Tracy, when examining the figures, it's clear that the 56% represents 55 000 principal applicants and 78 500 who were either their spouses or children. Only principal applicants have to pass the point system. Spouses are never checked for language fluency or educational achievement. Looking at principal applicants, Canada had only 23% of its immigration numbers filled by economic migrants/skilled workers that year who passed the bar set by our immigration policy. Far too many of our new arrivals are not ready to enter the work force here or contribute to the economy.
The future of Canada through immigration
- Thread starter Canucker
- Start date
Caleb-Dain Matton said:
Well it was the 17th century, hindsight they say is 20/20, but looking at history from a contemporary view isn't fair either.
I don't have a problem anybody practicing their religion as they see fit, and of course, without fear. I have a problem however when "the state" provides religious groups rights not afforded every other individual, they are in fact, blending the "church and state" together.
An example was a recent Supreme Court decision in Canada (last year?) rgearding a student carrying a Kirpan. The state in this particular case, viewed the rights of the individual not based on Canada's Constitution, but rather from a religious point of view. If his/her religion required it, then there is no issue. In my view that is wrong, the courts effectively provided a right to a group, not afforded to anyone outside that group.
I think not said:
I remember that. As I recall it was fairly controversial at that time. I think the issue was that, basically the kirpan is a knife. So the issue was one of safety vs. religious rights. I'm up in the air on this one. I see an argument for both sides. If someone wanted to walk around with a huge cross all day, I say let em' as long as the cross doesn't poke anyone's eye out.
Re: RE: The future of Canada through immigration
They don't need to be ready to enter the workforce if one member of the family can support them. They contribute to the economy as consumers. My mother hasn't worked at a paying job since my brother was born because my dad worked and she stayed home with us kids. That doesn't mean she didn't contribute to the economy.
Unfortunately it's hard to tell the state of skilled immigrants families. We can't really expect skilled immigrants to come here and work the jobs we need them to work without bringing their spouses/children with them. I don't know how many of their dependents speak English/French, have job skills we need or even want to work. I suspect most of them are capable of supporting their families on their salary alone though since most of the foreigners I worked with were in jobs that paid fairly well (medicine and nursing).
tamarin said:
They don't need to be ready to enter the workforce if one member of the family can support them. They contribute to the economy as consumers. My mother hasn't worked at a paying job since my brother was born because my dad worked and she stayed home with us kids. That doesn't mean she didn't contribute to the economy.
Unfortunately it's hard to tell the state of skilled immigrants families. We can't really expect skilled immigrants to come here and work the jobs we need them to work without bringing their spouses/children with them. I don't know how many of their dependents speak English/French, have job skills we need or even want to work. I suspect most of them are capable of supporting their families on their salary alone though since most of the foreigners I worked with were in jobs that paid fairly well (medicine and nursing).
I think not said:
I believe part of the ruling suggested there had never been a recorded case of the Kirpan used violently in Canada, plus it had to be worn under the clothes and secured/sewn to make it practically unusable for a dangerous purpose. Those were conditions in the ruling. I don't think anyone has an issue with rights only being afforded to that group. That's the only group who would care. I'm sure every religion has an example of getting frills that aren't afforded to all of us. Do Pastors have to have liquor licenses to serve wine during communion or take the "serving it right" course? Maybe they do but I wouldn't sweat it too much if not.
Canadians don't generally get too caught up in absolutes. As long as things are reasonable to everyone involved the debate is ended.
Kreskin said:
The issue with the Kirpan has been going on in Canada since at least 1990 http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-69-97-794/life_society/religion_classroom/clip6, that I am aware of, I would venture to say Canadians get caught up in what you refer to as absolutes.
There is another word for affording rights to certain groups, and not society as a whole, it's called discrimination.
ITN, you could wear the dagger too if it's an absolute you want. I would rather he be allowed to follow his religion rather than be told he must instead celebrate Christmas and consider himself lucky and equal with the rest of us.
Is Christmas as a statutory holiday considered discrimination or another way certain groups are afforded more rights?
Kreskin said:
That's completely absurd and offensive! Canada was born on Christian values and the country has always been a Christian Country. If they get offended, I say send 'em back to their muslim/hindu/jewish/whatever they may be country. It's time to stop bending over backwards for people who have the privilege to even be here.
With that said. We'd better stop changing our ways to accomidate people who come here, especially the ones who hate western culture. That's not a long shot folks, it's a reality we have to face.
Canucker said:
Mr Canucker, my point is we seem to see all of the "special interest" stuff but not the kind that works to our advantage. Why would I give a rats butt if a guy carried a kirpan under his clothes and sewn to be unusable? The courts investigated and found no history of it being used for a violent purpose. I say to him "fill your boots" (or pants I guess) cuz it has nothing to do with me and it doesn't stop me from celebrating my own ceremonies.
Just a couple of thoughts
A few years ago a Seik I believe, wanted to wear a turban instead of the traditional stetson of the RCMP. Well, he finally won. We now have given kids the right to carry a dagger. What I want to ask, is how far would one of us get if we went to one of their countries, and asked for their laws and traditions to be changed? I suggest we'd get laughed out of the country.
A few years ago a Seik I believe, wanted to wear a turban instead of the traditional stetson of the RCMP. Well, he finally won. We now have given kids the right to carry a dagger. What I want to ask, is how far would one of us get if we went to one of their countries, and asked for their laws and traditions to be changed? I suggest we'd get laughed out of the country.
I just want to add that I've carried a knife most of my adult life and have never used it for illegal purposes..just feel safer with one on me.
#juan said:
I'd actually consider it a source of pride that Canada treats its minorities better than India.
This is coming from the daughter and sister of RCMP officers btw. I heard A LOT of bitching about this issue from my dad and his friends, though haven't heard much from my brother. Mind you, my dad's friends also remember the same bitching about loss of traditions when "split tails" were finally allowed into the RCMP. Generational differences I guess...
Kreskin said:
I think that's a good point. I've never heard any religious minorities complaining about us getting Xmas off when their holidays are ignored because they accept that things can be pretty much equal without being exactly the same.
I used to work Friday nights for a Jewish nurse and she was grateful for it, but she never expected any special treatment like never being scheduled to work those shifts (unlike a few of our "real" Christian nurses/mothers who thought they should never have to work a holiday, don't get me started on them). It was just something that I did because I knew it was important to her and she was always willing to help me out when I needed it too. I don't understand why we have to be so petty sometimes when it comes to religious matters like "He gets to carry a Kirpan and I don't! It isn't fair!". It sounds like my brother complaining when I got a something and he didn't. I can hear my mother's voice saying "Life isn't always exactly even, get over it".
Kreskin said:
No I cannot Kreskin (we're assuming I'm in Canada btw, right?) and that is the problem. The ruling of the court did not grant this right to all Canadian citizens, it granted the right to Sikhs and only to Sikhs to carry the Kirpan in school.
Kreskin said:
He can follow his religion, but he must do so within the conduct of Canadian society (and what I mean by conduct is as everybody else can)and nobody is forcing him to celebrate anything, it's a day off for Sikhs, for all practical purposes.
Kreskin said:
No because everybody gets the day off, it would be discriminatory if Christians only had the day off.
I think not said:
Who says you can't be Sikh? Put the whole garb on. The garb police won't be hunting you down in Canada.
Christmas is supposed to be a religious holiday. Only your religion is provided holidays. I would call that discriminatory under your definition of every gets treated the same. The excuse that everyone gets the day off so we're all even is nonsense. But rather than lose sleep over it I would rather the other religions do as they wish provided they don't harm me. Someone wearing a Kirpan doesn't bother me in the least. I guess I have a higher tolerance level for things that have nothing to do with you or me.
Kreskin said:
Nobody says I can't be Sikh. But that's exactly my point, you have to be Sikh for that right. You see no problem in this? Let me try and analyze my viewpiont a little better.
a) Sikh's have a right that all other Canadians do not.
b) The Supreme Court showed preference to a religious group.
Kreskin said:
No it is not nonsense. Jews get the day off on Jewish holidays, Muslims get days off during Ramadan. Can you take those days off? I think not. Christmas may be a religious holiday, but it still gives everybody the day off, how you choose to celebrate that day is nobody's business but your own. The same can be said for Boxing Day, I didn't hear you complain about that day.
Kreskin said:
That argument of yours that you are more tolerant is quite frankly, baloney. You have no idea who I am and I have no idea who you are, to suggest you are more tolerant without knowing each other is presumptious.
This isn't about harming anyone. Today it's the Kirpan, tomorrow it'll be something else. Your Supreme Court has set a precedence by injecting a religious belief into a "secular state" and providing that belief with rights you do not have. If you have no problem with it that doesn't mean others do not. Sitting idly by watching groups pass you by would be very disturbing from my point of view.
By the way Kreskin, do you know what they call groups that have more rights than the individual? They are referred to as First Class Citizens. You know what everybody else is called? Second Class Citizens.
The argument that you pose that a group has a right that "doesn't bother you" is not an argument. Today the Kirpan doesn't bother you and that's fine. Tomorrow a ruling will take place that will bother you.
Sikhs have a right to practise their religion, just like you and anyone else. If elements of the practise are cause for concern then of course it should be curbed. The causes for concern were brought in front of the Canadian Supreme Court. In this case it was argued that the kirpan could be stolen and become a weapon. The court claimed that was unwarranted speculation and that it was much easier to pull a pair of scissors out of a desk that it was to pull off someones clothes to get a kirpan. It was argued that it would ruin the morale at the school. Unwarranted speculation which has been proven wrong. The court suggested that if these students were exposed to this culture, in these circumstances, they might understand why the kirpan was carried. I don't believe the court made any blanket statement about everyone claiming to be Sikh, legitimate or not, carrying the kirpan. It based it's decision on this particular case and student. The court did not show preference to a religious group, it stopped a group of students from infringing on one persons right to practise their religion. With no logical reason to infringe on this students wish to carry a religious symbol in a secure manner, the kirpan it was allowed.
There is also no reason for others to be carrying a kirpan (usually in their front jean bullet-holed pants beside their rolled joints). If there is a good reason I'm sure it would be fine, but defending oneself in a drug transaction is not on the list. Nor is trying to be the cool ass dude in front of the chicks, the dickhead class clown, or not liking your ex-girlfriend's new beau.
There is also no reason for others to be carrying a kirpan (usually in their front jean bullet-holed pants beside their rolled joints). If there is a good reason I'm sure it would be fine, but defending oneself in a drug transaction is not on the list. Nor is trying to be the cool ass dude in front of the chicks, the dickhead class clown, or not liking your ex-girlfriend's new beau.