Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277
The constitution and associated laws are implements to evaluate the character of laws and to potentially convict individuals on the basis of those laws for violating those principals.
When we are discussing who we admit into the country, that is a very different set of rules than the rules we use to put people behind bars. Several questions become relevant that aren't relevant in the case of say, letting someone into your retail store. What is your nationality? What is your education? Are you married or single? All these questions become relevant and the basis of a highly discriminatory immigration process that would likely not pass constitutional muster if you applied those same set of rules for who can enter your store.
It is true there is no fundamental "test of the mind", but it is also true we aren't trying to convict anyone based on what they think. We are simply trying to maintain a consistency in the values of the people that enter Canada so they subsequently uphold the values enshrined in our Charter of Rights.
It is relatively easy to come up with a sample question as well. For example, how about this one:
If you are married, do you recognize that your spouse has equal freedoms and rights as you?
A simple question, and a "no" answer would directly correlate with this individual not respecting our charter of rights.
I don't see anything wrong with a simple test along these lines that does little more than reframe the Charter of Rights as a set of questions, of which correct answers are nothing more than recognizing the basic rights and freedoms that Canada offers, and that need to be respected as a Canadian citizen.
How does it respect the Charter of Rights if Canada admits as immigrants individuals who clearly do not believe in such fundamental concepts of equal rights and freedoms for all, and these people subsequently spread their own philosophies, and such ideas gain traction in a way within Canadian society?
Of course, all of this is just a very roundabout way of isolating for a very specific problem with a very specific culture within a very specific religious movement. If we are being honest and calling a spade a spade, we would say that we as a society are uncomfortable with the widespread subjugation and oppression of women in Islamic society, and want to ensure that if women from these cultures come to Canada, they are protected, free, and not oppressed in a way that is wholly inconsistent with the Charter of Rights.
Such is not an extreme goal, and should not be painted in such a way.
I think if the above is truly the issue, and at the root is an altruistic goal of actually helping these women versus selfishly protecting our society, we should also ask ourselves a related question of whether preventing these women from entering Canadian society will be doing more harm than good, or more potential good than harm. How would it help to deny these individuals the right to enter a free and open society in the first place? How likely is it that the oppressive attitudes that are arriving will rub off on Canadian society versus the likelihood that subsequent generations of this family will have Canadian values rub off on them in the course of partaking in our society?
No easy answers to any of this, but certainly it is a discussion worth having and would benefit greatly from avoiding the common pitfalls of political discourse which involve painting every participant as an extremist and putting them into extremist boxes so they can be safely ignored in lieu of a safe unchallenged protected world view free of nuances such as the need to defend potentially indefensible positions.
Additionally I don't think people should get too wrapped up in the need to have "perfect" solutions to these problems. As if the fact someone can cheat their way through such a test is a sufficient reason to throw it out entirely. These are complex problems, and it is and has always been a matter of stumbling our way through with amendments and updates to make things "better" (read: not perfect). See: recent updates to the temporary foreign worker program, and the axing of the investor immigration program. If we were to throw out every idea simply because it wasn't perfect we would never have an immigration program to start with.
|
The constitution is not an 'implement' it is the highest law, the law all other laws (including procedures put into effect by laws) must be in agreement with. It is not a tool of evaluation, it is not just some framework of principles, it is the nation's most basic principles WRITTEN INTO THE LAW OF THE LAND.
The rules we use to decide who we let into the country are NOT of some different kind. They are procedures whose validity/legality are whole dependent upon the laws written and passed from which they were determined in the first place. When you note that "would likely not pass constitutional muster" you can only be talking about what I just laid out.
So, you say: "It is true there is no fundamental "test of the mind", but it is also true we aren't trying to convict anyone based on what they think. We are simply trying to maintain a consistency in the values of the people that enter Canada so they subsequently uphold the values enshrined in our Charter of Rights."
Yes, there is no test of the mind. Yes, I know what you would like to be doing, but you would need a fully formed law to allow you to ask whatever questions you would like.
And: "It is relatively easy to come up with a sample question as well. For example, how about this one:
If you are married, do you recognize that your spouse has equal freedoms and rights as you?
A simple question, and a "no" answer would directly correlate with this individual not respecting our charter of rights."
Its not so easy. This falls to pieces simply because you have no way of knowing the truthfulness of the answer. (And, we're back to mind reading.)
So, "I don't see anything wrong with a simple test along these lines . . . " A simple test. Don't you see there is no such thing. And your first sentences were all wrong to imply "a simple test" is somehow not really like a law, its a different kind of thing, part of "a very different set of rules," like our border authorities can just operate however without legal foundation. I will repeat once more: sets of rules don't exist in some manual of rules somewhere on a shelf with no legal connection. Every single one of them is the product of a full-fledged law, just as is the power delegated to the border guard in the first place. Our country takes no action on any topic except through laws. And every single law (1000 pages or 2 paragraphs) must be in accord with the laws of higher order, all the way up to the constitution., Every single one of them.
Let's look at the "simple test" again. You say: "A simple question, and a "no" answer would directly correlate with this individual not respecting our charter of rights." Sounds good, except when the bad guy lies and says 'yes.' This test has no way to actually function as intended. It seems, you have no trouble with an ineffective test that is easily manipulated and has no way of proving itself to actually be legitimate. What a country we would have if we allowed such testing gateways for all sorts of things. Authoritarian governments have always used such tools - they still didn't work, but they could be wielded to keep the population under constant threat.A simple question, and a "no" answer would directly correlate with this individual not respecting our charter of rights.
I will agree that it is a discussion worth happening, but inform yourself and ask questions about what you think is right. You cannot just put the law aside and think there is some grey area which would allow you to ask people their mental state and then make things fuzzy again so you can assume you are getting valid information from them.
I also agree that painting people as extremist in order to write of what they say is a dumb approach. A discussion of ideas must be open. That said, once stupid ideas are exposed, there is no need to let them re-enter the discourse time and again and pull it off topic.
Having no need for perfect solutions is highly questionable. There never are any, but if you are not aiming (Which you can do pragmatical) at the best possible solution/idea/understanding, then what are you aiming at? "As if the fact someone can cheat their way through such a test is a sufficient reason to throw it out entirely." This is ridiculous. Its not that one or two can cheat their way through it, its that anyone can at any =time . . . which does mean you should throw the idea out entirely. Come on, such a test is not just flawed and weak, its useless . . . who wouldn't throw it out.
These are complex problems, so why are you promoting an incredibly simplistic test/solution? And, I say to you: don't throw out the idea: come up with a plausible test that would work 90% of the time, and would not violate any of our laws or international agreements, and that you could implement such that innocent people would not be caught illegitimately. See, the world is complicated, but you can't avoid that by saying its too complicated and we should be able to react to very serious matters without taking the complication into account. Complications, I'm afraid, are reality, like it or not.
Now, I know this isn't a professional lawyer's forum: so all I really ask is:
please, someone come up with a test of this that is in any way plausible, I mean really plausible: defend-able, rational, effective, something a border guard could really use, something that determines an immigrants true views . . and not just some scarecrow that does no more than point out where some of our frustrations lie.
Prev
Linear Mode
