Yesterday, I attempted to bring some perspective to the numbers involved in the Liberal’s refugee rush plan.
Today, I’d like to try to put the timelines into perspective.
Under normal circumstances, how much time would it generally take to re-settle this number of refugees?
The process is usually spoken about in terms of months, not days, and certainly not weeks.
So why the rush?
When trying to understand why this is happening, and if you are tired of being accused of being heartless for having concerns, it’s important to remember that this whole thing began with a heartbreaking story from a false story-line which was fuelled by the Liberals, NDP and the media party who all wanted to use the false story against Harper in an election.
If you have felt there was a lot of emotional manipulation at play, here are some of the facts that show you’re right.
I talked with political and journalistic veteran Ray Heard about PM Justin Trudeau’s first trip to England after his election.
I thought Trudeau came across as a bit of a braggart.
Heard agreed and mocked the new PM’s bizarre assertion that his famous last name hadn’t helped him — that he’d in fact worked “two or three times harder” than the average Canadian would have to get elected.
Heard said Trudeau’s BBC interview was full of “cheap shots” at Stephen Harper, Donald Trump and even Rob Ford.
As well, Justin’s claim that he’d “left his opponents in the dust” isn’t supported by the voting results. It no doubt left the average British viewer unduly impressed with Trudeau’s margin of victory.
Its Black Friday, it’s Grey Cup weekend, how many of you have booked a sickie today to shop? We talk about the Public Service and their generous package of days off, Kathleen Wynne preaching about carbon footprints while she makes 2 return trips to Paris inside a week…..hypocrisy Liberal style at it’s best.
In a victory for common sense and sanity, the government is slowing down their plan to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada in a month, and now they’re also committing to doing the security screening overseas rather than waiting until they get to Canada.
That’s good, but are we really taking security screening seriously? I’m not sure we have this right yet.
We’ll screen for known terrorists or war criminals, but what about those that support the views, the goals and the tactics of ISIS? Will we screen for them?
Yes, I’m talking about screening for ideology whether some like it or not. When we’re importing a medium sized Canadian city into ours from a country and culture in a very dangerous part of the world, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to identify and exclude people that share the beliefs of ISIS jihadis.
Call me crazy, call me a bigot, but I don’t want people that believe in those things to come here.
I tried to ask Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale about this during his news conference but he and the other ministers didn’t leave much time for questions, only responding to less than half of the journalists that put their names forward.
I then put in a request to Goodale’s office, which included a link to the DOHA Institute poll with its disturbing findings. and asked to have the minister on camera or at least a reply to my question asking: “Will the government be vetting for ideology?”
We’re now ruled by people that stress their love for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so I wonder, where in the Charter does it say throw homosexuals off tall buildings? Where does it say kill Christians if they won’t submit to Islam? Where does it say, kill women who bring dishonour to their families by being raped through no fault of their own? What about the negative attitudes towards Israel and the United States and attitudes to various minority groups?
They responded by sending the text of Goodale’s remarks on collecting biometric data and screening the day before, along with this gem, “Throughout our history, the immigrants and refugees that have come to Canada have enriched our country and we want to offer these newest arrivals the means to integrate successfully into our society. With counselling, cultural orientation and other services, they will receive assistance to adapt to Canadian society as quickly as possible.”
None of that answers our questions. I’m glad t’s they’ll assist these people in adapting to Canadian society as quickly as possible because one way or another, they’re coming so I’d rather it be successful but why not screen on ideology in the first place?
We’ll keep pushing on this question until we get an acceptable answer.
By now you’ve heard the news of the partial victory for those calling for a pause on the Liberal’s refugee rush.
They listened to the tens of thousands of you who signed our petition and otherwise made it clear to the government that Canadians wanted them to take the time to make sure they were getting it right logistically, security-wise and health-wise.
But, the Liberals are still moving ahead with their plan for 10,000 by the end of the year and 15,000 by the end of February with McCallum saying they will reach that number and more through the rest of 2016.
Mark my words, there will be far more than 25,000 even though many Canadians said that was too much from one place like Syria.
What about who will be brought in? Although they hesitate to identify Christians specifically, they are saying they will put a priority on those who are most vulnerable – so Christians should be part of that mix.
Comprehending what 25,000 people looks like is tough to do without giving that number some perspective you can relate to.
Even using sports stadiums doesn’t give a real picture. People don’t live in sports stadiums so let’s relate it to cities and towns across the country.
A population of 25,000 would be bigger than Brockville, ON, bigger than Chestermere, AB, bigger than Owen Sound, ON; Fort Saskatchewan, AB; Pembroke, ON; Cowansville, QC; Yorkton, SK; Canmore, AB.
Bringing in 25,000 people at once, from one particular country is no small issue.
25,000 Syrian refugees is more than the entire take of refugees from around the world last year and would be the third biggest source of new residents to Canada, assuming we actually stop at 25,000 total.
We won’t. The first 10,000 are mostly private sponsorships and the next 15,000 are government refugees. Immigration minister John McCallum said they’ll bring in 25,000 government refugees, plus be open to even more private sponsorships.
Based on a couple of polls taken across Syria last summer, we’re potentially bringing in a large number of people who may support ISIS and be opposed to degrading ISIS. As we look to import 35,000 Syrians over the next year, maybe more, we are looking at bringing in between 4,500 and 7,700 ISIS supporters. They might not be terrorists, but they think ISIS has it right.
What would you think if you heard that a quarter of Brockville thought ISIS had it right? How safe would you feel knowing that more than one in five at a sold out Tiger Cats game believed in the barbaric ways and practices of ISIS?
Yet questions to the office of Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale on whether Canada will screen for ideology with an eye to excluding people who believe in Sharia Law, honour killings, etc., – well, questions on those issues are dismissed with platitudes about why what the government is doing is good.
It’s not good enough for me, it shouldn’t be good enough for you.
What’s with the Environment Minister asking high school kids for advice ahead of the climate change summit? Henry Burris can’t get Canadian Citizenship because playing professional football is a part time job? Listen here for more details. and happy football day
We’re learning more about the Liberals refugee rush, specifically the military’s role in the plan.
When news started spreading about soldiers receiving letters notifying them that they would be asked to vacate their residences to make room for refugees, the Liberals denied it. They’ve now confirmed that single unmarried soldiers awaiting deployment, will indeed need to move.
Soldiers are used to being asked to make sacrifices and we’ll have to wait and see how long they can expect this dislocation to last.
On thing we do know however is that many of those displaced soldiers will be deployed to assist the refugees but out of concern that they might find the sight of uniformed soldiers disturbing, they won’t be wearing uniforms or carrying sidearms.
This hearkens back to the 1990’s when the Liberals forbade soldiers from wearing uniforms in public.
I think this has less to do with the refugees and everything to do with how the Liberals view the military.