sweep the leg Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Canada's Syrian refugee plan limited to women, children and familiesUnaccompanied men not included because of ongoing security concerns Rosemary Barton, CBC News Posted: Nov 22, 2015 9:00 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 22, 2015 9:47 PM ET The federal government's much-anticipated Syrian refugee plan will limit those accepted into Canada to women, children and families only, CBC News has learned. Sources tell CBC News that to deal with some ongoing concerns around security, unaccompanied men seeking asylum will not be part of the program. The details of the plan will be announced Tuesday, but already Canadian officials have been working on the ground to process people. I'm fully on board with this idea. Imo, women and families with children should always be at the front of the line as refugees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted November 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 That's very inclusive of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I'm fully on board with this idea. Imo, women and families with children should always be at the front of the line as refugees. I agree totally too. I just find it hilarious that I've been told now for weeks that all of these refugees were totally screened and totally cool and the UN and the government know exactly what they were doing, and if I didn't just 100% agree with this and instead asked that the Government make sure that these refugees were screened properly that I was a racist, Islamaphobe, bigot, insert stupid label here, and now the Canadian government is actually admitting that maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't be allowing in single males. But why? Isn't it totally xenophobic to assume these single males will be strapping on self-detonation kits and reaching for their AK's after they "integrate" into our society? I don't see how it all reconciles with the politically correct psyche, but once again, it appears the politically correct feel-good lefty crowd has tied themselves into an ideological pretzel here. I know you guys won't admit it, but it's pretty cool to see. Bring on the 25,000 women and children, let's get em here ASAP and lickety split. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 On an off-topic note, my gf and sister went to one of the open-houses at a local Mosque and had a great time (aside from a bad allergic reaction to a Henna)SEE, SEE HOW INCLUSIVE I AM?!!? why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted November 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 On an off-topic note, my gf and sister went to one of the open-houses at a local Mosque and had a great time (aside from a bad allergic reaction to a Henna)SEE, SEE HOW INCLUSIVE I AM?!!? why A shot at me I guess. A lame attempt to remark that my comment about family going to a Mosque makes me more inclusive as if I am showing off. Ofcourse, that implies I need to prove it which I dont. I dont have a single issue whatsoever with Muslims so going to a Mosque isnt a pat on my back. Especially since I wasnt able to attend. But I guess it makes my gf inclusive. *rolls eyes*. I assume Sweep attended to then. That aside, I agree with you about this odd development concerning the single males. Its actually rather interesting that people asking for caution and full security vetting would be called bigots but the government painting all Syrian males with the same brush is perfectly fine. Is it not rather bigoted to assume all males might be a security risk? Either way, cant complain about a women & children first policy. I wonder what Trudeau's answer will be when asked why men arent allowed in? "Because it's 2015". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I'm fully on board with this idea. Imo, women and families with children should always be at the front of the line as refugees. I agree totally too. I just find it hilarious that I've been told now for weeks that all of these refugees were totally screened and totally cool and the UN and the government know exactly what they were doing, and if I didn't just 100% agree with this and instead asked that the Government make sure that these refugees were screened properly that I was a racist, Islamaphobe, bigot, insert stupid label here, and now the Canadian government is actually admitting that maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't be allowing in single males. But why? Isn't it totally xenophobic to assume these single males will be strapping on self-detonation kits after they "integrate" into our society? I don't see how it all reconciles with the politically correct psyche, but once again, it appears the politically correct feel-good lefty crowd has tied themselves into an ideological pretzel here. I know you guys won't admit it, but it's pretty cool to see. Bring on the 25,000 women and children, let's get em here ASAP and lickety split. Bold point 1: Quite possibly. My pov is that refugee families should always be first in line wherever they're coming from. Regardless of how they came to this decision, I support the end result. Bold point 2: Easy on the "you guys". I haven't suggested anybody is racist for wanting proper vetting of refugees. The only time I mentioned that word was in regards to the niqab issue. And that was racism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted November 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Actually to suggest anyone agreeing with Harper on the Niqab issue is racist is foolish, simplistic and ignorant. But perhaps best not to rehash that debate. Hopefully those coming here dont believe women are subservient to men. Anyone that thinks that is off the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I wonder what Trudeau's answer will be when asked why men arent allowed in? He won't be asked, because that's a "gotcha" question. The media party is Trudeau's lap-dog. Which is why he can make his whole government available to the media, because he knows they will just get soft-ball questions. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 The only time I mentioned that word was in regards to the niqab issue. And that was racism... how can you be racist against a religion? It's a question of religious freedom, not racism. And PCB, our board constitutional lawyer, said that what Harper was doing was constitutionally wrong. And he was right. But it wasn't racist. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Actually to suggest anyone agreeing with Harper on the Niqab issue is racist is foolish, simplistic and ignorant. But perhaps best not to rehash that debate. *Last word* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted November 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Actually to suggest anyone agreeing with Harper on the Niqab issue is racist is foolish, simplistic and ignorant. But perhaps best not to rehash that debate. *Last word* A much better "last word" than the factually incorrect one you tried to sneak in above. But if Sharia Law works for you, who am I to argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Actually to suggest anyone agreeing with Harper on the Niqab issue is racist is foolish, simplistic and ignorant. But perhaps best not to rehash that debate. *Last word* A much better "last word" than the factually incorrect one you tried to sneak in above. But if Sharia Law works for you, who am I to argue. Now you're rehashing. *last word* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted November 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Good to see the immaturity of the former thread has come here. KBF, say something insightful to save this from locking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCB Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 The only time I mentioned that word was in regards to the niqab issue. And that was racism... how can you be racist against a religion? It's a question of religious freedom, not racism. And PCB, our board constitutional lawyer, said that what Harper was doing was constitutionally wrong. And he was right. But it wasn't racist. I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I also don't think anyone has been tied into an "ideological pretzel." My issue was that is was not and is not fair to treat Syrian refugees as if they are categorically antithetical to our country and that there was a false dichotomy being created between having 25,000 refugees here this year and there not being proper security checks done. That hasn't been established, at all. Moreover, I'm not sure what to think about the no unaccompanied men policy, but I'm not definitively for it simply because Trudeau has announced it. If anyone is interested, the New York Times posted an article on the US security process for syrian refugees. I imagine Canada's is somewhat similar, but I'll guess we'll find out more tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I was trying to give you a compliment, but I see that was lost on you. Even though you couldn't see the forest for the trees on the niquab issue, you did point out the religious freedom aspect of the constitutional argument surrounding the niqab issue and thank you for that. Now you can continue babbling about false dichotomies while 25,000 women and children (no single men) are freed from camps and arrive on the shores of our great country, to hopefully lead law-abiding and peaceful lives. Merry Christmas to all of them (oops, that just slipped in there . The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Liver Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 The only time I mentioned that word was in regards to the niqab issue. And that was racism... how can you be racist against a religion? It's a question of religious freedom, not racism. And PCB, our board constitutional lawyer, said that what Harper was doing was constitutionally wrong. And he was right. But it wasn't racist. I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I also don't think anyone has been tied into an "ideological pretzel." My issue was that is was not and is not fair to treat Syrian refugees as if they are categorically antithetical to our country and that there was a false dichotomy being created between having 25,000 refugees here this year and there not being proper security checks done. That hasn't been established, at all. Moreover, I'm not sure what to think about the no unaccompanied men policy, but I'm not definitively for it simply because Trudeau has announced it. If anyone is interested, the New York Times posted an article on the US security process for syrian refugees. I imagine Canada's is somewhat similar, but I'll guess we'll find out more tomorrow. I believe men will be included as long as they are a members of a family and can verify there whereabouts over the last 3-4 years. If this means they've been accounted for in a UN sponsored refugee camp for 3-4 years, then good chance they haven't been of much use to ISIS. The notion that ISIS could at the last minute sneak inserts into line by stealth was merely a scare tactic and illogical at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 If this means they've been accounted for in a UN sponsored refugee camp for 3-4 years, then good chance they haven't been of much use to ISIS. The notion that ISIS could at the last minute sneak inserts into line by stealth was merely a scare tactic and illogical at best. Honestly, I don't see how you can come to these black and white conclusions, unless you are privy to counter-terrorism intelligence that no one else here is. The truth is, no one knows what terrorist groups have infiltrated these camps, and radicalized the people living in them. But I agree that we can't allow this fear to stop Canada from letting in refugees, and I support these efforts. There is no way to ever know fully if the people we are allowing in will one day decide to strap on a vest and self-detonate, but such is the way it is. Bring on the refugees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigg jay Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 If this means they've been accounted for in a UN sponsored refugee camp for 3-4 years, then good chance they haven't been of much use to ISIS. The notion that ISIS could at the last minute sneak inserts into line by stealth was merely a scare tactic and illogical at best. Honestly, I don't see how you can come to these black and white conclusions, unless you are privy to counter-terrorism intelligence that no one else here is. The truth is, no one knows what terrorist groups have infiltrated these camps, and radicalized the people living in them. But I agree that we can't allow this fear to stop Canada from letting in refugees, and I support these efforts. There is no way to ever know fully if the people we are allowing in will one day decide to strap on a vest and self-detonate, but such is the way it is. Bring on the refugees. Great point. This is why I feel like the refugee "threat" is being over blown & politicized somewhat because the terrorist threats are not limited to refugees. If the Paris & Ottawa incidents have shown anything, it's that immigrants and natural born citizens are being radicalized and are just as willing or likely to commit these crimes. kelownabomberfan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted November 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 If this means they've been accounted for in a UN sponsored refugee camp for 3-4 years, then good chance they haven't been of much use to ISIS. The notion that ISIS could at the last minute sneak inserts into line by stealth was merely a scare tactic and illogical at best. Honestly, I don't see how you can come to these black and white conclusions, unless you are privy to counter-terrorism intelligence that no one else here is. The truth is, no one knows what terrorist groups have infiltrated these camps, and radicalized the people living in them. But I agree that we can't allow this fear to stop Canada from letting in refugees, and I support these efforts. There is no way to ever know fully if the people we are allowing in will one day decide to strap on a vest and self-detonate, but such is the way it is. Bring on the refugees. Great point. This is why I feel like the refugee "threat" is being over blown & politicized somewhat because the terrorist threats are not limited to refugees. If the Paris & Ottawa incidents have shown anything, it's that immigrants and natural born citizens are being radicalized and are just as willing or likely to commit these crimes. That is very true. But I think it resonates more with the general public. If most terrorists are citizens and some terrorists are refugees, the citizens are already here, the refugees are not. True or not, that's an easy narrative for people to wrap their brains around. And rightly or wrongly there is the perception of "them" coming to get "us". As much as I want the plan to be "careful", when the US was rapidly having states turn against their own refugee plan, it did not sit well with me. Came across too knee-jerk, reactionary and political. My main issue with the refugee plan is the idea that wanting it to be done right was politicizing it but the idea itself wasnt. it surely was. I think Canada should be taking in refugees. But aside from the security aspect there are other concerns and they should be well thought out and not rushed simply for a new PM to appear a certain way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 If this means they've been accounted for in a UN sponsored refugee camp for 3-4 years, then good chance they haven't been of much use to ISIS. The notion that ISIS could at the last minute sneak inserts into line by stealth was merely a scare tactic and illogical at best. Honestly, I don't see how you can come to these black and white conclusions, unless you are privy to counter-terrorism intelligence that no one else here is. The truth is, no one knows what terrorist groups have infiltrated these camps, and radicalized the people living in them. But I agree that we can't allow this fear to stop Canada from letting in refugees, and I support these efforts. There is no way to ever know fully if the people we are allowing in will one day decide to strap on a vest and self-detonate, but such is the way it is. Bring on the refugees. Great point. This is why I feel like the refugee "threat" is being over blown & politicized somewhat because the terrorist threats are not limited to refugees. If the Paris & Ottawa incidents have shown anything, it's that immigrants and natural born citizens are being radicalized and are just as willing or likely to commit these crimes. I honestly think that anyone expecting these immigrants to just strap on vests and start self-detonating after arriving is putting too much pressure on them. They need to be "integrated" and live for a few years off of our welfare system, and cost our government a few million in social services first. Just kidding....as I said before, bring on the refugees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Actually to suggest anyone agreeing with Harper on the Niqab issue is racist is foolish, simplistic and ignorant. But perhaps best not to rehash that debate. Hopefully those coming here dont believe women are subservient to men. Anyone that thinks that is off the mark. Are we back to the dead cat issue again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted November 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Actually to suggest anyone agreeing with Harper on the Niqab issue is racist is foolish, simplistic and ignorant. But perhaps best not to rehash that debate. Hopefully those coming here dont believe women are subservient to men. Anyone that thinks that is off the mark. Are we back to the dead cat issue again? Nah, Sweep got the last word! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Actually to suggest anyone agreeing with Harper on the Niqab issue is racist is foolish, simplistic and ignorant. But perhaps best not to rehash that debate. Hopefully those coming here dont believe women are subservient to men. Anyone that thinks that is off the mark. Are we back to the dead cat issue again? Ask the guy who actually brought it up first, and inaccurately described it as "racist". The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I'd rather not. It's of no consequence one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted November 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I'd rather not. It's of no consequence one way or the other. Then why did you ask me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now