The Next Conservative Leader

[Jarnhamar]

For some weird, unidentifiable reason, I doubt those groups are the target of this anti Canadian values talk.

Racism. That's why.  Nothing to do with the gratuitous amounts of violence being pumped out in the name of Islam everybday,  just  white Conservatives being racist that's all.

 

[Altair]

Racism. That's why.  Nothing to do with the gratuitous amounts of violence being pumped out in the name of Islam everybday,  just  white Conservatives being racist that's all.

I don't think that's it, but if you believe that I feel bad for you.

 

[Altair]

Maybe, but if they answer the questions (of the day, anyway) incorrectly (no, I don't support same-sex marriage -- yes, my woman should be covered) = here's your hat, what's your hurry?

Hahaha,  if that's the case I say go for it.

If other intolerant religious groups get sacked up in this dragnet all the better

I change my mind, I'm all for this. Go kellie.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Yup, but that must be a strawman
32,658 people killed by terrorists around the world in 2014

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322308/Number-people-killed-terrorists-worldwide-soars-80-just-year.html#ixzz4K3mBA8Uq

Almost 33,000 in one year. That's the reported ones and only one years statistics. If you think that's insignificant, I'll have to agree with Puckchaser this time.  There's not a lot we can do about medical diseases, industrial accidents, etc. However, stopping the slaughter of, mostly innocents, is something we can do something about. The perpetrators need killing. And that goes for wherever they are found.

: Stating you're being called a racist as an excuse to not have to justify your argument is foolish and is a strawman. I never said you were racist, I said I disagreed with you. I stated that the request to add more anti-values screening was thinly veiled xenophobia, as I believe it is since it serves no actual purpose but plays to people's base fears.

Since 2001, there have been 3380 US citizens killed by terrorists, including the 2990 killed on 9/11. The vast majority of the deaths, even stated in your article, are from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Nigeria, which makes sense since these nations are in open conflict against terrorist groups. Your numbers make no sense in a Canadian context, unless you are trying to demonstrate that there are many victims of terrorism who may want to come to Canada. In which case, we should continue to vet those people (since we do already) and allow entry to those who meet our standards (which we already do). Fun fact, if you read the two links there have been way more deaths attributed to good only fashion shooting deaths and toddlers. Throwing "terrorist" out is just a way of playing to peoples fears for your own gain (a la Donald Trump).

In the attached link, you'll see that terrorist attacks in Europe and the US are less frequent than in 1979. The majority of those attacks are from non-muslim groups, including the "Earth Liberation Front" which accounts for most of the attacks in Florida.

That is all to say that your number, while accurate, is disingenuous for Canada to say the least.

http://qz.com/558597/charted-terror-attacks-in-western-europe-from-the-1970s-to-now/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/16/eight-facts-about-terrorism-in-the-united-states

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

North America is by far the most secure area of the nation.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Looks like you are doing the name calling, but It doesn't bother me as long as you smile when you say it.  [

The whole world is racist. It has been forever.  The extent of racism is the issue.  Not one single person is without some bias.  It is how it is dealt with both individually and as a group that makes the difference.

I've been around a bit too and observed human nature at its best and worst.  Am I a tad emotional about this issue? You bet I am.  It upsets me considerably to see our Country being dragged down in to a cesspool due to people not speaking their mind or using any common sense.  It upsets me to see politicians of all stripes act dishonourably and suck in all sorts of useful idiots.

I have first hand experience with several of your 'enclaves' around the world and in Canada. I will take Canadian 'enclaves' any day before what we see now around the world.

You are a soldier. Stand up and help defend your country from obvious harmful individuals and / or cultural practises.

Name calling... sure. You said I was a radical islam apologist, but I'm the name caller. Back to grown up matters...

As for, "It upsets me considerably to see our Country being dragged down in to a cesspool due to people not speaking their mind or using any common sense.  It upsets me to see politicians of all stripes act dishonourably and suck in all sorts of useful idiots." This is why I am beginning to reconsider my lifelong record of voting conservative. Adding a "Canadian values list" is counter productive, gives ammo for actual terrorists to use, and doesn't even provide a useful defence against anyone coming into the country. If they want in they're just going to answer the questions how the system wants them to be answered. We have immigration and legal precedents and procedures in place to deal with all of these agendas.

Finally, your last bit. I'm actually deploying to Op IMPACT (not Kuwait) in the very very near future so lets get off of soap boxes. And I believe I am defending my country from harmful individuals and practices... I don't believe that spreading fear and placing additional restrictions on certain religions or people (lets be honest- this is aimed at muslims, clear and simple) is in line with Canadian values, and I believe that people like Leitsch put Canada at more risk since they fuel hate for Canada in the muslim world. The fact that it was brought up also seems to indicate that Mrs Leitsch doesn't actually understand how the immigration system works, since we already screen.

Some muslims are extremists and need to be screened out. The vast majority aren't. We have systems already in place for that, which, based on the fact that we've had no terrorist attacks from people born outside of Canada and rare instances of "barbaric cultural practices", would seem to be effective. Adding another pointless beaurocratic layer is stupid, full stop.

 

[PuckChaser]

Like Roman Catholics opposing same-sex marriage or Orthodox Jews insisting on their women being covered wanting to move to Canada?

I don't mind the hijab, as long as the face is uncovered. By that logic, we should boot out the Amish. RCs oppose, but don't advocate stoning LGBT people. If they did, they shouldn't be welcome in Canada either.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I don't mind the hijab, as long as the face is uncovered. By that logic, we should boot out the Amish. RCs oppose, but don't advocate stoning LGBT people. If they did, they shouldn't be welcome in Canada either.

But we'd be asking about values (beliefs), not potential behaviour - see how messy it gets?

Just saying that asking these kinds of questions about what people think could pull in all kinds of collateral damage we don't see right away.

 

[CougarKing]

Ouch. I hope this isn't final.

Canadian Press

Peter MacKay not running for Conservative Party leader
Canadian Press

1 hour ago

OTTAWA - Former cabinet minister Peter MacKay says he will not run for the leadership of the Conservative party.

``After much soul-searching, advice from trusted friends and weighing of the impact on my young family, I have decided not to seek the leadership of the party,'' the former cabinet minister from Nova Scotia said in a statement Monday.

``My family is my No. 1 priority,'' said MacKay, who has two small children, Kian, 3 and Valentia, 11 months, with his wife, human rights activist Nazanin Afshin-Jam.

``While the opportunity is exciting and the reward compelling, I feel it would be asking too much of them to jump back into politics right now and the heat of a leadership campaign with all that it entails,'' said MacKay, 50, who did not seek re-election in 2015 and is now a partner at a Toronto law firm.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[PuckChaser]

But we'd be asking about values (beliefs), not potential behaviour - see how messy it gets?

Just saying that asking these kinds of questions about what people think could pull in all kinds of collateral damage we don't see right away.

We've got about 10 pages on a simple survey question, with people assuming all sorts of things. I think we should wait and let Leitch explain how she wants to do go about this, instead of trotting out the racism card (definitely not directed at you). There's a million ways to skin this, some are wrong, others could make this a better country to live in for our kids.

We have psychologists weeding out unstable people from LEO/CAF jobs using personality profiles. Is that racist, or making sure the right people are compatible with the environment they want to go to?

 

[The Bread Guy]

We've got about 10 pages on a simple survey question, with people assuming all sorts of things. I think we should wait and let Leitch explain how she wants to do go about this, instead of trotting out the racism card (definitely not directed at you). There's a million ways to skin this, some are wrong, others could make this a better country to live in for our kids.

Even though all we have so far is what's been written down, fair enough.  I do look forward to hearing more from Leitch on this, even if I'm still leery about the principle of governments screening folks based on what they think/believe.

We have psychologists weeding out unstable people from LEO/CAF jobs using personality profiles. Is that racist, or making sure the right people are compatible with the environment they want to go to?

Maybe THAT's more of something closer to what might be considered, given that (with some caveats) psych/personality testing may spot instability, which may be more worrisome than beliefs.  Then again, we'd also have to be careful with that, given psychiatry's history with some governments.

 

[PuckChaser]

Maybe THAT's more of something closer to what might be considered, given that (with some caveats) psych/personality testing may spot instability, which may be more worrisome than beliefs.  Then again, we'd also have to be careful with that, given psychiatry's history with some governments.

Could use this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory

While painful to complete, various agencies use it to weed out unstable people. Non-popular beliefs aren't a bad thing if that individual doesn't hold violent or oppressive personality traits. No test is perfect, but if it keeps one terrorist/child abuser/spousal abuser out of the country (or from doing harm here), then do we not owe it to our population to do all we can to protect them?

 

[jollyjacktar]

One of the retired Chiefs at work has a nephew at St Jean.  Lots of headaches with the quality of recruits coming through.  One of them even has Tourette's, that must be interesting to say the least.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Non-popular beliefs aren't a bad thing if that individual doesn't hold violent or oppressive personality traits ...

If you disagree with x, but not f**k people over or break the law because they're x, maybe, indeed.

... if it keeps one terrorist/child abuser/spousal abuser out of the country (or from doing harm here), then do we not owe it to our population to do all we can to protect them?

Careful - some folks might not like that approach for the same reason they don't like it for gun control  ;D

 

[George Wallace]

One of the retired Chiefs at work has a nephew at St Jean.  Lots of headaches with the quality of recruits coming through.  One of them even has Tourette's, that must be interesting to say the least.

Well.....It will not be the first time that we have had pers who have had "speech impediments"......and some of them holding high ranking positions....... [

 

[PuckChaser]

If you disagree with x, but not f**k people over or break the law because they're x, maybe, indeed.Careful - some folks might not like that approach for the same reason they don't like it for gun control  ;D

Could apply the same thing to alcohol, cars, skydiving...

 

[Jed]

Name calling... sure. You said I was a radical islam apologist, but I'm the name caller. Back to grown up matters...

As for, "It upsets me considerably to see our Country being dragged down in to a cesspool due to people not speaking their mind or using any common sense.  It upsets me to see politicians of all stripes act dishonourably and suck in all sorts of useful idiots." This is why I am beginning to reconsider my lifelong record of voting conservative. Adding a "Canadian values list" is counter productive, gives ammo for actual terrorists to use, and doesn't even provide a useful defence against anyone coming into the country. If they want in they're just going to answer the questions how the system wants them to be answered. We have immigration and legal precedents and procedures in place to deal with all of these agendas.

Finally, your last bit. I'm actually deploying to Op IMPACT (not Kuwait) in the very very near future so lets get off of soap boxes. And I believe I am defending my country from harmful individuals and practices... I don't believe that spreading fear and placing additional restrictions on certain religions or people (lets be honest- this is aimed at muslims, clear and simple) is in line with Canadian values, and I believe that people like Leitsch put Canada at more risk since they fuel hate for Canada in the muslim world. The fact that it was brought up also seems to indicate that Mrs Leitsch doesn't actually understand how the immigration system works, since we already screen.

Some muslims are extremists and need to be screened out. The vast majority aren't. We have systems already in place for that, which, based on the fact that we've had no terrorist attacks from people born outside of Canada and rare instances of "barbaric cultural practices", would seem to be effective. Adding another pointless beaurocratic layer is stupid, full stop.

Point 1. I did not say you were a radical Islam apologist.  I said " You were sounding like an extremist Muslim apologist"  There is a difference.  I meant no offence by my words, so sorry about that.  I am tired of this axis of approach that seems to come from every Main Stream Media outlet and left leaning journalist.

Point 2.  I disagree with this approach. I view it as appeasement; which I vehemently disagree with.

Point 3. I have no axe to grind with other peoples cultures and religions until it starts to impact people I care about. I have many  Muslim friends, and Jewish friends, and Atheist friends.  I feel that I try to be open and honest with all but I don't generally  pick verbal fights. It is easier when you have mutual trust and respect built up over the years.

Point 4.  Not much additional bureaucracy is required to state your Country's case to incoming peoples and at least it gives incoming folks fair warning.  Sure they most likely will just say what they want you to hear but at least someone would be able to remind them  of what is right and wrong if and when things go pear shaped.


Good for you going on a deployment, I'm sure it will be good for you and those you work with.

 

[Good2Golf]

As much as I'd like to see MacKay in 2019, he's smart to consider the next round.  I'd be paying attention to my young family too.  Good on him for putting them first at such a critical point in their life.

G2G

 

[Lightguns]

As much as I'd like to see MacKay in 2019, he's smart to consider the next round.  I'd be paying attention to my young family too.  Good on him for putting them first at such a critical point in their life.

G2G

My thinking is that he feels the cons cannot win in 2019 and he is waiting for the sure win. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

My thinking is that he feels the cons cannot win in 2019 and he is waiting for the sure win.

Agreed I would say he runs in the election after 2015.

 

[Good2Golf]

My thinking is that he feels the cons cannot win in 2019 and he is waiting for the sure win.

That is probably also true, and pragmatically (and as a rugby player thinking that maybe the LPC for now is like the All Blacks), it makes sense, but I do believe that, that notwithstanding, he very much wants to have his privacy with his family for the next 4-6 years.  :nod: