TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Canada to turn away single male Syrian refugees

Dak3wlguy

November 24, 2015
177 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-refugees-canada-fly-jordan-envoy-184604147.html
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Canada to turn away single male Syrian refugees
Author

Dak3wlguy

Upvotes 177
Comments 109
Date November 24, 2015 5:28 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3u1k5j/canada_to_turn_away_single_male_syrian_refugees/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/canada-to-turn-away-single-male-syrian-refugees.966474
https://theredarchive.com/post/966474
Top posts by Dak3wlguy

University of California considering recognizing a “right” to be “free from … expressions of intolerance”

77 upvotes
September 11, 2015
/r/MensRights

#MyBodyMyChoice, Say no to the draft.

34 upvotes
January 4, 2015
/r/MensRights

Misandry Heart T-Shirts...

11 upvotes
March 31, 2014
/r/MensRights

Online rapper must face the music, stand trial for threatening lyrics

8 upvotes
July 24, 2015
/r/MensRights

Men need the right to opt out of parenthood.

1 upvotes
March 2, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Ultramegasaurus 55 points56 points57 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We don't want Muslims to immigrate, because the majority of current terrorists are Muslims

Racist.

We don't want single men to immigrate, because the majority of current terrorists are single men.

Totally fine.

[–]rg57 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's OK because men are still represented in our gender-test Cabinet. /s

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I heard someone on NPR prattling on about how they thought that single men in refugee camps are suspicious. Yeah, why on earth would a man want to avoid being forced to die in a brutal war?

[–]BookOfGQuan 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because as far as these prejudiced fools are concerned, the only "legitimate" place to find an adolescent or adult male in a war zone or danger area is in a military band. They see "outsider" males as military targets and military threats, nothing else. Why would a single young man from outside your tribe be in the refugee camp? He "should" be in an armed band and so his presence is suspicious - he must be a terrorist, it's the only possible explanation to reconcile his presence with the deep-rooted sense of where and what males should be; that is, fighters.

Remember, the UN used to refuse refugee status to those fleeing conscription, blatantly stating that they should stay and join the military. Even while in the midst of supposedly trying to stop armed conflict, it was telling men that the only legitimate place for them was... actively waging an armed conflict.

This instinct runs very, very deep, and challenging it at every step should be a priority of those who wish to stop the neglect, dehumanization and maltreatment of men and boys.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]caius_iulius_caesar 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's sad. It used to be great.

[–]Jay1313 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a man, my husband only matters in relation to what it is that he can provide for me. The fact that he is a human-fucking-being is apparently irrelevant.

Good to know, Trudeau.

[–]COVERartistLOL 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What you expect. This is the same country that arrested a man for disagreeing with two feminist

[–]manicsuppressor 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No. This has to be an onion news post. It has to be...

[–]caius_iulius_caesar 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Canada is a Leftist police state.

[–]OmegaParticle 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As a Canadian, I can state this is true, and Canada is officially a feminist shit hole.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not that bad. But we elected the biggest idiot as PM. Mulcair or even Harper would be better depending on what kind of country you want.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The discussion group at the Canadian Centre for Men and Families in Toronto is addressing a topic this month that seems germane to this story and those interested; namely: What does the incoming government of Justin Trudeau have in store for Canadian men and boys?

Getting into how this kind of thing makes me feel, online, usually does me no good. The human element has, in my experience, helped me process unbelievable stories like this.

It's free to attend, and a statedly non-partisan event, and group. More info can be found on this poster: imgur.com/1H1D51W

[–]Alkomb[🍰] 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Implying that woman terrorists don't exist.

[–]Funcuz 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

This is a case of "Told you so !"

I saw this kind of crap coming from Trudeau before he was even elected. Like, years ago.

[–]SigmundFloyd76 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Trudeau is the highest ranking WhiteKnight in Canada.

[–]Plain_Bread 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The white lord?

[–]SigmundFloyd76 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The Primeknight.

[–]CaptainRandus 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Prime minister of White Cis-MaleGuilt. Apparently that's now limited to Straight Men now. Gay men are allowed in now

[–]manicsuppressor 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Source? Or are you kidding?

[–]CaptainRandus 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/canadas-refugee-plan-wont-accept-most-lone-males-but-that-rule-wont-apply-to-gay-men

[–]rg57 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Suddenly a lot more Syrians like cock.

But in seriousness, how are they going to tell? Gay people are already up in arms over invasive questioning of gay refugees (in other contexts). And they certainly aren't going to have a physical inspection like some Arab countries do.

[–]CaptainRandus 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They must prove it! The screening process is now about who sucks the best cock lol

in all seriousness, it's a ridiculous screening process to exclude the people most likely to be killed from protection...

[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

PM = Prince Mangina!

[–]TheRationalChannel 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Canada's immigration policy also known as the night club entrance policy.

[–]manicsuppressor 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is so utterly disgusting on Canada's part. How blatant does this sexism have to become before anyone will actually notice?

[–]rg57 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not a matter of noticing.

In Canada, some people are approved: aboriginals, females, religious non-Christians, foreigners, immigrants, ...

And some people are bad: white people, males, atheists, Christians, Canadians, ...

The reality of what happens is irrelevant. Good things should always go to the good people. And nothing (or bad things) should happen to the bad people.

[–]franklindeer 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Much of r/canada is unhappy and the news outlets are discussing this. It's not going unnoticed but I fear if it goes unchallenged, the next policy that excludes men will go down like water.

[–]rg57 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To put this in perspective, the policy is too feminist for the left-wing NDP, whose leader criticized it on national TV.

[–]dungone 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, single young men are most likely to fight in wars. Which is why the number one best way to de-escalate an armed conflict is to disperse as many of these men as possible to as many different parts of the planet as is logistically possible. The alternative is that they sit in Syria watching their friends and families get killed by one side or the other. A bunch of women and children sitting safe and sound in a refugee camp has never ended a single war to the best of my knowledge.

[–]unmodster 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's cold even by Canadian winter standards.

[–]manicsuppressor 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow Canada, even you? Racist AND sexist.

[–]rg57 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My country has long been infected with liberal racism and sexism. The racism is far more pernicious.

This is a country where the PM can say "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" and in the same speech say we're going to have "nation to nation" talks with aboriginal Canadians.

[–]autotldr 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)


Ottawa - Canada will accept only whole families, lone women or children in its mass resettlement of Syrian refugees while unaccompanied men - considered a security risk - will be turned away, it emerged Monday.

Since the Paris attacks launched by Syria-linked jihadists, a plan by new leader Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to fast-track the intake of 25,000 refugees by year's end has faced growing criticism in Canada.

Details of the plan will be announced Tuesday but Canada's ambassador to Jordan confirmed that refugees from camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey will be flown to Canada from Jordan starting December 1.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: refugee#1 Canada#2 Syrian#3 Canadian#4 plan#5

Post found in /r/MensRights, /r/news, /r/worldnews, /r/feminisms and /r/RefugeeCrisis.

[–]jimmywiddle 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In fairness considering Canada lately, I think they are probably doing the men a favour.....

They are saving them from being treated like shit by the government who appears to hate men. Especially straight white men.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

There's one defense for this: it's only for their first program which concludes Jan 1 2016. In their next wave of immigrants, single men may be included.

[–]dungone 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

How is that a defense for it?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Because they may make up for leaving out men in this rushed intake that is mostly for PR, by including them in a much larger intake that follows. The fact that it's a relatively low number of refugees, in a very short period of time, mitigates it to some extent.

Still sexist, yes. But I can tolerate small insults; if they were blocking single men from all of their refugee intake for the foreseeable future I'd say we should be contacting elected officials nonstop.

[–]dungone 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Have you ever been to a war zone? I fought in one and have seen numerous young men laying dead in the dirt. I don't think that telling them to wait for "mostly PR" (because Canada hates men) is defensible.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

As I said, still sexist. Just not impactful.

Given that this is a tiny number of refugees and a short period of time, the impact is not as large. I remain hopeful that their policy going forward in 2016 will not be sexist. And given that they are only drawing from existing UN refugee camps as is, nobody is being brought out of warzones anyway.

If anything, the effect on people in warzones is exactly the same--as space is freed up in the UN camps, more people can get to them, and those camps do not have gender requirements.

[–]dungone 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

It is impactful. More people are going to die as a result. It's the men who are most likely to get killed and keeping would-be male refugees in a conflict zone also makes them more likely to take up arms. These men have a choice to either flee or fight, and you're not letting them flee. What do you think will happen?

Taking in women is what serves no real purpose beyond helping white knights feel better about themselves. If you were trying to save the greatest number of lives for a given amount of money, then you can't justify helping women over men.

[–]BookOfGQuan 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

These men have a choice to either flee or fight, and you're not letting them flee. What do you think will happen?

That's the point in cases like this. Never forget, that fighting is what they assume the men "should" be doing. Just look at the comments on the articles, about how adult Syrian men "should be fighting for their country" rather than fleeing, or look at the UN's history of denying refugee status to men fleeing conscription.

They want men to pick up arms, it's all they can understand. They're tribalist bigots.

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They have no choice in this because then they would be treating men from foreign countries better than they treat their own male citizens.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's the men who are most likely to get killed and keeping would-be male refugees in a conflict zone also makes them more likely to take up arms.

Except that this was never going to take any refugees out of a conflict zone...because it draws from UN camps. Read my whole post!

Taking in any refugees from the camps frees up space for more.

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Taking women out of a UN camp frees up room for more women to enter the camp. So? Leaving young, single men in the camps only makes the camps more likely to be attacked by combatants. How is it a good idea to leave them there?

Besides, the UN is yet another organization that openly discriminates against men. Taking in refugees from UN camps as opposed to people who show up at a border checkpoint or embassy is just another form of anti-male discrimination. It's men who are left with no other choice than to trek across oceans, deserts and mountain ranges to get to safety.

It's also exacerbating a security risk, because if you refuse to take in men through official channels then you're also losing the ability to track them. They're going to go anyway. They'll overwhelm the authorities in small, cash-strapped countries and this will allow terrorists to move about from country to country undetected. It'll also create humanitarian crises in completely random fashion, forcing relief efforts to take place in backwater countries as opposed to in the countries where it's far easier to get resources to these people.

[–]sharmeelagul 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All a jihadist has to do is get a woman and child to pose as his family. Why not, they are taught by the kuran to lie to infidels to achieve their goals. Even children can go to Canada or the US and grow up to be jihadists. Remember the Boston bombers?

[–]Nurhh322 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Why are any "refugees" being allowed in at all? I can't think of one single benefit Canada gains from importing refugees but I can think of quite a few costs and risks of doing so.

It doesn't seem like Canadian immigration policy is being run for the benefit of Canadians.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It's not immigration, it's a humanitarian refugee effort. It's not supposed to benefit Canada, but the millions of displaced Syrian's who had their homes blown up. Something us Canadian's have almost never had to experience.

[–]rg57 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If that's the case, then they ought to be going to neighboring countries.

Surely the great and rich Saudi Arabia would take them in. Kuwait. UAE. Right?

Why does it fall to a bankrupt country like Canada?

Because we're stupid.

[–]rg57 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If that's the case, then they ought to be going to neighboring countries.

Surely the great and rich Saudi Arabia would take them in. Kuwait. UAE. Right?

Why does it fall to a bankrupt country like Canada?

Because we're stupid.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't disagree with you, they should be going to those countries also. Many have not helped in any way. That does not mean we should ignore the issue.

[–]manicsuppressor 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Surely the great and rich Saudi Arabia would take them in. Kuwait. UAE.

Maybe, but they don't. Is it stupidity to help people who are refused help from their neighbouring countries? I guess, if being better than other countries and maintaining a standard of humanitarianism for those countries to follow is considered stupid.

[–]xxxhipsterxx 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Over a million are in Lebanon. Canada is taking in WAY fewer than European countries are.

[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree... there's waiting lists for social housing, lack of beds for elderly Canadians in need of long term care, lack of help for the mentally ill and street people, lack of money for transportation infrastructure but we suddenly have millions to help immigrants.

[–]boringcarpets 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

but they arent refugees - they dont get to pick and choose where they go and choose Canada. These are economic migrants trying to get round the system in place - if they want to apply to Canada, then they should do it properly

[–]manicsuppressor 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hmm interesting point... Why help anyone if there is no personal gain from it?

[–]OmegaParticle 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is no rational reason.

[–]ruffykunn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The human right to asylum is not conditional on the host country benefiting from letting people in. That's not how human rights work.

I expect more empathy from someone posting in a men's human rights subreddit.

[–]boringcarpets 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

once the person has left the country in which they are being persecuted and enter another they can claim asylum. once hey then leave that safe country they are economic migrants, no two ways about it - Canada is nowhere near, and has nothing to do with Syria. If people want to migrate there are proper channels. Canada is right to be firm

[–]pnw_diver 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. That's fucked.

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

  1. These men would work for PEANUTS thus pushing down labor prices.
  2. That's a LOOOOOOOOT of free welfare to non-working women & children...

Well, at least their allowing in men who have their families with them.

Sad, since there are cases where a whole family can't go but they could send 1. Usually they'll send an able bodied male to do work and send back money ... just like every other immigrant story out there.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes this is very common pattern all over.

[–]LilanKahn -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pushing down labor prices is not a bad thing tho. Also with the Candian birth rate of 1.61 immigration is kinda needed.

[–]CountVonVague 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, when a superior military force dominates a weaker one the victor tends to prefer acquiring women for genetic diversity as opposed to men who become mostly slave labor. Canada doesn't need single, syrian men bringing in MiddleEastern romancing habits to their country and risk creating a "look how uncouth the foreign man is with our women" event... don't need to risk canadian "grooming gangs"...

[–]OmegaParticle 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is just a litmus test, to see how much backlash there is to obvious and blatant systemic discrimination against men. If there isn't much backlash, expect more, and expect escalation.

[+]TrialsAndTribbles -17 points-16 points-15 points 10 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

A reasonable precaution. This doesn't really belong here.

[–]SporkTornado 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Yup totally reasonable. Blocking all single men, because most of the terrorists are men. Along that string of logic. Our new step should be ban all Arabs.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's the same logic that's been used to justify the refusal of food aid to boys and men in disaster areas.

[–]ofekme 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

for the fact that they are more likely to be terrorists yes

[–]currentAlias 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. Why does the first world want to import these people? We have a shockingly bad track record when we try to bring any pre-industrial people into our society.

[–]manicsuppressor 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe your problem is using the word "import" instead of immigration, as if all these people are worth nothing more than what economic benefit they can bring to your country.

[–]OmegaParticle -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, they certainly aren't going to culturally enlighten us. I fail to see any possible gain besides potential economic gain. If you can tell me what other value they can add to Canada by all means, please do so. In my opinion, if the economics don't make sense, don't import them. End of discussion. It's a basic cost benefit analysis.

[+]TrialsAndTribbles -11 points-10 points-9 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Also reasonable. Who needs people who need to pray 5 times a day and have nutty ideas about women, sex, alcohol, and other things? Arab/Muslim immigrants in the UK have the highest unemployment rate by far of any other immigrant group, including poor Indians.

[–]pillepallepulle 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

They are not immigrants, they are refugees, numbnuts. They are fleeing from voilence and death in their country and have lost everything. There is a difference. Also nothing you mentioned gives you the right to judge an individual human being.

[–]TrialsAndTribbles -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

As a citizen it is my right to judge people who want to come here and be citizens as well. Why is it mostly men fleeing? Let them go to other Muslim nations that will tolerate their ludicrous and barbaric ideas. As a politician already said, we can pay to resettle them there cheaper.

[–]pillepallepulle 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

Yeah you know the thing is, they don't really want to come here, the place they used to stay just got bombed to rubble... It's not a "hey living in country x would be nice, lets move there dear" kind of decision, it's more of a "holy shit if the bombs don't get us those lunatics from ISIS will, we have to get the fuck out of here" kind of thing. Also it is mostly men, because many countries have a family reunification policy, so their family can just get on a plane and does not have to deal with a band of criminals that cashes in on their misery when they want to cross a god damn ocean.

Edit: and being a citizen of anywhere does not give you the right to judge anyone. Also you are horrible at judging people because you just generalize. You living in a wealthy, peaceful region of the world is just accident, you did nothing to deserve this, so stop acting like that gives you some sort of authority.

[–]TrialsAndTribbles -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

These men are very young, I doubt most of them have families waiting to come as soon as they get let into Germany. They're going there for the easy welfare.

[–]pillepallepulle 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Ah, and how do you know that? Did you talk to a single refugee? I bet you didn't, you just sit on your ass while other people try to help, sacreficing their freetime and you still want people to listen to your unfounded, racist, stupid opinions. You have no idea what you are talking about. Probably get all your "information" from some tabloid too.

[+]TrialsAndTribbles -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

If they were all fundamentalist christians like the kooks we have in the bible belt I would be just as much against them. Anyone who can't accept evolution, that men and women are equal, that homosexuality is not a sin, that you should not interpret the words of a holy book literally, has no business in a civilized society. The problem with the refugees is that they're even farther behind the fundies in social progress.

[–]pillepallepulle 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Yeah the thing is that you have no base of making all these assumptions about those people. You don't know them at all and you judge thousands by the bad example of a few, but you can't understand that this is wrong. So i wish you a good life and hope that you never are at the mercy of people who think like you, because that would really suck for you.

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am against fundamentalist nutters but you are just vengeful and arbitrary. Young men are the most likely to die as a result of warfare and they need to get out of there the most. Women aren't in as much risk, even if they are a bigger set of nutters than the men. These men need help even if some of them are nut jobs. They are not immigrants, but refugees. They can be sent back when the fighting ends or resettled to whatever other country wants to help them. In the meantime, who do you think is rearing these young little terrorists and indoctrinating them into crazy religions? It's usually the women who are more religious than the men, especially among the "moderate" sets who provide a fertile recruiting ground for the extremists. It's really fucked up to ban single men, while allowing married men to risk their lives crossing the planet by dubious means just so that their nutter wives can get on a plane and come on over.

But if you really want to fight nutters, start with the ones in your country, such as the ones who join the military and try to give our armed forces a bad name overseas. Our nutters make us as much a target for terrorists as the terrorists themselves. The wrong way to fight religious fundamentalists is to condemn millions of young men to death and suffering. That will only get you more terrorists.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Let's send back the human beings MOST likely to be targeted for harm in the hellhole they are fleeing. Nothing new here.

[–]Jasperkr672 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You know that many of the "refugees" aren't even from Syria, right?

[–]TrialsAndTribbles 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Many are going to Turkey, but unfortunately there's not much free welfare there for them. They'll have to work to live.

[–]TrialsAndTribbles 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, we resettle them in places like Turkey, and we pay a fraction there as we do to resettle them here.

[–]unklestinky 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

because fuck men! amIright? /s

[–]ruffykunn -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It does.

You, on the other hand, do not.

Fuck off.

[+]boringcarpets -13 points-12 points-11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm fine with that. We should be doing similar in Europe. Around 70% of the "refugees" are men, men with no papers, it's a national security issue, not a men's rights issue

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

As someone who actually fucking lives in Canada, I feel I can say something here. If you don't live in Canada you have no right to bitch about it. Because as a Canadian, I fucking support this. I still think its a shitty thing, yes, and is it fair? God no. But at the end of the day, what do you think the ratio is for single men being terrorists compared to literally everyone else? So yeah, I'd beafraid to let all those people in. If your Canadian, great, I wanna hear your thoughts because this is our issue. If not, fuck off. You can't criticise another countries' decisions and the people who live here because we don't want to get hurt or worse.

[–]Bear_naked_grylls 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Also Canadian, and I completely disagree. If the tables were turned I would be left behind. Have you no compassion for these men? Don't you have brothers, or uncles, or friends? They are human beings

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I have compassion for these men of course. But I also have compassion for my own family and friends. It could put them in danger. I'm not sure about you or your situation, but in mine, I'm not afraid for my own life. Its the people around me, and what if they end up having to live in fear just because 2 or 3 bad people come through with all the good ones?

[–]BookOfGQuan 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Is that how you really live your life?

What if 2 or 3 bad people came in with the good ones?

Aquilon, what if someone in your neighbourhood is a rapist or a murderer? They could be. Quick, liquidate the neighbourhood. Get rid of them all. Think of your family! They might have to live in fear because one of their neighbours might be hostile!!!

This is ridiculous fear-mongering.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

A guy or two with a gun is one thing. A bunch of guys with guns and bombs who are hellbent on killing as many of us as possible is quite different. Also, I live in Alberta. Anyone from outside of Canada won't get this so I'll explain; half of the province of Alberta is either just woods or fucking mountains, that just have oil/mining/lumber companies in the middle of nowhere. The only really densely populated place is Calgary, the biggest city, which I don't live in. The only killers really outside of Calgary are accidents or usually gang-related, and in the latter, its extremely abnormal for Canadian gangs to kill someone who isn't in another criminal gang, or some kind of criminal activity. I actually only know of that happening once in the past several years, when some drugged up gang member stabbed a homeless dude a couple hours away from me. So something like a serial killer, or anyone killing innocent people, gets caught very quickly, from my understanding its always under 10 days after their first kill if they even get that far. I'm not naive, I see the news, we get the newspaper, blah blah blah. But terrorists change all that, that's what I'm afraid of. Luckily a lot of the gangs around western Canada are reasonably chill and love Canada in most areas, and I honestly think if they found out about terrorist shit, they'd cap some asses which is pretty cool. Little off-topic there but the point is, I do have a reason for concerns.

[–]caius_iulius_caesar 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Alberta doesn't sound a likely target for a terrorist attack. I think you're paranoid.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Um... are you kidding? When the Taliban named their 100 or so top targets a year ago, West Edmonton Mall was one of their prime terrorist targets. (Its in central Alberta. One of the biggest malls in North America actually)

[–]caius_iulius_caesar 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you sure they weren't joshing? It's buttfuck nowhere.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. The worlds former most infamous terrorist organization was... "joshing".

[–]OmegaParticle 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The West Edmonton Mall is the biggest mall in North America. It was the largest mall in the world until 2004.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Someone did their homework, nice. Yeah no idea why the hell we have a mall this obscene a size here... not exactly in a "prime tourist location"

[–]OmegaParticle 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ironically enough, the West Edmonton Mall was founded by brothers who emigrated from Iran in 1959.

[–]BookOfGQuan 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, what you have is a fear of the terrorist bogeyman. Concern about terrorism is fine, indeed sensible, but what you're displaying is a near-irrational insistence that the big T word changes everything and that you need to hide in your shell and see shadows 'round every corner. And middle-eastern men must be kept out because they might be terrorists.

Also, if you live in the woods in Alberta, the chances of you being a terrorist target are pretty damn small, which makes this fear all the more noticeable for being overblown.

You may call it "reason for concern", but really what you're doing in supporting the "no single men allowed in" idea is the equivalent of avoiding black people on the streets in case they mug you, because after all, statistically they're more likely to do so.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

... its Canada. The area I live in relative to Canada is like top 10 biggest cities in the country list. I'm talking relative to the world

[–]try_so_serious 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's just blatantly sexist and sexist towards men in MRA subreddit. Why can't the women be terrorists?

All a jihadist has to do is get a woman and child to pose as his family. Why not, they are taught by the kuran to lie to infidels to achieve their goals. Even children can go to Canada or the US and grow up to be jihadists. Remember the Boston bombers?

/u/sharmeelagul has a point

[–]ruffykunn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

As someone who lives in Germany, a country that has taken in far more Syrian refugees per capita and a bigger absolute number of asylum seekers, so by your logic is more qualified than you: you're completely wrong. Not in how you feel but in the conclusions you draw from your fears.

As someone who has an anxiety disorder and worries too much: Talk about your fears and worries with people. If they are generally less worried than you, then maybe you are just someone who spends too much of their thoughts on worrying and too little on hoping. /tangent

[–]BookOfGQuan 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the polite response, yes.

[–]TrendWarrior101 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow, Canada, seriously? You call that progressive? Exclude males but allow women, children, and elderly? Not all adult males are military-aged. Very embarrassing. I really hope that the Republicans here does not pass a recent law that would add a more stringent rule that would do nothing but prolong the pain of the refugees who really need our help. Hopefully the Senate would kill off the kill entirely because it's already passed in the House.

[–]BookOfGQuan 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Even you do it - use the term "military aged", thereby insisting that all males of a certain age are "rightly" armed fighters. Your perception of adult males is that they are instruments of and sponges for violence.

[–]pnw_diver -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Blame Canada! Blame Canada!'

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter