Islamic Terrorism in the West ( Mega thread)

[Colin Parkinson]

I certainly appreciate the issue. It's a two part problem for Canada. Part 1 is that Canada needs immigrants to continue to maintain its population and grow its economy and Part 2 is that the mass of immigrants to the country come from "non traditional" immigrant sources and who are bringing a diversity of culture to the country. IMHO, the primary way to prevent the type of situation that @Jarnhamar puts forward (and it concerns me too) is primarily through a strong constitutional mandate of secularism and prohibition against religious-based legislation/regulation. Secondly, there needs to be a better control on balancing the influx of immigrants so that not too large a group of one religious or cultural group becomes dominant.

I think we already have a wide swing in politics when you see some of the LPC policies many of which go too far but in their minds do not go far enough yet.


I spent eight years as an active bencher for the Law Society of Manitoba and think that I have a pretty good handle on how professional discipline works. IMHO, his governing body is nuts. I like Peterson. He's definitely a burr under the skin of many folks, but he asks the right questions. I disagree with some things he puts forward but find myself agreeing with many others. What's going on, IMHO, seems to be a witch hunt being driven by some very thin skinned folks. I'm not surprised the courts didn't intervene. The law is very strongly written giving administrative bodies wide discretion in how they handle their business.

OTOH, I've been following some of the changes in the various provinces human rights legislation as well as the professional codes for Manitoba and Ontario and am somewhat concerned that they too are tightening up things which IMHO are becoming prohibitive of folks who take unpopular positions. The problem with all of these things is that like any group, these professions consist of two groups of people. The first group is the mass of them - the average Joe's who just want to get on with their jobs and generally do not involve themselves in governance. The second group is the dangerous one. That's that small group of radicals that wants to change the world (in one direction or the other) and are more than happy to get involved and vocally stand for election for positions on these governing bodies. From time to time there are enough of them to cause radical change. It's been that way for a long time and most of the changes of the past have been acceptable but we've entered an age where the boundaries are being pushed more and more to favour certain niche special interest groups.

Here's the answer. Get involved at governance at all levels and take control. And, I say again, strong constitutional safeguards for secularism now.

Sounds like your typical Strata council......

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Eh, not quite…

Examining ‘grossly exaggerated’ claims about Venezuelan gang activity in a Colorado city

Authorities reject claims city has been ‘taken over’ by an international gang but police say gang is active in area

www.theglobeandmail.com

Mayor, Council Member Address Gang Concerns

Mayor Mike Coffman and Council Member Danielle Jurinsky provide a statement about the widely reported presence of Tren de Aragua in the region

www.auroragov.org

Gangs taking over residential buildings is nothing new sadly, it goes back a long way.

 

[CBH99]

Eh, not quite…

Examining ‘grossly exaggerated’ claims about Venezuelan gang activity in a Colorado city

Authorities reject claims city has been ‘taken over’ by an international gang but police say gang is active in area

www.theglobeandmail.com

Mayor, Council Member Address Gang Concerns

Mayor Mike Coffman and Council Member Danielle Jurinsky provide a statement about the widely reported presence of Tren de Aragua in the region

www.auroragov.org

I guess this will be a case of what information source one finds more credible.

Why would a real estate management company 'stage' a video of South American fighting aged males going door to door with guns in one of their apartment complexes tho?

Is covering up shoddy maintenance of an apartment complex with a staged armed gang takeover a really savvy business move?
"Sorry we haven't fixed that broken appliance of yours, but we haven't been able to get to you due to the armed checkpoints between our on site office and your unit...sorry for any inconvenience!"

The people who lived there and have since decided to move out seemed to be pretty convinced that the street gang presence was real...


...


As for the city's position on the matter (2nd link, I couldn't read the first due to pay wall) that's exactly the kind of thing I would expect a city representative to say.

It's the classic tactic of being dismissive about what another party has said by misrepresenting what they actually said.

He says the gang hasn't taken over the city, despite social media posts stating otherwise. And it's easy to see that the gang indeed has not taken over the city, which loops back to lend credibility to that statement...

But I HAVEN'T seen a single social media post stating the gang HAD taken over the city. Not one...

What I HAVE seen was the same as what we all saw. A group of young men, all armed with rifles, kicking in the doors of various apartments in an apartment complex as they staged a takeover of that complex.


So it's easy to be dismissive of 'social media posts' that never actually existed to reinforce the narrative one wants to project, and it's easy to be tricked into believing the official narrative when they dismiss some crackpot theory that's easy to prove isn't true (except the crackpot theory they are dismissing is intentionally being misrepresented)


...


These morons did so because they thought it would be a good business decision and a source of funding...

But what if their motive hadn't been to fund their gang activities, which requires 'their' tenants to be alive and working, and paying rent? What if they were jihadists, and their motive was just to eliminate a bunch of non-believers?

With the sheer volume of Venezuelan gang members AND asylum seekers arriving from places like Afghanistan, I don't think we can rule out the latter as being quite possible (if not probable...)

 

[OldSolduer]

WRT immigrants - Most I would say are just seeking shelter from a storm , but there could be the possibility of a few sleepers or leakers. These are ones you might not suspect - the single mother with two kids, the older couple. Its not always Fight age Males.

 

[RangerRay]

The fact that this was a Republican mayor repudiating these rumours during an election where everyone is turning the rhetoric to 11 leads me to believe him rather than stuff floating around the MAGAsphere mediaverse. If there was any validity to this stuff, he would be howling about it from the rooftops to help his side. Otherwise this sounds like stuff that happens in the dodgier parts of Winnipeg. Not acceptable and should be shut down by police PDQ, but not some nefarious plot either.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We shouldn't be bringing in anyone who hasn't got something substantial to offer Canada. Something like a professional licence. Doctors, nurses and tradesmen, etc. If you still don't speak an official language after three years, out you go. If you are not gainfully employed after three years, out you go. You have to have an up to date needle book to gain entry longer than six months. You need to come here with an already purchased return ticket back to where you left. You have to arrive here solvent enough to afford normal living expenses. No social benefits until you gain landed immigrant or citizenship status. Enough of bringing in uneducated, financially challenged families with three wives, ten kids and six inlaws or grandparents to live off of social services, just because they live in shitholes. If you have nothing to offer Canada, we have nothing to offer you.

 

[lenaitch]

We shouldn't be bringing in anyone who hasn't got something substantial to offer Canada. Something like a professional licence. Doctors, nurses and tradesmen, etc. If you still don't speak an official language after three years, out you go. If you are not gainfully employed after three years, out you go. You have to have an up to date needle book to gain entry longer than six months. You need to come here with an already purchased return ticket back to where you left. You have to arrive here solvent enough to afford normal living expenses. No social benefits until you gain landed immigrant or citizenship status. Enough of bringing in uneducated, financially challenged families with three wives, ten kids and six inlaws or grandparents to live off of social services, just because they live in shitholes. If you have nothing to offer Canada, we have nothing to offer you.

One problem with regulated professions, such as medicine, is the regulatory bodies offer limited capacity and a ton of roadblocks for foreign trained professionals to become certified. As far as I'm concerned it's as much about protecting turf and alma maters as it is about protecting the public. Also, speaking a language at the social or conversational level can be different than specialized professional fluency.

Can you even buy a return ticket that is open-ended for years in the future?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

One problem with regulated professions, such as medicine, is the regulatory bodies offer limited capacity and a ton of roadblocks for foreign trained professionals to become certified. As far as I'm concerned it's as much about protecting turf and alma maters as it is about protecting the public. Also, speaking a language at the social or conversational level can be different than specialized professional fluency.

Can you even buy a return ticket that is open-ended for years in the future?

It's one of Poliviere's platform points. To come up with a blue seal process for professionals.

 

[CBH99]

We shouldn't be bringing in anyone who hasn't got something substantial to offer Canada. Something like a professional licence. Doctors, nurses and tradesmen, etc. If you still don't speak an official language after three years, out you go. If you are not gainfully employed after three years, out you go. You have to have an up to date needle book to gain entry longer than six months. You need to come here with an already purchased return ticket back to where you left. You have to arrive here solvent enough to afford normal living expenses. No social benefits until you gain landed immigrant or citizenship status. Enough of bringing in uneducated, financially challenged families with three wives, ten kids and six inlaws or grandparents to live off of social services, just because they live in shitholes. If you have nothing to offer Canada, we have nothing to offer you.

For the most part, I agree with you. I'd even suggest that people should not be granted any social benefits until they are granted Permanent Residency status, or citizenship.

For those claiming legitimate refugee status, who are clearly fleeing a war or violence with their immediate family in tow - I don't mind helping them out while they are here, or helping them get established if here will be their new home.

I wouldn't give them the current $5100 a month a refugee in Canada can apply for/claim (if everything they can apply for is applied for/granted) - but I don't mind helping out people who ended up here without much intention, who are legitimately fleeing violence.

(Of all the money we waste in this country as a result of Trudeau & Freeland literally spending us into oblivion, I'd rather some of that money go to some recently arrived Ukranians than another 'buddy of the Liberals' receiving a few million hers & there with literally nothing to show for it...)

 

[lenaitch]

It's one of Poliviere's platform points. To come up with a blue seal process for professionals.

And I do wish him luck with that, given that they are all provincial jurisdiction, and Quebec will never allow any kind of accreditation, exam or test in other than French.

 

[Halifax Tar]

For the most part, I agree with you. I'd even suggest that people should not be granted any social benefits until they are granted Permanent Residency status, or citizenship.

I'd say we need a contribution threshold. For immigrants and born Canadians. Can't use social benefits until you have contributed for XX years. For born Canadians you can ride your parents contributions until you're 18 with a diminishing value until it's disappears at say 25.

The obvious exceptions being those Canadians born with physical or mental limitations that keep them from working.

 

[mariomike]

lenaitch:

One problem with regulated professions, such as medicine, is the regulatory bodies offer limited capacity and a ton of roadblocks for foreign trained professionals to become certified. As far as I'm concerned it's as much about protecting turf and alma maters as it is about protecting the public. Also, speaking a language at the social or conversational level can be different than specialized professional fluency.

And I do wish him luck with that, given that they are all provincial jurisdiction, and Quebec will never allow any kind of accreditation, exam or test in other than French.

Speaking only of the profession I was a member of,

Reciprocity from another province to Ontario is pretty daunting. As there is no shortage of candidates from Ontario colleges.

From another country. it may be theoretically possible - now. But, I never heard of it.

In the past, my employer did not even hire candidates from out of town.

 

[Remius]

We shouldn't be bringing in anyone who hasn't got something substantial to offer Canada. Something like a professional licence. Doctors, nurses and tradesmen, etc.

Pretty sure most of our immigration has this as a condition. Obviously family and refugees immigration is not included in that.

If you still don't speak an official language after three years, out you go.

Not sure how that could be legally enforced.

If you are not gainfully employed after three years, out you go.

What about children or family members of certain ages? I’d be curious to see what the actual rate of employable immigrants is in relation to their gainful employment status is.

You have to have an up to date needle book to gain entry longer than six months.

There are medical requirements already in place. I’m pretty sure vaccinations are not mandatory but that assessments are made on vaccine statuses. But, in Canada despite what some people might think, you aren’t forced to take vaccines. The consequences of that though is on them.

You need to come here with an already purchased return ticket back to where you left.

Interesting to see how that could be accomplished…

You have to arrive here solvent enough to afford normal living expenses.

That is fair. It’s why most immigrants do get sponsored by non government funds. It’s a pretty good system to ensure they have the means to support themselves.

No social benefits until you gain landed immigrant or citizenship status.

Most get permanent residency when the arrive and land. And is the requirement to access those things.

Enough of bringing in uneducated, financially challenged families with three wives, ten kids and six inlaws or grandparents to live off of social services, just because they live in shitholes. If you have nothing to offer Canada, we have nothing to offer you.

Are you speaking of refugees only? And what are the actual statistics on what you just claimed? Is that really the norm?

 

[Remius]

I'd say we need a contribution threshold. For immigrants and born Canadians. Can't use social benefits until you have contributed for XX years. For born Canadians you can ride your parents contributions until you're 18 with a diminishing value until it's disappears at say 25.

So at 25 they are off the parents and have to start contributing to access social benefits. What would be the number of years of contributions? So they would have to contribute but also would have to pay for services they already contribute to until a certain time in? No one would ever get elected under that.

The obvious exceptions being those Canadians born with physical or mental limitations that keep them from working.

 

[brihard]

I'd say we need a contribution threshold. For immigrants and born Canadians. Can't use social benefits until you have contributed for XX years. For born Canadians you can ride your parents contributions until you're 18 with a diminishing value until it's disappears at say 25.

The obvious exceptions being those Canadians born with physical or mental limitations that keep them from working.

Which social benefits, specifically, are you talking about? This is very vague to the point of being nearly meaningless.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So at 25 they are off the parents and have to start contributing to access social benefits. What would be the number of years of contributions? So they would have to contribute but also would have to pay for services they already contribute to until a certain time in? No one would ever get elected under that.

If they are working and contributing they get continued access.

Which social benefits, specifically, are you talking about? This is very vague to the point of being nearly meaningless.

Any and all from Health Care to Public Housing; and all points I'm between. You get nothing from the tax payer until you've met the threshold of contribution.

 

[dapaterson]

CPP is based on contributions over your working life, with some low earning years dropped. OAS eligibility is already tied to minimum residency in Canada. EI benefits (non MATA/PATA) are terminated when individuals leave the country for more than a couple weeks.

So rules like that?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Part 1 is that Canada needs immigrants to continue to maintain its population and grow its economy

Is this an undeniable truth where Canada would start collapsing in a couple years if we didn't? Or could this be a mantra that's just been repeated for the last 20 or 40 years?

I know zero about our economy but it appears that we spend a lot of it outside of Canada. Trudeau just got back from a 2 day trip to Laos where be promised over $100M to Asian countries for who knows what. Our economy might do better if we started keeping more money in Canada.

It looks like we spend a lot of money on setting up immigrants and taking care of Asylum seekers et el. I've read $6000 - $8000 per month/family in the case of the latter. Immigrants who settle in and start contributing to Canada are going to help the economy but I'd be curious to see the net gain vs net loss.

and Part 2 is that the mass of immigrants to the country come from "non traditional" immigrant sources and who are bringing a diversity of culture to the country.

Some countries are real shit holes and parts of their culture leaves a lot to be desired. Honour killings, Bacha bazi, female genital mutilation, Rape Culture, and so on.

I'm picking out the negative aspects here but that's only to argue diversity isn't always positive. There is a lot when it comes to Islamic culture that we'd be better off not welcoming.

 

[Remius]

Is this an undeniable truth where Canada would start collapsing in a couple years if we didn't? Or could this be a mantra that's just been repeated for the last 20 or 40 years?

Yes. Look at the crisis that some countries are facing with a shrinking working class, aging population and low birth rates but also have low immigration rates for various reasons.

I know zero about our economy but it appears that we spend a lot of it outside of Canada. Trudeau just got back from a 2 day trip to Laos where be promised over $100M to Asian countries for who knows what. Our economy might do better if we started keeping more money in Canada.

Possibly. But sometimes spending abroad can minimise problems at home, open doors and get seats at certain tables. Unless we decide to radically shift our diplomatic strategies it is still something done by various countries.

It looks like we spend a lot of money on setting up immigrants and taking care of Asylum seekers et el. I've read $6000 - $8000 per month/family in the case of the latter. Immigrants who settle in and start contributing to Canada are going to help the economy but I'd be curious to see the net gain vs net loss.

I bet the net gain is more. Most immigrants and a lot of refugees are sponsored and provided for by non government entities,

Some countries are real shit holes and parts of their culture leaves a lot to be desired. Honour killings, Bacha bazi, female genital mutilation, Rape Culture, and so on.

I'm picking out the negative aspects here but that's only to argue diversity isn't always positive. There is a lot when it comes to Islamic culture that we'd be better off not welcoming.

And I would argue that most are trying to get away from those negative cultural things. Getting the balance right is no easy task. I have yet to have a negative encounter with anyone not born here. I currently have 5 people working with me directly that are all from various places and cultural areas that some might think are incompatible yet we make it work without any animosity or conflicts.

That doesn’t count the many I have worked with over the years either.

 

[FJAG]

Is this an undeniable truth where Canada would start collapsing in a couple years if we didn't? Or could this be a mantra that's just been repeated for the last 20 or 40 years?

I guess that comes from what approach one takes. I see it from the point of view that Canada's birth rate has been declining and we are also at the point where the baby-boomer generation are reaching retirement age. That means the overall labour pool is contracting which has a detrimental effect on the economy. (He snidely comments that we could probably get by for a year or two if the civil service was contracted and released a few hundred thousand government workers into the general labour pool).

It actually hasn't been going on as long as twenty or forty years as the situations were different then and a much lower immigration rate was sufficient. Here's a short RBC article that discusses some of the issues and problems with the current immigration policies vis a vis future labour demands. It's not the number of immigrants but their make-up that's the real issue.

I think @Remius has answered the other points.