

Quote
Oh bullshit. Gays don't even make up 10% of the population of any western country.

a significant homosexual community exists in Egypt; according to sexologist Heba Kotb, between 10%-12% of the population is gay..[1]
http://www.cairoscene.com/LifeStyle/On-Homosexuality-6-Egyptian-Men-Reveal-What-It-s-Like-To-Be-Gay-In-Egypt

Excuse me for thinking an Egyptian Sexologist would know what she's talking about. 

Quote
It's pretty arrogant and ignorant of you to tell bald faced lies when anyone with more than half a brain knows better.

Where did I lie?

You remain arrogant and ignorant to claim you know what a woman is thinking and what her values are because she wears a headscarf.   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 23, 2017, 06:52:29 pm
They see no reason to lie about whether they wear a hijab or not. They're proud to wear a hijab. Why would they lie about that, or about attending mosque?
But they know enough, from exposure to our culture, to know that expressing hatred towards gays, or a belief that women are inferior and must at all times obey men, will not go over very well among infidels. And, after all, their religion gives them permission to lie to infidels.

Your position that these women adorning themselves everywhere they go in religious garb are actually liberals who don't take their religion seriously  is so much complete and utter **** bullshit that nobody sane would believe it.

Your position that you know what motivates these women and what their values are is so much complete and utter **** bullshit, and is borne out every single day when millions of Canadian Muslims do absolutely nothing to the people you claim they are beholden to hate and kill. 

Boy, it must really burn your butt that a woman who you suspect must certainly be Muslim in a headscarf talks back to YOU, a MAN, and regularly proves you wrong.  If only I knew my place, eh?   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 23, 2017, 06:53:19 pm
When will you figure out that you can't possibly know what other people are thinking or what their motivations are?

I'm fairly sure your motivation is to defend Islam from any and all accusations, and to further the spread of Islam.

Quote
Excuse me for thinking an Egyptian Sexologist would know what she's talking about.

Why should I forgive you for having no ability to analyze information as to its credibility - or outright lying? It's one or the other.
Not even San Fransisco is 10% gay. It's about 6.5%. The idea that Egypt has twice as high a percentage of gays as San Francisco is ludicrous.


Quote
You remain arrogant and ignorant to claim you know what a woman is thinking and what her values are because she wears a headscarf.   

You remain a liar to try to pretend wearing the hijab has no religious meaning.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 23, 2017, 06:55:06 pm
Your position that you know what motivates these women and what their values are is so much complete and utter **** bullshit, and is borne out every single day when millions of Canadian Muslims do absolutely nothing to the people you claim they are beholden to hate and kill. 

Give them time. Once their numbers are high enough we'll start getting the same stuff as the British, French, Germans and Belgians are being introduced to now.
Quote
Boy, it must really burn your butt that a woman who you suspect must certainly be Muslim in a headscarf talks back to YOU, a MAN, and regularly proves you wrong.  If only I knew my place, eh?   

You've never proved me wrong about anything, but I wish you'd at least show the courage and honesty to admit you're a Muslim. But then Muslims don't NEED to be truthful with infidels, do they?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 23, 2017, 07:00:51 pm
, but I wish you'd at least show the courage and honesty to admit you're a Muslim. But then Muslims don't NEED to be truthful with infidels, do they?

Nah, ain't Muslim, don't wear a headscarf.  Pretty sure you won't believe me, but that's ok - only a very frightened person has to order his life around what he believes instead of what is true. 

Anyway, just done with you for today, Argus, thanks for the entertainment.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 23, 2017, 07:05:25 pm
Nah, ain't Muslim, don't wear a headscarf.  Pretty sure you won't believe me, but that's ok - only a very frightened person has to order his life around what he believes instead of what is true. 

Funny. I'd say that about everything you post. Anyway, you should be pleased I think you're a Muslim.

- I've scrubbed this post -

Jmt
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 23, 2017, 09:22:02 pm
Gee, maybe because it's really easy to lie to a survey? Maybe because regardless of how conservative their religious beliefs are they know better than to tell a survey "Why, yes, I do think those **** should all be killed."

As I said, actions speak louder than words.
Oh I see, so it's easy to lie to a survey, but not possible to lie to Kellie Lietch's Canadian Values survey. Can you spell hypocrite?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on April 23, 2017, 09:46:25 pm
I took an over the line insult that was pointed out to me out of a post.  Let's try to keep it civil.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 24, 2017, 10:44:03 am
Oh I see, so it's easy to lie to a survey, but not possible to lie to Kellie Lietch's Canadian Values survey. Can you spell hypocrite?

Are you a dog? Because your memory seems astonishingly short. It's as if you can't remember discussions already held, even long ones, on this very subject, right in this very topic, where it was pointed out that such tests are designed to get around people's natural inclination to tell the reviewer what the test subject thinks they want to hear. A survey generally asks a few basic, simple questions. The kinds of tests you take for employment with a large organization are quite a bit longer, often taking an hour or two. People will sit still for that since they want the job, but would never do so for an unpaid survey.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 24, 2017, 12:41:11 pm
Are you a dog? Because your memory seems astonishingly short. It's as if you can't remember discussions already held, even long ones, on this very subject, right in this very topic, where it was pointed out that such tests are designed to get around people's natural inclination to tell the reviewer what the test subject thinks they want to hear. A survey generally asks a few basic, simple questions. The kinds of tests you take for employment with a large organization are quite a bit longer, often taking an hour or two. People will sit still for that since they want the job, but would never do so for an unpaid survey.
So you just conveniently assume that people lie on surveys because it suits your purpose. got it argus..oh sorry john.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 24, 2017, 02:01:19 pm
So you just conveniently assume that people lie on surveys because it suits your purpose. got it argus..oh sorry john.

If he didn't assume some things and ignore other things, he wouldn't be able to believe himself.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on May 02, 2017, 08:18:24 am
So you just conveniently assume that people lie on surveys because it suits your purpose. got it argus..oh sorry john.

The assumption that people lie on surveys is the same as the assumption that they don't.  Equally valid.  People will tell a survey whatever suits them most.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest18 on May 02, 2017, 09:33:34 am
The assumption that people lie on surveys is the same as the assumption that they don't.  Equally valid.  People will tell a survey whatever suits them most.
In which case, San Francisco must be at least 75% gay.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on May 02, 2017, 01:42:51 pm
The assumption that people lie on surveys is the same as the assumption that they don't.  Equally valid.  People will tell a survey whatever suits them most.
Assuming that they only to try and push a point was what I was responding to. But your point does underscore why Lietch's proposed questionnaire would be a wasted effort.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on May 02, 2017, 04:01:46 pm
The assumption that people lie on surveys is the same as the assumption that they don't.  Equally valid.  People will tell a survey whatever suits them most.

People tend to be truthful more than untruthful.  This is kind of hardwired into humans, due to mutual trust requirements for a successful society.

This is not the same as saying that nobody ever lies on a survey only that an assumption of truthfulness is more likely to be correct than an assumption of untruthfulness.

In any case the problem is that John/Argus assumes truthfulness where it suits him and untruthfulness where it suits him.   This says more about him than aboit the survey respondents.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on May 02, 2017, 09:15:04 pm
People tend to be truthful more than untruthful.  This is kind of hardwired into humans, due to mutual trust requirements for a successful society.

This is not the same as saying that nobody ever lies on a survey only that an assumption of truthfulness is more likely to be correct than an assumption of untruthfulness.

In any case the problem is that John/Argus assumes truthfulness where it suits him and untruthfulness where it suits him.   This says more about him than aboit the survey respondents.

I think people tend to be truthful when there is no outcome that will affect them.  Coke or Pepsi?

If they can affect their own situation by lying, they will. 

I should add, if they think it's funny they will too. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on May 03, 2017, 04:23:40 pm
It's interesting to see all the Islamophiles who have spent months screaming that value testing would be a waste of time because people would just lie now outraged at the suggestion people will lie to a poll.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on May 03, 2017, 05:11:10 pm
It's interesting to see all the Islamophiles who have spent months screaming that value testing would be a waste of time because people would just lie now outraged at the suggestion people will lie to a poll.

Nobody is "screaming" or "outraged", that's just you setting your hair on fire. But do you not understand that there may be a little more incentive to lie to a Kellie Lietch "values test" question than to answer a survey that asks if you still wear your head scarf or not once you have already been accepted into the country?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on May 04, 2017, 07:39:02 pm
Nobody is "screaming" or "outraged", that's just you setting your hair on fire. But do you not understand that there may be a little more incentive to lie to a Kellie Lietch "values test" question than to answer a survey that asks if you still wear your head scarf or not once you have already been accepted into the country?

Do you not understand that the questions given in a values test would not have been straightforward?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Peter F on May 04, 2017, 08:47:50 pm
of course! Thats the only way it would work. A bunch of vague questions whose answers could mean all sorts of things. I'm curious about what steam of innocuous questions would lead to the result that the applicant wishes to kill infidels or maybe hopes to win a lottery and never work again.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on May 04, 2017, 09:16:11 pm
Do you not understand that the questions given in a values test would not have been straightforward?

Oh I see, so it would have been some TRRRRRICKY questions. And everybody with brown skin would be too god damn stupid to catch onto that. Gotcha.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on May 06, 2017, 08:05:50 pm
echo...
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on November 26, 2017, 03:51:10 pm
This story got very little attention and no discussion, and I thought that was pretty odd. Up until the last year or so peaceful demonstration was so much the norm in Canada, that if one person was arrested for violence or attempted violence it would be a big story. It seems like we've already gotten jaded. Dozens of far left counter-protesters were arrested the other day trying to stop a protest against the Liberals by a couple of well-known right wing groups (La Meute and the Storm Alliance).

Police arrested a total of 44 people in two separate incidents, according to police spokesman Andre Turcotte.
These included a first group of 21 individuals who were arrested early in the afternoon for "plotting to counter the protest" that had been organized by right wing groups, he said.

"Weapons were found: telescopic sticks, slingshots, bottles containing a liquid that is for the moment unknown, and in addition their faces were covered," he said.
The suspects were questioned and could face charges of conspiracy for unlawful assembly and wearing disguise for a dangerous purpose, he added.

Another 23 people associated with the counter protest were arrested later after they failed to disperse, Turcotte said.


Have we become that used to Left wing violence that we shrug about it?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com///news/national/dozens-arrested-as-far-right-rally-met-with-anti-fascist-counter-protest-in-quebec-city/article37087489/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 26, 2017, 05:38:15 pm
I don't know that I care too much if there's another far-right vs far-left rumble.  I did notice it but not enough for me to register concern I guess.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on November 26, 2017, 09:40:05 pm
Have we become that used to Left wing violence that we shrug about it?

I would imagine a lot of people actively support it.  No shrugging whatsoever.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on November 26, 2017, 09:47:50 pm
I would imagine a lot of people actively support it.  No shrugging whatsoever.

You don't need to imagine, just go look up a place called Charlottesville and you'll find who supports it.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on November 26, 2017, 09:53:41 pm
You don't need to imagine, just go look up a place called Charlottesville and you'll find who supports it.

I agree, but it wasn't just there.  It seems like it happens a lot.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on November 27, 2017, 12:14:06 am
CBC is airing a documentary about the far-right movement and talking to ex-members about it. These guys are talking about how they would go looking for members of the hate group of the month to go intimidate, terrify and beat up - but its "the left" who are violent. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on November 27, 2017, 09:13:17 am
I don't know that I care too much if there's another far-right vs far-left rumble.  I did notice it but not enough for me to register concern I guess.

I resist the notion these are 'far right' because no one has offered up reasons for it. I've looked. So far it rests on the notion they are 'anti-immigration' which does not constitute being far right.

On the other hand, wearing masks and coming armed to a counter demonstration intended to stop people from speaking their minds marks you as rather far to the left, though I can easily imagine several people on this web site gleefully participating in that sort of thing.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on November 27, 2017, 09:13:46 am
CBC is airing a documentary about the far-right movement and talking to ex-members about it. These guys are talking about how they would go looking for members of the hate group of the month to go intimidate, terrify and beat up - but its "the left" who are violent.

It's the Left who ARE violent. At least as a group. I don't doubt whatsoever that the individuals who are white supremacists or Nazis are antisocial misfits, **** and prone to violence, but I haven't seen anything from them on a political/group level.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 28, 2017, 04:51:18 pm
I resist the notion these are 'far right' because no one has offered up reasons for it. I've looked. So far it rests on the notion they are 'anti-immigration' which does not constitute being far right.


http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/far-right-and-far-left-groups-to-face-off-in-quebec-city-on-saturday

Quote
This time, La Meute, the most prominent of the far-right groups, will be joined by Storm Alliance, a splinter group formed out of the Soldiers of Odin, as well as other marginal groups like the Front patriotique du Québec, a separatist “identity” group.

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/combating-hate/Soldiers-of-Odin-USA-Report-web.pdf

Besides La Meute, 'Storm Alliance' which broke off from 'Soldiers of Odin' (hmmmm... are these groups STARTING TO SOUND FAR RIGHT TO YOU ?) attended:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-police-arrest-44-at-far-right-protest-and-counter-demonstration-1.4419752

Quote
Between 300 and 400 members of far-right groups, including La Meute and Storm Alliance, marched in the rain to a convention centre that was hosting a major policy meeting of the governing Quebec Liberal party.

 

Apparently they are not far-right but ultranationalist:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/roxham-road-quebec-far-right-ultranationalist-1.4121969

Quote
Tregget is the leader and founder of Storm Alliance. He had been president of the Quebec chapter of Soldiers of Odin, a far-right organization based in Finland, but left last year after accusing the leadership of racism.

He describes his new group, which is composed of several disaffected Soldiers of Odin members, as "ultranationalist" rather than "far right."

How ultranationalist these idiots could be is in question:

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/anti-immigration-anti-fascist-groups-ready-to-face-off-in-quebec-city

Quote
The Storm Alliance members waved flags, sang the French national anthem and loudly denounced the provincial government, while the La Meute members followed some distance behind in a silent march.

MAYBE THEY WORSHIP STEPHANE DION.

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/11/28/far-right-movement-getting-free-ride-quebec-media/



On the other hand, wearing masks and coming armed to a counter demonstration intended to stop people from speaking their minds marks you as rather far to the left, though I can easily imagine several people on this web site gleefully participating in that sort of thing.
[/quote]
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on November 28, 2017, 06:11:12 pm

http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/far-right-and-far-left-groups-to-face-off-in-quebec-city-on-saturday

A newspaper which calls the 'far right' but does not explain why is not what I was looking for. Knowing the ideological bent of most of our mainstream media Stephen Harper would probably have been described that way until this year. I want something about their fascist political ideology, or how they want to kill Jews or Black people or gays or something.

Quote
Besides La Meute, 'Storm Alliance' which broke off from 'Soldiers of Odin' (hmmmm... are these groups STARTING TO SOUND FAR RIGHT TO YOU ?) attended:

Who broke away from them because they considered them racist. That doesn't sound very far right to me.

Quote
Apparently they are not far-right but ultranationalist:

Again, how is this defined and why? How do you differentiate a nationalist from an ultra-nationalist? WTH is an untra-nationalist anyway?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 28, 2017, 06:38:05 pm
Ultra-nationalist is code for Nazi, basically.  You can find the info in the sites I posted.  They appear to be pulling back their Nazi content now that they're under scrutiny.  That is something, I suppose, but their true nature is there.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on November 29, 2017, 11:35:50 am
Ultra-nationalist is code for Nazi, basically.  You can find the info in the sites I posted.  They appear to be pulling back their Nazi content now that they're under scrutiny.  That is something, I suppose, but their true nature is there.

And to repeat, I need some kind of 'why'. Some progressive journalist calling them far right or ultra-nationalist is not sufficient. I have not found any indication in googling that these groups are Nazis or Fascists or talk about anything remotely similar to those ideologies. Nor have I found anything about them being racist.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on November 30, 2017, 07:04:41 pm
The Liberals are apparently working on an update of the citizenship guide that removes the condemnation of "barbaric" practices including spousal battery, honor killings, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation.   The Harper government inserted that section in 2011, and Justin was hella mad at the time, and got into a Twitter-war with Jason Kenney about it.  The Liberals apparently want to remove it, and Michelle Rempel has been on a Twitter tirade on the subject.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11/29/tories-push-trudeau-to-keep-fgm-warning-in-citizenship-guide_a_23292216/

 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on November 30, 2017, 08:00:12 pm
The Liberals are apparently working on an update of the citizenship guide that removes the condemnation of "barbaric" practices including spousal battery, honor killings, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation.   The Harper government inserted that section in 2011, and Justin was hella mad at the time, and got into a Twitter-war with Jason Kenney about it.  The Liberals apparently want to remove it, and Michelle Rempel has been on a Twitter tirade on the subject.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11/29/tories-push-trudeau-to-keep-fgm-warning-in-citizenship-guide_a_23292216/

 -k

The Liberals take the position that they don't have to mention something is wrong when it's illegal. But when it's a common and legal practice in some of our 'source'
countries, and well-respected there I would think a message about the kinds of values Canada holds, and the kinds of values it will not stand for, would seem apropos.

But that would be judging, don't you see. Mustn't judge other cultures! Mustn't be eurcentric or canadacentric in presuming ours is better, you know!
Anyway, the instant an immigrant steps off the plane he or she or it immediately adopts Canadian values and ignores his or her or its upbringing if it conflicts with the law here.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on November 30, 2017, 08:04:44 pm
The Liberals take the position that they don't have to mention something is wrong when it's illegal. But when it's a common and legal practice in some of our 'source'
countries, and well-respected there I would think a message about the kinds of values Canada holds, and the kinds of values it will not stand for, would seem apropos.

But that would be judging, don't you see. Mustn't judge other cultures! Mustn't be eurcentric or canadacentric in presuming ours is better, you know!
Anyway, the instant an immigrant steps off the plane he or she or it immediately adopts Canadian values and ignores his or her or its upbringing if it conflicts with the law here.

Your leap to ridiculous assumptions are why people don't take you very seriously. Try backing up your claims with something of substance.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on December 01, 2017, 02:36:13 pm
Your leap to ridiculous assumptions are why people don't take you very seriously. Try backing up your claims with something of substance.

I use intelligence and logic. The only people who take social justice warriors seriously are other social justice warriors.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JMT on December 01, 2017, 02:46:19 pm
I could use an adult diaper right about now.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 09:44:03 am
Yeah, no reason to be concerned about the mentality of our potential immigrants. They all come from such delightful and enlightened cultures.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/indias-hindus-are-defending-eight-men-who-police-say-gang-****-murdered-a-girl-because-the-victim-was-muslim/wcm/f2245f7c-1f75-4220-8c48-0a0413eb91c5
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 13, 2018, 10:22:48 am
At least you are going after Hindus this time.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 13, 2018, 10:32:06 am
Yeah, no reason to be concerned about the mentality of our potential immigrants. They all come from such delightful and enlightened cultures.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/indias-hindus-are-defending-eight-men-who-police-say-gang-****-murdered-a-girl-because-the-victim-was-muslim/wcm/f2245f7c-1f75-4220-8c48-0a0413eb91c5

Lotsa White criminals too.  Have seen three separate news stories just in the past week on sexual crime in my community, including a Pastor with child pornography. 

And how about those White Christians in America who tortured their dozen kids for years, or that "nice" couple who ran over a cliff with their six adopted kids; I notice stories like that don't get you frothing at the mouth to keep Americans out of Canada because of their culture.  Its just the brown people you have a hate-on for.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: wilber on April 13, 2018, 10:40:08 am
Lotsa White criminals too.  Have seen three separate news stories just in the past week on sexual crime in my community, including a Pastor with child pornography. 

And how about those White Christians in America who tortured their dozen kids for years, or that "nice" couple who ran over a cliff with their six adopted kids; I notice stories like that don't get you frothing at the mouth to keep Americans out of Canada because of their culture.  Its just the brown people you have a hate-on for.

Sure there are but they don't come from places were such things were culturally acceptable.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 13, 2018, 10:40:53 am
You will lose the game if you take that approach Dia.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 13, 2018, 11:08:57 am
Sure there are but they don't come from places were such things were culturally acceptable.

Where is it "culturally acceptable" to torture and **** an 8-year-old?  Why are the 8 being charged if its ok? 
And why the outrage in India, if this is culturally acceptable?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/asifa-bano-latest-india-****-murder-girl-eight-year-old-muslim-hindu-kashmir-protest-a8302381.html
"The gang ****, torture and murder of an eight-year-old Muslim girl in Indian-controlled Kashmir has sparked growing outrage and religious tension across the country."

"Anger has erupted against those who have supported the accused men, with the hashtag #JusticeforAsifa picking up momentum on social media across India."


The Hindus protesting the charges are as brain dead as Trump supporters who think Mexicans are all rapists/murderers, or people who shrug off the killing of kids in Syria as acceptable collateral damage, or judges who think sports heroes who **** unconscious girls should be let off with a slap on the wrist.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 11:15:52 am
At least you are going after Hindus this time.

I don't CARE about what god people worship or how they do it. I care about their behaviour and social values.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 11:18:47 am
Lotsa White criminals too.  Have seen three separate news stories just in the past week on sexual crime in my community, including a Pastor with child pornography. 

No one has ever suggested there aren't white criminals, you brainless shrew. But when a white rapist is arrested for killing a child what do you think the odds are of a mob of lawyers trying to stop the charges from being laid? What do you think the chances are of street demonstrations on the rapists behalf? How often is the **** and murder done by police and priests in a church?

More to the point, your moronic position continues to be that if there are criminals in Canada it's immoral to try to keep criminals from immigrating to Canada.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: wilber on April 13, 2018, 11:33:49 am
Where is it "culturally acceptable" to torture and **** an 8-year-old?  Why are the 8 being charged if its ok? 
And why the outrage in India, if this is culturally acceptable?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/asifa-bano-latest-india-****-murder-girl-eight-year-old-muslim-hindu-kashmir-protest-a8302381.html
"The gang ****, torture and murder of an eight-year-old Muslim girl in Indian-controlled Kashmir has sparked growing outrage and religious tension across the country."

"Anger has erupted against those who have supported the accused men, with the hashtag #JusticeforAsifa picking up momentum on social media across India."


The Hindus protesting the charges are as brain dead as Trump supporters who think Mexicans are all rapists/murderers, or people who shrug off the killing of kids in Syria as acceptable collateral damage, or judges who think sports heroes who **** unconscious girls should be let off with a slap on the wrist.

I was referring to the things mentioned in the citizenship guide which are culturally acceptable in some places,
Quote
spousal battery, honor killings, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation
even in places where they may be technically illegal. I think the statement would be better served without using the word "barbaric" but I have no problem with clearly stating what practices are not condoned for any reason in this country.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 11:43:43 am
I was referring to the things mentioned in the citizenship guide which are culturally acceptable in some places,  even in places where they may be technically illegal. I think the statement would be better served without using the word "barbaric" but I have no problem with clearly stating what practices are not condoned for any reason in this country.

What's wrong with saying something barbaric is barbaric? Why go with this simpering 'we don't condone such things, you know' instead of just saying "if that's what you believe in stay the **** away".

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 13, 2018, 11:44:27 am
I was referring to the things mentioned in the citizenship guide which are culturally acceptable in some places,  even in places where they may be technically illegal. I think the statement would be better served without using the word "barbaric" but I have no problem with clearly stating what practices are not condoned for any reason in this country.

No, barbaric works.


adjective: barbaric

    1.
    savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal.
    "he had carried out barbaric acts in the name of war"
    synonyms:   brutal, barbarous, brutish, bestial, savage, vicious, wicked, cruel, ruthless, merciless, villainous, murderous, heinous, monstrous, vile, inhuman, infernal, dark, fiendish, diabolical
    "barbaric crimes"
    antonyms:   civilized
    2.
    primitive; unsophisticated.
    "the barbaric splendor he found in civilizations since destroyed"
    synonyms:   brutal, barbarous, brutish, bestial, savage, vicious, wicked, cruel, ruthless, merciless, villainous, murderous, heinous, monstrous, vile, inhuman, infernal, dark, fiendish, diabolical
    "barbaric crimes"
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 13, 2018, 11:51:08 am
I don't CARE about what god people worship or how they do it. I care about their behaviour and social values.

Forgive me for not trusting you on this, given that you haven't gone against other cultures as much as one in particular
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 13, 2018, 11:55:20 am

More to the point, your moronic position continues to be that if there are criminals in Canada it's immoral to try to keep criminals from immigrating to Canada.


" But when a white rapist is arrested for killing a child what do you think the odds are of a mob of lawyers trying to stop the charges from being laid? "

Well... priests for one seem to have a higher rate of criminality in a particular area but ...

Also there are plenty of examples of the system not working for accused people of colour, so your anecdotal lawyer mob is as moronic as anything Dia posted.

We can't deny that certain groups commit crime at a higher rate per capita than other groups.  We can't deny that those crimes vary by group also.  We can (and do) deny the root causes for these effects.  And finally, we have an odd relationship between facts and moral reaction to certain things.

Norm MacDonald was on a call-in show and the hosts started groaning when he said that African Americans less than white people, even when attributed that cause to racism.  They felt his statement was racist.  It was, in fact, generalist - but it was backed up by data.  People don't understand these subtleties.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: wilber on April 13, 2018, 12:00:11 pm
What's wrong with saying something barbaric is barbaric? Why go with this simpering 'we don't condone such things, you know' instead of just saying "if that's what you believe in stay the **** away".

Is that how you welcome everyone?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 13, 2018, 12:22:08 pm
Is that how you welcome everyone?

Everyone non-white I'm betting.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 12:24:49 pm
Forgive me for not trusting you on this, given that you haven't gone against other cultures as much as one in particular

Because that one in particular evidences THE most consistently backward, brutal and barbaric social values and practices, and because of the fact so many of them are immigrating to Canada - without any checks on their beliefs or values.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 12:29:59 pm

" But when a white rapist is arrested for killing a child what do you think the odds are of a mob of lawyers trying to stop the charges from being laid? "

Well... priests for one seem to have a higher rate of criminality in a particular area but ...

No, they actually don't. But by all means let me see a cite which proves this.


Quote
Also there are plenty of examples of the system not working for accused people of colour, so your anecdotal lawyer mob is as moronic as anything Dia posted.

Drivel. You want to compare our system and it's racism to that in India? Or any Muslim nation? Go for it. This is not merely an 'anecdotal' incident given this sort of thing has happened often the past, where large mobs of Hindu extremists have attacked and slaughtered people from other religions. The current Indian prime minister was once banned from the United States because of his part in fanning the flames of violent religious extremism in his home state.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 12:30:23 pm
Is that how you welcome everyone?

I don't WANT to welcome people with those views. Do you?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 12:30:58 pm
Everyone non-white I'm betting.

Do you imagine I have the slightest trace of respect for you on the presumption you're White? Because I assure you that is not the case.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: wilber on April 13, 2018, 12:38:04 pm
I don't WANT to welcome people with those views. Do you?

We live in a free society, you can't tell people what to think and they don't have to tell you. You can tell them what we think and what is not on in this country. I don't think making statements that assumes they are barbarians right off the bat is a positive way to start.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 13, 2018, 12:38:57 pm
Do you imagine I have the slightest trace of respect for you on the presumption you're White? Because I assure you that is not the case.

Right back at ya l'il buddy.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 13, 2018, 12:41:53 pm
We live in a free society, you can't tell people what to think and they don't have to tell you. You can tell them what we think and what is not on in this country. I don't think making statements that assumes they are barbarians right off the bat is a positive way to start.

One doesn't.  One tells them what is barbaric and lets them decide if they are or not.

Or at least, that was the plan for a while.  I think JT scuppered it.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: wilber on April 13, 2018, 01:10:42 pm
One doesn't.  One tells them what is barbaric and lets them decide if they are or not.

Or at least, that was the plan for a while.  I think JT scuppered it.
s

I'm in favour of keeping the statement, just scuppering the barbaric bit.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 13, 2018, 01:20:10 pm
One doesn't.  One tells them what is barbaric and lets them decide if they are or not.

Or at least, that was the plan for a while.  I think JT scuppered it.

Just who gets to decide what is "barbaric" and what's not? Ardent church goers might suggest atheists are barbaric.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 13, 2018, 01:49:23 pm
Just who gets to decide what is "barbaric" and what's not? Ardent church goers might suggest atheists are barbaric.

Sure.  A consensus is required.  I stand by to help, and am willing to stand up for atheism.  As for stuff that is mind-meltingly obviously barbaric, I think it speaks for itself.

With potential immigrants, if they had any doubt, I'm sure that pamphlet, or brochure, or whatever it was the previous government had in place would have helped immeasurably.  Shame JT had to go and get rid of it.  Sows confusion, if you ask me.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 13, 2018, 02:01:25 pm
It's the Left who ARE violent. At least as a group.

Who let you out of your cage today?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 13, 2018, 02:28:23 pm
Sure.  A consensus is required.  I stand by to help, and am willing to stand up for atheism.  As for stuff that is mind-meltingly obviously barbaric, I think it speaks for itself.

With potential immigrants, if they had any doubt, I'm sure that pamphlet, or brochure, or whatever it was the previous government had in place would have helped immeasurably.  Shame JT had to go and get rid of it.  Sows confusion, if you ask me.

Kellie Leitch sure blew that one eh! Her own party were critical of her so called "values test".
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 13, 2018, 02:32:01 pm
Kellie Leitch sure blew that one eh! Her own party were critical of her so called "values test".

Yeah, I'm against any kind of questionnaire.  I've lied on them myself.

I'm in favour of leaving no doubt whatsoever, in anyone's mind at all, what we consider barbaric, and what we will do to anyone who disagrees.  Unless they keep it in the realm of fantasy, of course.  Then I don't give a ****.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 13, 2018, 02:46:23 pm
Yeah, I'm against any kind of questionnaire.  I've lied on them myself.

I'm in favour of leaving no doubt whatsoever, in anyone's mind at all, what we consider barbaric, and what we will do to anyone who disagrees.  Unless they keep it in the realm of fantasy, of course.  Then I don't give a ****.

And so what do you plan to do with that atheist the religious zealot thinks is "barbaric"? why not just let the laws and the legal system deal with people who step out of line instead of dancing around with terminology? It has worked pretty well for us so far.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 03:18:19 pm
We live in a free society, you can't tell people what to think and they don't have to tell you.

They are not PART of our society. They are applicants, from among a huge mass of applicants who wish to join us.

Is it your position we should simply shrug and wave them in without the slightest care or concern with, I don't know, picking the best?

And how far do you take that? Do you welcome hundreds of thousands, even millions of people who don't believe in a free society, but instead desperately desire a theocracy, allowing them to flood in and then vote in representatives who believe as they do so that your free society is gone? Just how lacking in judgement to you want us to be about those who want to come here?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 03:19:06 pm
Right back at ya l'il buddy.

Oh I'm damned sure if you found out I was black or native you'd be cringing and begging my apology and wouldn't dare contradict anything I said.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 13, 2018, 03:20:30 pm
I was referring to the things mentioned in the citizenship guide which are culturally acceptable in some places,  even in places where they may be technically illegal. I think the statement would be better served without using the word "barbaric" but I have no problem with clearly stating what practices are not condoned for any reason in this country.

I agree actually that those things should not have been removed from the citizenship guide, even though I also believe that the majority of immigrants from those countries aren't going to be doing them.

Speaking.of FGM I found it interesting that a report from Al-Jazeera on FGM had the majoroty of commentors condemning FGM; one person was defending it and being soundly condemned for that.  Most of the commentators appeared to be Muslims from ME countries, probably because I was.reading this around 1 am, approximately 9 am in that part of the world.  Many of them were also blaming "ignorant Africans", another reason I suspect it was mostly Middle Eastern Muslims.  Another sign that things are really changing.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 03:21:13 pm
Who let you out of your cage today?

Well, given the statement you're replying to was from November, I'm not sure why you're getting to it now.

As to my cage, until you and your comrades take over I will be able to stay out of cages and speak my mind. If you ever get into power I imagine a LOT of people will be in cages. They'll be rusting, decrepit cages as our economy disintegrates of course, but I'm sure there'll be a lot of them.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 03:21:49 pm
Kellie Leitch sure blew that one eh! Her own party were critical of her so called "values test".

No, the leadership was. According to polls something close to 90% of Tory members actually liked the idea of values testing.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 13, 2018, 03:22:05 pm
Oh I'm damned sure if you found out I was black or native you'd be cringing and begging my apology and wouldn't dare contradict anything I said.

And I'm damned sure you'd be wrong yet again. Skin color has no effect on my approach to people.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 13, 2018, 03:22:35 pm
Yeah, I'm against any kind of questionnaire.  I've lied on them myself.

I'm in favour of leaving no doubt whatsoever, in anyone's mind at all, what we consider barbaric, and what we will do to anyone who disagrees.

Or until their rising numbers vote to change the rules, and then you'll shrug and say "eh, whaterya gonna do?"
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 13, 2018, 03:24:56 pm
No, the leadership was. According to polls something close to 90% of Tory members actually liked the idea of values testing.

About 85% actually, they just didn't like Leitch's anti immigrant slant in her version.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 13, 2018, 03:28:26 pm
And so what do you plan to do with that atheist the religious zealot thinks is "barbaric"? why not just let the laws and the legal system deal with people who step out of line instead of dancing around with terminology? It has worked pretty well for us so far.

Absolutely!  No dancing.  It would save the system a lot of money if we told everyone, in no uncertain terms, what is barbaric and won't be tolerated.  Atheism isn't, and will be, so it doesn't apply.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 13, 2018, 03:29:09 pm
Or until their rising numbers vote to change the rules, and then you'll shrug and say "eh, whaterya gonna do?"

No I won't.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on April 13, 2018, 09:07:20 pm
Just who gets to decide what is "barbaric" and what's not? Ardent church goers might suggest atheists are barbaric.

Maybe they would, but it's not up to them.

However, we DO have actual Canadian values. They are expressed in the laws of our land.

If some hypothetical cannibals arrived in Canada and wanted to practice their particular dietary customs, all of us would have no qualms about saying "that's barbaric, and we won't tolerate it in this country."    If someone's religion required human sacrifice, none of us would be shy about declaring it barbaric and intolerable.

If I wanted to celebrate my Viking cultural heritage by looting my neighbors' apartment, plundering their stuff, and caving their skulls in with a war-axe, I'd be out of luck because that too is barbaric and intolerable.

To religitards who have attempted to deny their children life-saving medicine on the grounds of religious freedom, we have said: **** your religious beliefs, your childrens' welfare comes first.   That's another subjective Canadian value that we have no qualms about imposing on others' freedoms.   We said the same to the fundamentalist Mormon scumbags of Bountiful, BC:  **** your religious beliefs, protecting children comes first.  Our officials may use more polite language, but the message is the same:  in this country, that **** is not acceptable.  We'd say the same to those who'd lop off their daughters' clitorises, or kill children who bring "shame" upon the family, or inflict torture or pain or death in the name of their so-called cultural or religious beliefs.  Whether it be the Kingston family that murdered their daughter in an "honor killing" or whether it be David and Collette Stefan who killed their son through their belief in "alternative" medicine, we in Canada DO judge others' actions as barbaric and punish them accordingly.

I am an atheist, and I don't believe that there is any such thing as an absolute moral code, god-given or otherwise. But we in Canada do have a moral code that we have mutually agreed to as citizens of our country, and though it be subjective and not absolute or god-given, it's the law of our society and we certainly do have the right and the power to judge those whose values are in conflict with those values expressed in the law of our land.


 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on April 13, 2018, 09:16:44 pm
Forgive me for not trusting you on this, given that you haven't gone against other cultures as much as one in particular

I would point out that one doesn't encounter much push-back if they post about cultural barbarism, unless Muslims are involved.  I've posted numerous times about Hasidic Jews and Indians acting like retards in regards to women, without a word of disagreement. "yeah, those guys really suck."  Only when Muslims are accused of same does one get this ferocious defense coming from those outraged that you'd dare question the values of the Islams.

 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 13, 2018, 09:26:38 pm
I agree actually that those things should not have been removed from the citizenship guide, even though I also believe that the majority of immigrants from those countries aren't going to be doing them.

Agreed. 

Trudeau and his government are treacherous cowards who will do anything not to offend any victimized groups at the expense of the country, which certainly isn't unique to them.  The moral bullies out there are rampant though, and they'll bow.

You shouldn't get such a pamphlet when you become a citizen though, you should also get it when you apply for your permanent residence.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 13, 2018, 09:33:52 pm
Maybe they would, but it's not up to them.

However, we DO have actual Canadian values. They are expressed in the laws of our land.

If some hypothetical cannibals arrived in Canada and wanted to practice their particular dietary customs, all of us would have no qualms about saying "that's barbaric, and we won't tolerate it in this country."    If someone's religion required human sacrifice, none of us would be shy about declaring it barbaric and intolerable.

If I wanted to celebrate my Viking cultural heritage by looting my neighbors' apartment, plundering their stuff, and caving their skulls in with a war-axe, I'd be out of luck because that too is barbaric and intolerable.

Yes I would agree that generally speaking Canadians would agree on similar values and as you point out they are embedded in the laws of our land. I just get a little antsy when a far right leaning politician such as Kellie Leitch attempts to impose her version of Canadfian values on all immigrants. As has been pointed out, a large percentage of Canadians initially accepted the concept of a values test, until they read what Leitch had included in her questionnaire. For one thing people could easily figure out how to answer the questions in a way that would please these type of questions. Let's simply let the laws of the land rule.   

To religitards who have attempted to deny their children life-saving medicine on the grounds of religious freedom, we have said: **** your religious beliefs, your childrens' welfare comes first.   That's another subjective Canadian value that we have no qualms about imposing on others' freedoms.   We said the same to the fundamentalist Mormon scumbags of Bountiful, BC:  **** your religious beliefs, protecting children comes first.  Our officials may use more polite language, but the message is the same:  in this country, that **** is not acceptable.  We'd say the same to those who'd lop off their daughters' clitorises, or kill children who bring "shame" upon the family, or inflict torture or pain or death in the name of their so-called cultural or religious beliefs.  Whether it be the Kingston family that murdered their daughter in an "honor killing" or whether it be David and Collette Stefan who killed their son through their belief in "alternative" medicine, we in Canada DO judge others' actions as barbaric and punish them accordingly.

I am an atheist, and I don't believe that there is any such thing as an absolute moral code, god-given or otherwise. But we in Canada do have a moral code that we have mutually agreed to as citizens of our country, and though it be subjective and not absolute or god-given, it's the law of our society and we certainly do have the right and the power to judge those whose values are in conflict with those values expressed in the law of our land.


 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 13, 2018, 09:37:09 pm
I would point out that one doesn't encounter much push-back if they post about cultural barbarism, unless Muslims are involved.  I've posted numerous times about Hasidic Jews and Indians acting like retards in regards to women, without a word of disagreement. "yeah, those guys really suck."  Only when Muslims are accused of same does one get this ferocious defense coming from those outraged that you'd dare question the values of the Islams.

It's the fear of being seen as racist/xenophobic.

I get called racist when I say a lot of south asians are filthy.  Not all, but a decent amount.  This is a region where 60% of rural Indians openly defecate outside when they take a poop instead of in a toilet because the country has horrific sanitation issues due to poverty & overpopulation & crappy government  That's 500 million people who openly defecate on a daily basis, causing hundreds of thousands of children to die every year from the bacteria.  How dare I!
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 13, 2018, 09:46:54 pm
It's the fear of being seen as racist/xenophobic.

I get called racist when I say a lot of south asians are filthy.  Not all, but a decent amount.  This is a region where 60% of rural Indians openly defecate outside when they take a poop instead of in a toilet because the country has horrific sanitation issues due to poverty & overpopulation & crappy government  That's 500 million people who openly defecate on a daily basis, causing hundreds of thousands of children to die every year from the bacteria.  How dare I!

I think when you call people filthy because they are poor (and maybe brown skinned) they you're getting pretty close to racist.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on April 13, 2018, 09:49:19 pm
Yes I would agree that generally speaking Canadians would agree on similar values and as you point out they are embedded in the laws of our land. I just get a little antsy when a far right leaning politician such as Kellie Leitch attempts to impose her version of Canadfian values on all immigrants. As has been pointed out, a large percentage of Canadians initially accepted the concept of a values test, until they read what Leitch had included in her questionnaire. For one thing people could easily figure out how to answer the questions in a way that would please these type of questions. Let's simply let the laws of the land rule.   

Then why should we be shy about declaring our views on what we consider unacceptable?  We do have Canadian values. We do have views on what's unacceptable.  Why should we not be forthright about it?

 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on April 13, 2018, 10:05:43 pm
I think when you call people filthy because they are poor (and maybe brown skinned) they you're getting pretty close to racist.

Once upon a time I was walking with an uncle, through an area of mobile homes, several of which had busted **** all over the lawn out front. Broken appliances, garbage, rusting auto parts, rotting furniture, whatever.   He told me "just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to be dirty."  I was a kid at the time, but the remark has always stuck with me.

 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 13, 2018, 10:17:01 pm
Once upon a time I was walking with an uncle, through an area of mobile homes, several of which had busted **** all over the lawn out front. Broken appliances, garbage, rusting auto parts, rotting furniture, whatever.   He told me "just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to be dirty."  I was a kid at the time, but the remark has always stuck with me.

 -k

Well I recall once upon a time, (the first time) I went to Bombay, it was called that then and it was early in the morning and I just got off a plane. Many people were coming from their abodes and relieving themselves in the ditches that were dug down both sides of the street for just that purpose and after the traffic died down, a fire hydrant valve was opened and a worker flooded the ditches with a hose. Were those people dirty, or were they simply poor and didn't have other choices?   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 13, 2018, 10:40:28 pm
I think when you call people filthy because they are poor (and maybe brown skinned) they you're getting pretty close to racist.

What does brown-skinned have to do with not having good sanitary habits?  My aunts family is filthy too, they were born in Canada.  I found big pieces of dried dog poo in a corner of their living room once.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 13, 2018, 10:43:36 pm
What does brown-skinned have to do with not having good sanitary habits?  My aunts family is filthy too, they were born in Canada.  I found big pieces of dried dog poo in a corner of their living room once.

I guess you've never travelled much. Perhaps there is dog poop in your brain.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Peter F on April 13, 2018, 11:12:35 pm
Then why should we be shy about declaring our views on what we consider unacceptable?  We do have Canadian values. We do have views on what's unacceptable.  Why should we not be forthright about it?

 -k
Certainly you have done so. Rightly so, too.   If that was all there was to it you'd have no problem with us libtards. But that ain't what it's all about is it?  It isn't just lamenting all the mysogeny in this country. It's far more than that. Us libtards - or more accurately:Me - get our panities in a knot because those lamentations lead immediately to the laws that need enacting to ban such evil. Questionaires need filling out; Clothing banned; foreigners scrutinized.    The bitching about certain religions beliefs is fine and well. It's what should be done about those believers, particularly non-real-Canadian believers, that bug my ass.
   You are correct too, in that I do not engage (or issue likes) when folks start ranting about muslims and patriarchy. The sole reason for that silence is I have absolutely no interest in feeding the right wing conservative numbers (I typed something else there but will let the spellcheck stand) who think that means I agree with isolating and punishing people, by law,  for their religious beliefs.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: BC_cheque on April 14, 2018, 12:22:14 am
It's the fear of being seen as racist/xenophobic.

I get called racist when I say a lot of south asians are filthy.  Not all, but a decent amount.  This is a region where 60% of rural Indians openly defecate outside when they take a poop instead of in a toilet because the country has horrific sanitation issues due to poverty & overpopulation & crappy government  That's 500 million people who openly defecate on a daily basis, causing hundreds of thousands of children to die every year from the bacteria.  How dare I!

Yeah, the good old days when you could make stereotypical statements and nobody cared.

What's wrong with people these days?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: BC_cheque on April 14, 2018, 12:30:17 am
Here is a little 'How to Talk About Immigrants" 101...

My husband is white as white but he was born in India.  He loves Indians, Indians love him, and he does a mean Indian accent.  He thinks it's endearing but I had to school him a bit on this issue when I first met him.

A good rule of thumb for you to follow:  if you wouldn't do or say something in front of someone from that culture, it's probably a good idea not to do it when they're not around either. 

You can call me Dalai Lama for that if you want, but it's basic human decency.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 14, 2018, 06:49:33 am
  if you wouldn't do or say something in front of someone from that culture, it's probably a good idea not to do it when they're not around either. 
 

Not bad.  That's a clear derivation of Christian philosophy btw, and represents the kind of human universality that transcends "cultural appropriation".

Example.  We had an Indian cab driver tell us about being lost in Northern Ontario once, and asking directions from a guy in the middle of the night who had a strong "Canadian accent".  Unprompted, mind you, he did a HILARIOUS hoser accent.... :D
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 09:22:28 am
About 85% actually, they just didn't like Leitch's anti immigrant slant in her version.

How would you know? I am a member and I got her emails on the subject, some of which I reposted, and she was very careful not to be anti-immigrant or to mention any particular ethnic group. She simply pointed out that the cultural values of many of our source countries contain some pretty terrible things and we should strive to screen out those who more fully embraced those views.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 09:29:33 am
Well I recall once upon a time, (the first time) I went to Bombay, it was called that then and it was early in the morning and I just got off a plane. Many people were coming from their abodes and relieving themselves in the ditches that were dug down both sides of the street for just that purpose and after the traffic died down, a fire hydrant valve was opened and a worker flooded the ditches with a hose. Were those people dirty, or were they simply poor and didn't have other choices?

They were dirty.

Canada was poor once, and we used outhouses. Europe was incredibly poor, and they didn't crap in the streets and sidewalks and other areas either. And by the way India is a place with nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. Maybe if they prioritized toilets and removing the mountains of garbage which fill their cities they'd accomplish something hmm? There are lots of poorer countries than India out there and they don't drop their **** all over the place.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 09:31:54 am
Here is a little 'How to Talk About Immigrants" 101...

My husband is white as white but he was born in India.  He loves Indians, Indians love him, and he does a mean Indian accent.  He thinks it's endearing but I had to school him a bit on this issue when I first met him.

And this relates to mobs of screaming lawyers trying to protect child rapists because all they **** was a Muslim kid in what way exactly?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 09:33:05 am
Example.  We had an Indian cab driver tell us about being lost in Northern Ontario once, and asking directions from a guy in the middle of the night who had a strong "Canadian accent".  Unprompted, mind you, he did a HILARIOUS hoser accent.... :D

I trust you schooled him on how racist that was.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 09:34:25 am
The bitching about certain religions beliefs is fine and well. It's what should be done about those believers, particularly non-real-Canadian believers, that bug my ass.


The only thing I want done with such people is to keep them the hell away from me, as far away as possible, and to keep their numbers from growing by importing more.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: waldo on April 14, 2018, 09:47:20 am
How would you know? I am a member and I got her emails on the subject, some of which I reposted, and she was very careful not to be anti-immigrant or to mention any particular ethnic group. She simply pointed out that the cultural values of many of our source countries contain some pretty terrible things and we should strive to screen out those who more fully embraced those views.

too easy Argus! Too easy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vmUidBxr2Y
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 14, 2018, 10:27:39 am
I trust you schooled him on how racist that was.

It WAS racist, but like most PoC I let it go.  As a white person, I reflected on the fact that they have to do that every day to 'get along'.

Go smoke that now.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 10:39:08 am
It WAS racist, but like most PoC I let it go.  As a white person, I reflected on the fact that they have to do that every day to 'get along'.

Go smoke that now.

They do? Not so's I've noticed.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 14, 2018, 10:57:51 am
They do? Not so's I've noticed.

Is this the day we find out SJ has been black all along ?  Something like this has happened before...
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 14, 2018, 11:11:01 am
They do? Not so's I've noticed.
Really?  When was the last time an immigrant hurled insults at you while you were minding your own business in a public space?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 14, 2018, 11:12:42 am
Is this the day we find out SJ has been black all along ?  Something like this has happened before...

It seems like your "fact reflection" indicated you are.  I never knew.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 14, 2018, 11:15:17 am
It seems like your "fact reflection" indicated you are.  I never knew.

How so ?  ???
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 14, 2018, 11:18:38 am
How so ?  ???

I always thought you were white!
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: TimG on April 14, 2018, 11:21:46 am
Really?  When was the last time an immigrant hurled insults at you while you were minding your own business in a public space?
Well if it is did happen it would not likely be in a language that I would understand.
Whites are a visible minority in Richmond now and it is well known that some Chinese are extremely racist towards "gwailous".

I don't have any issue with calling out racism when it occurs.
I have a big issue with the conceit that only white people can be racist and racist nonsense spouted by non-whites shall be ignored.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 14, 2018, 11:35:12 am
Well if it is did happen it would not likely be in a language that I would understand.
Whites are a visible minority in Richmond now and it is well known that some Chinese are extremely racist towards "gwailous". .

Even if in a different language, one can tell if insults are being "spewed".

Yes, casual daily racist (and sexist) attitudes exist everywhere.  Most people do let that kind of racism (or sexism) go, and some do not.  If one objects to "racism light" (or "sexism light"), then one is likely to get very strong pushback, so most people don't. 




Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: BC_cheque on April 14, 2018, 12:14:23 pm
And this relates to mobs of screaming lawyers trying to protect child rapists because all they **** was a Muslim kid in what way exactly?

Same thing old people have to do with SJW being an insult.  It's a thread drift that had nothing to do with me, but I dared throw in my two cents. 

Carry on, cranky.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: BC_cheque on April 14, 2018, 12:16:11 pm
I trust you schooled him on how racist that was.

That whole thing about don't do things that you wouldn't do in front others completely escaped you, eh?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 02:14:36 pm
Is this the day we find out SJ has been black all along ?  Something like this has happened before...

Omni would have to slit his throat.

But no, what I mean is I haven't noticed immigrants  acting like us, or changing their public persona or behavior to 'get along'.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 02:15:22 pm
Really?  When was the last time an immigrant hurled insults at you while you were minding your own business in a public space?

What has that got to do with what you responded to?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 02:17:38 pm
That whole thing about don't do things that you wouldn't do in front others completely escaped you, eh?

Naw, I'm just not as ultra politically correct as you.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 14, 2018, 02:26:44 pm
Omni would have to slit his throat.

But no, what I mean is I haven't noticed immigrants  acting like us, or changing their public persona or behavior to 'get along'.

Why would I care, I've known Blacks who are just as bigoted.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 02:27:01 pm
Yeah, the good old days when you could make stereotypical statements and nobody cared.

What's wrong with people these days?

South asians aren't filthy.  That would be a stereotype.  A lot of them are though, which is a fact, and what I said.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 02:30:34 pm
Here is a little 'How to Talk About Immigrants" 101...

My husband is white as white but he was born in India.  He loves Indians, Indians love him, and he does a mean Indian accent.  He thinks it's endearing but I had to school him a bit on this issue when I first met him.

A good rule of thumb for you to follow:  if you wouldn't do or say something in front of someone from that culture, it's probably a good idea not to do it when they're not around either. 

You can call me Dalai Lama for that if you want, but it's basic human decency.

What does it matter if something is offensive or not to certain people if it's a fact?  Should we be scared to offend simply by saying the truth?  As Ben Shapiro says, facts don't care about your feelings.

But yeah i agree a white person might not want to go around doing indian accents.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 02:34:19 pm
But yeah a white person might not want to go around doing indian accents, i dunno.

But it's okay for an Indian person to go around doing white and Asian and arab and black accents... on a stage?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 02:35:32 pm
Why would I care, I've known Blacks who are just as bigoted.

You're such a cringing SJW that if a black guy spit in your face you'd cry and beg for his forgiveness for whatever offense you had unintentionally given him.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 14, 2018, 02:40:01 pm
You're such a cringing SJW that if a black guy spit in your face you'd cry and beg for his forgiveness for whatever offense you had unintentionally given him.

Your mother wears army boots. :P
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 02:45:21 pm
Once upon a time I was walking with an uncle, through an area of mobile homes, several of which had busted **** all over the lawn out front. Broken appliances, garbage, rusting auto parts, rotting furniture, whatever.   He told me "just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to be dirty."  I was a kid at the time, but the remark has always stuck with me.

Sometimes being poor is the reason people behave in certain ways, but sometimes behaving certain ways is the reason why people are poor.

If your country has massive issues with sanitation & it causes you to throw garbage everywhere because there's nothing else to do with it, ok I feel bad for you.  But that isn't an excuse to keep doing it if you come to Canada, nor should we accept it.  People from third world countries live differently for many different reasons and they should be aware that in Canada we don't accept certain behaviour.  Thankfully the law takes care of most of this problem.

It's BS that we're so worried about appeasing other cultures yet we don't ask others to respect our culture similarly in many cases. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 02:48:23 pm
Well I recall once upon a time, (the first time) I went to Bombay, it was called that then and it was early in the morning and I just got off a plane. Many people were coming from their abodes and relieving themselves in the ditches that were dug down both sides of the street for just that purpose and after the traffic died down, a fire hydrant valve was opened and a worker flooded the ditches with a hose. Were those people dirty, or were they simply poor and didn't have other choices?

I agree with you, but it all depends on how they behave when the choice to not do things like that are presented to them.  Sometimes people stop, sometimes bad habits die hard.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 02:56:39 pm
You are correct too, in that I do not engage (or issue likes) when folks start ranting about muslims and patriarchy. The sole reason for that silence is I have absolutely no interest in feeding the right wing conservative numbers (I typed something else there but will let the spellcheck stand) who think that means I agree with isolating and punishing people, by law,  for their religious beliefs.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, religious or otherwise.  Beliefs are inside the brain.  The difference is when you put those beliefs into actions, and if those behaviours are reprehensible we should be able to ban it & you shouldn't be able to hide behind some book or preachers to justify it.  With religious beliefs it's all about reasonable accommodation, and whether accommodating certain beliefs can be reasonably justified.  Sometimes yes sometimes know, it's a tough call on those borderline issues like niqab/burka etc.  Not a tough call on stoning women for adultery.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 03:00:53 pm
They were dirty.

Canada was poor once, and we used outhouses. Europe was incredibly poor, and they didn't crap in the streets and sidewalks and other areas either. And by the way India is a place with nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. Maybe if they prioritized toilets and removing the mountains of garbage which fill their cities they'd accomplish something hmm? There are lots of poorer countries than India out there and they don't drop their **** all over the place.

I don't agree.  Europe also didn't have 1.2 billion people in one country.  You can't compare the two.  The problem in India probably centers around out of control population growth coupled with deep poverty.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 03:05:00 pm
Well if it is did happen it would not likely be in a language that I would understand.

Ding ding winner!
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 03:08:50 pm
Yes, casual daily racist (and sexist) attitudes exist everywhere.  Most people do let that kind of racism (or sexism) go, and some do not.  If one objects to "racism light" (or "sexism light"), then one is likely to get very strong pushback, so most people don't.

Substantial members of every ethnic group in Canada all hate other ethnic groups for different racist reasons. Canada's worst kept secret.  Thankfully, we're still less racist than most countries in the world.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 03:11:38 pm
But it's okay for an Indian person to go around doing white and Asian and arab and black accents... on a stage?

No.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 14, 2018, 03:14:31 pm
I agree with you, but it all depends on how they behave when the choice to not do things like that are presented to them.  Sometimes people stop, sometimes bad habits die hard.

Well Mumbai was only the start of that trip. I moved on south and spent a couple of months roaming around Goa and it's environs. The population density is much less than the big city and there are jobs related to the tourist industry and a lot of farming. Nobody was pooping outside. I would venture a guess the people there weren't any different than those up north, they just had better opportunities and made the best of them. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 14, 2018, 03:41:37 pm
But it's okay for an Indian person to go around doing white and Asian and arab and black accents... on a stage?

What is this "logic" and "symmetry" you are trying to apply to group behaviour here ?

Do you expect people to be logical and symmetrical, really ?  Or just some people ?  Or who ?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 03:57:04 pm
I don't agree.  Europe also didn't have 1.2 billion people in one country.  You can't compare the two.  The problem in India probably centers around out of control population growth coupled with deep poverty.

There are lots of crowded places in the world and always have been. Nigeria, Pakistan, China. Only India has the reputation for strewing garbage everywhere and crapping in the streets.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 14, 2018, 03:57:58 pm
No.

Russell Peters seems to get away with it without any criticism at all.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on April 14, 2018, 04:02:54 pm
Russell Peters seems to get away with it without any criticism at all.

Why would anybody object to someone imitating white people ?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: wilber on April 14, 2018, 04:42:14 pm
Russell Peters seems to get away with it without any criticism at all.

Yes but it has to be funny and not mean spirited. Every race and culture has their looney bits that just beg to be made into jokes.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: BC_cheque on April 14, 2018, 04:52:46 pm
What does it matter if something is offensive or not to certain people if it's a fact?  Should we be scared to offend simply by saying the truth?  As Ben Shapiro says, facts don't care about your feelings.

But yeah i agree a white person might not want to go around doing indian accents.

If someone has a really huge nose, you have the common sense to not say it in front of them, even though it's true.  I'm saying you should have the same decency when they're not around, but of course I'm not denying your 'right' to talk behind anyone's back if you choose.

Just don't feign surprise when people say you're an **** for talking behind people's back... 

That's the same idea when people think you're racist for saying stuff about Indians that you wouldn't say it in front of them.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 14, 2018, 05:03:40 pm
There are lots of crowded places in the world and always have been. Nigeria, Pakistan, China. Only India has the reputation for strewing garbage everywhere and crapping in the streets.

Wrong again, Pakistan and Afghanistan still have lots of people crapping in the streets. As do Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan and a number of other African countries, mostly near the equator. but you are correct that China has cleaned up it's act, but then look at their economy.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: wilber on April 14, 2018, 05:04:25 pm
I think there is a huge difference between making fun of our cultural foibles and making insulting remarks about individuals.

An insult is just an insult.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on April 14, 2018, 06:11:11 pm
Europe was incredibly poor, and they didn't crap in the streets and sidewalks and other areas either.
Gardyloo!
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 06:58:22 pm
Well Mumbai was only the start of that trip. I moved on south and spent a couple of months roaming around Goa and it's environs. The population density is much less than the big city and there are jobs related to the tourist industry and a lot of farming. Nobody was pooping outside. I would venture a guess the people there weren't any different than those up north, they just had better opportunities and made the best of them.

I'm not denying that.  Goa was also a Portuguese colony for almost 500 years and is culturally distinct from the rest of India.

Why things occur in a 3rd world country doesn't matter as much as just don't do them over here.  I'm not saying these people are evil people, I'm saying some of their behaviour isn't great and I don't want it happening here.  Which it does.  Maybe not crapping in the streets LOL but other things.  Same with things like honour killings.  If you want to do that in your country great, come here? Not allowed.

Did you know that compared to the rest of Canadians, there's a disproportionate number of male babies born from South Asian parents than female babies?  Some south asian parents are aborting their female babies in Canada simply because they're girls because girls are valued less in some of those cultures.  It's this kind of crap that follows people here because old habits die hard.  That's not a Canadian value, it has no place here.  Put it in a pamphlet.  Have an awareness campaign.  Who cares who's offended if you say the truth in a respectful manner.  It's not "racist". I'm offended baby girls are being killed.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 07:00:31 pm
Russell Peters seems to get away with it without any criticism at all.

the problem is that if a white person says it, it looks bad because people are assuming things about them because of their race, and they may not be racist at all just telling a joke.  Which is racist and wrong, which is ironic.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 07:07:42 pm
If someone has a really huge nose, you have the common sense to not say it in front of them, even though it's true.  I'm saying you should have the same decency when they're not around, but of course I'm not denying your 'right' to talk behind anyone's back if you choose.

Just don't feign surprise when people say you're an **** for talking behind people's back... 

That's the same idea when people think you're racist for saying stuff about Indians that you wouldn't say it in front of them.

Well said about the nose example.  The difference is that a big nose doesn't affect my life or my society.  There's no reason to point out a big nose other than to be a jerk.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 07:14:59 pm
That's the same idea when people think you're racist for saying stuff about Indians that you wouldn't say it in front of them.

So when there's certain facts out there, like certain parts of Islam and Muslim culture are very lacking in women's rights, how do we call a spade a spade without getting painted as a racist?

If you went and wrote that on your Facebook page you'd get lambasted by a lot of people, vocally or quietly.  I'm supportive of saying things in a respectful manner, but too much political correctness means that things that need to be talked about or addressed can't because they're socially taboo, which is counter-productive.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 14, 2018, 08:34:22 pm
I'm not denying that.  Goa was also a Portuguese colony for almost 500 years and is culturally distinct from the rest of India.

Why things occur in a 3rd world country doesn't matter as much as just don't do them over here.  I'm not saying these people are evil people, I'm saying some of their behaviour isn't great and I don't want it happening here.  Which it does.  Maybe not crapping in the streets LOL but other things.  Same with things like honour killings.  If you want to do that in your country great, come here? Not allowed.

Did you know that compared to the rest of Canadians, there's a disproportionate number of male babies born from South Asian parents than female babies?  Some south asian parents are aborting their female babies in Canada simply because they're girls because girls are valued less in some of those cultures.  It's this kind of crap that follows people here because old habits die hard.  That's not a Canadian value, it has no place here.  Put it in a pamphlet.  Have an awareness campaign.  Who cares who's offended if you say the truth in a respectful manner.  It's not "racist". I'm offended baby girls are being killed.

If you think the Portuguese were so good for Goa go study up a little about the Goa Inquisition. Nobody was shitting in the streets when they arrived but there was a lot of blood flowing in them as they tried to whip the state into accepting Christianity.

And yes I think we are all aware of the discrepancy regarding the ratio of male/female births among the south Asian community. But trying to equate these two issues is rather bizarre. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 09:01:27 pm
If you think the Portuguese were so good for Goa go study up a little about the Goa Inquisition. Nobody was shitting in the streets when they arrived but there was a lot of blood flowing in them as they tried to whip the state into accepting Christianity.

I've never said anything about colonialism in Goa whether it was good or bad for them.  What i'm saying is Goa is unique and very different culturally and has a different history than other parts of India and south asia.  Yes it has the highest GDP per capita of any state in India.  Lots of quality Goan immigrants in Canada.

Quote
And yes I think we are all aware of the discrepancy regarding the ratio of male/female births among the south Asian community. But trying to equate these two issues is rather bizarre.

The topic is about Canadian values, it relates to that.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Peter F on April 14, 2018, 10:20:44 pm
Quote
Who cares who's offended if you say the truth in a respectful manner.  It's not "racist". I'm offended baby girls are being killed.

I think its incredibly stupid to accuse people who haven't killed baby girls of killing baby girls.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 14, 2018, 11:12:39 pm
I think its incredibly stupid to accuse people who haven't killed baby girls of killing baby girls.

So do I.  Who's doing that?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Peter F on April 15, 2018, 02:52:16 pm
You are.

Quote
Did you know that compared to the rest of Canadians, there's a disproportionate number of male babies born from South Asian parents than female babies?  Some south asian parents are aborting their female babies in Canada simply because they're girls because girls are valued less in some of those cultures.  It's this kind of crap that follows people here because old habits die hard.  That's not a Canadian value, it has no place here.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 15, 2018, 03:17:50 pm
You are.

Please explain what I've said that's wrong.  Some south asians are aborting because they made a girl but don't want it.  That's disgusting.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 15, 2018, 03:19:05 pm
Please explain what I've said that's wrong.  Some south asians are aborting because they made a girl but don't want it.  That's disgusting.

Some people believe abortion is killing babies.  There's no arguing with them.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 15, 2018, 03:35:28 pm
Please explain what I've said that's wrong.  Some south asians are aborting because they made a girl but don't want it.  That's disgusting.

I agree, I think it's terrible.  And, even if your original statement you specified "some", so I also see nothing wrong there; it's a statement of fact that doesn't even try to blackwash an entire population of people.

Still we may differ on how much control we (through government) should or could have over it.  I dunno.  Can we legitimately disallow abortion for some reasons but not others, and still tell women we believe in the rights they have over their own bodies?  If we believe its the men forcing these women into aborting babies, can we effectively demonstrate that and find a way to prevent the men from imposing their will? 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Peter F on April 15, 2018, 03:43:01 pm
Please explain what I've said that's wrong.  Some south asians are aborting because they made a girl but don't want it.  That's disgusting.

Then I suggest you hand the pamphlet to those that did the thing you find disgusting.  You have said that you want such things in pamphlets and awareness campaigns directed towards south asians coming to this country. Yet many have not done the thing you find disgusting and many have girls as children and (I can imagine) many are coming here to get away from that particular culture you find disgusting. Why treat them as if they have disgusting cultural beliefs when you have no idea wether they actually have those disgusting cultural beliefs?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 15, 2018, 03:56:37 pm
I agree, I think it's terrible.  And, even if your original statement you specified "some", so I also see nothing wrong there; it's a statement of fact that doesn't even try to blackwash an entire population of people.

Still we may differ on how much control we (through government) should or could have over it.  I dunno.  Can we legitimately disallow abortion for some reasons but not others, and still tell women we believe in the rights they have over their own bodies?  If we believe its the men forcing these women into aborting babies, can we effectively demonstrate that and find a way to prevent the men from imposing their will?

One thing I always believed about being pro choice was that I didn't get to decide which choice I was pro.  I don't get to tell a woman she can have an abortion, but only if I agree with her reasons.

If there's a way of preventing people from learning the sex of a fetus then I would have nothing to say about that.  I don't see that as any kind of right.

If it was decided that coercion was involved then I imagine that would be a crime.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: wilber on April 15, 2018, 04:03:11 pm
I believe BC policy is to not reveal the gender until 21 weeks for that reason.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 15, 2018, 04:13:03 pm
I believe BC policy is to not reveal the gender until 21 weeks for that reason.

And it takes until ~ 20 weeks for gender to be observable. The stats that I've read claim that late term abortions in Canada account for less than 1%, and are usually for health concerns of either the fetus, the mother or both.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: wilber on April 15, 2018, 04:21:07 pm
And it takes until ~ 20 weeks for gender to be observable. The stats that I've read claim that late term abortions in Canada account for less than 1%, and are usually for health concerns of either the fetus, the mother or both.

 BC doesn't fund abortions after 20 weeks for non medical reasons. Other provinces also have limits.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Rue on April 16, 2018, 05:09:33 pm
And it takes until ~ 20 weeks for gender to be observable. The stats that I've read claim that late term abortions in Canada account for less than 1%, and are usually for health concerns of either the fetus, the mother or both.

3D ultra sound can detect gender as early as 13 weeks, conventional as you say about 18-20.


Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS) for high risk babies, i.e., with potential for  genetic or chromosomal defects can be done at  10 to 12

Preimplantation Genetic Testing is done with in  vitro fertilization which can tell you  whether you're having a boy or girl even before you even have a positive pregnancy test.

All that said we have the technology today to clone fetuses. Its scary where we are at science wise in terms of genetics and breeding.

I think we are in for far more complex moral debates in the years to come other than at what point life begins or should be allowed to end.

The ability to clone humans, genetically engineer humans to have certain traits now exists. We have the ability to engineer a bay with for example blue eyes and blonde hair and make sure its a boy or girl and be free of certain predispositions to certain diseases.

How far this will go is anyone's guess. Here's an interesting thing to think about. As the world continues, at this point more than 60 to 70% of the males on this planet at this time are sterile or have weak sperm counts caused by excessive estrogen from plastics in the water table and other chemicals.

At current continued infertility rates we could be unable to reproduce the old fashioned way within 50 years meaning becoming totally dependent on laboratories for our reproduction.

That is one scary thought.

Some people argue that the so called grey aliens some talk of who hey claim  abducting humans and doing all kinds of reproductive experiments (if you believe that kind of thing) are in fact humans time travelling back to our era because in the extreme future we become so inbred from our cloning we die out and in a race against extinction try go backwords in time to get healthy embryo cells.

Hey I watched all the X Files. I know these things. All kidding aside, humanity as we know it faces a fertility crisis from pollution.

Canadian values? How about we start by ending the use of plastics which I believe is a disaster. It doesn't break down, it causes excess estrogen levels in men and causes lower life forms to mutate in gender and its causing massive dead water zones in our oceans.

How about we recycle better, stop using toxic chemicals and substances and concentrate on getting back to basics when it comes to health and wellness.

I sound like David Suzuki only I don't have as many houses and cars as he does.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 17, 2018, 11:38:39 am
I would point out that one doesn't encounter much push-back if they post about cultural barbarism, unless Muslims are involved.  I've posted numerous times about Hasidic Jews and Indians acting like retards in regards to women, without a word of disagreement. "yeah, those guys really suck."  Only when Muslims are accused of same does one get this ferocious defense coming from those outraged that you'd dare question the values of the Islams.

 -k

When you've posted about "Hasidic Jews", the key for me is that you specify a certain belief system held by some minority of Jews, rather than ascribing a belief held by *some* Jews to all Jews.  It's the same reason I didn't object to PGs "Some Indians are dirty", because clearly - some are and the facts about lack of sanitation in India aren't made up.  Although I've never been in an Indian home that was dirty, I haven't been in all of them, and just like some Canadians are dirty, so also will some Indians be.  And maybe there is a cultural component to this.

When I object to is when you (or anyone) posts a story about something that happened in Europe that involved Muslims, and then say essentially "And that will happen here too, because that is how Muslims are".  You are basing an opinion about all Muslims based on an extremely small sample size, relative to the entire population.  At the same time, you are taking the much larger sample size of law-abiding Muslims and disregarding that data as being indicative of how Muslims behave.   You are also giving no importance to the small sample size of Muslims who are actively living and promoting progressive, Western values, while placing extreme importance on the small sample size of Muslims who take their patriarchal cultural attitudes to extremes.    You essentially ignore the attitudes and behavior of the much larger "middle group" and then say "but I'm just trying to honestly address the attitudes of Muslims by focusing on the extreme ones who engage in criminal activity".  Makes no sense to me. 

Addressing patriarchy in immigrant communities - including Muslims - is a legitimate concern and has been for years, especially since immigrant women of all description are less likely to seek help if they are in an abusive relationship.  The same holds true for closed, fundamentalist Christian societies.   The practices most objected to within Islam are essentially those based on patriarchy and so addressing patriarchy also addresses those concerns.

The other problem with "Muslims are culturally backwards" rhetoric is that many of the attitudes that are being objected to are also held by Christians from the same area.  For example, Christian women from Somalia, Egypt, Niget, etc., also undergo and force their daughters to undergo FGM.  Honor killings are carried out by Muslims and Christians and the lack of society's acceptance for homosexuality is supported by both Christians and Muslims.   These beliefs aren't specifically "Muslim"; they are cultural.  That culture is religious-inspired patriarchy. 

And finally, the most extreme version of Islam - Wahabism - is the one that calls for things like beheadings or stonings or limb removal for crimes, and death to homosexuals.  That form *is* spreading unfortunately (though there are some indications that it's beginning to wane) but it is not the sum total of all things Islam and to assume that this ideology is what most Muslims believe is just wrong.

I don't recall a post by you about Indians, so no idea why you might have not gotten pushback for blackbrushing Indians.
 

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2018, 11:45:24 am
When I object to is when you (or anyone) posts a story about something that happened in Europe that involved Muslims, and then say essentially "And that will happen here too, because that is how Muslims are".

That's because logic frightens you. As far as I'm aware of every single nation that has a sizable percentage of Muslims in their population has Muslim religious violence. The larger the numbers, the more likely the religious violence. So saying 'that will happen here' as we continue to import tens of thousands of Muslims each year is merely logical, regardless of how much that offends you.

Quote
You are also giving no importance to the small sample size of Muslims who are actively living and promoting progressive, Western values, while placing extreme importance on the small sample size of Muslims who take their patriarchal cultural attitudes to extremes.

Uhm, yeah, because the numbers promoting western values are tiny, while the numbers promoting bedrock, core Islamic values are vast. That's why I keep pointing out that of 57 Muslim majority states all over the globe not one of them treats women the same as men, nor treats non-Muslims the same as Muslims. Because all those states derive a big chunk of their cultural and social values from Islam.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 17, 2018, 11:52:36 am
That's because logic frightens you. As far as I'm aware of every single nation that has a sizable percentage of Muslims in their population has Muslim religious violence. The larger the numbers, the more likely the religious violence. So saying 'that will happen here' as we continue to import tens of thousands of Muslims each year is merely logical, regardless of how much that offends you.

Uhm, yeah, because the numbers promoting western values are tiny, while the numbers promoting bedrock, core Islamic values are vast. That's why I keep pointing out that of 57 Muslim majority states all over the globe not one of them treats women the same as men, nor treats non-Muslims the same as Muslims. Because all those states derive a big chunk of their cultural and social values from Islam.

Oh, look ... more xenophobic Islamaphobic rhetoric.  Your ignorance is vast and astounding.  Your hate and bitterness shines from you like a beacon to White Nationalism.  Please, continue on with your fear-mongering; do not let facts stand in your way.   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 12:09:44 pm
And it takes until ~ 20 weeks for gender to be observable. The stats that I've read claim that late term abortions in Canada account for less than 1%, and are usually for health concerns of either the fetus, the mother or both.

You can pay for an NIPT tests at 10 weeks (for genetic diseases) and they can tell you gender as well if you want. 

As long as you don't mind paying $500, you can have an abortion before you even get to the second trimester.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 17, 2018, 12:31:00 pm
You can pay for an NIPT tests at 10 weeks (for genetic diseases) and they can tell you gender as well if you want. 

As long as you don't mind paying $500, you can have an abortion before you even get to the second trimester.

I wasn't aware of that test. I looked it up. Interesting what they can get from a bit of blood. Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: BC_cheque on April 17, 2018, 12:37:22 pm
I wasn't aware of that test. I looked it up. Interesting what they can get from a bit of blood. Thanks for the info.

You need a referral from a doctor though.  I got it done because I was over 40, but I guess if it's a young couple with no prior incidents of genetic diseases, the doctors may be less apt to sign off on them. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2018, 02:34:00 pm
Oh, look ... more xenophobic Islamaphobic rhetoric.

True, though. And that's why you're not trying to dispute it.

Quote
Your ignorance is vast and astounding.

And yet, all I said was the cold, hard truth.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 17, 2018, 02:39:02 pm
As far as I'm aware of every single nation that has a sizable percentage of Muslims in their population has Muslim religious violence.

...and the US has Christian religious violence - ergo all Christians are 100% evil.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 17, 2018, 02:43:56 pm
...and the US has Christian religious violence - ergo all Christians are 100% evil.

Ah, you're using sir argus logic I see.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 17, 2018, 09:15:27 pm
...and the US has Christian religious violence - ergo all Christians are 100% evil.

The US has virtually NO Christian violence. And it is about the most devout Christian country in the Western world.
Further, I've never suggested 100% of Muslims are evil.

The problem with you extremists is you have to argue with lies because you aren't capable of arguing against the truth.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 18, 2018, 08:19:55 am

The problem with you extremists is you have to argue with lies because you aren't capable of arguing against the truth.

My thoughts exactly
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2018, 11:30:24 am
My thoughts exactly

I'm a centrist. I have left wing and right wing views. Yours are all very hard Left.
Why is it almost none of you people out on the fringes wants to admit they're out on the fringes despite clear evidence of their radicalism?

I mean, the worst you uber lefties can say about me is I want values testing to stop people with nasty beliefs coming here. And polls have shown three quarters of Canadians agree.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 18, 2018, 12:44:55 pm
I'm a centrist. I have left wing and right wing views. Yours are all very hard Left.
Why is it almost none of you people out on the fringes wants to admit they're out on the fringes despite clear evidence of their radicalism?

I mean, the worst you uber lefties can say about me is I want values testing to stop people with nasty beliefs coming here. And polls have shown three quarters of Canadians agree.

You're right, polls showed Canadians favored the idea of some sort of values testing until they read Leitch's version of it. I imagine hers would be similar to what you would prescribe.   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 18, 2018, 02:40:07 pm
I'm a centrist.

Sure thing.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 18, 2018, 02:42:34 pm
I'm a centrist. I have left wing and right wing views.

Me too.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2018, 02:52:20 pm
Me too.

Yeah, well your Left wing views seem to be pretty damned far to the left of most people, and I've seen no evidence of any 'right wing' views.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2018, 02:53:13 pm
You're right, polls showed Canadians favored the idea of some sort of values testing until they read Leitch's version of it. I imagine hers would be similar to what you would prescribe.

Polls showed they favored it, and then, months later, polls showed they favored it even more. But nice try.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 18, 2018, 03:03:09 pm
Polls showed they favored it, and then, months later, polls showed they favored it even more. But nice try.

Reading comprehension skills yet again. They favored the idea, they didn't favor Leitch's version. Got it now?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2018, 03:08:59 pm
Reading comprehension skills yet again. They favored the idea, they didn't favor Leitch's version. Got it now?

No, genius, they favored it and didn't favor Leitch. I had like ten votes to cast in order and she was about number 4 on the list, and only came that high because I wanted to signal that I liked the values testing thing.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 18, 2018, 03:13:26 pm
Yeah, well your Left wing views seem to be pretty damned far to the left of most people, and I've seen no evidence of any 'right wing' views.

Thats only brcause you don't like me.  When I have posted stuff that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of what a "leftist" thinks, you've called me a liar.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 18, 2018, 03:17:02 pm
No, genius, they favored it and didn't favor Leitch. I had like ten votes to cast in order and she was about number 4 on the list, and only came that high because I wanted to signal that I liked the values testing thing.

No genius, they didn't like her version of what questions to ask on the "test".

http://www.macleans.ca/society/canada-supports-a-values-test-but-not-the-values-of-the-far-right/
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2018, 06:56:47 pm
No genius, they didn't like her version of what questions to ask on the "test".

http://www.macleans.ca/society/canada-supports-a-values-test-but-not-the-values-of-the-far-right/

An amusing bit of political propaganda. It shows again the massive support for a values test. But uhm, it didn't actually mention any values. It asked people broad political questions, and not anything about values. It basically asked people to regurgitate the economic/political ideas the media has been feeding them. So 'making housing more affordable' is a Canadian value now? Of course the question doesn't ask people narrower questions about that. Like "Would you be willing to pay higher taxes so the government can more affordable housing?" This is kind of like the question "Do you support government doing something about climate change" which would certainly draw a positive response until you get down to asking them to pay for it.

But those are not the kind of values Kellie Leitch spoke about. The values we want to screen out are the ones of extreme religious fundamentalism with social values which call for the death of homosexuals and Jews, which believe in violence against women, particularly non-Muslim women, which support terrorism and theocracy.

Not housing affordability or climate change for **** sake.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 18, 2018, 09:09:09 pm
An amusing bit of political propaganda. It shows again the massive support for a values test. But uhm, it didn't actually mention any values. It asked people broad political questions, and not anything about values. It basically asked people to regurgitate the economic/political ideas the media has been feeding them. So 'making housing more affordable' is a Canadian value now? Of course the question doesn't ask people narrower questions about that. Like "Would you be willing to pay higher taxes so the government can more affordable housing?" This is kind of like the question "Do you support government doing something about climate change" which would certainly draw a positive response until you get down to asking them to pay for it.

But those are not the kind of values Kellie Leitch spoke about. The values we want to screen out are the ones of extreme religious fundamentalism with social values which call for the death of homosexuals and Jews, which believe in violence against women, particularly non-Muslim women, which support terrorism and theocracy.

Not housing affordability or climate change for **** sake.

Sounds like a majority of Canadians disagree with you l'il buddy.


"In a separate survey question, 62 per cent of respondents agreed that “‘Islamophobia’ is a problem in Canada.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 18, 2018, 09:20:51 pm
Sounds like a majority of Canadians disagree with you l'il buddy.


"In a separate survey question, 62 per cent of respondents agreed that “‘Islamophobia’ is a problem in Canada.

So I guess you're surrendering on the point under discussion and trying to shift to something else? Is that the strategy now?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 18, 2018, 09:28:51 pm
So I guess you're surrendering on the point under discussion and trying to shift to something else? Is that the strategy now?

Just pointing out to you how poorly received Leitch's approach to a "values test" was. I suspect though it fit your idea quite well.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on April 19, 2018, 12:27:41 am
When you've posted about "Hasidic Jews", the key for me is that you specify a certain belief system held by some minority of Jews, rather than ascribing a belief held by *some* Jews to all Jews   It's the same reason I didn't object to PGs "Some Indians are dirty", because clearly - some are and the facts about lack of sanitation in India aren't made up.  Although I've never been in an Indian home that was dirty, I haven't been in all of them, and just like some Canadians are dirty, so also will some Indians be.  And maybe there is a cultural component to this.

When I object to is when you (or anyone) posts a story about something that happened in Europe that involved Muslims, and then say essentially "And that will happen here too, because that is how Muslims are".  .

I've never claimed that *all* Muslims are backwater scumbags.   I've pointed out the existence of progressive Muslims like Naheed Nenshi, or Muslim reformers like Tarek Fatah or Nazir Afzal.  These examples demonstrate that Islam and progressive thought are not incompatible. 

But these people are not representative of the typical Muslim immigrant who arrives here from Egypt or Pakistan or Iran with values and ideas that were shaped by prevailing norms in Egypt or Pakistan or Iran.

Canada gets its Muslim immigrants from pretty much the same countries that European nations get their Muslim immigrants.  And it's sheer idiocy to propose that the Muslim immigrants arriving in Canada will be any more enlightened than those arriving in Europe.


You are basing an opinion about all Muslims based on an extremely small sample size, relative to the entire population. 

The "entire population" meaning the world's 1.8 billion or so Muslims?  The vast majority of the world's 1.8 billion Muslims live in societies where homophobia and misogyny are institutionalized and normal, don't they?

At the same time, you are taking the much larger sample size of law-abiding Muslims and disregarding that data as being indicative of how Muslims behave.   You are also giving no importance to the small sample size of Muslims who are actively living and promoting progressive, Western values, while placing extreme importance on the small sample size of Muslims who take their patriarchal cultural attitudes to extremes.    You essentially ignore the attitudes and behavior of the much larger "middle group" and then say "but I'm just trying to honestly address the attitudes of Muslims by focusing on the extreme ones who engage in criminal activity".  Makes no sense to me. 

While acknowledging the existence of reformers and progressives in Muslim nations, I point out that these people are the minority, not typical.

If we take in 100 Egyptians or 100 Pakistanis, there will be some number of progressives in that group... but the bulk of them will still be the same misogynist, homophobic meatheads typical of their former country's ingrained attitudes.

Addressing patriarchy in immigrant communities - including Muslims - is a legitimate concern and has been for years, especially since immigrant women of all description are less likely to seek help if they are in an abusive relationship.  The same holds true for closed, fundamentalist Christian societies.   The practices most objected to within Islam are essentially those based on patriarchy and so addressing patriarchy also addresses those concerns.

The other problem with "Muslims are culturally backwards" rhetoric is that many of the attitudes that are being objected to are also held by Christians from the same area.  For example, Christian women from Somalia, Egypt, Niget, etc., also undergo and force their daughters to undergo FGM.  Honor killings are carried out by Muslims and Christians and the lack of society's acceptance for homosexuality is supported by both Christians and Muslims.   These beliefs aren't specifically "Muslim"; they are cultural.  That culture is religious-inspired patriarchy. 

I've always been vocal about calling out Christian bigots and homophobes, but once again, I seldom receive any pushback for criticizing homophobia among Christian rednecks (except from Sharkman, who usually says something like "gee, you really hate Christians.")

And finally, the most extreme version of Islam - Wahabism - is the one that calls for things like beheadings or stonings or limb removal for crimes, and death to homosexuals.  That form *is* spreading unfortunately (though there are some indications that it's beginning to wane) but it is not the sum total of all things Islam and to assume that this ideology is what most Muslims believe is just wrong.

It's worth pointing out that Wahhabism also happens to be the branch that is enthusiastically exported by Saudi Arabia. A Saudi-funded Imam for your mosque, Saudi-published literature for your mosque's reading-room, all paid for by devout Saudis doing their zakat.


I don't recall a post by you about Indians, so no idea why you might have not gotten pushback for blackbrushing Indians.

I've certainly done so.  As well as Jews, as well as Christians.

 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 19, 2018, 07:33:50 am
I've pointed out the existence of progressive Muslims like Naheed Nenshi, or Muslim reformers like Tarek Fatah or Nazir Afzal.  These examples demonstrate that Islam and progressive thought are not incompatible.

I wouldn't use Fatah as an example of progressive thought, he simply adopted a new set of regressive values.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Goddess on April 19, 2018, 10:12:59 am
Quote
While acknowledging the existence of reformers and progressives in Muslim nations, I point out that these people are the minority, not typical.

I think this is where I differ from Dia's opinion, as well.  She feels that the majority of the world's 1.8 billion Muslims are extremely progressive and are in no way affected by the homophobic and misogynistic teachings of Islam.

Yesterday there was an article about a group of Ahmadiyya Muslims in the UK who put up billboards about their faith and the other Muslims protested until they got taken down.  This is the only article I could find today on it.

http://freethinker.co.uk/2018/02/22/uk-muslims-demand-removal-of-hateful-messiah-billboards/comment-page-1/

While the article points out that some Christians and Jews also protested the signage,  there was also this point in the article, indicating an organized protest by "other Muslims":

Quote
The email urges other Muslims to write to the Advertising Standards Authority, the Metropolitan Police and the Charity Commission to demand their removal.

Ahmaddiyya Muslims preach a peaceful Islam and are hated and frequently massacred by their fellow Muslims. 

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 19, 2018, 10:32:06 am
I think this is where I differ from Dia's opinion, as well.  She feels that the majority of the world's 1.8 billion Muslims are extremely progressive and are in no way affected by the homophobic and misogynistic teachings of Islam.
And yet, I have said multiple times that Muslims tend to be more.conservative, similar to fundamental and conservative Chriatians.  You persist in misstating my views, despite my.multiple attempts to clarify.  Why is that?  Can you not imagine someone believing that even very conservative religious people are not going to commot mayhem?  Do you, like Argus, believe you are a mind-reader, able to accurately assess everyone's innermost beliefs despite what they are saying?

Secondly, Muslims and Christiams from the ME and NA have virtually the same social attitudes.  Almost as many Christians practice FGM as Muslims, and in one country Christians practicing FGM far outnumber Muslims.   Christians and Muslims hold patriarchal and misogynistic attitides, because they are part of the culture as well as the religion.  ME and NA Christians are not any more progressive than ME and NA Muslims, so why is your focus on Muslims instead of the overall culture?

Perhaps we"d have less conflict if you bothered to respond to what I say instead of what you have persuaded yourself I really think.   

Quote
Yesterday there was an article about a group of Ahmadiyya Muslims in the UK who put up billboards about their faith and the other Muslims protested until they got taken down.  This is the only article I could find today on it.

http://freethinker.co.uk/2018/02/22/uk-muslims-demand-removal-of-hateful-messiah-billboards/comment-page-1/

While the article points out that some Christians and Jews also protested the signage,  there was also this point in the article, indicating an organized protest by "other Muslims":

Ahmaddiyya Muslims preach a peaceful Islam and are hated and frequently massacred by their fellow Muslims.


Yes.  Some Muslims are ****.  Yes,  Islam generally needs reform.   Yes, ME culture has seemed to be going in the wrong direction since about the 60s, fueled by SA's export of Wahabbism.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Goddess on April 19, 2018, 12:42:37 pm
Quote
I have said multiple times that Muslims tend to be more.conservative, similar to fundamental and conservative Chriatians.  You persist in misstating my views, despite my.multiple attempts to clarify.  Why is that?


Because you frequently and most consistantly argue the opposite of that.  And respond with accusations of Islamophobia for those who do argue those same points.

For instance:

Quote
Almost as many Christians practice FGM as Muslims

Is this true?  Because whenever I read of a clinic or doctor or family or individual getting caught performing FGM in Western countries, it's Muslims involved.  I've seen so many websites by and for Muslims with articles from Muslim doctors promoting FGM that I'm starting to think Islam gives out doctor licenses in Cracker Jack boxes.  I don't see any Christian websites promoting it.  I'm sure if you search hard, though, YOU will be able to find one.  Because to you, as long as there is ONE Christian also practicing it, it is no longer an Islamic problem, it becomes a "human" problem and anyone who suggests otherwise is an Islamophobe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation

Quote
FGM is practised predominantly within Muslim societies, but it also exists within Christian and animist groups. It is found only within and adjacent to Muslim communities

Islam

FGM is found mostly within and adjacent to Muslim communities.

Christianity

The New Testament does not mention FGM. Christian authorities agree that the practice has no foundation in Christianity's religious texts, and Christian missionaries in Africa were at the forefront of efforts to stop it. Indeed, they led the way in referring to it as mutilation; from 1929 the Kenya Missionary Council called it the "sexual mutilation of women", following the lead of Marion Scott Stevenson, a Church of Scotland missionary. When, in the 1930s, Christian missionaries tried to make the abandonment of FGM a condition of church membership in colonial Kenya, they provoked a far-reaching campaign in defence of the practice.


Judaism

Judaism requires male circumcision, but it does not allow FGM and the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) does not mention it. The only Jewish group known to have practised FGM are the Beta Israel of Ethiopia. The Beta Israel were not familiar with the Talmud, the Mishnah, and other religious scripture, and read and spoke little or no Hebrew. Most were flown to Israel between 1984 and 1991, where they converted to Orthodox Judaism. Once in Israel, the women abandoned FGM.



Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on April 19, 2018, 08:45:57 pm
No book and no preacher or prophet is an excuse to do dumb ****.  FGM is dumb ****.  Male circumcision is arguably dumb **** too.  If you're gonna cut a piece of skin off sof my body omewhere does it really have to be from my d!ck.  How these things ever got started and other people thought was a good idea is beyond me.

"But it's cleaner".  Yeah well they just sliced the tip of your d!ck off have fun.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 19, 2018, 09:23:24 pm
Because you frequently and most consistantly argue the opposite of that.  And respond with accusations of Islamophobia for those who do argue those same points. 

If I frequently and consistently argue that "the majority of the world's 1.8 billion Muslims are extremely progressive and are in no way affected by the homophobic and misogynistic teachings of Islam" you should have no problem finding such a quote.   If you can't find such a quote, than perhaps you'll find one of the many times I've said "People from the Middle East are conservative" or "Muslims from the Middle East are conservative, similar to very conservative Christians".  Perhaps somewhere, you'll actually notice what I write, instead of what you think I'm writing.

Quote
For instance:

Quote
Almost as many Christians practice FGM as Muslims

Is this true?
 

Yes, it is true.  Here is a link https://www.unicef.org/media/files/UNICEF_FGM_report_July_2013_Hi_res.pdf, page 175, and here's a sample of the information you'll find at that link regarding the religion of women who undergo FGM.

Egypt:  92% of Muslim women; 74% of Coptic Christian women
Eritrea:  99% of Muslim women; 89% of Catholic women; 83% of other Christians; 100% of 'traditional' religions.
Liberia: 80% of Muslim women; 63% of Christian women; 95% of 'traditional' religion; and 88% of 'no religion'.
Niger:  2% of Muslim women; 55% of Christian women; 20% of 'no religion'.
Nigeria:  19% of Muslim women; 34% of Christian women; 29% 'other' religion; 20% 'no religion'.

When I previously presented this information on just how widespread FGM is in these countries, I was accused of 'excusing' it among Muslims because 'Christians do it too'.  Which is ridiculous of course; it's unacceptable no matter who is doing it.  It's also unacceptable, at least in my world, to let stand the myth that this is a 'Muslim issue', when in fact it's a 'cultural' issue.  All religions and countries officially condemn it; some individual religious leaders, especially in smaller and less literate areas either support it or keep silent about it.  Some countries turn a blind eye, in the legal sense.

Also, the last time I presented this information, Sir Argus then insisted that FGM came from Islam and was 'forced' on Christians.  In fact, it predates both Islam and Christianity and simply remained when those religions became more common in that region.

I notice, that after removing my reference to FGM in ME and NA, you then proceeded to talk about FGM practiced in Western countries and made the claim that these were invariably "Muslims".  Perhaps they were in the stories you saw, or perhaps the religions was never mentioned and you just assumed it was Muslims.  But before you accuse me of refusing to admit that Muslims in Western countries engage in FGM, take a look at this report from CNN on FGM in America:  the video features two American women who underwent FGM in America; both were Christian, one white and one not white.    https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/health/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-explainer-trnd/index.html

Perhaps it's you who is refusing to admit that FGM is not just a Muslim/Islamic issue, hmm?

I also looked for prosecutions of FGM in Western countries, and found a few - all the prosecutions failed, none specified a religion - although one guy used the defense of "I'm a Catholic" to get off.  Maybe he was, maybe he was lying - but it seems that it's a remarkably difficult crime to prove.   

If someone wants to make the claim that investigation and prosecution of FGM cases in Canada is seriously lacking, I might agree with that.  I can't find any credible numbers, but given it's prevalence in some parts of the world, it stands to reason that some people are going to try to get away with it here as well.  If we aren't finding these people and prosecuting them, that is a problem.  It hardly matters if they are Muslim, Christian or 'other'.

Quote
I don't see any Christian websites promoting it. I'm sure if you search hard, though, YOU will be able to find one.
Well, I didn't look actually - didn't even occur to me.  But let me ask you - what if I found a bunch of Islamic websites that condemned it?  What if I listed a pages of Islamic scholars and religious leaders who condemned it, would that matter to you?  What if I could show you a bunch of fatwas against FGM?   Would you take those as seriously as the websites you've found supporting FGM?  Or would the people supporting FGM render those who condemn it irrelevant or not to be believed?

 
Quote
Because to you, as long as there is ONE Christian also practicing it, it is no longer an Islamic problem, it becomes a "human" problem and anyone who suggests otherwise is an Islamophobe.
*shrugs*  Well, it is a human problem, specific to the Middle East and Africa.  And if you want to ignore "human" problems because you'd rather hate on Muslims, well, don't be surprised if people draw conclusions about that. 

And this is the third time, between this forum and the other one, that I have presented the information relating to FGM as a "cultural" issue, practiced by every religion/segment of society in those regions.  I don't mind people not knowing; it's when they've been provided this information and they still insist it's "Islamic" and that all the other people who practice it are irrelevant that I begin to think they aren't interested in facts, but are really only interested in demonizing Muslims.   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 19, 2018, 09:39:54 pm
No book and no preacher or prophet is an excuse to do dumb ****.  FGM is dumb ****.  Male circumcision is arguably dumb **** too.  If you're gonna cut a piece of skin off sof my body omewhere does it really have to be from my d!ck.  How these things ever got started and other people thought was a good idea is beyond me.

"But it's cleaner".  Yeah well they just sliced the tip of your d!ck off have fun.

I agree, and am sorry I let let my son be circumcised.  But at the time it 'was the thing to do' and the other option wasn't even really presented as an option.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 19, 2018, 09:44:34 pm
I've never claimed that *all* Muslims are backwater scumbags.   I've pointed out the existence of progressive Muslims like Naheed Nenshi, or Muslim reformers like Tarek Fatah or Nazir Afzal.  These examples demonstrate that Islam and progressive thought are not incompatible. 

But these people are not representative of the typical Muslim immigrant who arrives here from Egypt or Pakistan or Iran with values and ideas that were shaped by prevailing norms in Egypt or Pakistan or Iran.
Perhaps not.  Perhaps they are more representative of the typical son/daughter of those immigrants.   

By the way, do you think Christians from those regions are any more enlightened than the Muslims?  Because if so, you would be sadly disappointed. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Goddess on April 20, 2018, 10:54:24 am
Quote
And this is the third time, between this forum and the other one, that I have presented the information relating to FGM as a "cultural" issue, practiced by every religion/segment of society in those regions.  I don't mind people not knowing; it's when they've been provided this information and they still insist it's "Islamic" and that all the other people who practice it are irrelevant that I begin to think they aren't interested in facts, but are really only interested in demonizing Muslims.   

You are arguing things that I haven't said.  I don't deny it is partly cultural.  That part is obvious, since the only Christians who practice it are in and adjacent to Islamic cultures.  The problem is that the Islamic religion and the Islamic culture are so intertwined that it's hard to tell where one stops and the other starts.  The practice IS touched on in the Koran (which is open to be interpreted however anyone wants it to be), but not in the Bible.  I believe this is what makes Islam much more succeptible to the practice, plus the already dim view of women.

There really is no consensus on where or how the practice got started, but it was definitely picked up by Islam, adopted into the culture, carried wherever they went and it is Islam that does the promoting of the practice today.  And you can see from the above that Christian missionaries have been trying since the 20's and 30's to stamp it out.

Yes, there's been some fatwas against it.  But who exactly is listening to the fatwas?  It seems many. many are ignoring them as there are still millions of girls being mutilated by it every year and that includes in Western countries, where we are not even allowed to call the practice "barbaric" or let immigrants know it is not acceptable.  Hell, we barely prosecute them when we do happen to catch them.

Arguing that it's not Islamic because it didn't start with Islam - To me, it doesn't really matter at this point in history where or who started the practice.  Who is promoting it NOW?  Where is it being practiced NOW?  From what I see, it is mainly  concentrated in the Islamic culture and Islamic religion and efforts at educating people and stamping it out would best be served by starting with Islam, so they stop bringing it everywherre they go.  Why the hell would we aim any kind of FGM education at a culture like Sweden?  Or Mexico?  It only makes sense to me that efforts should be concentrated on the Islamic countries.

Stamping it out has been impossible because of the intertwining of the religion and the culture - 2 extremely difficult things to break free of.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 20, 2018, 11:04:11 am
No book and no preacher or prophet is an excuse to do dumb ****.  FGM is dumb ****.  Male circumcision is arguably dumb **** too.  If you're gonna cut a piece of skin off sof my body omewhere does it really have to be from my d!ck.  How these things ever got started and other people thought was a good idea is beyond me.

"But it's cleaner".  Yeah well they just sliced the tip of your d!ck off have fun.

Equating male and female circumcision ignores the motivations for those who do it, as well as the results. Male circumcision is done for cleanliness purposes, mistakenly or not, and does not make males incapable of enjoying the sexual act (clearly). Female circumcision is done because women are **** and this is intended to remove any pleasure from the sex act - and mostly does so.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 20, 2018, 11:05:58 am
By the way, do you think Christians from those regions are any more enlightened than the Muslims?  Because if so, you would be sadly disappointed.

Christians from Muslim dominated regions live in a cultural millennia created by those Muslims. Leaving those regions, those cultural beliefs will discarded, esp if they come to Christian areas which not only fail to embrace such beliefs but reject them utterly.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 20, 2018, 11:13:59 am
The practice IS touched on in the Koran (which is open to be interpreted however anyone wants it to be), but not in the Bible.

Could you cite verses please.

Btw, male circumcision does appear in the Bible many places, including Genisis 17:12-13.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Goddess on April 20, 2018, 11:33:52 am
Quote
Could you cite verses please.

Really?  I have to google for you?  There really is no debate about whether FGM is in the Koran or not - it is.  Sheesh.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Female_Genital_Mutilation

http://hanafifiqh.blogspot.ca/2007/06/female-circumcision.html

And you are incorrect about the Bible.  FGM is not mentioned in it.  Male circumcision is, but we're  not talking about that, are we?  ::)





Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 20, 2018, 12:02:01 pm
Really?  I have to google for you?  There really is no debate about whether FGM is in the Koran or not - it is.  Sheesh.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Female_Genital_Mutilation

An Hadith is not the Koran.   I thought everybody knew that. 

You might as well say that "Easter" is a Biblical command because Jesus' died and people decided to mark the event.

There is plenty of debate about whether or not hadiths are part of Islam, and if they are, which of them are authentic and which are not. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Goddess on April 20, 2018, 12:29:14 pm
An Hadith is not the Koran.   I thought everybody knew that. 

You might as well say that "Easter" is a Biblical command because Jesus' died and people decided to mark the event.

There is plenty of debate about whether or not hadiths are part of Islam, and if they are, which of them are authentic and which are not.

And no one cares about Hadiths?  They're not binding?  Sorry, I don't know my Koran inside and out.  The point here is that FGM IS a part of Islam, has been for a very long time and IS still being promoted and practiced as part of Islam.  It not merely cultural.

I suggest that when Muslims practice it (the top four countries where almost 100% of women are subjected to FGM are Sierra Leone - 78% Muslim, Djibouti - 94% Muslim, Guinea - 85% Muslim and Somalia - 99.9% Muslim) they are doing it as BOTH a part of the religion and as part of the culture.  When Christians do it in these countries, they are doing it as part of the culture.  Example of Egypt - 89% Muslim and 95% of women have undergone FGM.

Why this makes such a difference to you - whether it's part of the culture or part of the religion - is beyond me.  But I find your claim that is not part of Islamic culture or religion and is a "human" problem to be nothing more than wishful thiinking.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 20, 2018, 12:32:45 pm
Christians from Muslim dominated regions live in a cultural millennia created by those Muslims. Leaving those regions, those cultural beliefs will discarded, esp if they come to Christian secular areas which not only fail to embrace such beliefs but reject them utterly.

I had to fix it for you because not all Christians here "utterly" reject anti-gay or pro-patriarchal attitudes and we are a "secular" country, not a Christian country. 

But otherwise, what you say is true ... Whether the person coming from those regions is Christian, Muslim, animistic, traditional, other or no religion - moving to a secular country where such things are urrerly rejected will lead them in a much more progressive direction.  Glad you are finally catching on.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 20, 2018, 01:11:49 pm
And no one cares about Hadiths?  They're not binding? 
Apparently not since.we have examples of Islamic countries where FGM is very low, as well as examples of successfully reducing.support for it in many places.

Quote
The point here is that FGM IS a part of Islam, has been for a very long time and IS still being promoted and practiced as part of Islam.
Its funny how people and organizations who are on the ground in these regions do not insist its Islamic, but repeat endlessly that its across the board?  Why do you suppose they do that?  What do you suppose would happen if they believed your promotion that its "Islamic" and "Muslims"?  Would they then assume that Chriatians and traditionalists and animists etc aren't practicing FGM, despite similar or, in some cases, higher numbers?

And why is it so important to you that I agree with you that this as an Islam/Muslim problem, that my presenting it as a problem affecting far too many women in those regions, regardless of ethnicity, religion or background isn't enough for you?  Is it because it doesn't demonize Muslims enough? 

Quote
But I find your claim that is not part of Islamic culture or religion and is a "human" problem to be nothing more than wishful thiinking.
Its the same "wishful thinking" of those organizations that are actually on the ground working with these women and with communities to eradicate this practice.  You will excuse me if I take their statements as having much more knowledge, understanding and credibility than yours.

Still waiting for those quotes where I called Muslims from MENA "extremely progressive".
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 20, 2018, 01:25:00 pm
Really?  I have to google for you?  There really is no debate about whether FGM is in the Koran or not - it is.  Sheesh.

I guess you are right, there really is no debate because you failed to show it in the Qur'an.

I really don't understand the second part of your rant, you say I am wrong when I pointed out that male genital mutilation is part of the Bible but then agreed it is. This barbaric cultural practice needs to be eliminated from Canada, perhaps you should take that cause up.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Goddess on April 20, 2018, 02:37:25 pm
Quote
And why is it so important to you that I agree with you that this as an Islam/Muslim problem

You don't have to agree with me.  It's just a discussion.  I told you all the reasons why I think FGM is more prevalent amongst Muslims than other cultures.  You're free to disagree.  Why am I not?  Is it because no matter what happens in Islam, you cannot bring yourself to put any blame on the culture or the religion?

Quote
Its funny how people and organizations who are on the ground in these regions do not insist its Islamic, but repeat endlessly that its across the board?

Yes, they don't insist it's origination is completely Islamic, neither do they suggest, as you do, that it has nothing entirely to do with the religion.  The fatwas against FGM are so compelling to you, yet you ignore the fatwas admonishing that it is an Islamic requirement and insist that few Muslims practice it when it seems clear  - it is most prevalent amongst Islamic culture and those from other religions that have adopted it from living in that culture.  If it truly has nothing to do with Islam then why are there so many Islamic websites insisting that it is - complete with the HADITHS that espouse it?  Why are there so many Islamic doctors contributing to the websites promoting FGM?  Why was it almost unheard of in the US until recently, and now has tripled in instances of it?  Is it Mexicans bringing it to the US?  Swedes?  I bet it's those darn Dutch people - it surely cannot be Islam!  There are clearly no problems with FGM in the Islamic community  :o

And you have held Egypt up continually as being very progressive yet 95% of women there have undergone FGM.  Sorry, you can love it all you want, but as a female - I don't see that as progressive.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/health/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-explainer-trnd/index.html

When I see all these Islamic websites promoting it, Islamic countries practicing it, Islamic doctors insisting that it doesn't matter what science says about FGM, Allah wills it so it must be done, Islamic people getting caught performing it in Western countries, the hadiths and the many articles showing it's an Islamic requirement VS. your "It has nothing to do with Islam" - I see a huge disconnect there.  I don't see Christian websites or Christian doctors promoting it, there is no talk of female circumcision being required by Christians and in fact, Christians have fought against it - when they are not influenced by Islamic culture.

But you go ahead and educate the Guatamalans on the dangers of FGM.  You'll probably have much more success than I would have trying to educate about FGM in an Islamic culture.

I'll stand with people like Hirsi Ali, who has a fatwa on her head for daring to identify FGM as being a problem in Islam.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Goddess on April 20, 2018, 02:44:34 pm
Quote
I guess you are right, there really is no debate because you failed to show it in the Qur'an.

True, but I did show it's a part of Islam.  But you and Dia can continue to deny it.

Quote
I really don't understand the second part of your rant, you say I am wrong when I pointed out that male genital mutilation is part of the Bible but then agreed it is. This barbaric cultural practice needs to be eliminated from Canada, perhaps you should take that cause up.

I didn't say that.  Go back and read.  I said FGM is not mentioned in the Bible.  You replied that male circumsicion is in the Bible   ::).  I agreed with you.

No comment, as usual, from you on the links you insisted I post.   Big shocker.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 20, 2018, 02:55:10 pm
True, but I did show it's a part of Islam.

It is also part of western Christianity, a cure for **** (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/02/fgm-happened-to-me-in-white-midwest-america). Another interesting read (https://www.mintpressnews.com/MyMPN/female-genital-mutilation-usa-forgotten-history/) on the subject.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Goddess on April 20, 2018, 05:15:50 pm
It is also part of western Christianity, a cure for **** (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/02/fgm-happened-to-me-in-white-midwest-america). Another interesting read (https://www.mintpressnews.com/MyMPN/female-genital-mutilation-usa-forgotten-history/) on the subject.

I must have missed the part of history where major Western Christian religions were practicing and promoting FGM and all the Christian cultures where 90% of women have undergone FGM.

Could you supply some links, please?  I'd like to see more than just a nutbar or two to prove your point that FGM is "part of Western Christianity."
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 20, 2018, 06:12:01 pm
I'd like to see more than just a nutbar or two to prove your point that FGM is "part of Western Christianity."

I see a victim of this horrid practice is a nutbar if she is white, American and Christian.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 20, 2018, 09:09:48 pm
I see a victim of this horrid practice is a nutbar if she is white, American and Christian.

It's not nor has it ever been a part of our culture nor ever advocated by the church.
The Christian church discriminates against women in a number of ways but it has never codified the inferior status of women the way Islam has. And that has had an impact on the cultures of the various nations around the world who are Muslim. That is why not a single one of them gives women the same rights as men. Because Islam specifically said women were NOT equal to men in criminal law, in family law, or in anything else.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 21, 2018, 10:09:13 am
You don't have to agree with me.  It's just a discussion.
It's not really a discussion.  I started to respond as if it were, but then I ran into these statements:   

Quote
you ignore the fatwas admonishing that it is an Islamic requirement and insist that few Muslims practice it when it seems clear


Quote
If it truly has nothing to do with Islam then why are there so many Islamic websites insisting that it is - complete with the HADITHS that espouse it?  Why are there so many Islamic doctors contributing to the websites promoting FGM?  Why was it almost unheard of in the US until recently, and now has tripled in instances of it?  Is it Mexicans bringing it to the US?  Swedes?  I bet it's those darn Dutch people - it surely cannot be Islam! There are clearly no problems with FGM in the Islamic community


Quote
And you have held Egypt up continually as being very progressive yet 95% of women there have undergone FGM.  Sorry, you can love it all you want, but as a female - I don't see that as progressive.

In the very post you were responding to, I had posted information clearly demonstrating that I know and understand that FGM is an issue in Islam, as well as other groups; you ignore 'the other groups' in favor of 'blaming Islam' and misstating my position.   I have never held up Egypt as being 'very progressive', and I have never claimed most Muslims are 'Extremely progressive" and when I challenged you to prove it, you ignored that. 

You aren't having a discussion with me, you are simply carrying out the agenda of demonizing Muslims - and me, since I'm not falling for your bullshit.   People like you are the reason a man is successful in defending himself from a charge of having his daughter cut because "I'm Catholic".  As long as people think FGM is a "Muslim" issue, that will be a fine defense!   
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5532839/Britains-FGM-prosecution-failure.html
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 21, 2018, 10:23:35 am
It's not nor has it ever been a part of our culture .


Quote
Until the 1950s, FGM was performed in England and the United States as a common "treatment" for lesbianism, ****, hysteria, epilepsy, and other so-called "female deviances".41
https://www.path.org/files/FGM-The-Facts.htm

Quote
Female Circumcision and clitoridectomy were a quite common practice in the United States for 150 years. So FGM is not just an “African” phenomenon.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/MyMPN/female-genital-mutilation-usa-forgotten-history/

Quote
In the USA, while involuntary female circumcision never became routine like involuntary male circumcision became, it was promoted and done by some of the same doctors who were doing it to boys.
Clitoridectomy: Nineteenth Century Answer for ****
http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/first/duffy.html

The following six excerpt quotes are from actual American medical journals:

"...that the girl who becomes irritable, disagreeable and hysterical may become charming, interesting and possessed of all feminine graces when her prepuce[clitoral hood] is forcibly peeled away from the glans of the clitoris, and we have made a distinct step forward in civilization..." [Is evolution trying to do away with the clitoris? Transactions of the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Vol. 5, 1892, pp. 288-302]

“I for one have circumcised as many girls as boys, and always with happy results.” [Circumcision of Girls. Journal of Orificial Surgery, Vol. 7, July 1898, pp. 31-33]

"Many neuroses and even psychoses have their origin in pathological conditions of the hood of the clitoris." [Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform It. American Journal of Clinical Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 6, June 1915, pp. 520-523]

"Circumcision will relieve one of the greatest causes of ****" [Why not circumcise the girl as well as the boy? Texas State Journal of Medicine, Vol. 14, May 1918, pp. 17-19]

"The same reasons that apply for the circumcision of males are generally valid when considered for the female." [Circumcision of the Female. General Practioner, Vol. 18 No. 3, September 1958, pp. 98-99]

"If the husband is unusually awkward or difficult to educate, one should at times make the clitoris easier to find[by amputating the clitoral hood]." [Female Circumcision: Indications and a New Technique General Practioner, Vol. 20, No. 3, September 1959, pp. 115-120]
https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/female

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 21, 2018, 01:34:52 pm

https://www.mintpressnews.com/MyMPN/female-genital-mutilation-usa-forgotten-history/


From your own cite:

SR: First, some context: in the United States, female circumcision as performed by physicians entailed removing the clitoral hood (also known as the foreskin of the clitoris), but the clitoris itself remained. When clinicians performed clitoridectomy, they removed the external nub of the organ. The clitoris is principally an internal organ that extends, rather in the shape of a wishbone, underneath the labia; physicians removed the external part of this organ (for visualization, the connecting part of the wishbone) when they performed clitoridectomy.
Second, it is impossible to verify how often these procedures – as they were both simple and quick to perform, and could be done in a physician’s office – were used to treat girls and women in the United States. Because of this, I am uncertain how common it was for a physician to use either procedure.


So no, it was never part of our culture. A few quack doctors might have done it a hundred years ago, but it was not common.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: fedup on April 21, 2018, 05:09:49 pm
We finally get Kellie Leitch's vaunted list of Canadian values.  It's rather short, and not all that inclusive:

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/03/06/leitch-reveals-what-she-wants-to-ask-during-canadian-values-screening/

Hey, at least if you follow these, you don't have to worry about being deported...errr, what?

And what did she get for all her efforts? Pretty much told that she is anti-immigrant. She does not hold Canadian liberal multicultural values of just let them all in and not worry as to whether they can or will assimilate. Matter of fact liberals will want Canadians to pay out in the billions and help new immigrants keep and protect their own cultures and values. For this she will be called anti-Canadian by the liberal destroying establishment that could careless about Canada or it's culture and values. Canada stinks these days unless you are a liberal than Canada is all wonderful. No problems or concerns to worry about. We liberals know best as to how to destroy a once great nation.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 21, 2018, 05:22:10 pm
And what did she get for all her efforts? Pretty much told that she is anti-immigrant. She does not hold Canadian liberal multicultural values of just let them all in and not worry as to whether they can or will assimilate. Matter of fact liberals will want Canadians to pay out in the billions and help new immigrants keep and protect their own cultures and values. For this she will be called anti-Canadian by the liberal destroying establishment that could careless about Canada or it's culture and values. Canada stinks these days unless you are a liberal than Canada is all wonderful. No problems or concerns to worry about. We liberals know best as to how to destroy a once great nation.

 My grandparents came here with not a lot of money, got work on a farm which they did know how to do, eventually bought their own land, raised 6 kids who all worked (and paid taxes) until they retired. This is a country of immigrants but you nit wits don'e seem to get that.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: fedup on April 21, 2018, 05:31:15 pm
My grandparents came here with not a lot of money, got work on a farm which they did know how to do, eventually bought their own land, raised 6 kids who all worked (and paid taxes) until they retired. This is a country of immigrants but you nit wits don'e seem to get that.

Of course this is a nation of immigrants. Duh. This country and continent was founded by immigrants. Some work hard that come here today, and some just end up on welfare, and some for life. Welfare was not around when your grandparents came to Canada centuries ago. But whatever you do don't call me an immigrant because I am not an immigrant. I was born here just like the Indians were who were born here also. That is something that some nit wits can't seem to get. One cannot be an immigrant when one is born here in Canada. Got it?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 21, 2018, 05:43:26 pm
Of course this is a nation of immigrants. Duh. This country and continent was founded by immigrants. Some work hard that come here today, and some just end up on welfare, and some for life. Welfare was not around when your grandparents came to Canada centuries ago. But whatever you do don't call me an immigrant because I am not an immigrant. I was born here just like the Indians were who were born here also. That is something that some nit wits can't seem to get. One cannot be an immigrant when one is born here in Canada. Got it?

Simply being born here does not make you a better citizen than someone who makes the effort to come here to settle because they believe in the tenets of the country. Welfare recipients are certainly not all immigrants as you seem to imply.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: fedup on April 21, 2018, 06:08:16 pm
Simply being born here does not make you a better citizen than someone who makes the effort to come here to settle because they believe in the tenets of the country. Welfare recipients are certainly not all immigrants as you seem to imply.

Immigrating to Canada doesn't mean that many of them will be a better citizen than I am. Many will become a burden on the Canadian taxpayer and maybe for decades. Many come to Canada and many have failed. Some who failed are still here collecting welfare checks every month. Many immigrants come here for the free medical and free social services that Canada has to offer. That is why many people want to come to Canada. Hey, if I cannot find a job I will get money from the government for free to stay home. Most illegal immigrants get more money from the government than our seniors do especially those illegals in their first year in Canada. I only imply what is the truth.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 21, 2018, 06:19:25 pm
Immigrating to Canada doesn't mean that many of them will be a better citizen than I am. Many will become a burden on the Canadian taxpayer and maybe for decades. Many come to Canada and many have failed. Some who failed are still here collecting welfare checks every month. Many immigrants come here for the free medical and free social services that Canada has to offer. That is why many people want to come to Canada. Hey, if I cannot find a job I will get money from the government for free to stay home. Most illegal immigrants get more money from the government than our seniors do especially those illegals in their first year in Canada. I only imply what is the truth.

You make frivolous comments with no basis in truth or fact. Immigrants to Canada are selected based on a point system which focuses on economics. As such the immigrants we receive here are typically much more employable that those of the US for instance. Sure some fail, so do some born Canadians. You are sounding very much like argus, only slightly more bigoted, if that's possible.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 21, 2018, 06:20:28 pm
Simply being born here does not make you a better citizen than someone who makes the effort to come here to settle because they believe in the tenets of the country.

Immigrants, by and large, don't come here because they 'believe in the tenets of the country', they come here because this is a rich country.
There are exceptions, of course, but we make very little effort to focus on them, much less give them preferential treatment.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 21, 2018, 06:26:55 pm
Immigrants, by and large, don't come here because they 'believe in the tenets of the country', they come here because this is a rich country.
There are exceptions, of course, but we make very little effort to focus on them, much less give them preferential treatment.

You're entitled to your assumptions. Perhaps you've never familiarized yourself with how the point system we use works. I did many years agod when an employee of mine in Africa wondered about emigrating to Canada.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on April 21, 2018, 08:20:36 pm
I must have missed the part of history where major Western Christian religions were practicing and promoting FGM and all the Christian cultures where 90% of women have undergone FGM.

Could you supply some links, please?  I'd like to see more than just a nutbar or two to prove your point that FGM is "part of Western Christianity."


Arguments about the origins of FGM (or other barbaric practices) really miss the mark.  Cultural? Regional? Religions? Who gives a ****.   All that need be said is that we won't tolerate it.

 *  We should prosecute doctors (or anyone else) performing such procedures on children.

 *  We should prosecute parents who have this done to their children, including taking their children abroad to have it done.

 *  We should aggressively challenge those who'd defend these practices based on rationalizations like "we have to respect their culture".

We don't need to say one word about Islam or any race or region or culture.  In reality, it's likely that most of those seeking out such a procedure for their children would be Muslim, but that's really beside the point.  It's disgusting, regardless of who is seeking it out.


 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 21, 2018, 08:30:59 pm

Arguments about the origins of FGM (or other barbaric practices) really miss the mark.  Cultural? Regional? Religions? Who gives a ****.   All that need be said is that we won't tolerate it.

 *  We should prosecute doctors (or anyone else) performing such procedures on children.

 *  We should prosecute parents who have this done to their children, including taking their children abroad to have it done.

 *  We should aggressively challenge those who'd defend these practices based on rationalizations like "we have to respect their culture".

We don't need to say one word about Islam or any race or region or culture.  In reality, it's likely that most of those seeking out such a procedure for their children would be Muslim, but that's really beside the point.  It's disgusting, regardless of who is seeking it out.


 -k

This is exactly what I have been trying to say, but you have done a much better job!  Thanks!
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 22, 2018, 09:24:45 am
Yeah, no reason to be concerned about the mentality of our potential immigrants. They all come from such delightful and enlightened cultures.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/indias-hindus-are-defending-eight-men-who-police-say-gang-****-murdered-a-girl-because-the-victim-was-muslim/wcm/f2245f7c-1f75-4220-8c48-0a0413eb91c5

There has been so much outrage about this that India has now introduced the death penalty for child rapists.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43850476

Your attempt to use criminals to define an entire culture/group as barbaric has failed.   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 22, 2018, 09:27:27 am
You're entitled to your assumptions. Perhaps you've never familiarized yourself with how the point system we use works. I did many years agod when an employee of mine in Africa wondered about emigrating to Canada.

Perhaps you've never familiarized yourself with what a housing project looks and sounds like. Having once lived near one I can tell you it sounds like a babble of foreign tongues and looks like people from Africa and and the Middle East.

Our points system doesn't work. The US system works better than ours.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 22, 2018, 09:29:30 am
I suppose this is a kind of values test.
The French have denied citizenship to a Muslim woman who refused to shake hands with a male official at the citizenship ceremony. The Swiss recently did something similar, removing an Arab family from their citizenship process when the teenage boys refused to shake hands with a female teacher.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43839655
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 22, 2018, 09:42:27 am
Perhaps you've never familiarized yourself with what a housing project looks and sounds like. Having once lived near one I can tell you it sounds like a babble of foreign tongues and looks like people from Africa and and the Middle East.

Yeah, I live in a strata complex, with very limited rentals, and I like the mix of ethnicities we have here. 

Up the street is a drug house operated by a white guy who decided to spit in my face for trying to rescue his dog from traffic.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 22, 2018, 09:50:51 am
One cannot be an immigrant when one is born here in Canada. Got it?

... Unless one is brown
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on April 22, 2018, 09:54:58 am

Arguments about the origins of FGM (or other barbaric practices) really miss the mark.

Would you say the same thing about male genital mutilation? i am not trying to equivalence them, but in one respect they are both barbaric cultural practices that should be eliminated. Should we prosecute parents, doctors, rabbis and authority figures that still support this practice common in Canada today?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 22, 2018, 10:01:55 am
Would you say the same thing about male genital mutilation? i am not trying to equivalence them, but in one respect they are both barbaric cultural practices that should be eliminated. Should we prosecute parents, doctors, rabbis and authority figures that still support this practice common in Canada today?

The most severe type of FGM would be analogous to castrating a little boy and removing his balls-so it's not really the same if we are comparing that type of FGM to male circumcision.  However, there are forms of FGM that are far less damaging, not even rising to the damage level of male circumcision.  Perhaps level of harm should be a consideration in allowing Christians, Jews and Muslims all to retain their weird cultural practices.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 22, 2018, 11:08:13 am
You shouldn't be allowed to cut anything off anyone without their permission, unless, in the case of a  minor, there is a valid medical reason.

I realise there are widely varying levels of brutalty involved, but that should be the default position..
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 22, 2018, 11:17:15 am
You shouldn't be allowed to cut anything off anyone without their permission, unless, in the case of a  minor, there is a valid medical reason.

I realise there are widely varying levels of brutalty involved, but that should be the default position..

I agree, but religious people may believe differently and if one of our Canadian values is that people are allowed various religious beliefs and practices, then a compromise needs to be made between zero-tolerance and causing damage.   If male circumcision is acceptable in our culture, then should not female circumcision also be permissable, as long as the harm done is no greater than males suffer? 

If there is to be no compromise, then Impact makes a valid point that male circumcision is just as objectionable as FGM so why no outcry against that as well as female circumcision?   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest7 on April 22, 2018, 11:26:07 am
I agree, but religious people may believe differently and if one of our Canadian values is that people are allowed various religious beliefs and practices, then a compromise needs to be made between zero-tolerance and causing damage.   If male circumcision is acceptable in our culture, then should not female circumcision also be permissable, as long as the harm done is no greater than males suffer? 

If there is to be no compromise, then Impact makes a valid point that male circumcision is just as objectionable as FGM so why no outcry against that as well as female circumcision?

Thumping someone isn't as bad as killing them, even though they both involve assault.  As far as religious accommodation goes, it's the same as anything else to me.  Once you are an adult, chop anything you want off. 

I understand my views might not jibe with much of Canadian culture or law in that regard.  Nevertheless.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on April 22, 2018, 12:51:32 pm
Would you say the same thing about male genital mutilation? i am not trying to equivalence them, but in one respect they are both barbaric cultural practices that should be eliminated. Should we prosecute parents, doctors, rabbis and authority figures that still support this practice common in Canada today?

In the unlikely event that I ever have a son, I certainly would not have it done.  I gather that for a long time circumcision had been considered the default... people just did it because it was viewed as the normal thing to do.  I think that notion has been dispelled.

I believe that some countries have indeed implemented actual bans in circumcision.  I would support that here as well, for reasons BCsapper already stated.

 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 22, 2018, 01:40:09 pm
In the unlikely event that I ever have a son, I certainly would not have it done.  I gather that for a long time circumcision had been considered the default... people just did it because it was viewed as the normal thing to do.  I think that notion has been dispelled.

I believe that some countries have indeed implemented actual bans in circumcision.  I would support that here as well, for reasons BCsapper already stated.

 -k

My mother, who worked a number of years as a nurse and so attended a number of births of boys once asked a doctor why they automatically snipped boys. His reply was as you mentioned, it was simply the normal thing to do. He added it's OK because babies don't feel pain anyways. She had a different opinion on that and so when she was getting ready to have me she went to her doctor and demanded that if she had a boy (no ultrasound available then) that she didn't want me snipped. Later on when I was about 5 I had a bit of a spill riding my bike on a dirt road which did end up with me getting snipped. (friggin' crossbar) But I did then have the benefit of general anascetic in a Jewish Hospital done by (her friend) a Jewish doctor, so I had a very practiced professional doing the job, but I can tell you after I woke up, it hurt and for some time. It must be a bit of a shock to have to figure out how to breath and then have a piece cut off you.   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on April 22, 2018, 02:00:21 pm
I'd be less concerned about short term pain and more concerned about the possibility of lifelong effects. I'm not sure how much research has been done on the subject. My limited experience in the matter indicates that circumcized men seem to enjoy sex very much. However, I have also heard claims that it reduces sensitivity.  And the potential of a botched operation doing permanent damage exists as well. 

 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 22, 2018, 02:19:54 pm
I guess when you perform a surgical procedure there is the possibility of doing damage, so if it's not required why do it. Mine went well and as to sexual enjoyment, well I was too young to have had sex prior so I can't compare but subsequently all is well.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Goddess on April 23, 2018, 09:59:08 am
I suppose this is a kind of values test.
The French have denied citizenship to a Muslim woman who refused to shake hands with a male official at the citizenship ceremony. The Swiss recently did something similar, removing an Arab family from their citizenship process when the teenage boys refused to shake hands with a female teacher.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43839655

I know that supporters of Islam will say it's their "right" to do this and it must be accomodated as a religious belief and we're Islamophobes for thinking otherwise, but I think refusing to touch or look at another person is a good indication they should  not be in Canada.

My (female) friend who works in the oilpatch was introduced to a new employee who was to be working under her - a Muslim man who refused to look at her or shake her hand.

It took her months of back-and-forth with the oil company before they finally moved him out of her department.  What finally did it was safety concerns.  The work was in a warehouse and she told management that if there were ever an accident there and a death occured because this fella can't "touch"  or look at women, they would have a situation like where all those young girls burned alive because they weren't allowed out of a burning building without their hijabs and how would the giant oil company like THAT hitting the news, especially after several women complained about his treatment of them.  It was pretty disappointing to her that the company only moved him after she raised the media concern, not when she was arguing that his refusal to touch women put lives in danger.

It's the EFFECTS of those beliefs that should be the concern - but to the snowflake crowd  the most important thing is that we go along with and accomodate Islam, no matter what the cost is to anyone else.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 23, 2018, 10:56:30 am
@Goddess: still waiting for you to provide quotes of mine saying "Most Muslims are extremely progressive" and "Egypt is very progressive."  If you can't or won't do it, please say so and I'll take that as your admission that you are wrong. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Goddess on April 23, 2018, 11:04:58 am
@Goddess: still waiting for you to provide quotes of mine saying "Most Muslims are extremely progressive" and "Egypt is very progressive."  If you can't or won't do it, please say so and I'll take that as your admission that you are wrong.

For the second time:

You argue all the time that vast majority of Muslims are progressive - especially the ones that come to Canada there are so few bad apples that you cannot understand why anyone is concerned about Islamic extremism and you've raved often about the wonderful progress of Egypt's Muslim community. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 23, 2018, 11:42:51 am
Never mind Goddess.  You can go ahead and lie about what I say, as Sir Argus does.  You both need to do this, I guess, to support your hatred of Muslims and Islam.

Oh yeah: as far as the Muslim guy in your story.  In my opinion, he ought to have been warned and then if he continued being such a twit, suspended for this behavior. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: fedup on April 24, 2018, 01:32:13 pm
I suppose this is a kind of values test.
The French have denied citizenship to a Muslim woman who refused to shake hands with a male official at the citizenship ceremony. The Swiss recently did something similar, removing an Arab family from their citizenship process when the teenage boys refused to shake hands with a female teacher.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43839655

Here in Canada a high five will do.  ;D
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: fedup on April 24, 2018, 01:38:19 pm
Perhaps you've never familiarized yourself with what a housing project looks and sounds like. Having once lived near one I can tell you it sounds like a babble of foreign tongues and looks like people from Africa and and the Middle East.

Our points system doesn't work. The US system works better than ours.


Our points system works another way also. Make it to Canada and cross the border illegally and you are almost certain to get to stay in Canada. I would certainly like to know as to how many of those criminal illegals have been sent back? But I cannot find out because the government and the media won't tell me. It's a no need to know information you dumb ass taxpaying Canadian. Just pay your taxes and shut the hell up.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: fedup on April 24, 2018, 01:39:13 pm

Arguments about the origins of FGM (or other barbaric practices) really miss the mark.  Cultural? Regional? Religions? Who gives a ****.   All that need be said is that we won't tolerate it.

 *  We should prosecute doctors (or anyone else) performing such procedures on children.

 *  We should prosecute parents who have this done to their children, including taking their children abroad to have it done.

 *  We should aggressively challenge those who'd defend these practices based on rationalizations like "we have to respect their culture".

We don't need to say one word about Islam or any race or region or culture.  In reality, it's likely that most of those seeking out such a procedure for their children would be Muslim, but that's really beside the point.  It's disgusting, regardless of who is seeking it out.


 -k

Aw, you are just a racist.  :D
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: fedup on April 24, 2018, 01:43:54 pm
I'd be less concerned about short term pain and more concerned about the possibility of lifelong effects. I'm not sure how much research has been done on the subject. My limited experience in the matter indicates that circumcized men seem to enjoy sex very much. However, I have also heard claims that it reduces sensitivity.  And the potential of a botched operation doing permanent damage exists as well. 

 -k

Isn't it a Jewish thing for Jewish boys to be circumcised?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: fedup on April 24, 2018, 01:49:51 pm
Yeah, I live in a strata complex, with very limited rentals, and I like the mix of ethnicities we have here. 

Up the street is a drug house operated by a white guy who decided to spit in my face for trying to rescue his dog from traffic.

That sounds a bit racist to me. Are there any drug houses being operated by black people in your neighborhood? I will bet you there are? Maybe some of those black drug dealer guys/gals would probably kill you if you pizzed them off. Why are so many people like you so eager and ready to always accuse white people of always being the bad guy? Sickening. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: fedup on April 24, 2018, 01:53:45 pm
I know that supporters of Islam will say it's their "right" to do this and it must be accomodated as a religious belief and we're Islamophobes for thinking otherwise, but I think refusing to touch or look at another person is a good indication they should  not be in Canada.

My (female) friend who works in the oilpatch was introduced to a new employee who was to be working under her - a Muslim man who refused to look at her or shake her hand.

It took her months of back-and-forth with the oil company before they finally moved him out of her department.  What finally did it was safety concerns.  The work was in a warehouse and she told management that if there were ever an accident there and a death occured because this fella can't "touch"  or look at women, they would have a situation like where all those young girls burned alive because they weren't allowed out of a burning building without their hijabs and how would the giant oil company like THAT hitting the news, especially after several women complained about his treatment of them.  It was pretty disappointing to her that the company only moved him after she raised the media concern, not when she was arguing that his refusal to touch women put lives in danger.

It's the EFFECTS of those beliefs that should be the concern - but to the snowflake crowd  the most important thing is that we go along with and accomodate Islam, no matter what the cost is to anyone else.

Welcome to multicultural Canada. We aim to please. You want it, you got it.  :D
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 24, 2018, 01:54:57 pm

Our points system works another way also. Make it to Canada and cross the border illegally and you are almost certain to get to stay in Canada. I would certainly like to know as to how many of those criminal illegals have been sent back? But I cannot find out because the government and the media won't tell me. It's a no need to know information you dumb ass taxpaying Canadian. Just pay your taxes and shut the hell up.

No you are not "almost certain" to get to stay in Canada if you enter illegally. You should study how the points system actually works. And, just because you may have crossed the border illegally doesn't all of a sudden mean you are a criminal.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: fedup on April 24, 2018, 02:16:43 pm
No you are not "almost certain" to get to stay in Canada if you enter illegally. You should study how the points system actually works. And, just because you may have crossed the border illegally doesn't all of a sudden mean you are a criminal.

Anyone who crosses into a country illegally is a criminal. You know that dam well and they sure as hell know that also. Try crossing into a country illegally yourself and let's see what happens to you if you get caught. Mexico being one of them. These criminals don't care, let's just try it and see what happens. Why I have even heard that these illegal criminals are flying to America from wherever and after getting off the plane they start heading for Canada. Criminal intent here alright. These illegals are jumping the immigration line because they have been told that if they do so there may be a good chance at staying in Canada. The points system works for people who try and come here legally.

I am curious as to how many of these illegals are getting to stay in Canada? I will bet over 80% will be able to stay. A guess I know but that is my preferred number as to how many will get to stay in Canada.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on April 24, 2018, 02:45:51 pm
Anyone who crosses into a country illegally is a criminal. You know that dam well and they sure as hell know that also. Try crossing into a country illegally yourself and let's see what happens to you if you get caught. Mexico being one of them. These criminals don't care, let's just try it and see what happens. Why I have even heard that these illegal criminals are flying to America from wherever and after getting off the plane they start heading for Canada. Criminal intent here alright. These illegals are jumping the immigration line because they have been told that if they do so there may be a good chance at staying in Canada. The points system works for people who try and come here legally.

I am curious as to how many of these illegals are getting to stay in Canada? I will bet over 80% will be able to stay. A guess I know but that is my preferred number as to how many will get to stay in Canada.

so I guess if you were living in Syria and you were getting bombed daily you would never consider fleeing because that would be "criminal".
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 24, 2018, 03:21:00 pm
No you are not "almost certain" to get to stay in Canada if you enter illegally.

Yeah, you are.

Quote
And, just because you may have crossed the border illegally doesn't all of a sudden mean you are a criminal.

Yeah it does.

This is from 2013. Don't expect such things to happen under Trudeau.

Yesterday, two Mexican citizens, Pablo Daniel Gonzalez and Miguel Aguilar Gonzalez, were sentenced to two years for entering Canada illegally. The men had entered Canada along the BC-Washington border near the city of Abottsford, in December 2012. The men have been charged with violating Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). A third man, a resident of Canada, was charged with aiding and abetting their violation of this act but he will not face trial until March.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 24, 2018, 03:22:29 pm
so I guess if you were living in Syria and you were getting bombed daily you would never consider fleeing because that would be "criminal".

Most of the people crossing the border are coming from Nigeria. Last year it was Haiti.
They are not fleeing anything but poverty.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest4 on April 24, 2018, 03:26:49 pm
That sounds a bit racist to me. Are there any drug houses being operated by black people in your neighborhood? I will bet you there are?

I doubt they'd be black, more likely South Asian.   This guy happened to be white.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on April 25, 2018, 01:28:25 am
I doubt they'd be black, more likely South Asian.   This guy happened to be white.

Here, most of the druggies are white!  It's just a better class of meth addict and crack-head.  ;)

 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: cybercoma on April 25, 2018, 12:39:55 pm
Here, most of the druggies are white!  It's just a better class of meth addict and crack-head.  ;)

 -k
It's interesting how a white crackhead is socially equivalent to a black pothead. White potheads in our culture are just seen as goofy underachievers. If they're black, then they're degenerate thugs. In Canada, they're degenerates if they're indigenous as well. In our culture, white people have to fall much further to enter into degeneracy.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: SirJohn on April 25, 2018, 06:35:56 pm
It's interesting how a white crackhead is socially equivalent to a black pothead.

A crackhead is a crackhead. Nobody treats a crackhead like a pothead, regardless of skin colour.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on April 25, 2018, 11:12:46 pm
It's interesting how a white crackhead is socially equivalent to a black pothead. White potheads in our culture are just seen as goofy underachievers. If they're black, then they're degenerate thugs. In Canada, they're degenerates if they're indigenous as well. In our culture, white people have to fall much further to enter into degeneracy.

There's a row of shoddy townhouses a stone's throw away from me. One of them was inhabited by the shadiest-looking people I've ever seen.  There have been gunshots there. Last weekend of February, I was awoken in the middle of the night by screaming, shouting, and the sound of breaking glass, and 15 minutes later, multiple cop cars. At present all the windows are boarded up and a big dumpster is outside the building as the interior is being ripped out right down to the drywall.  I mean... I don't have any black-people degenerates to compare these guys against, but I have a hard time picturing people looking at these degenerates versus some non-white degenerates and deciding "I just feel safer near these white-skinned degenerates."

I have Afro-Canadian potheads renting a suite on the floor below me. They're mellow. I don't find them worrying in any respect.  The worst they might do is ask me if I could loan them some Doritos.  They just seem like amiable goofs. Employed amiable goofs, at that.    The people who lived in that townhouse? Scary as ****.


I don't want to dismiss the point you're making. I think we all understand that there are non-verbal factors that we all read when we look at people when we are assessing them for the first time.  And I absolutely understand that skin-color is one of these non-verbal factors.  But it is not the only one, and I would venture to say not even the dominant one. I would offer that "dress and deportment" are probably at least as big, if not bigger, factor than skin color. 

I can understand that if you take a conservatively groomed white man in a business suit, and a conservatively groomed black man in identical garb, most white people will probably find the white man to be more trustworthy individual. But take that conservatively groomed and traditionally dressed black man, and contrast him with a tattooed up white-guy with corn-rows wearing a Detroit Pistons jersey and track pants, I am sure that most people would feel much safer with the black man.

And take that white guy in corn-rows and Detroit Pistons jersey and track pants, and compare him to an identically dressed and groomed black man, I might still feel safer with the black man. The black man, at least, might be dressed that way because he feels that's his culture and an appropriate way for a black man to do casual dress. The white guy dressed like that, on the other hand, is trying his hardest to give visual indicators that he's involved with gang culture.  Whether he actually is, or whether he just wants people to think he is... either way it's a good reason to just avoid him.

There was at least one of those creepy white-guy with corn-row looking guys affiliated with the town-house that got trashed. I don't know if he was a frequent visitor or resident. 

The more common situation here in Kim City is white guys who look like bikers.  I find them worth avoiding, because a lot of white guys who look like bikers here ARE bikers. There are some scary fuckers around. And here, most of the scary fuckers are white guys.


 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: kimmy on May 03, 2018, 09:40:49 am
We had discussed circumcision earlier...  an English doctor is arguing that it should be treated the same as FGM:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5621071/Circumcision-ILLEGAL-argues-expert.html#

https://theconversation.com/the-case-that-could-end-ritual-male-circumcision-in-the-uk-94873

 -k
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 03, 2018, 12:30:16 pm
This could matter to me.... again  :o
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 12, 2019, 03:43:40 pm
https://pressprogress.ca/rebel-medias-jason-kenney-coverage-is-being-funded-with-foreign-money-from-an-anti-muslim-billionaire/?fbclid=IwAR2d2gow1pygkA4V-oT6XcKkRFBJ7JgviBbIRj3ofahz3e5B8pwRCR5wgTM

Hey look !  The Rebel gets money from a racist American billionaire !!!

COOOOOOOOL
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 12, 2019, 03:44:27 pm
File NOT under 'International Jewish Voices'
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 15, 2019, 11:38:35 am
https://pressprogress.ca/rebel-medias-jason-kenney-coverage-is-being-funded-with-foreign-money-from-an-anti-muslim-billionaire/?fbclid=IwAR2d2gow1pygkA4V-oT6XcKkRFBJ7JgviBbIRj3ofahz3e5B8pwRCR5wgTM

Hey look !  The Rebel gets money from a racist American billionaire !!!

COOOOOOOOL

I get the hypocrisy, but how is David Horowitz a racist?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 15, 2019, 05:16:07 pm
I heard him on the radio.

He basically said that Arab Muslims aren't humans.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: TimG on June 15, 2019, 05:26:03 pm
He basically said that Arab Muslims aren't humans.
What did he actually say with any relevant context?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on June 15, 2019, 05:32:48 pm
What did he actually say with any relevant context?

He said that "African Americans owe their freedom to white people". How relevantly racist/stupid is that?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: TimG on June 15, 2019, 05:51:25 pm
He said that "African Americans owe their freedom to white people". How relevantly racist/stupid is that?
It is a factually correct statement because it was white people that fought a war and died to end the scourge of slavery and it is not least bit racist. The only people who are being racist are those that want to denigrate all white people because some white people created and supported the institution of slavery. Making  generalizations about a group because of the bad actions of some of its members is a textbook example of racism.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 15, 2019, 05:52:07 pm
What did he actually say with any relevant context?

It was a radio show I heard 10 years ago so I can only paraphrase.  I remember thinking that his statements wouldn't be allowed on Canadian airwaves.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: TimG on June 15, 2019, 05:58:17 pm
It was a radio show I heard 10 years ago so I can only paraphrase.  I remember thinking that his statements wouldn't be allowed on Canadian airwaves.
Which could mean you misunderstood the point he was making.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on June 15, 2019, 05:58:36 pm
It is a factually correct statement because it was white people that fought a war and died to end the scourge of slavery and it is not least bit racist. The only people who are being racist are those that want to denigrate all white people because some white people created and supported the institution of slavery. Making  generalizations about a group because of the bad actions of some of its members is a textbook example of racism.

You seem to happily/ignorantly ignore the racism among white people that brought slavery to the US in the first place. If some of those white people in the north hadn't put the hammer down there would probably still be slaves picking cotton in Alabama. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 15, 2019, 06:01:57 pm
Which could mean you misunderstood the point he was making.

It was more about the words he used.  I think scum was one.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: TimG on June 15, 2019, 06:09:28 pm
You seem to happily/ignorantly ignore the racism among white people that brought slavery to the US in the first place. If some of those white people in the north hadn't put the hammer down there would probably still be slaves picking cotton in Alabama.
i.e. it was the "white" north that freed the slaves. There is nothing racist about pointing out that fact. Those who object to people who point out that fact are racists because they would rather make gross generalizations about "white people" rather acknowledge the complex history.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: TimG on June 15, 2019, 06:15:38 pm
It was more about the words he used.  I think scum was one.
Even then the exact words matter. i.e. "Arab Muslims who support stoning of women who are **** are scum" would be fair comment because a subset of Arab Muslims do support such things. Leave out the "who support stoning of women" and you have a pretty racist statement. If the "who support stoning of women" was obvious from the context of the rest of the conversation then it would be fair comment.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on June 15, 2019, 06:16:32 pm
i.e. it was the "white" north that freed the slaves. There is nothing racist about pointing out that fact. Those who object to people who point out that fact are racists because they would rather make gross generalizations about "white people" rather acknowledge the complex history.

So sounds like your so called "complex history" is your excuse for blatant racism.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on June 15, 2019, 06:28:13 pm
Horowitz made the statement that "no one single group is responsible for slavery" so therefore societies are not responsible for their activities, and everyone is responsible for slavery. Can you say "subterfuge"?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: TimG on June 15, 2019, 06:32:06 pm
Horowitz made the statement that "no one single group is responsible for slavery" so therefore societies are not responsible for their activities, and everyone is responsible for slavery. Can you say "subterfuge"?
Again fair comment given the nonsensical debate over reparations in the US. There is nothing racist about that opinion. The only racists in this picture are those that want to take the wealth of one group of people simply because of their skin colour and give it to another group based on their skin colour.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on June 15, 2019, 06:38:30 pm
Again fair comment given the nonsensical debate over reparations in the US. There is nothing racist about that opinion. The only racists in this picture are those that want to take the wealth of one group of people simply because of their skin colour and give it to another group based on their skin colour.

If you knew anything about this subject you would understand that the people with white skin color got wealthy in large part on the backs of people with black skin color.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: TimG on June 15, 2019, 06:45:29 pm
If you knew anything about this subject you would understand that the people with white skin color got wealthy in large part on the backs of people with black skin color.
Not at all. That was true for some in the south but it certainly was not true for the rest of the US or the UK or Canada. The wealth that these societies created came from the capitalist structures and the rule of law. Denigrating the achievements of an entire group of people because of the actions of a few is more classic racism. You are certainly proving yourself to be quite the racist.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on June 15, 2019, 07:01:07 pm
Even then the exact words matter. i.e. "Arab Muslims who support stoning of women who are **** are scum" would be fair comment because a subset of Arab Muslims do support such things. Leave out the "who support stoning of women" and you have a pretty racist statement. If the "who support stoning of women" was obvious from the context of the rest of the conversation then it would be fair comment.

No it was a general statement, talking about Arab Americans and calling them 'scum' but I can't vouch for the details or context.  It was a long time ago.  I was shocked by the language and turned off his garbage.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on June 15, 2019, 07:56:29 pm
Not at all. That was true for some in the south but it certainly was not true for the rest of the US or the UK or Canada. The wealth that these societies created came from the capitalist structures and the rule of law. Denigrating the achievements of an entire group of people because of the actions of a few is more classic racism. You are certainly proving yourself to be quite the racist.

You should read a little history some times.

With cash crops of tobacco, cotton and sugar cane, America’s southern states became the economic engine of the burgeoning nation. Their fuel of choice? Human slavery.

If the Confederacy had been a separate nation, it would have ranked as the fourth richest in the world at the start of the Civil War. The slave economy had been very good to American prosperity. By the start of the war, the South was producing 75 percent of the world’s cotton and creating more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation. Slaves represented Southern planters’ most significant investment—and the bulk of their wealth.

https://www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on June 15, 2019, 08:22:52 pm
Someone is going to have to provide a cite in context with these racist remarks....   the time to believe something is after good evidence is provided, and no one has provided anything yet.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: TimG on June 15, 2019, 09:20:10 pm
You should read a little history some times.
1) The north's economy was largely independent of the south. It industrialized and built many industries and trading relationships that had no connection to the south. It is simply irrational to assume that the north would have fought a war to end slavery if the income from plantations was relevant to the economy.

2) A commodity has no value without a place to sell it and the networks to deliver the goods to the customers. The large chunk of the value created by southern plantations was due to the infrastructure and society that allowed the goods to be sold. i.e. it was not all due to the cheap (but not free) labour that they got from slaves.

It is simply wrong to suggest all of the value from the plantations came from slavery. At most, the value of holding slaves is the difference between the cost of keeping slaves and the cost of paying fair market wages for free men to do the same job. If slavery was outlawed from the start there would have been fewer super wealthy plantation owners but there still would have been plantations because there was a demand for the good.

IOW, the rest of society would have benefited from the economic activity created by the plantations no matter what so it is nonsensical to say the economy was "built by slave labour". The economy was built because the people living there created a society based on capitalist principles with a strong rule of law. Slaves increased the profits of a small number of plantation owners but that was it.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on June 15, 2019, 09:33:09 pm
1) The north's economy was largely independent of the south. It industrialized and built many industries and trading relationships that had no connection to the south. It is simply irrational to assume that the north would have fought a war to end slavery if the income from plantations was relevant to the economy.

2) A commodity has no value without a place to sell it and the networks to deliver the goods to the customers. The large chunk of the value created by southern plantations was due to the infrastructure and society that allowed the goods to be sold. i.e. it was not all due to the cheap (but not free) labour that they got from slaves.

It is simply wrong to suggest all of the value from the plantations came from slavery. At most, the value of holding slaves is the difference between the cost of keeping slaves and the cost of paying fair market wages for free men to do the same job. If slavery was outlawed from the start there would have been fewer super wealthy plantation owners but there still would have been plantations because there was a demand for the good. IOW, the rest of society would have benefited from the economic activity created by the plantations no matter what the slavery and it is nonsensical to say the economy was "built by slave labour".

So in your mind it's acceptable to assess the impact of slavery simply in economic terms? People were forced to work jobs they didn't want, sometimes beaten if they didn't perform well enough, and sometimes simply killed, just because they were black skinned. Get a grip man.   
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: TimG on June 15, 2019, 09:56:37 pm
So in your mind it's acceptable to assess the impact of slavery simply in economic terms? People were forced to work jobs they didn't want, sometimes beaten if they didn't perform well enough, and sometimes simply killed, just because they were black skinned.
You are the one who tried to use an economic argument to exaggerate the importance of slavery to the economy. All I did was point out that your economic argument is simplistic and does not describe the real world. Trying to change the discussion to a question of morality rather economics is simply a diversion from the argument that you started.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on June 15, 2019, 10:02:49 pm
You are the one who tried to use an economic argument to exaggerate the importance of slavery to the economy. All I did was point out that your economic argument is simplistic and does not describe the real world. Trying to change the discussion to a question of morality rather economics is simply a diversion from the argument that you started.

Ignoring morality to simply focus on economy is a little too narrow minded for me.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Granny on June 15, 2019, 10:39:52 pm
It is simply wrong to suggest all of the value from the plantations came from slavery. At most, the value of holding slaves is the difference between the cost of keeping slaves and the cost of paying fair market wages for free men to do the same job. If slavery was outlawed from the start there would have been fewer super wealthy plantation owners but there still would have been plantations because there was a demand for the good.
So why didn't they just hire people instead of buying and housing slaves?
And why fight a war to preserve slavery?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: ?Impact on June 16, 2019, 12:48:43 pm
The devil is advocating in full force here.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: TimG on June 16, 2019, 01:21:41 pm
So why didn't they just hire people instead of buying and housing slaves?
And why fight a war to preserve slavery?
The plantation owners had invested their capital in the slave owning system (slaves were not cheap to buy). Changing the system would not alter the value of the plantations from the perspective of the wider society but it would wipe out their assets. The people who were not plantation owners were pressured/cajoled/duped into fighting a war. It would not be first or last time soldiers have been sent to die to protect the financial interests of the people in power. The fact that maintaining the slave system required a society where racism was seen as a good thing only made that easier.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Omni on June 16, 2019, 01:53:04 pm
The plantation owners had invested their capital in the slave owning system (slaves were not cheap to buy). Changing the system would not alter the value of the plantations from the perspective of the wider society but it would wipe out their assets. The people who were not plantation owners were pressured/cajoled/duped into fighting a war. It would not be first or last time soldiers have been sent to die to protect the financial interests of the people in power. The fact that maintaining the slave system required a society where racism was seen as a good thing only made that easier.

Good thing we finally "cottoned on" to the idea that if you pay workers a fair wage you may just have to increase the price of your product. One industry that did very well in the US was not sugar cane or cotton, but selling slaves. Good thing those so called "duped soldiers" lost eh?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 02, 2022, 09:43:51 am
This is about American liberal values but 100% applies to Canada also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=hNDgcjVGHIw
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 02, 2022, 10:20:01 am
This is about American liberal values but 100% applies to Canada also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=hNDgcjVGHIw

Did you even watch the video?   Nothing like that happens to schools in Canada. There are no plebiscites where a “county” could choose to keep all the tax money in their own “county”. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 02, 2022, 10:49:58 am
Did you even watch the video?   Nothing like that happens to schools in Canada. There are no plebiscites where a “county” could choose to keep all the tax money in their own “county”.

Ok for that specific example you are right but the general neglect towards the poor is the point, combined with a self-satisfaction that is not attuned to reaility.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 02, 2022, 11:05:26 am
Ok for that specific example you are right but the general neglect towards the poor is the point, combined with a self-satisfaction that is not attuned to reaility.

Neglect towards the poor was one thing in that interesting video.  But that video hardly applies to Canada in any way.  Their system of voting, schools, plebiscites, taxation are all geared towards helping wealthy (mostly white) people. 

Ours is not like it at all. 

I don’t even think our neglect of the poor is in the same ballpark as the USA.   You can now ease your liberal angst that we are as bad as the USA.


Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 02, 2022, 01:12:31 pm
1. Neglect towards the poor was one thing in that interesting video.  But that video hardly applies to Canada in any way. 
2. Their system of voting, schools, plebiscites, taxation are all geared towards helping wealthy (mostly white) people.  Ours is not like it at all. 

I don’t even think our neglect of the poor is in the same ballpark as the USA.   You can now ease your liberal angst that we are as bad as the USA.
1. Can you see how absolute your statement here is ?
2. To see our system is better is not to say it is good.  Or especially not "different".  We are more similar to them than we are different IMO. 

Recall that the other topic discussed was housing. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 02, 2022, 02:51:32 pm
1. Can you see how absolute your statement here is ?
2. To see our system is better is not to say it is good.  Or especially not "different".  We are more similar to them than we are different IMO. 

Recall that the other topic discussed was housing.

How do Canada’s zoning and building of affordable housing compare to the ‘blue states’?  You’re saying we’re just as bad, but do you actually know this?   How do we compare to a country that treats their poor ‘better’ than we do?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 02, 2022, 04:27:02 pm
How do Canada’s zoning and building of affordable housing compare to the ‘blue states’?  You’re saying we’re just as bad, but do you actually know this?   How do we compare to a country that treats their poor ‘better’ than we do?

Well let's talk about this.

I love Canada but I am never blind to its faults.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on May 02, 2022, 04:42:35 pm
Well let's talk about this.

I love Canada but I am never blind to its faults.

I have no idea…. But I never claimed that it was just as bad up here as the USA….  Do you have some information on which you base your claim/concerns?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 02, 2022, 04:47:04 pm
Well let's talk about this.

I love Canada but I am never blind to its faults.

I propose 4 statements:

1. No country is perfect and it is impossible for any country to be perfect but all countries should try to behave as close to perfect as possible.

2.  Canada has fewer faults and is thus closer to perfect than the overwhelming majority of countries on earth.

3.  As Canadians we should celebrate #2, while not forgetting #1.

4. Canadians who hate Canada are losers with no perspective and should be given a 1-way ticket to Somalia or Afghanistan (accommodations/caves not included).  If after 6 months they wish to repent they can be awarded with a 1-way ticket back to Canada.  If not they are free to stay and their passport torn up.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 02, 2022, 06:43:59 pm
   You can now ease your liberal angst that we are as bad as the USA.

You misrepresent my views.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest18 on May 05, 2022, 10:36:31 am
It appears the F*CK TRUDEAU crowd are clutching their pearls because he might have said a bad word.
I don't think it will be a sufficient distraction from conservatives declaring dominion over women's bodies, but it's worth a try
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 05, 2022, 10:39:04 am
It appears the F*CK TRUDEAU crowd are clutching their pearls because he might have said a bad word.
I don't think it will be a sufficient distraction from conservatives declaring dominion over women's bodies, but it's worth a try

None of this is consequential.

We need to address pressing concerns:

1. Unity
2. Economy
3 Climate

IMO
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Black Dog on May 05, 2022, 10:51:12 am
None of this is consequential.

We need to address pressing concerns:

1. Unity
2. Economy
3 Climate

IMO

those are all nice goals, but they don't matter unless you have power and the people with power don't care about any of that stuff.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 05, 2022, 11:15:07 am
those are all nice goals, but they don't matter unless you have power and the people with power don't care about any of that stuff.

I agree.  But I think the people have to start talking about these things in a new way.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Black Dog on May 05, 2022, 12:51:59 pm
I agree.  But I think the people have to start talking about these things in a new way.

It's not a messaging problem if that's what you're saying.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 05, 2022, 01:32:25 pm
It's not a messaging problem if that's what you're saying.

We're getting caught up in the stupid, is what I am saying
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Black Dog on May 05, 2022, 02:13:01 pm
We're getting caught up in the stupid, is what I am saying

(https://i.imgflip.com/6f2hdz.jpg)
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 05, 2022, 02:14:30 pm
OK that's funny but you must agree it's getting stupider when the president tells people to research ingesting disinfectant and nobody wants to contradict him.

It's dumber than dumb now.

We're getting caught in the dumb fights. 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Black Dog on May 05, 2022, 02:39:53 pm
OK that's funny but you must agree it's getting stupider when the president tells people to research ingesting disinfectant and nobody wants to contradict him.

It's dumber than dumb now.

We're getting caught in the dumb fights.

Without knowing what fights you consider dumb and why, it's hard to have a conversation, but a lot of the fightsI personally consider dumb are nonetheless important because of where they fit in the broader political scene.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 05, 2022, 03:23:04 pm
Without knowing what fights you consider dumb and why, it's hard to have a conversation, but a lot of the fightsI personally consider dumb are nonetheless important because of where they fit in the broader political scene.

If people want to say that 'Compelled Speech' is restricting their freedoms etc.  I would leave that alone.  The courts will help them if they have a case.

If people want to argue about Freedumb then they can stand on a tree stump and I will walk away.

Ask them what their root concerns are - loss of income is likely there.  And maybe get the details on that and what to do.

But ignore the dumb fights...
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 05, 2022, 04:31:26 pm
None of this is consequential.

We need to address pressing concerns:

1. Unity
2. Economy
3 Climate

IMO

I would add:

4. Political corruption
5. AI tech race vs Russia/China
6. Healthcare funding
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Black Dog on May 05, 2022, 05:13:12 pm
If people want to say that 'Compelled Speech' is restricting their freedoms etc.  I would leave that alone.  The courts will help them if they have a case.

If people want to argue about Freedumb then they can stand on a tree stump and I will walk away.

Ask them what their root concerns are - loss of income is likely there.  And maybe get the details on that and what to do.

But ignore the dumb fights...

I used to think (like, as recently as last week) that you could win people over by addressing to their material concerns. These days I'm much less certain.

I don't see a lot of genuine working class interests being represented in the media or by our political parties in this country. PP's populism is as much of a scam as the guy going door to door to patch your driveway. The most sought after political constituencies in this country, voter-wise, are old people and petite bourgeoisie who are primarily interested in keeping what they have and, increasingly, keeping others from getting the same. IDK how you get around those realities by "ignoring dumb fights".


Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 05, 2022, 07:38:04 pm
1. I used to think (like, as recently as last week) that you could win people over by addressing to their material concerns. These days I'm much less certain.

2. I don't see a lot of genuine working class interests being represented in the media or by our political parties in this country. PP's populism is as much of a scam as the guy going door to door to patch your driveway. The most sought after political constituencies in this country, voter-wise, are old people and petite bourgeoisie who are primarily interested in keeping what they have and, increasingly, keeping others from getting the same. IDK how you get around those realities by "ignoring dumb fights".
1. I realized decades ago that working people were voting against their material interests for reasons of identity.

2. PP is full of it.  But what is working class ?  We don't have a real archetype in our stories.

Farmer? Factory worker? Nurse? Lumberjack?

That's why they have actors portray these in commercials.

Actor itself is a job and a hard one.  So is musician. 

They don't have them in commercials.

Start by rejecting hackneyed tropes.

Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Black Dog on May 06, 2022, 09:34:28 am
1. I realized decades ago that working people were voting against their material interests for reasons of identity.

2. PP is full of it.  But what is working class ?  We don't have a real archetype in our stories.

Farmer? Factory worker? Nurse? Lumberjack?

That's why they have actors portray these in commercials.

Actor itself is a job and a hard one.  So is musician. 

They don't have them in commercials.

Start by rejecting hackneyed tropes.

Well we do, the problem is "working class" has gone from meaning those who have to sell their labour to an aesthetic marker (see the "working class" trucker convoy). It means white males in blue collar fields and not your Filipino home care nurse or your pink-haired university grad who is working at Starbucks because there are no jobs in ethnomusicology or even your typical office drone making mid five figures at a dead end gig.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 06, 2022, 10:21:40 am
Well we do, the problem is "working class" has gone from meaning those who have to sell their labour to an aesthetic marker (see the "working class" trucker convoy). It means white males in blue collar fields and not your Filipino home care nurse or your pink-haired university grad who is working at Starbucks because there are no jobs in ethnomusicology or even your typical office drone making mid five figures at a dead end gig.

Ok with the 2nd part... but why does "we do" apply then ? 
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Black Dog on May 06, 2022, 01:21:27 pm
Ok with the 2nd part... but why does "we do" apply then ?

I meant "there exists a widely held conception of who constitutes the working class".

This (https://www.commongroundpolitics.ca/joe-albertan) is kind of related, showing as it does the pervasiveness of the kind of myth-making we're talking about.

Quote
In Fall 2019, we conducted 35 focus groups across 26 communities, involving over 600 participants. In this Research Brief, we present the findings of 18 of those focus groups that made up Phase 1 of our study. From October to December 2019, we engaged over 150 Albertans from all walks of life (see Methodology and Appendix). Here is what we found.

When we asked them to “draw an Albertan,” we were very surprised at the level of consensus among our  participants. According to them, the typical Albertan was a middle-aged man working in the agricultural or energy  sectors. Regardless of their own backgrounds or political predispositions, most participants drew very similar  characters, suggesting there is widespread agreement about what it means to “look Albertan.”

PP's message may be broadly focused, but when he kvetches about the lockdowns from two years ago and praises the convoy, it's clear who he's talking to.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 06, 2022, 03:37:44 pm
I meant "there exists a widely held conception of who constitutes the working class".

This (https://www.commongroundpolitics.ca/joe-albertan) is kind of related, showing as it does the pervasiveness of the kind of myth-making we're talking about.

PP's message may be broadly focused, but when he kvetches about the lockdowns from two years ago and praises the convoy, it's clear who he's talking to.

Ok but... so it's wrong then ?  Is that it ?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Black Dog on May 07, 2022, 06:58:26 pm
Ok but... so it's wrong then ?  Is that it ?

What's "it"?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 07, 2022, 10:28:51 pm
What's "it"?

The common concept of the working person? 🤔
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: guest18 on May 08, 2022, 06:54:01 am
My first thought is of Dolly Parton singing 9 to 5.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 08, 2022, 07:13:47 am
So, as with the Alberta exercise, we have a character of the Alberta worker.  Also it's b*s*t.

Nothing to do with woke culture, it's just lazy mental shortcuts.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Black Dog on February 23, 2023, 12:19:19 pm
More than 4-in-10 Canadians — and half of younger Canadians aged 18-24 — support socialism as their preferred economic system.
 (https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/perspectives-on-capitalism-and-socialism?utm_source=Email&utm_campaign=Perspectives-on-Capitalism-and-Socialism&utm_medium=Dev_email&utm_content=Learn_More&utm_term=550)

Yes...HA HA HA...YES!
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Spike The Hike Shady on February 23, 2023, 12:36:06 pm
So, as with the Alberta exercise, we have a character of the Alberta worker.  Also it's b*s*t.

Nothing to do with woke culture, it's just lazy mental shortcuts.
Is there a link to what you’re referring to?
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Black Dog on February 23, 2023, 12:46:35 pm
Is there a link to what you’re referring to?

All these years online and this retard still doesn't know how threads work.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 23, 2023, 12:47:16 pm
Is there a link to what you’re referring to?
This is an old thread - I think I was commenting on BD's post about a survey (PR type company) on perceptions of the typical Albertan.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Spike The Hike Shady on February 23, 2023, 12:50:59 pm
This is an old thread - I think I was commenting on BD's post about a survey (PR type company) on perceptions of the typical Albertan.
Oh, another bash Alberta thread.  Carry on then!
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 23, 2023, 02:31:29 pm
Oh, another bash Alberta thread.  Carry on then!

No, I don't think so.  The opposite in fact.  You would have to read the thread though.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: waldo on April 08, 2023, 07:30:25 pm
David Suzuki: yes, the most distinguished man represents many Canadian values... and he's not 'slowing down' (too much), if you accept his statement that: "retiring from The Nature of Things will allow him to focus on activism and calling out 'BS'"

the 87-year old is stepping down from 44 years (including the coming season already 'in the can') of hosting CBC's, The Nature of Things... a program seen in 40 countries! (https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1643683114294583296/vid/1920x1080/3N29_CvKRPSCJWb0.mp4?tag=16) Of course the show continues and if you're a regular watcher you'll know one of the new co-hosts (https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-nature-of-things/meet-the-new-hosts-of-the-nature-of-things-sarika-cullis-suzuki-and-anthony-morgan-1.6666750), Suzuki's daughter, Sarika Cullis-Suzuki.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Coolio on April 18, 2023, 03:01:22 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuBYZlPakAA4RjV?format=jpg&name=medium)
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on May 14, 2023, 03:44:14 pm
Hey, as long as Canada has no values or culture of its own, let's import this value from a foreign nation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzRg--jhO8g
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on May 14, 2023, 07:48:56 pm
I don't think that they say that anymore.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 27, 2024, 04:22:16 am
Quote
1. Ok, well have at it.  I haven't seen a productive discussion of competing value systems yet.  Stop saying that it makes me uncomfortable.  It doesn't.  I just see it as a giant waste of time and am trying to make you see that.  If you agreed then maybe that would prove me wrong.

Convince me that I'm woke, that my values are bad for Canada.  Should be fun... Lots of effort for you, and me countering every opinion...

You're already wrong on my motivation, my concerns... What makes you think that you can get inside my head and convince me that my values are wrong?

Would you be open to your values being proven wrong?  Of course not.  You'll never defeat conservative, liberal or socialist values... but go ahead and try.

2. Don't just state something, provide hard evidence.  Because I don't believe it, at least not as you depict it.

3. Ok

4. Bullshit. 

5.  Yeah, you're way wrong.  Justin has a team of advisors that he listens to, deputy ministers and so on.  He fired two women because they wouldn't help him rig the SNC Lavalin case.  Was that woke?  He skipped the first National Day of Reconciliation.  Woke right?

Baffles me that you don't like Trudeau, yet you believe his press releases.

6. I don't get it. We are on an anonymous message board. Right now. We are on one. We are anonymous. What social shackles are binding me and keeping me from saying what I really think?

I don't know how old you are, but maybe you haven't met a wide spectrum of people in your life? Life? I have met hard communists, hard libertarians and everything in between and been very close friends with all stripes. My number one criteria for a friend is that they be a mensh.

People's values are remarkably similar in this country. The only thing that differs is the flavor of organization that you would have to achieve the best systems for the people.

7. When you convince the crowd, you're not changing their ideology, or their values. You're changing their ideas of how to execute on those values.

I don't consider myself woke, I consider myself conservative and pragmatic... I argue the ideas, and even if I wonder about the personalities behind them... I don't try to change them.

I have more to add....
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 27, 2024, 05:44:06 am
This is a continuation of a conversation with Queefer/Moonlight Graham on the other board.  I have so much on ignore there (none here) that I think this would be a better place for it.

------------------------

MY PERSONA

My issue in that discussion is that QS accused me of being unable to rise to the challenges of what is REQUIRED of a conscientious member of a discussion, an online forum and ultimately THE public.  That is: to say what needs to be said and criticize what needs to be criticized.  He believes that my expressions and posts are not exactly TRUE because I'm afraid to offend people, or rock the boat and so on.  In other words, my flaws are preventing me from living up to what is required.  I lack courage.

I don't understand that criticism because, of course I feel I do exactly that.  Why would I be afraid to say what I really think when I - and pretty much everyone here - am/are anonymous ?   I don't get it.

I can only guess, and although I abhor the tendency to step around the political discussion at hand, and to analyze/dissect the personality of the poster as QS has done to me, I am tempted into doing the same to him.  I do so not so much as accusing him of a kind of failing (as he has done to me) as a feature of his experience/personality. 

So my guess at why he says that about me is... I think that he's baffled at encountering a basically intelligent and nice person who calls himself 'conservative' and yet doesn't see the world as he thinks I should.  He's baffled, I think, because he doesn't know any such people in real life.  That's all I've got to explain with his bizarre contention that I'm effectively being dishonest on here... for twenty years.  He can't conceive of someone being friendly, nice, etc. and yet to his mind politically different.

I, on the other hand, have been drunk with hard leftists and libertarians (I don't know any Nazis though) and religious folks and my experience is, as August 1991 likes to say, "we get along".  That's my experience and I can only surmise that his is different, that anybody with my views effectively has horns on their head.

A lot of this needs unpacking, I concur.

------------------------

WHY DO I CALL MYSELF CONSERVATIVE


Firstly, I call myself 'conservative' even though I fully support transgender rights, and have many (it seems) trans friends.  I call myself such because I support things like progressive taxation, strong environmental protection, and think that a UBI needs to be looked at.  This drives populists crazy, and that's kind of the point.

Conservative refers to someone who values the traditional ways of the past, which is exactly how I feel about our current state. 

We have travelled these roads before of having to balance rights for newly identified minority classes, the roads of having to broker social peace as groups ascend and assert their identities or fight for rights.  We have had to deal with old ideas being revised or even demolished in terms of how society looks at them.  We have had to deal with massive economic change and crisis, and had to deal with redistribution of wealth for the greater good.  We addressed environmental concerns, together with the international community and our American neighbours.

We got through it through honest dialogue and collaboration and openness via our institutions.  Not by denigrating people, demanding they rescind their identifies to comply to some national template of Canadianism.  We also did it politely and honestly too, as I say.  We didn't lie about people or demean them.  I know I'm nice... and IRL I have been called that, even being told multiple times that I am "too nice".  But it's my way, and it fits me like a glove.  It's not like I can't be snarky - I can be and am on these boards.

Was there strife and violence too ?  Was there disinfo ?  Sure but we pushed past it and the movements were synthesized into an orderly and tolerant society because our dialogue, our openness and our institutions persevered and held our values.  Sound conservative yet ?

The fact that populists called me 'lefty' and 'socialist' is fine.  Have I voted NDP ?  I have voted for all stripes of politician, which is why I say 'conservative' with a small c.  I couch my views in the broader context of social and political trends.

As I point out: Jim Flaherty and others in Harper's cabinet voted FOR trans rights in a free vote.  Thatcher, GHW Bush, and Nixon were environmental pioneers.  Brian Mulroney would not gut the Canada Pension Plan, even after being asked to 'look at it' by Michael Wilson.  And the UBI plan that is discussed in the Canadian poitical sphere was INTRODUCED by Canadian conservative stalwart Hugh Segal. If you feel that being conservative means knee-jerk rejection of environmentalism, social justice or economic equality then you are buying into a cartoon image that you are being sold and aren't thinking for yourself as these individuals did.

Do you think Flaherty, Bush, Nixon, Mulroney, Thatcher, Segal were conservative ?  (PS I didn't vote for any of them.  I was a nationalist in the 1980s and thought, wrongly, that the FTA would cause us to join the USA but that's another thread)

 ------------

DEBATING VALUES, CRITICIZING WOKENESS AND PITFALLS

(I'm going to use "you" here in the context of "one".  I'm not talking to any particular person if I say "you need to".  I mean "one needs to".)

To me, you can debate values for a long time and get nowhere.  You can criticize them, but it's akin to debating/criticizing religion.  If you debate policy, on the other hand, then you might get some concessions and find common ground.  But it's almost impossible to do so with values/ideology/religion. 

Not to say those things don't change, ie are immutable and set in stone.  Over time, the parties represented by the capital L 'Liberal' party, socialism and conservatism are themselves fluid... but those changes happen through political discussions.  If you ask an NDPer in 2024 if they're socialist or a Liberal or a Conservative they will tell you they buy into those ideologies.  But the 1976 version of these things were altogether different.

Now we get to 'wokeism'... a word that is, to me, so tiresome and annoying not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it's meaningless as a term that can help us understand anything, or can help us to have a conversation that leads anywhere other than finger pointing.

With terms like that, or 'transgender ideology', you can't get a strong definition to even start a discussion/debate, especially because a lot of the posters who are against 'wokeism' believe that transgender people should have protected rights and they say so. 

So what is it ?

 ------------

THE WOKISM DEBATE TO ITS CORE

If you press the issue, then you find that the problem is that people don't want the ideology 'shoved down their throats'... an unfortunate metaphor but ok.  That statement a rejection of rhetoric though so we have stepped away from policy slightly, because we are going to include statements by activists... another cloudy and non-specific term.  When it comes down to policy, the discussion then starts to focus more on stories of trans women in specific circumstances like sports, bathrooms and what have you, not constitutional matters.  The latter legal issues are largely settled in Canada, which we need to acknowledge in these discussions too.

And now as the discussion gets into circumstances, we start to move from a discussion on overall rights and accommodation to specific examples... 'stories'.  And, often, the sources for the discussion come from the rage-o-sphere, they do.  If you deny that then you're betraying your own principle of living in reality.  The idea then becomes that 'wokeism' is this hysterical push for accommodation beyond what is reasonable.  I try to point out that assessing a social trend, or problem, via the tabloid pages means you aren't getting objectivity but we still get these stories.

I try to respond by saying 'let the people involved work it out'.  Will it work out for the best ?  My guess it that an open society will eventually arrive at a political and moral solution but people think otherwise.

They think so because they believe are unreasonable people pushing on the other side of the issue.  Are there people who do that ? Of course. 

There always have been.  I also think we are able to reasonably deal with trans people as a protected group.  Trans people are a tiny minority and the accommodations happen, because people are mostly reasonable and able to work it out.  People are upset with change too.  Are you allowed to push back against such change ?  I would say so but it's a sore point.  It's a fight - a social and legal fight.  That's normal.

The idea that this open liberal society that we have created is vulnerable somehow, though, is not a conservative value.  Nor is the idea that every decision, every public institution is going to do the right thing at every point a conservative value.  Institutions aren't perfect either.

But the idea that Jessica Yaniv, or Muslim Immigrants, or gay people wanting marriage are actually breaking the system is a moral panic.  Do people make unreasonable claims and try to make accommodations being what is reasonable ?  Sure they do.  Do progressives lose patience and call people names for not complying ?  Of course.

 ------------

BACK TO DEBATING VALUES, IN PERSPECTIVE


If you feel you need to defeat an ideology, I think you have to ask first how sure you are that something is truly amiss with our open society.  That's because it's a bigger deal.  For one thing, your desire to criticize values/religion/ideology apart from yours flies in the face of our traditions no matter where you are on the political spectrum because it's intolerant.   If you're fighting an ideology then you are looking for it to be removed because, maybe like Naziism, it's too toxic to keep around at all.   

And if you are telling me that an ideology is a real problem then you're going to have to do a lot more than give me an anecdote, you are going to have to prove your criticism objectively using data. 

What ideologies to we actually BAN, effectively ?  Hate crime, certain anti-science movements and cults.

So these are special cases and you'll have to make a special case to argue they should be gone.  And what are the chances that you will succeed ?  What is required for you to do that ?  You'll need people to be as open minded as you profess to be.  So think meta - what it would take for me, or for a socialist or a wokist to convince YOU that your whole ideology, your world view is wrong and needs to be tossed out ?  It would take a lot more than somebody citing an individual example of something happening on the other side of the country, or another country... or an anecdote from a friend-of-a-friend.  Right ?

So, in that context, I see the ideological discussions frustrating and a waste of bandwidth.  The job of convincing people that their whole way of thinking is wrong is such a huge task as to be effectively impossible even if there were some logical basis for pursuing it.  Our job on these forums and in the world is, to me, is more boring than that: it's to discuss enactions of policy to assess our best paths forward as per our jurisdictional citizenry - members of our locale, province, state, nation - and contribute to the public sphere in that way.   
 
In closing, I woke up before 5 AM so I put a lot of thought into this meta-topic.  But it is a big topic, very philosophical, ponderous and so I think i'll dispense with the 1. 2. 3. method of replying if I get a long response...

And, yes, I do believe in sometimes criticizing ideologies and groups but not the strongly-held kind.  The ones we don't think of such as our common roles as media audience, consumers etc.

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on January 27, 2024, 05:47:03 am
PS  I went to this thread because it matched the topic even though 'culture' wasn't in the title.

The first post is an arch conservative talking (7 years ago ?!?) about a screening for Canadian values.

First question from Kellie Leitch on a proposed screener is "Do you believe men and women are equal ?"

Pretty woke to start with that IMO... but I'm a conservative so...

(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/03/34/48/45/240_F_334484502_tP94xwfotpkxyZ6daSPkFsUCqUwNLb54.jpg)
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on January 28, 2024, 12:08:29 pm
I'll get around to this.   Appreciate the effort
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: JessiWan on January 30, 2024, 05:43:52 pm
I think her motive is good, she only wants immigrants who will fit in with the Canadian society and who will uphold our values.  But like so many people pointed out, the answers to her questions are too easy to guess.  I think it might be better if she devised some open-ended question.  For example, she might want to ask questions that begin with "why".  Or maybe she can give a scenario that contains a moral.  Then ask the would-be immigrant what the moral is.  That sort of things.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on February 15, 2024, 02:00:54 pm
I'll get around to this.   Appreciate the effort

Haven't forgotten about this Michael.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 16, 2024, 06:17:10 am
Haven't forgotten about this Michael.

Well I completely did.  I have been online about an hour and the wife and kids are still asleep.  I may get to this on the morning yet.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Michael Hardner on February 16, 2024, 06:19:16 am
Haven't forgotten about this Michael.

Waiiiit... I am waiting for YOUR response here.  What a relief, I thought I had a big post to go through.  Cheers.
Title: Re: On Canadian Values
Post by: Squidward von Squidderson on February 17, 2024, 07:00:29 pm
Just so you all know, I won’t be responding to this topic…. 

Apparently, we’re keeping each other in the loop…?