Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

How do we force immigrants to assimilate?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Why do you feel the state should have a nanny policy that makes people wear something that protects them if it means they have to compromise a very important religious practice.?  Let them decide and remove the government/company liability if they choose not to wear a helmet.  Why does this matter to you?

I don't worry about nanny policies.  If the state decided to let people ride a bike without a helmet, that's their choice.  I object to religious accommodation beyond the most basic freedom to worship, and believe, whoever/whatever you want.  There should be no exemption from a law.  For anyone.  I wouldn't let colander wearers ride a bike either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Canadians are not satisfied with the way immigrants are assimilating. It's been showing up in the polls more often of late. Environics just did a large poll which showed two thirds of Canadians a

I am often surprised by what men say to each other that they'd never say to me.  I imagine its the same with Hindu men, Sikh men, Italian men, Spanish men.  I just don't happen to believe that Muslim

That's just your elephant informing you of what I'm like.  Pakistan's government is a truly pathetic thing that I can't blame anyone for not wanting to migrate as far as possible from.  Why Ottawa mai

Posted Images

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

There are only 6 billion people on earth

'Only' 7.6 billion actually.

You remind me of oil companies and government regulators who under-report CO2 emissions.  Speaking of which will knowing there's over 25% more people than you thought give you pause to reconsider things related to AGW or...meh? 

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

I don't worry about nanny policies.  If the state decided to let people ride a bike without a helmet, that's their choice.  I object to religious accommodation beyond the most basic freedom to worship, and believe, whoever/whatever you want.  There should be no exemption from a law.  For anyone.  I wouldn't let colander wearers ride a bike either.

Religious freedom is a Charter protected right.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

'Only' 7.6 billion actually.

You remind me of oil companies and government regulators who under-report CO2 emissions.  Speaking of which will knowing there's over 25% more people than you thought give you pause to reconsider things related to AGW or...meh? 

I meant to say 6 billion "other" people, my bad. IE, 4x the population of India, just like I said. The whole rest of the world has to be below 520 religious-bigotry-inspired murders to slide in below India. Should be easy, because theoretically India is the absolute worst of all 200+ countries......

Let's pretend the total is half of what it should be. That means that the rest of the world should come in under 1,040 of those types of murders..... Still not even close.

 

You remind me of one of those people who thinks that a country like Pakistan, which sentences people to death for talking about other religions, could somehow not be the most bigoted place on earth. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't worry about nanny policies.  If the state decided to let people ride a bike without a helmet, that's their choice.  I object to religious accommodation beyond the most basic freedom to worship, and believe, whoever/whatever you want.  There should be no exemption from a law.  For anyone.  I wouldn't let colander wearers ride a bike either.

It seems as though you and I are switching sides on this one. I'm going full Lib here.

The Sikhs proved how serious they were about wearing the turbans 70 years ago when they opted out of putting steel on their head to save their lives. It's that important to them.

They have their hill to die on, and they're not harming anyone else by being there. I say let them have it.  

It was harder for me to accept that they would wear their headdress in a mess hall, legion, what have you, but they literally earned that right. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You remind me of one of those people who thinks that a country like Pakistan, which sentences people to death for talking about other religions, could somehow not be the most bigoted place on earth. 

That's just your elephant informing you of what I'm like.  Pakistan's government is a truly pathetic thing that I can't blame anyone for not wanting to migrate as far as possible from.  Why Ottawa maintains such close ties with it disgusts me.

You remind me of people who associate the worst aspects of shitty governments and religions with the people they govern and preach to. Makes it easy to seem as if there's something wrong with the people themselves.  That said, what moral shine does emanate from Canada is due to millions of ordinary decent people and it disgusts me how our politicians get away with associating themselves with that decency. 

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

It seems as though you and I are switching sides on this one. I'm going full Lib here.

The Sikhs proved how serious they were about wearing the turbans 70 years ago when they opted out of putting steel on their head to save their lives. It's that important to them.

They have their hill to die on, and they're not harming anyone else by being there. I say let them have it.  

It was harder for me to accept that they would wear their headdress in a mess hall, legion, what have you, but they literally earned that right. 

 

I'm the opposite.  I don't care about tradition, just the law.  In fact, I argued with Doug Christie about the RCMP head dress issue.  (on a call in.  I didn't know him personally)

I don't believe religious accommodation stretches to exemption from a law.  They really do not have to ride a bike.  I do not mean that flippantly.

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

It seems as though you and I are switching sides on this one. I'm going full Lib here.

The Sikhs proved how serious they were about wearing the turbans 70 years ago when they opted out of putting steel on their head to save their lives. It's that important to them.

They have their hill to die on, and they're not harming anyone else by being there. I say let them have it.  

It was harder for me to accept that they would wear their headdress in a mess hall, legion, what have you, but they literally earned that right. 

 

I don't care if they wear turbans or jockey shorts on their heads, and I don't care if they wore turbans or jockey shorts while fighting 70 years ago . . . . I do care about ICBC motorcycle insurance premiums rising to payout avoidable head injuries.  Comprehend ?

Religion trumps common sense/safety issues . . . .

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

I don't care if they wear turbans or jockey shorts on their heads, and I don't care if they wore turbans or jockey shorts while fighting 70 years ago . . . . I do care about ICBC motorcycle insurance premiums rising to payout avoidable head injuries.  Comprehend ?

Religion trumps common sense/safety issues . . . .

If you support right to die legislation, surely you support this.  I don’t really support right to die, yet I see the importance of the Sikhs’ right to wear a turban.  That’s an easy pass for me.  

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

If you support right to die legislation, surely you support this.  I don’t really support right to die, yet I see the importance of the Sikhs’ right to wear a turban.  That’s an easy pass for me.  

I support assisted suicide.  I really don't see a connection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

I don't care if they wear turbans or jockey shorts on their heads, and I don't care if they wore turbans or jockey shorts while fighting 70 years ago . . . . I do care about ICBC motorcycle insurance premiums rising to payout avoidable head injuries.  Comprehend ?

Religion trumps common sense/safety issues . . . .

I doubt that the absence of helmets will increase our premiums.

They’ll just be dead, and dead people don’t cost as much as people who lose legs or are just paralyzed. It’s a choice they gladly make. 

I have more respect for someone who rides with a turban than someone who aborts a healthy, late-term fetus. Way more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting, another "bad canadian campaign" from libs. 

 

Quote

1 in 4 Canadians say it’s becoming ‘more acceptable’ to be prejudiced against Muslims: Ipsos poll

More than a quarter of Canadians believe that over the past five years, it’s become “more acceptable” to be prejudiced against Muslims, according to an exclusive poll by Ipsos for Global News.

The polling seems to correlate with an increase in hate crimes targeting Muslims living in the country.

In 2017, hate crimes targeting Muslims jumped 151 per cent, according to Statistics Canada. The biggest increases were seen in Ontario and Quebec — police-reported hate crimes increased by 207 per cent in Ontario and 185 per cent in Quebec.

So what, exactly, is causing a spark in discrimination towards Muslims?

https://globalnews.ca/news/5275557/1-in-4-canadians-acceptable-prejudice-against-muslims/

 

Edited by egghead
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, egghead said:

Very interesting, another "bad canadian campaign" from libs. 

Wonder how many feel it's okay to be prejudiced against white men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, egghead said:

I will say 100% becasue of white privilege B)

I'd probably keep my opinion to myself until a few white women have given their two-bits on Argus' question and especially any who know Argus.

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

[email protected]

Maybe we should be asking ourselves how many times have we smiled and nodded at an obvious immigrant,  said hello to an obvious immigrant, how many conversations have we had with an obvious immigrant and how many times have had one over for supper?  Assimilation should be a two-way street.

I'm not in the habit of smiling at random strangers, much less inviting them home for supper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, wallflower said:

[email protected]

 

Maybe we should be asking ourselves how many times have we smiled and nodded at an obvious immigrant,  said hello to an obvious immigrant, how many conversations have we had with an obvious immigrant and how many times have had one over for supper?  Assimilation should be a two-way street.

I'm an obvious immigrant, and no stranger ever asked me home for supper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...