Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

The case for a change to Canada's Immigration

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Unfortunately we can no longer rely on The Sun for reporting the truth, given the charges levelled at Levy.  They have gone from FOX-bias to Rebel-lies.  You'll have to find another source if you want reasonable people to buy into this.

And is it acceptable to you if I feel the same way about the Toronto Star and CBC? Both are organizations filled with crusading progressives with little interest in truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

As much as Allah is God in any other language, it is indeed instructions from God as far as these Christians are concerned.

This moronic attempt at demonstrating that Christians aren't to befriend non-Christians is countered by the everyday reality of life in Canada and throughout the West, where a largely secular population accepts people from every religion without much problem. The reason why you fail as a propgandaist is you reveal just how dishonest you are in trying to equate the Muslim world and its culture and values with the reality of life in the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Argus said:

And is it acceptable to you if I feel the same way about the Toronto Star and CBC? Both are organizations filled with crusading progressives with little interest in truth.

Can you show an example where they were charged with bringing up outright lies ?

I am not happy about losing The Sun as a legitimate news source, but there needs to be consequences for actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And he has never denied that the verses about peace are also there.

Yeah he has.  He uses abrogation to inform those not scared enough already that any verses about peace don't count.  I notice he hasn't done that since you've been around; perhaps he's worried he'll lose one of his few deluded followers.  Though you seem pretty committed; maybe he'll give it a go again.

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I have also never said that every woman in a hijab is an extremist or abused - another of your lies.

You have said so in virtually every conversation we've had about it.  The last statement I recall from you was "if a woman chooses to wear it as a fashion statement, I view it is a slap in the face of all the women who are forced."  You said a few months ago that you weren't so concerned about protecting women's rights because you consider the hijab as an "expression of Islamic extremism" and feel its justified to ban it on that basis.

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You regularly meltdown over the slightest critique  of Islam.

I do sometimes get a little heated; more often its like today - incredulous amusement at the over-the-top response to my statement:  Many religions advise their adherents to avoid unbelievers; be friendly, they say - but do not become close.  Islam isn't particularly unusual in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Can you show an example where they were charged with bringing up outright lies ?

I am not happy about losing The Sun as a legitimate news source, but there needs to be consequences for actions.

I'm sorry, because she mistakenly quoted a tripadvisor report about goats being slaughtered? Have I got that right?

I don't routinely read the Sun, but it is a useful counter balance to the Star and its endless treacly stories of how happy and grateful and successful refugees and immigrants are in Canada.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that there is something more insidious at work by those who buy into the deception that Islam is a religion of peace.  (yes I know not ALL Muslims are radical).   In many cases it's the insidious anti Israel or anti semitism that is behind it.   They really are Islam's 'useful idiots' 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Argus said:

Canada was certainly unkind to minorities in the past but we are a much more sophisticated and cosmopolitan country now. But it is another of your tactics to compare how Muslim nations act TODAY with how Canada acted in times past.

Agreed; we are improving.  Still, if you talk to First Nations today, you'll find they disagree with you about how much we've improved.  And just for the record, I think Egypt should be held to account for their lack of effective action in the treatment of Christians.  If, as you say, Sisi's Christmas message was in response to international criticism, good.  I have to point out, though, that he has been pretty consistent in condemning violence against Christians and has also attended Coptic services do I am inclined to believe he is trying to follow the best of Islam in this regard, instead of the worst.  I support that and see no upside to dismissing or denying it.   I can applaud progress while at the same time saying more needs to be done.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting that discussions about immigration routinely get detoured into a discussion about how evil/not evil Muslims are. Only a minority of the immigrants to Canada are Muslims, but it seems to me an unspoken fact that the underlying basis of much of the resistance to immigration is because of Muslims.

The defenders of Immigration, in their shill way, have often stated opposition to immigration is due to racism since most immigrants are visible minorities. Yet in reality, Arabs (and Iranians and Afghans), who make up a large majority of the Muslims coming to Canada, are more racially similar to 'white' people than any of the other immigrants Canada is getting.

Racially, Pakistanis and Indians are largely identical. But we see opposition to Pakistani immigration not matched by opposition to Indian immigration.

One mention of the word "Muslims" though, and suddenly there's furious exchanges about the koran and bible and what each says and what each teaches its adherents and we forget what this topic is even about. Attitudes are hardening on the part of those who see Muslims and their never changing religion (and the values it presents) as a threat to Canada's secular, tolerent, laid-back values and lifestyle, and those progressives who can only see 'brown' people that they must, at all costs, defend

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dialamah said:
25 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I have also never said that every woman in a hijab is an extremist or abused - another of your lies.

You have said so in virtually every conversation we've had about it.  The last statement I recall from you was "if a woman chooses to wear it as a fashion statement, I view it is a slap in the face of all the women who are forced."  You said a few months ago that you weren't so concerned about protecting women's rights because you consider the hijab as an "expression of Islamic extremism" and feel its justified to ban it on that basis.

Again, you take my words and turn them into "Every woman in a hijab is an extremist or abused."  Not what I said.  Nor did I say I was unconcerned about protecting women's rights.  I said the rights of the majority of women should come before the rights of a minority who insist on promoting a practice that is harmful to women and that is a slap in the face to all the women who are forced.  Nowhere did I say "Every woman in a hijab is an extremist and abused."

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I do sometimes get a little heated; more often its like today - incredulous amusement at the over-the-top response to my statement:  Many religions advise their adherents to avoid unbelievers; be friendly, they say - but do not become close.  Islam isn't particularly unusual in that regard.

It's because your statement itself is "over-the-top" and false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Agreed; we are improving.  Still, if you talk to First Nations today, you'll find they disagree with you about how much we've improved.  And just for the record, I think Egypt should be held to account for their lack of effective action in the treatment of Christians.  If, as you say, Sisi's Christmas message was in response to international criticism, good.  I have to point out, though, that he has been pretty consistent in condemning violence against Christians and has also attended Coptic services do I am inclined to believe he is trying to follow the best of Islam in this regard, instead of the worst.  I support that and see no upside to dismissing or denying it.   I can applaud progress while at the same time saying more needs to be done.  

What he says is less important than what his government does. And from the reports I've read they've put little effort into defending Christians and their churches or in ending the discrimination against them. I don't think any first nations people are worried mobs of white people are going to burn their villages or churches, or that they'll be shot down in the street for being native. Nor that they will be actively discriminated by government in both law and in the provision of services and jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'm sorry, because she mistakenly quoted a tripadvisor report about goats being slaughtered? Have I got that right?

Yes - or in other words quoting an internet post as fact in order to inflame hatred and lie about immigrants.

But feel free to let her off the hook.  Your principles are flexible if people are conservative, I guess.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Argus said:

.......One mention of the word "Muslims" though, and suddenly there's furious exchanges about the koran and bible and what each says and what each teaches its adherents and we forget what this topic is even about. Attitudes are hardening on the part of those who see Muslims and their never changing religion (and the values it presents) as a threat to Canada's secular, tolerent, laid-back values and lifestyle, and those progressives who can only see 'brown' people that they must, at all costs, defend

I agree.   People read and learn for themselves what is happening in Europe,  while people don't want to tar all Muslims with the same brush the sheer numbers and high birth rates bring the conclusion that eventually if the numbers increase greatly, the same problems will arise here.    Women have much more to be afraid of then men, just read about Sweden, Germany and U.K.   it's horrifying.     As the British home secretary has said,   ignore ethnicity at your peril. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46684638

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes - or in other words quoting an internet post as fact in order to inflame hatred and lie about immigrants.

But feel free to let her off the hook.  Your principles are flexible if people are conservative, I guess.  

As yours are harsh, draconian and utterly unforgiving towards conservatives. One lazy error by one opinion columnist and an entire newspaper chain is no longer an acceptable news source forever. One acceptance of research money from a crowdfunding site initiated by the Rebel makes Peterson evil incarnate and all his opinions without value as a 'shit academic'.

And anyone who disagrees on that has 'flexible principles'.

You like to represent yourself as the voice of moderation but in many instances you are anything but moderate.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Argus said:

This moronic attempt at demonstrating that Christians aren't to befriend non-Christians

I did say "These Christians", intending to limit it to Christians who believe it their duty to remain separate from non-believers.  Was no intention to claim "all" Christians believe that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I did say "These Christians", intending to limit it to Christians who believe it their duty to remain separate from non-believers.  Was no intention to claim "all" Christians believe that. 

A  few Christians from a couple of wonky cults that are viewed as morons by the rest of Chritianity does not prove your claim that "Many religions advise their adherents to avoid unbelievers; be friendly, they say - but do not become close.  Islam isn't particularly unusual in that regard."

Avoiding unbelievers is much more mainstream in Islam than it is in Christianity.  You can't name one mainstream Christian sect that practices avoidance of outsiders and you can't name one Muslim controlled country that practices tolerance and acceptance of other religions. The fact that you deny that continually and insist that Western countries are exactly the same as Muslim controlled countries is.......just bizarre.  You continually portray one-off situations of intolerance  in Western countries as being the norm and one-off situations of Muslim tolerance in any country as the norm.  Neither is true and so blatantly dishonest that I also sometimes wonder if  you are nothing more than a mouthpiece for Islam.

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. As yours are harsh, draconian and utterly unforgiving towards conservatives.

2. One lazy error by one opinion columnist and an entire newspaper chain is no longer an acceptable news source forever.

3. One acceptance of research money from a crowdfunding site initiated by the Rebel makes Peterson evil incarnate and all his opinions without value as a 'shit academic'.

4. And anyone who disagrees on that has 'flexible principles'.

5. You like to represent yourself as the voice of moderation but in many instances you are anything but moderate.

1. Dead wrong.  Show me a post where I was harsh or draconian towards Harper.  I actually appreciated his leadership and flexibility for keeping a steady course during the 2008 crisis.  So you're wrong there.

2. Not a lazy error but outright negligence.  I could grab a lie from these pages and put it in the paper as fact.  On a self-respecting paper I would be fired.  Also this is not the Sun's only negligence of late.

3. I never said Peterson was evil, but that he abrogated his role as a potential public intellectual.

4. I threw away the CCPA for this one article also. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/updates/study-reveals-secret-canadian-bank-bailout  In today's age a person of principles looks like a freak, I realize.

5. I don't *like* to but I have to, because otherwise no one would know what moderation even is anymore.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Argus said:

Only a minority of the immigrants to Canada are Muslims, but it seems to me an unspoken fact that the underlying basis of much of the resistance to immigration is because of Muslims.

Agree.  I think in large part its because of rhetoric such as that spread by DoP and Goddess and yourself.  A news story about ISIS extremists throwing a gay boy off a roof is used by you and them to depict Muslims as homicidal gay-killing fanatics.  Meanwhile, a newspaper story about how gay people live underground in Islamic countries, being neither killed nor turned in to authorities by friends and family, is ignored and dismissed as not represetative of Muslims at all.  One gay man killed by extremists = Islam.  Several gay people protected and loved by their Muslim family and friends means nothing - they're an aberration.  How is this a fair and accurate depiction of Islam or Muslims?

And which story is more likely to be indicative of day-to-day Islamic life?  Throwing gays off rooftops or pretending they don't really exist? 

Until the 80s, gay-bashing and beating up gay people wasn't terribly unusual and sometimes the gay person died.  Did that mean everyone in Canada wanted to kill gays?  Nope, and to say so would have been completely wrong.  Nonetheless, the behavior by these extremists did reflect a rather widespread societal view that gay people were unacceptable and expendable, a view I have no doubt is still pervasive in the Middle East, Africa and Russia, among other places. 

But to go from that to asserting that Muslims everywhere want to kill gays would be as stupid as asserting that Canadians want to kill gays because some low-life  homophobic extremists killed a gay man in Vancouver in 2001.

And as long as only extremists are presented as being "Muslim" there will be resistance from people who have unthinkingly accepted the hyperbolic rhetoric and are now afraid of Muslims.  

I personally don't much care if Canada decides to limit immigration for some good, evidence based reason.  Perhaps, as you have claimed, net benefit to Canada is less than thought.  But if Canada decided to limit immigration of Muslims based on the hyperbolic nonsense spouted on these forums I will object, not because Muslims are special or Islam must be protected, but because bullshit should be called out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Goddess said:

A  few Christians from a couple of wonky cults that are viewed as morons by the rest of Chritianity does not prove your claim that

Its more than you think, then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Its more than you think, then. 

Well, all I have so far is you offering up the JW's as proof and a claim that "MANY" in Christianity practice  avoiding unbelievers.  Which goes against what I can see with my own eyes and against what I have experienced.

Sorry that you are so offended that I don't just take your word for it.  

 

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, there are 2 news articles out of Egypt today about continued attacks on Christians.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46702301

https://globalnews.ca/news/3938036/cairo-coptic-church-shooting/

Perhaps they are not as tolerant of other religions in Muslim countries as you think.  

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

1.  Well, all I have so far is you offering up the JW's as proof

2.  and a claim that "MANY" in Christianity practice  avoiding unbelievers.  Which goes against what I can see with my own eyes and against what I have experienced.

3.  Sorry that you are so offended that I don't just take your word for it.  

 

1.  I offered up more than JWs.  The sermon I linked to for example:  I have no idea what particular Christian sect that is.  I also mentioned my debates with Evangelicals.   

2.  Yes, many Christians do believe it is in their spiritual interest to limit relationships with non-believers.  I have already opined that I don't think its the majority, but that it is pretty common.

I have still not opined what I think the prevalence is among Muslims; its more fun to watch you wave your arms and accuse me of stuff I haven't said.

3.  I have to say, amusement is my primary emotion.  I don't have any reason to be offended just because you don't believe what I believe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dialamah said:

I don't have any reason to be offended just because you don't believe what I believe.  

You must be offended.  You're here loudly declaring us all morally repugnant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Perhaps they are not as tolerant of other religions in Muslim countries as you think.  

Perhaps I only said that there was messaging from Sisi to encourage tolerance and that I thought this a good thing.   I should think that such a statement would imply that I recognized a problem, and welcomed attempts to solve it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps I only said that there was messaging from Sisi to encourage tolerance and that I thought this a good thing.   I should think that such a statement would imply that I recognized a problem, and welcomed attempts to solve it.  

Maybe just say that, then.

Because as soon as you start claiming that Western countries are exactly the same as Muslim countries, that's when there are arguments.

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You must be offended.  You're here loudly declaring us all morally repugnant.

Well, today I am not offended; some other days I might be. 

I do think that attitudes such as yours create unecessary disunity.  I think in some cases, among those that suffer from mental instability, the rhetoric you support and repeat can lead to violence.   I think you are blinded by bias.  But I think you mean well, so not morally repugnant.  On the other hand, I understand why you think that - even in real life I can be quite cutting to people who should know better.  Someone I respected a great deal once said I did not suffer fools gladly.  

If it helps, I consider violent terrorists morally repugnant.  Also, rapists and child molesters - morally repugnant.  People who prey on the elderly.  Parents who torture their kids.  I don't even care what religion they are, or if they are no religion at all.  Morally repugnant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...