News   Jun 26, 2024
Hop, Skip, and a Jump
 5     0 
News   Jun 25, 2024
10 Storeys Proposed to Float Over Annex Heritage Building
 1.4K     1 
News   Jun 25, 2024
Madison's Alias Ascending with Height Bump into Downtown Skies
 1K     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Skeezix said:
Yep. And profiling is dumb.
Click to expand...

Not really. Given the rushed deadline they had little choice but to do some profiling. Not a perfect tool by any means and surely just an initial filter in the vetting process. Perhaps when they are free and clear of 'sunny' election promises they will feel less pressure to profile and open up the process to vulnerable single straight males too?

Skeezix said:
Yes, they broke one element of the promise, by delaying part of the implementation by less than 60 days, in order to respond to address concerns. But the overall promise is still being met...
Click to expand...

So breaking a campaign promise, pushing back deadlines and making refugees wait is all trifling stuff to you? No 'overall promise' has actually been met yet, may I remind, not even the 10K by christmas. Let's see what they actually achieve before high-fiving them so enthusiastically. All we have so far is a lot of promises, and already a broken one.

The Conservatives promised 10k by September, the Liberals are now saying 25K by March. Let's see it happen first. Either the Liberals are heroes and pull it off - hooray - or they were playing politics and had no real idea whether it was possible or not. I hope they are heroes but I've heard election promises before.


Skeezix said:
The Liberals in opposition consistently called on Canada to do significantly more for Syrian refugees. An opposition party taking a different position than the government of the day, and then campaigning on it, is not a wedge issue. Responding to a humanitarian crisis in what the party believes to be the most humane way possible is not a wedge issue. Anytime a political party takes a position one does not completely like does not make it a wedge issue.
Click to expand...

All of your statements are irrelevant. This was a national election and both parties campaigned on differing aspects of this crisis in order to win. To do so they had to sway and divide moderate/nonpartisan Canadians. Sure sounds like a wedge issue to me!


Skeezix said:
Almost everything government does, from spending decisions to statutory rules, is arbitrary. Governments routinely set deadlines so as to focus and motivate efforts and to show their commitment to the objective. When people complain about something being "arbitrary", that usually means they've run out of substantive things to say. It's the go-to word for people without anything to say.
Click to expand...

LOL, some of us believe that arbitrary = not thought through/unrealistic. Let's just leave it there.



Skeezix said:
As pointed out to you above, there is no family restriction. Calling it a family restriction, when what it does it filter out one class of individuals, is misleading.

I'm not "troubled". I find the exclusion of single men, unless gay or traveling with parents, in this first tranche to be disappointing given the motivation for the exclusion. But the overall plan is still ambitious and humane, so no, I am not troubled.

I would want them to use the criteria they would normally use to pick the first group of refugees - those most at risk, those most vulnerable (different than risk), those who pass the security screening, etc. Despite the Titanic analogy used above, it's not as simple as "women and children first". While families might usually be the ones to meet that criteria, it isn't a given that they would be the only ones, and there are single men who for religious, political, medical and other reasons might otherwise have qualified. In other words, refugee selection should be principled, not based on profiling designing to meet domestic political concerns.
Click to expand...


Your thinking here is grossly circular and illogical: You don't want them to prioritize families, but you would concede that they prioritize the most vulnerable even though you concede that the most vulnerable are likely families... and you want them to do all of this but not profile or be concerned about ISIS yet push it all through as fast as possible whether really doable or not. That about right?

Cheque please!
 
nfitz said:
I see comments here that they are not letting in single men. I hadn't heard about this, but reading about it, it simply says they are taking the most vulnerable first - which includes single gay men.
Click to expand...


And so they should. Gay men are the most vulnerable in ALL Islamic countries. Even in the 'moderate' Islamic nations being gay is a capital offense, cause for lashing or prison. I dated a guy who was an ex- Muslim. He flat out told me... You can't be gay and Muslim! Being gay is completely prohibited in Islam. The extreme hate Islam shows towards gay people is sickening.
 
Tewder said:
Not really. Given the rushed deadline they had little choice but to do some profiling. Not a perfect tool by any means and surely just an initial filter in the vetting process.
Click to expand...

Nope, profiling is unnecessary and cruel. They had a lot of choice, given that excluding single males does not achieve any security objectives whatsoever. Yes, they have to make tough choices in tight timelines, but excluding single men was strictly a political, not a security, issue.

At the end of the day, as I have now said repeatedly, it's not the end of the world in the context of a program doing a lot of good. Just disappointing.

Tewder said:
Perhaps when they are free and clear of 'sunny' election promises they will feel less pressure to profile and open up the process to vulnerable single straight males too?
Click to expand...

Is that a point, or just sarcasm about the vulnerability of Syrian refugees that happen to be single males?

Tewder said:
So breaking a campaign promise, pushing back deadlines and making refugees wait is all trifling stuff to you?
Click to expand...

Wow. Obviously not, given the opinions I have expressed here (many times now) about the urgent need to bring in the refugees. Given that you have, in contrast, taken the position that we should be leaving them all in the Middle East and trying to help them there, you have a lot of chutzpah asking that question. Even sarcastically.

Tewder said:
No 'overall promise' has actually been met yet, may I remind, not even the 10K by christmas. Let's see what they actually achieve before high-fiving them so enthusiastically. All we have so far is a lot of promises, and already a broken one.
Click to expand...

How am I "high-fiving" them, given what I am saying about excluding single males and public sponsorship? All I said that they are still meeting the overall promise - the wording was quite clear that the effort is in progress, not complete. Never said mission accomplished.

As for your claims of broken promises, I just find it odd that you seem to be in such a rush to condemn a government that seeks to be ambitious and do the right, humane thing, yet also looks to re-calibrate if logistics require some changes to the implementation, but not the overall objective. The Liberals thought that some screening could be done in Canada, but that proved to raise too many difficulties. So they adjusted the timeline by less than 60 days. If that is a broken promise to you, then I would repeat what I said above: Tree. Forest.

Tewder said:
The Conservatives promised 10k by September, the Liberals are now saying 25K by March. Let's see it happen first. Either the Liberals are heroes and pull it off - hooray - or they were playing politics and had no real idea whether it was possible or not. I hope they are heroes but I've heard election promises before.
Click to expand...

Since when is committing to do the right thing and save lives "playing politics"?

Tewder said:
All of your statements are irrelevant. This was a national election and both parties campaigned on differing aspects of this crisis in order to win. To do so they had to sway and divide moderate/nonpartisan Canadians. Sure sounds like a wedge issue to me!
Click to expand...

No, my statements are not "irrelevant". They are my opinion, which I am entitled to state. Expressing opinions is the whole point of this forum. I wouldn't presume to tell you your opinions are irrelevant. Not sure why you seem to keep doing it.

You've just described an election, not a wedge issue. If this is a wedge issue, then using your logic all positions taken by political parties which differ from the other parties are wedge issues. That can't be true. But if, as you insist, it is, then it can't be a negative, otherwise parties could never disagree with one another.

Tewder said:
LOL, some of us believe that arbitrary = not thought through/unrealistic. Let's just leave it there.
Click to expand...

Of course everyone who uses the word "arbitrary" only ever uses it if they happen to think the limit or restriction was not thought through or unrealistic. They wouldn't use it to describe things they like. I still stand by my point that people complaining about something being "arbitrary" almost always have nothing substantive to point to so are left complaining about the arbitrariness of it all.

Tewder said:
Your thinking here is grossly circular and illogical: You don't want them to prioritize families, but you would concede that they prioritize the most vulnerable even though you concede that the most vulnerable are likely families... and you want them to do all of this but not profile or be concerned about ISIS yet push it all through as fast as possible whether really doable or not. That about right?
Click to expand...

I actually said none of that.

I never said that the most vulnerable are likely families. I assume that an assessment of the most vulnerable would usually identify families, but I specifically said that families are likely not the only vulnerable ones, and that single men may have qualified. I didn't even say they shouldn't prioritize families. What I said was that no person should be filtered out at the beginning, because some people who are filtered out may prove to be the most at risk/most vulnerable/most in need. We're talking small numbers here, but principles matter, and we might be leaving someone behind who really needs to get out now because domestically (as Trudeau has admitted - see link in post above) Canadians more likely equate single Muslims with terrorists.

I also never said they should not be concerned about ISIS. Of course, Canada should be concerned about ISIS. I said that the risk of ISIS terrorists infiltrating among the refugees is low, given what the security experts have said, since it would be a cumbersome and difficult way to get into Canada. I never said they shouldn't do security screenings.

I also never said push it all through as fast as possible. Where did I say that? I said that refugees are living in difficult and dangerous circumstances, and we shouldn't be delaying this simply for appearance's sake, which so many people seem to be suggesting without ever offering concrete reasons why more time is needed. I never said that if an actual issue arose, we should proceed as if nothing had changed. This is an urgent situation, where people are suffering today, but that doesn't mean, nor did I ever say, that we should disregard important factors which could impact the success of this whole mission.

Tewder said:
Cheque please!
Click to expand...

??????
 
Last edited:
gabe said:
And so they should. Gay men are the most vulnerable in ALL Islamic countries. Even in the 'moderate' Islamic nations being gay is a capital offense, cause for lashing or prison. I dated a guy who was an ex- Muslim. He flat out told me... You can't be gay and Muslim! Being gay is completely prohibited in Islam. The extreme hate Islam shows towards gay people is sickening.
Click to expand...

I can't seem to find it now, but will try and find the link later, but I read an article this morning which said that LGBT refugees are particularly vulnerable, not only for all the reasons you've stated, but also because they are (1) also at risk from the other refugees, some of whom wouldn't think twice about harming, or killing, a gay man among them, and (2) it is so hard to prove to UNHCR that one is gay, given that many of these men were forced to live in the closet and have nothing to document their sexual orientation. They are facing a particularly perverse problem.
 
How did a forum on Trudeau become a debate on shifting 0.025 MM people around? With the collapse of the tar sands and overall economic malaise, it's certainly not the biggest issue on Canada's plate today, IMHO.
 
Admiral Beez said:
How did a forum on Trudeau become a debate on shifting 0.025 MM people around? With the collapse of the tar sands and overall economic malaise, it's certainly not the biggest issue on Canada's plate today, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Because the refugee crisis is the issue that is currently dominating the news.
 
Trudeau seems to have pleased his critics and supporters with the refugee move.

From the Toronto Sun's editorial board:

"The PM should not lose face for this. While he technically broke a campaign promise, it was only done after the facts changed and public opinion led the way. He may have broken a promise, but in doing so he restored his trust with the public.

Trudeau is learning through trial and error that the “real change” he campaigned on doesn’t have to mean going full steam ahead with big sweeping plans.

Trudeau campaigned on being a team player — listening to the people, experts and evidence. He’s largely done this on the refugee file."

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/25/trudeaus-real-change-on-refugees
 
The Sun? Good grief, Levy, Levant, and Warmington must be all spinning in their graves. My gosh, and Warmington is retweeting Trudeau ... has hell frozen over or something? Or perhaps the new management has made it clear where there individual futures lie.
 
nfitz said:
The Sun? Good grief, Levy, Levant, and Warmington must be all spinning in their graves. My gosh, and Warmington is retweeting Trudeau ... has hell frozen over or something? Or perhaps the new management has made it clear where there individual futures lie.
Click to expand...

When did they pass away ;)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top