Canadian Politics Today

Actually, the prevelance of an action is not at all irrelevant.  All of the things you mention have been condemned on this site and the other. (well, I don't know about this site.  I haven't been on here as much) I have posted about Christian atrocities, posted against MGM, (not as vociferously, for obvious reasons) posted about barbaric african cultures, including witchcraft and Albino dismembering.  I admit Russian Christian immigration has managed to find its way under my radar.

The point is, when something awful happens, how often it happens is very important.  The idea that Muslim atrocities are posted on because of racism is nonsense.  They are posted on because they are atrocious.  And common.

So one of my guilty pleasures is true crime stories.  I've read a lot, and watched a lot on TV.    It's quite eye-opening how often some Christian-based belief is implicated in abuse of children and wife-beating.  The parents or man may not intend to kill their children/wife, but only to 'discipline' this as part of their Christian duty.  When these stories are broadcast (if they are), the religious aspect is rarely reported on unless it's really sensational.  With crimes committed by Muslims, it seems the religion is the *only* thing that is considered significant.

In terms of spousal abuse and the death of women at the hands of their partners, even when there is no connection to religion, one wonders why so many men think it's acceptable to beat their woman to the point of death.  What is it about our Western culture that makes this acceptable in anyone's mind?   Why should a Muslim who beats his wife be more blameworthy than a non-religious person who beats his wife?   

Christian apostates in some parts of Africa are killed; why are these less remarkable than stories of Muslim apostates who are killed?  Christian groups in Africa also perform conversions by sword; why is this not as remarkable as the same behavior by ISIS?   Not knowing about these things does not mean they don't happen; it means that we are being led by the nose to underestimate barbaric behavior by some groups and, by comparison, overestimate it by other groups.

It's all horrible.   People are, basically, horrible.  Our 'Western' group isn't any better than the "Muslim" group; we're just more oblivious to our own barbarity.  However, I believe most individuals within every group are relatively decent human beings who don't wish harm, nor cause harm to others.  If it were the other way around, there would be a lot less of all of us in the world.

So one of my guilty pleasures is true crime stories.  I've read a lot, and watched a lot on TV.    It's quite eye-opening how often some Christian-based belief is implicated in abuse of children and wife-beating.  The parents or man may not intend to kill their children/wife, but only to 'discipline' this as part of their Christian duty.  When these stories are broadcast (if they are), the religious aspect is rarely reported on unless it's really sensational.  With crimes committed by Muslims, it seems the religion is the *only* thing that is considered significant.

That's nonsense. No one really even pays attention to crimes by Muslims UNLESS they touch on religion. Do Muslims rob banks? Yes. Do Muslims engage in fraud? Yes. Do Muslims get involved in fights? Yes. Do Muslims steal cars? Yes, sure. Nobody cares.

In terms of spousal abuse and the death of women at the hands of their partners, even when there is no connection to religion, one wonders why so many men think it's acceptable to beat their woman to the point of death.  What is it about our Western culture that makes this acceptable in anyone's mind?   Why should a Muslim who beats his wife be more blameworthy than a non-religious person who beats his wife?

Who says he is? But here's what you leave out. We have made spousal/domestic violence a high priority for police. There are numerous public campaigns decrying it, organized groups working to end it, shelters available and special laws and specially trained police in every city to deal with it. Thus most of the incidents today generally relate to alcohol and drug abuse.

There are no special laws in the Muslim world dealing with spousal violence, no shelters, and no police units assigned to it. In most Muslim countries it would astonish police to have such a thing reported, and they'd almost certainly ignore it if it were. A man's right to beat his wife is assumed. In some surveys of Muslim women they take it for granted they'd be beaten if they did something like make a doctor's appointment for themselves without their husband's permission, or go out without his permission, or if the house is dirty.

Christian apostates in some parts of Africa are killed; why are these less remarkable than stories of Muslim apostates who are killed?  Christian groups in Africa also perform conversions by sword; why is this not as remarkable as the same behavior by ISIS?

Cite? I presume it's some minor cult, not recognized by mainstream Christian Churches. That's a hell of a difference right there. Such things are largely unknown in the Christian world, but common in the Muslim world. No one has said Christians can't be crazy or religious wackos. But there seems an awful lot less of them.

People are, basically, horrible.  Our 'Western' group isn't any better than the "Muslim" group; we're just more oblivious to our own barbarity.

Absolute bullshit. Our western culture and values are centuries ahead of the primitivism of the Muslim world in almost every way.

Yes, you do sometimes say "Not all Muslims are bad", and then you also say things like "they all look and think alike" and "they can't change" and "they're backwards and ignorant" and only allow the "anti-Muslim" part of a survey to stand as truth.  Like the tweets that come from Trump's hand speak more loudly than his teleprompted speeches, your constant anti-Muslim screeds outweigh your occasional acknowledgement that Muslims aren't all horrid.

So, my identification of real Muslims who are nothing like you claim "most" Muslims are is merely the tip of the iceberg you refuse to see.   I can admit they are not yet the majority; how about you try seeing the reality that the 'horrid' Muslims are not nearly the monsters you'd have us believe.

And the horrid ones are not the ones emigrating here.

Most of the Muslims coming here are fleeing the ****. The **** don't want to live in a plural, democratic and mostly Christian country.

Most of the Muslims coming here are not fleeing the ****. They're coming here because we're rich and they can have far better lives. The ones who are swarming into Europe aren't stopping at the first safe place. Hell, they didn't even stop at Turkey. They're marching right through the poorer southern and eastern European countries headed for nirvana, the rich northern European countries.

I'm pro Canadian, not anti-foreigner. I'm not afflicted with the desperate guilt so many on the Left have that we aren't losers in life. I think the only immigrants we should bring in are those who can adopt our ways and be an economic benefit to Canada.

I don't see how that is 'blaming' Canadian Muslims.

And if you chose to check any accurate statistics you would find that most of the immigrants that we allow into Canada DO benefit the country economically. But we know that doesn't fit with your "perception" of things.

There are no statistics which show that. The government has never undertake a study justifying the economics of immigration. There are some very lefty think-tanks which will say how immigration is a wonderful thing but there are no realistic statistics or studies which show this.

And even if there were, the fact that the government, as well as others, have found immigrants from the Middle East are the worst economic performers ought, by itself, to persuade any reasonable person that we should be aiming our immigration at other sources.

Sorry to burst your bubble...again.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/andrew-coyne-increased-immigration-is-good-for-canada-and-the-reasons-arent-only-economic

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/immigration-is-a-net-economic-benefit-this-is-a-story-canada-should-build-on/article31854798/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

http://www.immigration.ca/assessing-economic-impact-migration/

Not an existential threat, just another obstacle against progress. 

Earlier in this thread we were talking about how Megan Murphy's view (that trans people with male physiology shouldn't be in female-only safe spaces) makes her a "radical" in the eyes of the progressives, and how they want to "get" her for not being progressive enough.

Meanwhile the same progressives are all in favor of bringing in tens of thousands more people from countries where people don't think men and women should even pray together, let alone shower together, and where trans people would be imprisoned or worse.

Megan Murphy is the devil incarnate for not being progressive enough on trans rights, while bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants and refugees who for the most part think trans people are an abomination is a great idea that should be encouraged. 

I just don't get it.

Herein lies the problem with naming 'groups' and claiming they all have the same thoughts - I agree with Murphy that male-looking people don't really need to be in women-only spaces, but because I also don't see a problem with Muslims immigrating to Canada, I'm lumped in with people you might consider hypocritical or inconsistent.   

I think Canadian culture is strong enough to withstand conservatism.   People from India are generally more 'conservative' than Canadians when it comes to social acceptance of homosexuals or trans people, yet we have still moved ahead with progressive policies despite the hundreds of thousands of Indians that have emigrated to Canada in the last two decades.   If conservative immigrants were such a threat to Canadian progressiveness, why does Canadian progressiveness happen despite the ever-increasing number of 'conservative' immigrants within Canada?   

Overall, only about 30% of Canadians vote for "Conservative" in any given election, even the immigrants who might want to support a party who espoused family values and whose members were also more likely to disapprove of homosexuality and trans people.   The claim is that of course the "immigrants" want to support the party who will 'let more people in', but would they really abandon their intolerance against gays/trans if that were such an inflexible aspect of their culture or religion?   Especially since the immigration rate doesn't change much between governments.

I looked at this a while back and concluded that of the roughly 250,000 there were a bit under 100,000 from countries I viewed as being conservative Muslim nations-- North Africa, East Africa, the Middle East aside from Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan.

According to this source (http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-immigrants-by-source-country-2016/), in 2016 we accepted about 71,000 immigrants from conservative Muslim nations.  If I were worried about "conservatism" and anti-LGBT attitudes, I would also include India, Eritrea and Russia, all of which have legal sanctions against LGBT, which add another ~49,000 for a total of ~120,000 people with alleged "cultural or religious views not in line with Canadian values".   We also accepted ~113,000 people from countries which don't criminalize LGBT activity, although social acceptance isn't as certain.  Ultimately, Canada is at the forefront of the world in terms of progressive values, so nearly any country we accept immigrants from is likely to be somewhat socially behind us in terms of 'progressive' values. 

And I point out, once again, that we have been accepting refugees from the essentially the same countries, in roughly the same ratios for decades, yet we have still managed to implement progressive policies, and have increased the rights of gays, trans and women.   It simply does not seem logical that only those from Muslim-majority countries will suddenly turn us on our ear and result in going backwards in this regard.

They might not come to Canada with the idea of turning it into the new Saudi Arabia, but when politicians like Jason Kenney reach out to them and say "hey, we oppose gay people too! let's be friends!" they may well listen. That was the basis of the Conservative Party's "ethnic outreach" efforts about 10-12 years ago. Taking out ads in non-English community papers-- the Sikh newspapers, the Arabic newspapers, promoting a socially conservative message that was well to the right of what the party was willing to say in English.

This flies in the face of the conservative argument that "immigrants will only vote Liberal because of Liberals open door policy on immigration, that's why Liberals let in unlimited numbers of immigrants and refugees".   I did a quick search and couldn't find anything I considered credible on voting habits of immigrants, but judging by who I see running for various parties, it looks to me as if immigrants tend towards more socially liberal platforms by a slight margin.  But I could be wrong about that.

I believe that homosexual people living in Muslim countries are treated by Canada as valid refugee claimants.

Are homosexuals in Eritrea (50% Christian/50% Islamic), Russia (Catholic official religion) and Uganda (Christian) treated as refugees as well?   All three of those countries jail homosexuals, and in Eritrea and Uganda especially, there is not much backlash for attacking and killing them. 

 

As for the woman in Saudi Arabia who wants to wear a mini-skirt, she's not coming to Canada.  She can't even drive to the airport or leave the house without a male guardian. 

I agree, the girl from SA wearing a miniskirt isn't coming to Canada, and she is one of the many that gets lumped into the 'Muslims are bad' narrative.  And sure, not able to wear a miniskirt is pretty mild compared to other abuses women endure in SA - but the yearning and bravery I saw in this stuck with me.   

Saudi Arabia is a dirt-bag country in so many ways that are so much worse than not being able to wear mini-skirts. There's apparently not much we can do about it.

SA is a dirtbag country and while we could do something about it, we'd rather have oil.

I can see your fear of/bias against immigration, especially by other than WASP's is deeply seated, and not about to be edified by any amount of data which actually supports the practice, so there you'll likely stay. Luckily others, especially those who operate and monitor the system, know better.

I can see that you believe throwing any piece of crap opinion up there ought to be enough to satisfy anyone who dares to question Immigration, but I'm afraid most of us are a lot less ideologically committed to the program and require actual evidence rather than bland reassurances from columnists and immigration lawyers.

By the way, did you notice that NONE of them supported your statement there were statistics and evidence to support the belief immigration helps the economy? No, I suppose not. I guess that's what life is like when you have a closed mind.