Kellie Leitch's "Canadian Values" Vetting - And Why It Won't Work

Re: My plan to screen for Canadian Values

Dear Vladdi, I am writing to you today because I want to talk about my plan to screen all immigrants, refugees, and visitors to Canada for Canadian values with face-to-face interviews with a trained immigration officer. Over the last several months I have been travelling across this country, speaking to thousands of Canadians, some who are members of the Conservative Party and some who are not. Everywhere I go, I hear the same message: Canadians are proud of their country. They are proud of our unified identity and they are proud of shared, historic values. It is an idea that my colleague Michael Chong has also promoted in a column published in The Globe and Mail in 2004. In that column he wrote that, "As Canada becomes increasingly diverse and racially mixed we must…start articulating our identity in pan-Canadian terms." That Canadian identity is grounded in the values of hard work, generosity, freedom, tolerance, equality of individuals, and equality of opportunity. These are civic values, not ethnic ones, and they mean that all who subscribe to these values are welcome here no matter where they were born. Regardless of where I have been in this country, I have heard the same thing — Canadians want a leader who will protect and promote our unified identity and these shared values. This is the direction I have received from Canadians and it is the reason why I am running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. Canada offers all of us an opportunity — an opportunity to work hard and provide for one's self and one's family, an opportunity and responsibility to give back to one's community once one has enjoyed success — to help those who need it. Canada is a place where we can each choose how we wish to live — what God we worship, to set our priorities and to exist together — in freedom and with tolerance — and to prosper together. This is why so many people seek to come to Canada each year — because a better life is possible here — a life that is more prosperous, more generous, freer, and more tolerant. This is not something we can take for granted. It is something we must work every day to build and to protect. It is something we must be conscious of. We cannot relax and assume that a free, prosperous, and tolerant Canada will take care of itself. It will not. It is the result of the choices we make. Every year, Canada admits hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees. These are people who are seeking a new life, a better life, than is available to them in their place of origin. This is something that we should be proud of. But is our immigration system doing the best that it can? Do we meet the people who want to come here before they arrive? Do we have an opportunity to understand what supports, if any, a person will need to help with integration? Or are we simply making decisions based on a three minute review of documentation? The little bit of information we have about how the immigration system actually works comes only from the persistent research of Dr. Victor Satzewich, a sociologist at McMaster University in Hamilton. That's because our immigration system is a "black box". It is a nameless and faceless bureaucracy where questions are many and answers are few. In the introduction to his book, Dr. Satzewich describes trying to gain access to Canada's immigration offices. It was a labyrinthine ordeal involving a man identified as Mr. X, chance encounters, and months of waiting. Dr. Satzewich eventually got the access he required to write his book, Points of Entry: How Canada's Immigration Officers Decide Who Gets In, and, as a result, we now have valuable insight into how our immigration system works. By and large our immigration system works well, but there are some things about the system that are concerning. Immigration officers meet only a handful of the people whose applications they process. The result is the loss of "opportunities to assess credibility and risk" (page 216). Testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence tells us that "only between nine and fifteen percent of immigrants receive an interview with a visa officer before they come to Canada" (page 14). That means that, in a year like last year, when more than 300,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada, only about 30,000 people were interviewed by a trained immigration official. The reason for the lack of interviews is the focus on achieving predetermined quotas. The immigration bureaucracy, led by immigration ministers of different stripes, has put greater importance on the number of people who are admitted to Canada each year, rather than ensuring that those who are admitted will integrate well into our communities. As one of the immigration officers interviewed by Dr. Satzewich said: When all you interview are the problematic cases, that influences your view of the applicants. It's easy to say they are all bad, and what happens is that you start refusing for all the wrong reasons. But the positive side effect of the quality assurance is that you get to see the good cases and the bad cases. When you bring someone in for an interview, you can tell right away, you get a gut feeling that there is something wrong here, or that it's good. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself whether you would want this person to be your neighbour. It's hard to put a finger on it but when you strongly feel that there is something about an applicant, there usually is. The positive thing about the quality assurance is that it helps an officer get around the idea that ‘everyone's a liar' attitude. It's easy to become cynical. You become immune to the hardship of local conditions (pages 135-136). Another immigration officer quoted by Dr. Satzewich said: There are so many things we miss. We only interview if we are leaning towards a refusal. We don't interview good applicants. This can make an officer sour. We don't get the sense of nation building that we used to have. It cuts into job satisfaction. There is no way of talking to clients, we don't counsel them anymore. In face-to-face circumstances, we are only dealing with likely refusals. This can lead to the development of a negative mindset. You start the whole interview process with a set of concerns that you have identified on the basis of the paper screening. The old way, you could come in having a visa, and in the interview you could talk yourself out of it! Young officers have not done that kind of interview. They tend to have an enforcement mentality. The system is set up to kind of sour your worldview (page 135). This is not healthy. Not for the immigration officers, not for the applicants, and not for the country. The focus on quotas is also a problem. Canada's immigration officials are pressured to make decisions on at least seventy-five files a day meaning decisions are made in about three minutes — not including the time spent writing up notes. As Dr. Satzewich writes, "time and productivity pressures provided the overarching context for decision making" (page 196). One immigration officer said, "Sometimes you have to overlook things to get the program numbers. … Risk management means closing your eyes" (page 136). Another officer said: "If we didn't have the time demands that are on us, the refusal rate would be much higher. If I had enough time, I would at least triple my refusal rate" (page 136). A deputy manager in an overseas office put it this way: We have become number freaks. We have to meet our targets, within +/- 3 percent. But you don't want to exceed your target either. If you reach your processing target by September, you can't issue any more visas, and that is a problem. And if you go over your target … they will say next time you can process the target numbers with fewer resources, or increase targets (page 134). This is a problem. It is a problem because the priority is placed on numbers rather than individuals and some people are, in the words of immigration officers themselves, being allowed into the country that would otherwise not be admissible. The targets also keep out those who might otherwise be admissible because their application came to the top of the pile after the target visas had all been allocated. We need a healthier approach to immigration — one that keeps the best interests of the country, the applicants, and the immigration officials in mind. This is what I am hearing from Canadians. That is why, when I become prime minister, I am committed to ensuring that all immigrants, refugees, and visitors to Canada receive a face-to-face interview with a trained immigration official. This is in-line with the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. The committee called for a pilot project and I will ensure that this is implemented across the board. This is not a radical suggestion. In fact, it was the procedure as recently as the year 2000. To quote Dr. Satzewich: "Before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was introduced, nearly all applicants for a permanent resident visa were interviewed by an officer, no matter how strong or weak their paperwork" (page 170). Interviews allow the opportunity to determine credibility through, as Dr. Satzewich writes, "verbal responses…demeanour and body language: how individuals enter an interview booth, how they answer questions, and how they address an officer's concerns…" (pages 55-56). These interviews were conducted as part of the language proficiency test, which was conducted in-person, face-to-face, with immigration officers. I will restore this procedure to ensure that we meet the people who want to come here. There is a second part to my proposal. That is to screen all immigrants, refugees, and visitors to Canada for their agreement with Canadian values. This means that as part of the interview, applicants will be asked whether they support the ideas of hard work, generosity, freedom, and tolerance. Do they believe that men and women are equal? Do they agree that violence has no place in political disagreements? Do they agree that all should be left to worship how they see fit? Do they agree that there is one law that applies to all Canadians equally? The current process tests applicants' knowledge of these values. My proposal will also ask whether or not they agree with them. And I will do this through the face-to-face interviews that all immigrants, refugees, and visitors to Canada will undergo. I will also ensure that, as part of the application dossiers, immigration officials review social media posts and other relevant information to ensure that we have a complete picture of those who are applying to come to Canada. Now, some will say, and some have said, that this is a racist policy. It is not. It will apply to all people equally regardless of where they are born. As a nation we are as interested in keeping out white supremacists as we are in keeping out those who believe women are property. Some have said that it will be too costly. The costs of these interviews will be borne by the applicants. The cost of interviews for refugees will be covered by the government. Some have said that these interviews will be too invasive. The techniques are no more invasive or offensive than those used by other government departments in other situations. These are some of the most important decisions we make as a nation — we must make sure we make them with as much information as possible. Some have said that this will be used to turn people away. Some people will be turned away, this is true, and some will be granted access. As the officer quoted by Dr. Satzewich pointed out, if immigration officers are able to meet all of the applicants they can make better decisions, and this benefits everyone. What's more, immigration officers will once again be able to counsel applicants. When interviews are no longer enforcement mechanisms used only in cases when refusals are pending, officers will be more able to offer advice and support to the applicants. The process will also offer us an opportunity to aid in integration. Does a person need automatically to be turned away, or will they and their new communities benefit from integration assistance? This is something we can assess through interviews and ensure that those who come here get the supports they need to succeed in their new home. Some have said that this will slow down immigration. This is an undeniable conclusion. It is the conclusion Dr. Satzewich draws. This is the unspoken admission of past immigration ministers in their insistence on quotas and numbers. Certainly, there will be the effect of reducing immigration rates as we establish these procedures. But our immigration system is too important to get hung up on numbers and quotas. That is the error of past governments. I cannot tell you what the number will be. The only commitment I can make to you is that every single immigrant, refugee, and visitor will receive a face-to-face interview. We must protect and promote our shared Canadian values and our unique identity. That is what you have asked me to do and it is what I will do. No other candidate in this race will do this. They have attempted to twist their positions to sound like mine but they will not do it. They, like those before them, are focused on numbers, and not on Canadian values. They may increase immigration or they may reduce immigration. But none of that addresses the question of the promotion and protection of our Canadian values. We need more interviews. We need to meet the people who want to come here. I am the only candidate who will do that. And electing me leader is the only way to ensure that this gets done. It will effect change now. My election as leader of the Conservative Party will ensure the Trudeau Liberals have to take this file seriously. Because if someone else wins, this important file will be ignored and then we will all lose. This is about the kind of country we want to live in, the kind of prosperity we want to enjoy, a nation where we all enjoy equality of opportunity and the freedom to pursue our lives as we see fit.   - Kellie Leitch, federal Conservative Party leadership candidate, and Ontario MP.

WHAT'S VLADDI'S TAKE ON THIS EXPLANATION? (Some Might Ask)

Re: "That Canadian identity is grounded in the values of hard work, generosity, freedom, tolerance, equality of individuals, and equality of opportunity. These are civic values, not ethnic ones, and they mean that all who subscribe to these values are welcome here no matter where they were born."

NO, Kellie!

Enforced "generosity" is also known as SLAVERY. It's not a "value" or an "ethic," civil or otherwise! And why should work be "hard!"? And "Freedom" - from what? To what? Delinquent libertine "liberal" criminals love "freedom" from responsibility! Enforced "equality" of individuals, from a communist standpoint, (also known as SLAVERY) is not a desirable end for most people. Ditto for "tolerance" - because, as Thomas Mann put it:
"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil!"

Even "equality of opportunity" can be corrupted by liberals into meaning its exact opposite!

...and, re:

""When you bring someone in for an interview, you can tell right away, you get a gut feeling that there is something wrong here, or that it's good. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself whether you would want this person to be your neighbour. It's hard to put a finger on it but when you strongly feel that there is something about an applicant, there usually is. The positive thing about the quality assurance is that it helps an officer get around the idea that ‘everyone's a liar' attitude. It's easy to become cynical. You become immune to the hardship of local conditions (pages 135-136)."

... and:

"Do they believe that men and women are equal?
Do they agree that violence has no place in political disagreements?
Do they agree that all should be left to worship how they see fit?
Do they agree that there is one law that applies to all Canadians equally?
The current process tests applicants' knowledge of these values.
My proposal will also ask whether or not they agree with them."

"Gut feeling!"? "ASK them" whether or not they agree?!

ALL muslims are trained, habitual LIARS - they have been told since birth that their god wants them to lie to everyone, all the time! Everything about sharia law is how to avoid the Golden Rule and how to lie to get out of its punishments! Islam itself is all about how to make up excuses to avoid personal responsibility!

According to their most revered sharia "law" (crime) manuals, the judge actually has to instruct the jury to lie to him!

It says "Allah wants you to lie to me on behalf of criminals; if you do so, then allah will lie on your behalf, on the day of judgment!"

These are the sorts of people, slaves to the ancient global crime-gang, that libtards want to bring here en masse! People whose "holy book" (war and crime manual) orders them to extort, enslave, and murder ALL the non-muslims in the world, for their god! That's how they "worship" it!

And, that earnest look on their faces? It doesn't mean "Oh, at last I have met a tolerant, non-racist white person who is treating me like a human being!" It really only means "Thank allah you fell for my lies, so now I probably won't personally have to make a mess by murdering you myself!"

In other words, you know those open, innocent-seeming, relieved, "Thank allah this ONE person isn't denigrating my religion and seems to be genuinely open to reason about it!" which liberal racists so-obviously crave, and MUST be getting all the time from their "muslim friends"?

(Because of course that would make them feel "unique" amongst all the rest of us hater/ racist/ bigots here in the West, wouldn't it?)

;-)

Well... Guess What! Those earnest looks AREN'T based on their being some poor, misunderstood and oppressed minority!

NOR are they based on their being happy to save an infidel's soul by telling you their religious "truths" either! (Despite what most Westerners might commonly have come to expect from most of those puppy-like, innocently naive, more local religious folks around here)!

NO, those looks of relief are ONLY based on the moslems' own, personal relief that, if you fall for their LIES, then they won't personally eventually have to kill you for allah (which would be onerous, messy, and distasteful, even to them)!

So what they saw were the exact same looks as they'd get from, say, the delusively innocent Jehovah's Witlesses, but were motivated by entirely different background reasons!

;-(

ALL muslims are liars. Their creed informs them their god wants them to lie all the time, to everyone* - to their own families and friends ("to keep the peace") and of course to their infidel enemies ("to keep the peace until you are in a position of strength and able to successfully attack them again"). Obviously, since islam is only an extortion racket CRIME syndicate, they have to lie to them selves, too, in order to pretend it's a "religion" in any way; i.e:

"God told us to commit these crimes!"

(Capisce?)!

...Doctrinal PROOF?

*(Narrated in al-Bukhari, 2546; Muslim, 2605)

It was narrated that Asma’ Bint Yazeed said: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ‘It is not permissible to tell lies except in three (cases): when a man speaks to his wife in a way to please her; lying in war; and lying in order to reconcile between people.’”

Muslims are told by allah to LIE TO EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME: (and all "to keep the peace!") to their own families and friends, and of course to their "infidel enemies."

Similarly, one of Mohammed's own daughters, Umm Kalthoum, testified that she had never heard the Apostle of Allah condone lying, except in these three situations:

1.) For reconciliation among people.
2.) In war.
3.) Amongst spouses, to keep peace in the family.

In other words, "allah wants you to lie to everyone, all the time!"

And, while they amputate the appropriate limbs for theft, not only do they not cut out their own tongues for lying, but they actively encourage it...yet lying is only the most basic form of theft - it's the theft of the Truth. And theft IS crime.

So "allah" is only an immoral thief, just like his creator, Muhammad was.

PS: The ends don't justify the means - they only ever really DEFINE the end results: If you lie, murder and steal to get your way, in the end, you're NOT "a great success" - you're still really only a lying, murdering THIEF!

"If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths (to each other, not to infidels). Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful." Surah 5:89 (In other words, if you feel guilty about lying, just go on a diet for three days and allah will forgive you).

"Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Surah 2:225

"Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty." Surah 16: 106

The noted Islamic commentator, Al-Tabari explained Surah 16:106 as a verse that had been revealed to Mohammed after he learned that Ammar Ibn Yasser was forced to deny his faith in Mohammed when kidnapped by the Banu Moghera tribe. Mohammed consoled Ammar by telling him, "If they turned, you turn." (Meaning: if they again capture you, you are allowed to deny me again.)

3:28 [http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir//3.8052.html], 3:118, 4:89, 4:139, 4:144, 5:51, 9:23, 9:33, 60:1, 60:13

3:28. Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliyâ (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allâh in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allâh warns you against Himself (His Punishment), and to Allâh is the final return.

And why would muslims "fear a danger from unbelievers"? Maybe because the muslims have been told they are so superior to all the non-muslims in the world, that it's not only their right, but also their holy responsibility to their god to extort, enslave, and murder them all for their 'crime' of not being muslims? That might upset their victims, so of course they're supposed to lie in order to be able to 'defend' their holy right to continue to commit their crimes against their victims!

Ibn Kathir quotes ahadith which are not included in Khan's translation but are included in Aisha Bewley's, in his explanation of 3:28.

... meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said,

"We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them."

Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Taqiyah (holy deception and lying to infidels to promote the islamic criime-gang) is allowed until the Day of Resurrection."

Qur’an 9:3     “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.”
Qur’an 66:2     “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.”

Islam elevates lies and deception to the level of a sacrament.

In fact, there are so many calls to deceit, and ways to deceive, as prescribed by their texts, that they have special terms for it all - being born into islam is like having to take a university-level course in lying!

Here's a small sample:

Taqiyya (Shia) or Muda'rat (Sunni): tactical deceit for the purposes of spreading Islam.
Kitman: deceit by omission.
Tawriya: deceit by ambiguity.
Taysir: deceit through facilitation (not having to observe all the tenets of Sharia).
Darura: deceit through necessity (to engage in something "Haram" or forbidden).
Muruna: the temporary suspension of Sharia in order that Muslim immigrants appear "moderate." So through the principle of Hijra (Muslim Immigration), the early Muslims are a "red herring" or a Trojan Horse. The Kafir or Kuffar community gets the false sense that the early immigrants are not a threat, at least until the Muslim community has gained strength.

Taqiyya Deception (taqqiya): Dissimulation (Concealment of the truth about a situation) is sanctified hypocrisy. It is considered a part of Islamic strategy to lie and deceive unbelievers by any means. Thus, exercising turkey is very pious behavior. Veiling the truth: Adjustment, deception up to the open lie. -Taqqiya is attached, if it is helpful to the well-being of the religion -Islam (Khomeini).
(To lie and cheat for the good of Islam against an Infidel is considered as a sacred duty)

Kitman also spelled as Kithman is close to Taqqiya (see above) but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Moslem maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (Little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “Kitman.” Another example would be the insistence of a Moslem apologist that, “of course”, there is freedom of conscience in Islam and then quoting that Qur’anic verse: ”There shall be no compulsion in religion.” But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Moslem doctrine of abrogation, (To abolish, do away with, or annul, especially by authority) or naskh.

There are 109 verses straight from the Quran dictating hate, murder, and terror against all people who will not submit or convert to Islam.

By muslim Standards: “Success” is measured by what they have done to affect your “status” with them. (A.) Whether they have converted you, by any and all means, (B.) Subjected you to a Dhimmi-Slave status and you have paid the 30% Jizyah Tax, of which you will receive absolutely no benefit as a Non-Moslem (C.) Cut off your hand and foot on opposite sides, (the same as if you were caught as a thief) (D.) or enslaved as an actual slave or (E.) Killed you!