Canada scales back Syrian refugee program.No single men unless they are gay or tranny

[HitandRun Reggie]

...or accompanied by their parents. Not a horrible compromise between liberals and conservatives. When was the last time you saw a gay Muslim terrorist. :lol I wish Obama would consider doing the same if he feels he MUST put the nation's security at risk to help these people.




http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-will-miss-refugee-deadline-by-two-months-says-minister/article27463376/?service=mobile

[NumberSix]

Damn. What's up with the sexism Canada? I thought this was "2015"?

[knickballer]

What's stopping the men from claiming they're gay...?

Is customs gonna need definite proof? How would they know?

The migrants are already doing in that in Europe and alot of them are claiming they're gay, christian, atheist to claim some sort of asylum.

[warriorfan]

canadian white guys are so lame they are scared of getting their bitches stolen by arab refugees

let that sink in for a moment

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[BigNBAfan]

canadian white guys are so lame they are scared of getting their bitches stolen by arab refugees

let that sink in for a moment

:roll: :roll: :roll:
you mean raped?

[StephHamann]

What's stopping the men from claiming they're gay...?

Is customs gonna need definite proof? How would they know?



They are only labelled gay if they can put an anlplug in their asshole for 2 hours straight.

[Akrazotile]

This honestly cannot be real. It has to be some kind of rouse that the media mistakenly thought was legit and picked up on.

"Only LGBT men can come over?"


Is this honestly where the western world is now?? My goodness..

[NumberSix]

How is this any different than the "Christians only" approach?

[Dresta]

How is this any different than the "Christians only" approach?
Nah, that's discriminatory and 'un-American' - because it's un-American to provide refuge to a greatly persecuted minority rather than to the persecutory majority. Like it was un-American to accept Jews when they were being similarly persecuted, right?

Obama is such a tool. He actually knows so little about the country he is President of, its history, values, pretty much anything about it that wasn't contained in my GCSE 'US History' textbook.

[macmac]

How is this any different than the "Christians only" approach?

I think they believe it would be persecuting gay men to restrict them for seeking refuge for being single since they don't have a choice, but the whole thing sounds pretty absurd and naive.

Yes you are restricting legitimate refugees but it's because of national security fears, no point in being PC about it.

[TheMan]

I have a problem with so many of these "refugees" being young dudes of fighting age, their asses should be back home fighting against ISIS to get their country back. They should only let women and children in, IMO.

[NumberSix]

I have a problem with so many of these "refugees" being young dudes of fighting age, their asses should be back home fighting against ISIS to get their country back. They should only let women and children in, IMO.
Again, how is "women and children only" different from "Christians and yazidis only"?

[Nick Young]

So basically Canada is saying male lives are unimportant in comparison to female lives.

[macmac]

So basically Canada is saying male lives are unimportant in comparison to female lives.

No I'm pretty sure they're saying women are less proficient At being murderous suicidal terrorists

[imdaman99]

...or accompanied by their parents. Not a horrible compromise between liberals and conservatives. When was the last time you saw a gay Muslim terrorist. :lol I wish Obama would consider doing the same if he feels he MUST put the nation's security at risk to help these people.
http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17195642/big-graphic-final3-638x5823.jpg

[NumberSix]

No I'm pretty sure they're saying women are less proficient At being murderous suicidal terrorists
I thought these people were "refugees" not terrorists?

[Nick Young]

No I'm pretty sure they're saying women are less proficient At being murderous suicidal terrorists
Aren't they all peace loving refugees fleeing their war town homelands and seeking a safe life? Why is Canada saying that men aren't allowed to flee their wartorn homeland, but women and children are? Are male refugees not entitled to happy and peaceful lives?:confusedshrug:

[bluechox2]

Aren't they all peace loving refugees fleeing their war town homelands and seeking a safe life? Why is Canada saying that men aren't allowed to flee their wartorn homeland, but women and children are? Are male refugees not entitled to happy and peaceful lives?:confusedshrug:
most of the woman and children were left behind

[macmac]

I think it's pretty obvious after the french attacks that western countries have a different outlook on the possible danger regarding these refugees. Last think a new elected government wants is an attack in which they find a link to refugees they did a poor job screening.

So not sure what's the point behind your sarcastically surprised response.

[Nick Young]

Only men can be terrorists. Women and children can't.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/23/243E45F100000578-0-image-a-38_1419353135690.jpg
http://www.independent.mk/media/images/2014-06/photo_verybig_6221.jpg
http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./876/493/isiswomen.jpg
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00768/7de5baea-3d0b-11e4-_768846c.jpg

[32jazz]

I have a problem with so many of these "refugees" being young dudes of fighting age, their asses should be back home fighting against ISIS to get their country back. They should only let women and children in, IMO.


Ted Cruz & Marco Rubios Fathers should have been back in Cuba fighting as well then.

Hundreds of thousands of Cuban men have fled the Island & sit in Miami sipping Espressos cursing Fidel & Che & trying to get the US to do their dirty work( getting rid of Fidel).



Yet Cubans have privileged immigration status in the US.

[Akrazotile]

http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17195642/big-graphic-final3-638x5823.jpg


:biggums:

Three too many bro. This is OUR country. We dont need to put a single life at risk for these people.

We can take refugees and immigrants from countries that share our culture or are at least similar. Those who dont share our culture can take refuge in countries more similar to their own. Thats it and thats all.

[Akrazotile]

Ted Cruz & Marco Rubios Fathers should have been back in Cuba fighting as well then.

Hundreds of thousands of Cuban men have fled the Island & sit in Miami sipping Espressos cursing Fidel & Che & trying to get the US to do their dirty work( getting rid of Fidel).



Yet Cubans have privileged immigration status in the US.


The difference is Cubans don't bring a radically different religion and value system. There are few to no anti-US terrorists in their mix. It's a completely different situation.

This is our country and we don't have to pretend everyone outside it is the same.

[LJJ]

This is great. An initial screening process in the first refugee country and a focus on the most vulnerable, most at risk groups. They are not saying "no men", they are saying they only have place for a limited number and they are going to help the most vulnerable people first. That is good, very benevolent.

Much better than the system most European countries have.

I'm sure if there was a society where men were treated as livestock and vast numbers of them have been completely abandoned by their families, they would be first in line as refugees in Canada. But in Syria it happens to be the other way around.

[Akrazotile]

This is great. An initial screening process in the first refugee country and a focus on the most vulnerable, most at risk groups. They are not saying "no men", they are saying they only have place for a limited number and they are going to help the most vulnerable people first. That is good, very benevolent.

Much better than the system most European countries have.

I'm sure if there was a society where men were treated as livestock and vast numbers of them have been completely abandoned by their families, they would be first in line as refugees in Canada. But in Syria it happens to be the other way around.


Help me to understand something tho, bc I cant seem to get a clear answer on this.

If these refugees are peaceful people, fleeing oppressors and persecution... And the people oppressing them and persecuting them ALSO hate the West... Then rather than crowd our shores further with refugees, why dont we just immediately WIPE OUT whatever faction or governments that are causing these problems? If the answer is "omg casualties", arent all these conflicts and hostile regumes ALREADY producing casualities?? So whats really the difference? One approach keeps everything conflicted in perpetuity, the other eliminates the problem groups right away.

What is the deal here? What is the issue??

[NumberSix]

This is great. An initial screening process in the first refugee country and a focus on the most vulnerable, most at risk groups. They are not saying "no men", they are saying they only have place for a limited number and they are going to help the most vulnerable people first. That is good, very benevolent.

Much better than the system most European countries have.

I'm sure if there was a society where men were treated as livestock and vast numbers of them have been completely abandoned by their families, they would be first in line as refugees in Canada. But in Syria it happens to be the other way around.
Wouldn't the most vulnerable people be the persecuted minority groups like Christians and Yazidis?

[LJJ]

Wouldn't the most vulnerable people be the persecuted minority groups like Christians and Yazidis?

The Yazidis you hear about are from Iraq, I don't really know if they are part of the "Syrian refugee program". It's a different stream of refugees at least.

The Christians not really. The vast majority of the Syrian refugees come from the parts of Syria where conservative Sunni Islam reigns, that is where the rebels come from and where the rebels are strongest and the part of the country that is the most destroyed from the war. Non Sunni Muslims in Syria don't really live in these areas. The Christian communities are mostly embedded in "Assad" territory, where they are quite safe.


One thing to note at that is that if there is any chance of IS or the FSA rebels "winning" in Syria, we definitely will see a new mass exodus of Christian, minority and Shia refugees though.

[NumberSix]

The Yazidis you hear about are from Iraq, I don't really know if they are part of the "Syrian refugee program". It's a different stream of refugees at least.
So, only Syrian refugees matter and Iraqis can go fcuk themselves?

[Bosnian Sajo]

This honestly cannot be real. It has to be some kind of rouse that the media mistakenly thought was legit and picked up on.

"Only LGBT men can come over?"


Is this honestly where the western world is now?? My goodness..

It really is crazy, legit 5 years ago ***** were still outcasts...and now it seems like they are the dominant group who no one can make fun of and everyone is accepting of. Insane.

[LJJ]

So, only Syrian refugees matter and Iraqis can go fcuk themselves?

The article in the OP is about the Syrian refugee program.

"What about the Iraqis, Somalis, Ecuadorians, Filipinos?" I don't know dude. It's not what the article is about.

[NumberSix]

The article in the OP is about the Syrian refugee program.

"What about the Iraqis, Somalis, Ecuadorians, Filipinos?" I don't know dude. It's not what the article is about.
Only 20% of the "Syrian refugees" are Syrian.

[LJJ]

Only 20% of the "Syrian refugees" are Syrian.

I don't think it's 20% but for sure there are many fakes. That's why I praised Canada's overseas screening earlier. This is all very good.

It's super easy to check if someone is Syrian, but countries in Europe don't really do it.

[Jameerthefear]

Wait.. so only gay men can come over? What the ****? :roll:

[Akrazotile]

Help me to understand something tho, bc I cant seem to get a clear answer on this.

If these refugees are peaceful people, fleeing oppressors and persecution... And the people oppressing them and persecuting them ALSO hate the West... Then rather than crowd our shores further with refugees, why dont we just immediately WIPE OUT whatever faction or governments that are causing these problems? If the answer is "omg casualties", well arent all these conflicts and hostile regimes ALREADY producing casualities?? So whats really the difference? One approach keeps everything conflicted in perpetuity, the other eliminates the problem groups right away.

What is the deal here? What is the issue??


LJJ what about this? What are your thoughts brother?

[LJJ]

The problem with what you said is this:


If these refugees are peaceful people, fleeing oppressors and persecution...
These people are not fleeing oppression and persecution really. They are just fleeing the violence, destruction and complete stagnation of regular life.


And the people oppressing them and persecuting them ALSO hate the West...
The people on the other side of these refugees are actually the people who "like the West" the most in the country. You are not going to find people in the Assad camp who want an Islamic theocracy in Syria. They want the open, free, westernised place (in strict relative terms) that Syria already was before the insurgency.


The only way to really minimize the violence in Syria and thus minimize the stream of refugees was to prevent it from happening in the first place. The strategy of the USA and allies in the case of Syria has always been the exact opposite of this, the exact opposite of quenching the insurgency. For them this collateral damage is an expected and acceptable part of their strategy. Maybe they hoped a much bigger portion of the Syrian Army would revolt, I don't really know.

[Akrazotile]

The problem with what you said is this:


These people are not fleeing oppression and persecution really. They are just fleeing the violence, destruction and complete stagnation of regular life.


The people on the other side of these refugees are actually the people who "like the West" the most in the country. You are not going to find people in the Assad camp who want an Islamic theocracy in Syria. They want the open, free, westernised place (in strict relative terms) that Syria already was before the insurgency.


The only way to really minimize the violence in Syria and thus minimize the stream of refugees was to prevent it from happening in the first place. The strategy of the USA and allies in the case of Syria has always been the exact opposite of this, the exact opposite of quenching the insurgency. For them this collateral damage is an expected and acceptable part of their strategy. Maybe they hoped a much bigger portion of the Syrian Army would revolt, I don't really know.


So most of these refugees basically want to continue practicing strict islam/sharia, they just want to do it in a place with more money/benefits for them?

[LJJ]

So most of these refugees basically want to continue practicing strict islam/sharia, they just want to do it in a place with more money/benefits for them?

If you lived in a poor country and your home has been destroyed, your job is gone, there is violence around you and the future looks bleak... you would take an opportunity to move to a rich country too.

But yeah, if you thought these refugees are fleeing "conservative Islam", you were wrong about that. By and large the Syrian refugees are the Syrians who follow the more conservative interpretation.

[Akrazotile]

If you lived in a poor country and your home has been destroyed, your job is gone, there is violence around you and the future looks bleak... you would take an opportunity to move to a rich country too.

But yeah, if you thought these refugees are fleeing "conservative Islam", you were wrong about that. By and large the Syrian refugees are the Syrians who follow the more conservative interpretation.


But why should any western country take them in? It doesn't help their country and it doesn't help our country. It just causes division, potential conflict, and it's basically our government hand-picking foreign people to redistribute tax payer money to, our city buses, our hospital beds. These things are already stretched and underfunded as it is in our own countries.

Is there a GOOD reason the west should take them in? I'm not talking about any of this 'its teh right thing' hocus pocus. You're a secular guy, right? That's religious talk. I'm sure you know that. Everyones morals are different.

Is there any tangible benefit to the west to take this risk and extend its own resources to a randomly selected group of foreigners who dont wanna stick around their own country? And skew toward a strict adherence to an entirely different culture?