Up to 2,300 Syrian refugees expected in Calgary over the next six to eight weeks

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Why two years to screen them? We're roughly doing the same number in 1/20 the time.

Honest question about the screen/security check differences between the two of us here. Are they more thorough or have previously made some kind of timing commitment?

This is the main issue that most people have with the plan. Arbitrary numbers and arbitrary dates.

Yes some people are opposing the acceptance of all refugees based on security concerns, and people are right to point to factual evidence that refutes this fear.

However, many people have raised the issue of whether accepting 25,000 refugees in 2 months is feasible and responsible. There are so many issues that need to be determined and several people have raised concerns about it already.

Brad Wall and Philippe Couillard have already said as much, and even Nenshi said the same thing (despite what the headlines said). Other security officials, embassy officials, UN officials, and other foreign officials have looked at the timeline and number with mass skepticism.

Of course we need to accept refugees. We always have and always will. But, the Liberals must realize their arbitrary target is most likely not feasible.

There is also more to the issue than security concerns in the short-term. Long-term, the appropriate programs need to be in place to ensure that the refugees are put into a position to succeed and flourish in a fully integrated economy and culture (oh no! the dreaded assimilation).

We need to ensure that radicalized muslims are not being brought into the country, but also that the plan will not FOSTER radicalization among the generations of refugees and immigrants alike. We are right to look at the Paris attacks and the passports of the killers to say, "hey, they are not refugees" but we need to take a deep look at "why" French and Belgium nationals are committing these attacks.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

One thing about the Paris attacks that has surprised me is how it exposed so many people I know as bigots, racists, xenophobes and fear mongers. Most of these people are just aquantences, so they are easy enough to cut out of my life. There are several others that will be tougher to deal with like my best friend's parents that I see at work weekly, a couple of my cousins, some colleagues and a few others I have to deal with semi regularly. Really interesting how one attack has 'awakened' so many a-holes.

My wife has deleted over 10 people off her FB because of things they've posted since the attacks.

It sometimes seems that if you express one iota of concern over the current government's plan, you are labeled racist, bigot & xenophobe. I have rarely come across people who are actually flat out racist and don't want any more brown people in Canada. But many people who are uninformed about the procedures and protocols.

Guess what, sometimes people are just plain scared. Has that crossed your mind? Not everyone is as well informed and they see the scary images from Paris, and images of hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring over European borders. People get scared and they don't want Paris 2.0 to happen in Canada. It doesn't make them racist.

I can't stand racism either. But I also can't stand all this holier than thou attitude that surfaces all the time too. There is room for genuine intellectual discussion without fricken labels being thrown around every time someone disagrees with you.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

See, I strongly disagree with this rationale as a general principle... but I could be persuaded to set that general principle aside in circumstances that directly involve a choice between fewer and more dead children. Which would apply here.

Yeah, I wouldn't apply the principle to everything. I would tend not to apply anything as a catchall general approach. I prefer dealing with these things case-by-case. What was good in the past, just isn't good enough at the moment. That doesn't mean that it won't be again in the future though.

I do think that this situation is dire enough that refugee cases need to be expedited. Back in the summer when dying of exposure was less likely, it seemed like there was more time. But with the weather changing and the strain on our European allies, we need to do more. Two months is literally and likely a matter of life and death for many of them. I am sure the environment for radicalization is greater under these dire circumstances than they would be in Canada being looked after.

I will admit, seeing the pictures of the kids sleeping outside got to me a little. Probably because I just recently became a parent, but it must be torture for the parents too who are helpless to make their kids comfortable right now.

[Looch City]

Just to clarify:

In September, Hollande said France will be accepting 24,000 over 2 years.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...many/71833332/

Now after the attacks, he's renewing his commitment and increasing it to 30,000 over 2 years.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=35274658

So the original commitment was over 2 years, it does make me wonder how our security checks differ from theirs.

[VictoryJuice]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Just to clarify:

In September, Hollande said France will be accepting 24,000 over 2 years.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...many/71833332/

Now after the attacks, he's renewing his commitment and increasing it to 30,000 over 2 years.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=35274658

So the original commitment was over 2 years, it does make me wonder how our security checks differ from theirs.

2 years sounds fine... but over a period of a couple months to accept 25,000 refugees?? I just don't understand that logic

[takinghits]

Reminder once again.

http://www.unhcr.org/5245a72e6.pdf

The Syria crisis began on March 15, 2011 as a peaceful protest against the
government of the Syrian Arab Republic. The conflict began to escalate in
mid-2012 and in 2013 the number of people fleeing to neighbouring countries
rose markedly. UNHCR teams have been helping the displaced within Syria
and in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Egypt.

The number of Syrian refugees passed the 2 million mark (in September 2013 compare to 230,000 in September 2012).

If you don't think the UNHCR and the Gov of Canada have not screened 25K worth of low risk people to come Canada in the past two years, there is no point having any discussions as the fear mongering has taken over critical thinking.

[Itse]

90-95% of people are clueless when it comes to big numbers of any kind.

The government could have said any number, and some people would have wanted them to be bigger and some smaller, essentially purely based on political affiliations and previous prejudices, and 0% based on facts.

This is a universal phenomenon mind you, not a jab at Canadians.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Yip certainly that should be the main take away from that story

I can high five you and say "Awesome!" every time instead if you like.

I DO think it's great that they're proceeding forward over the next 2 years to bring people in. And obviously that is a key take away. But come on man, I'm honestly asking in this forum thread because I don't know the difference in timing/procedures between the two countries and I thought that some people in here might know.

Hell, YOU posted a nice article from Peter Showler earlier that I read and THANKED ffs.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

One thing about the Paris attacks that has surprised me is how it exposed so many people I know as bigots, racists, xenophobes and fear mongers. Most of these people are just aquantences, so they are easy enough to cut out of my life. There are several others that will be tougher to deal with like my best friend's parents that I see at work weekly, a couple of my cousins, some colleagues and a few others I have to deal with semi regularly. Really interesting how one attack has 'awakened' so many a-holes.

My wife has deleted over 10 people off her FB because of things they've posted since the attacks.

Ha ha ha. You realize that it makes absolutely no sense to act hatefully against bigotry. You don't end racism with more racism; you end it by being loving and compassionate to the other side, respectfully trying to help un-skew their perspective because you care about them. Your stance of cutting them out of your life and calling them a-holes is in essence bigotry. In a lot of ways people like you scare me just as much as the bigots as your high level of intolerance paints you as an extremist.

I see that on Facebook at times what you describe from acquaintances and while I don't agree with them I simply choose not to read their stuff as their beliefs not coinciding with mine doesn't change our past relationship and I'm not going to classify them as a-holes for being scared or worried that we could be inviting terrorism into our own country.

[PsYcNeT]

I keep racists on my Facebook because I like the perspective. It also solidifies my superiority complex.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Ha ha ha. You realize that it makes absolutely no sense to act hatefully against bigotry. You don't end racism with more racism; you end it by being loving and compassionate to the other side, respectfully trying to help un-skew their perspective because you care about them. Your stance of cutting them out of your life and calling them a-holes is in essence bigotry. In a lot of ways people like you scare me just as much as the bigots as your high level of intolerance paints you as an extremist.

This is nonsense. Bigotry involves irrational hatred of someone on the basis of an inherent quality, like race. His response has to do with disliking their perspectives, ideas, philosophies - none of which are inherent or unchangeable. Being intolerant of intolerance is not hypocrisy.

That being said, I do agree that the better way is to listen to why they hold the views they hold and explain rationally why those views are wrong. If they still won't listen, at least you tried, and it's on Facebook, so other people can read it and perhaps be swayed. However, it's hard to fault people who just don't have the patience to want to morally improve people who are being dicks.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is nonsense. Bigotry involves irrational hatred of someone on the basis of an inherent quality, like race. His response has to do with disliking their perspectives. Being intolerant of intolerance is not hypocrisy.

That being said, I do agree that the better way is to listen to why they hold the views they hold and explain rationally why those views are wrong. If they still won't listen, at least you tried, and it's on Facebook, so other people can read it and perhaps be swayed. However, it's hard to fault people who just don't have the patience to want to morally improve people who are being dicks.

Explain how so. You can't bend the rules of intolerance to suit a certain viewpoint as you either are or you are not.

[Itse]

I thought this was pretty funny, but probably a bit much for the Funny thread.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Explain how so. You can't bend the rules of intolerance as you either are or you are not.

The rules are simple: intolerance based on inherent unchangeable, benign qualities like skin colour or sexual orientation is always bad (or I can't think of a situation where it's good). Intolerance of ideas is acceptable, and where that intolerance manifests itself as criticism or challenging viewpoints, that intolerance is always good.

That's the distinction.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Itse

90-95% of people are clueless when it comes to big numbers of any kind.

The government could have said any number, and some people would have wanted them to be bigger and some smaller, essentially purely based on political affiliations and previous prejudices, and 0% based on facts.

This is a universal phenomenon mind you, not a jab at Canadians.

There seems to be the notion flying around that the number and timeframe was completely arbitrary just because they (the people making those claims) weren't in the room when the numbers were settled on. I would be willing to bet that an even higher number was considered feasible, but the benchmark was lowered to make it easier. The Liberals need a win on this and they aren't going to make it difficult for themselves.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The rules are simple: intolerance based on inherent unchangeable, benign qualities like skin colour or sexual orientation is always bad (or I can't think of a situation where it's good). Intolerance of ideas is acceptable, and where that intolerance manifests itself as criticism or challenging viewpoints, that intolerance is always good.

That's the distinction.

Good effort but completely wrong as if you truly are intolerant you would have compassion for everyone including those that are intolerant. It's kind of why we are seeing a lot of people in today's society like Fire of the Phoenix which is a form of extremism.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Eh, f it. I tried.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

One thing about the Paris attacks that has surprised me is how it exposed so many people I know as bigots, racists, xenophobes and fear mongers. Most of these people are just aquantences, so they are easy enough to cut out of my life. There are several others that will be tougher to deal with like my best friend's parents that I see at work weekly, a couple of my cousins, some colleagues and a few others I have to deal with semi regularly. Really interesting how one attack has 'awakened' so many a-holes.

My wife has deleted over 10 people off her FB because of things they've posted since the attacks.

I've done the same. There are also a few people at my workplace who are getting close to crossing that line. Comments on FB and at work that could put their job in jeopardy.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Itse

90-95% of people are clueless when it comes to big numbers of any kind.

The government could have said any number, and some people would have wanted them to be bigger and some smaller, essentially purely based on political affiliations and previous prejudices, and 0% based on facts.

This is a universal phenomenon mind you, not a jab at Canadians.

Then don't state some arbitrary number to argue that you are doing more than the other guys.

It was a stupid election promise and, judging by the comments of many in the UN, foreign embassies, and Canadian officials, it is an ill-advised promise now.



Raj Sharma makes a very reasoned approach here.

[polak]

Godwin Warning

The people posting this anti-refugee rhetoric are similar to the anti-semitic twats from Hitlers third reich.