Refugees

Syrian Men Looking to Flee to Canada Should Practice Their 'Coming Out' Stories

Country will harbor single dudes only if they're gay, for now.

|

That's not what we mean by "camp."
Credit: EU Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection / photo on flickr

Canada's plans to try to sort out the good Syrian refugees from the potentially dangerous ones is a little bit unusual. Since terrorists often turn out to be single males, they're just not going to let single males in. They're trying not to frame it that way. Officials there say their focus in on letting in more "vulnerable" refugees in, like families with children. But the media is focusing on the rejection (for the moment) of single males. From CNN:

Single unaccompanied men will be excluded from the government resettlement program for now. However, government officials say those individuals can still apply to come to Canada through private sponsorship programs or could possibly be resettled through a government-sponsored program later in 2016.

"Through the rest of 2016, we will bring in more refugees," said Canada's Immigration and Refugee Minister John McCallum at a news briefing in Ottawa on Tuesday.

There is one exception, though. Single men will be considered for refugee entry if they are gay. They fall under the category of "vulnerable" because of the often brutal treatment of gay people in Middle Eastern countries. The Islamic State murders gay men by throwing them off a roof, and they release videos bragging about it. Even American "ally" Saudi Arabia imprisons, flogs, and even executes people for homosexuality.

How does one prove they're gay these days? Is there a quiz where they have to complete lyrics to Adele songs? (Don't act like that's a stereotype. Even I lip-synch to "Hello," and I buy all my clothes at Old Navy because I cannot be bothered to care.) Canada's National Post talked to experts about the challenge of making sure Syrians are being honest about their reasons for trying to emigrate. There are some concerns, but it's not as though guys will be trying to pull a Kilnger from M*A*S*H routine. One group found less than 20 guys trying to fake being gay out of 1,300 refugee applications:

[United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] staff are trained to identify gay refugees. A 17-page directive issued by the body in 2012 provides some of the basics by which they would establish the credibility of a gay claimant.

Screeners are urged to ask questions about when a claimant first knew he was gay.  It notes many gay men in socially conservative countries may have married women or remained as virgins to "avoid harm."

"Detailed questions about the applicant's sex life should be avoided," it reads. "It is not an effective method of ascertaining the well-foundedness of the applicant's fear of persecution on account of his or her sexual orientation and/or gender identity."

The easiest cases are those of men who have served prison time for homosexuality or bear the physical scars of abuse.

Syria, like most Middle Eastern nations, criminalizes homosexuality. Its penal code mandates three years in jail for what it calls "carnal relations against the order of nature."

NEXT: The United States of Paranoia: Now Available in Japanese

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. But this will help end Canada’s desperate shortage of gay Syrian men!

  1. How does one prove they’re gay these days?

    By fucking a dude?

    1. Liza Minneli impersonation?

      1. Does liking Barbara Streisand not count for anything anymore?

        *kids these days*

    2. By tying your pink shirt in a knot?

      1. +1 Mr. Furley. Sorta.

      2. +1 Big Gay Al

    3. Saying you’re a “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” fan usually does the trick.

      1. Too many heterosexual fans. Might I suggest “Glee”?

        1. No reason they both can’t work, along with “Angel” and “Twilight”.

          1. “Twilight”

            Telling people you liked Twilight just signals you have terrible taste.

          2. Again, “Angel” has a lot of het fans. Just because there’s a gay character or two doesn’t make a show “gay”.

            1. How about being a fan of David Boreanaz? That’s pretty gay.

              1. As the least interesting character on both shows, I agree.

          3. Your test works for virgins, not gays. Cordelia in particular is filed away in many the spank-bank.

            1. Okay, The Buffyverse is not gay.

      2. I thought that just proved you were retarded?

      3. I thought that just proved you were retarded?

    4. My little pony collection in a man purse?

      1. Rainbow colored man purse.

      2. Whoa there. True story. My 6 year old daughter replaced all my documents from my briefcase with toys one morning. I didn’t realize until I sat down to meet my morning client, put my brief on the desk in front of him and unlatched it. Yes, among all the toys was a My Little Pony. (She later told me she didn’t want me to be bored at work).

        1. And your client told you that it’s ok that you’ve finally come out?

          1. I explained I wasn’t gay, just into beastiology. I’ve only gotten one Like on my facebook page. Click like puhleeeze.

        2. I was eating a baloney sandwich and drinking milk when I read this.

          Milk came out of my nose. Thanks straffin’

          1. I was eating a baloney sandwich and drinking milk when I read this.

            Granddad? Is that you?

          2. What did the sandwich come out of?

            1. You REALLY don’t want to know.

    5. By admitting to liking the Underworld film series?

      1. Huh, that does explain a lot.

      2. Are they based on Kaz’s Underworld?

      3. What? Kate is hawt

      4. All of 65 of them?

    6. By fucking a dude?

      Canada can just follow the Turkish model.

    7. How about asking to go through the security pat-down twice?

    8. Put on heels and a burka? I’ve heard a few Arabs have done that recently.

    9. No, I think you have to catch; many pitchers claim they’re just {horny|drunk}.

    10. Marrying Arianna Huffington?

      1. Or Michelle Bachman, apparently…

    11. Reason subscriber?

      1. Up yours. Oops.

    12. Reciting Cher lyrics?

  2. This airport is FAAAABUUULAAAS! Where did you get those boots agent man? Sexy!

  3. Turkey solved this problem when they decided to stop conscripting homosexuals.

    He had gone prepared with explicit photographs of himself having sex with another man, having heard that it would be impossible to get out of military service without them.
    ”The face must be visible,” says Gokhan. ”And the photos must show you as the passive partner. (ie bottom – tarran)”

    1. So tops aren’t gay. Have at it, fellas.

      1. By the middle eastern culture they aren’t gay. Only bottoms are committing a sin. Unless they are underage.

        1. True. In fact, they don’t seem to have our* concept of “gay” at all. It’s just a sex/power thing.

          *Well, most of us westerners. Not all.

          1. Careful, Rhywun. Observing that there exists cultural variation in the conception of sexual orientation might make some on here confused, hurt, and angry.

            1. In fairness, being bottom would certainly make me confused, hurt, and angry.

              1. Frank Reynolds: What’s a power bottom?

                Mac: A power bottom is a bottom that is capable of receiving an enormous amount of power.

                Dennis Reynolds: Actually Mac, you’ve got it backwards. You see, the power bottom is actually generating the power by doing most of the work.

                Frank Reynolds: Does power have to do with size or strength of the bottom?

                Mac: Now Dennis, I heard speed has something to do with it.

                Dennis Reynolds: Speed has everything to do with it! You see, the speed of the bottom informs the top how much pressure he’s supposed to apply. Speed’s the name of the game.

            2. Mulatto,

              Everyone knows it is not gay if it happens away.

          2. “Homosexual – a person sexually attracted to a person of their own gender.”

            Seems pretty straightforward to me.

            1. Actually I told that to a guy that made a pass at me once. He assured me that I wouldn’t be the gay one, he was. I told him to look it up.

              Him – “You are right. Well, Goddamn, that means nearly every man in Mexico is gay.”

              Me – “It ain’t just Mexico.”

            2. So why are you right, and the hundreds of millions of Arabs, Turks, Persians, Afghans, and handfuls of East and Southwestern Asians who believe it’s not gay if you’re on top and/or he has no facial hair wrong?

              1. “Boys are for pleasure, women are for babies”

                /Central Asia

              2. So why are you right, and the hundreds of millions of Arabs, Turks, Persians, Afghans, and handfuls of East and Southwestern Asians who believe it’s not gay if you’re on top and/or he has no facial hair wrong?

                Do they say “gay” or do they have other, native words? You are the one assuming those words are synonymous with “gay”.

                1. Do they say “gay” or do they have other, native words? You are the one assuming those words are synonymous with “gay”.

                  That’s a good point; and as someone who has actually taught college-level courses on Intercultural Pragmatics, I can assure you that I am not assuming the semantic fields of their terminology and our understanding of “gay” overlap completely. Which is kind of my point. Different cultures establish the parameters of what constitutes homosexual behavior differently. An act that we may call gay, a different culture may label differently. As homosexuality cannot be empirically quantified, like say, the melting point of ice under normal conditions, whose to say that one concept is more accurate than another.

                  1. If, on witnessing the act, I would respond with a drawn-out monotone “gaaaaaaay,” then more than likely it’s pretty gay.

                  2. I knows it when I sees it.

                  3. Furthermore, take something like color. No one disputes that normal sighted humans can perceive visible light on a spectrum from 380 nm to 750 nm. However, how exactly that spectrum is divided and labeled shows variation across languages and cultures. For example, if you ask your average English speaker how many colors there are, he or she will probably say six (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, and Purple), a minority might divide purple into “indigo” and “violet”. If you ask them why, they might point to a rainbow or light through a prism. It would seem English color terms are a fundamental fact of nature. But if so, why does Japanese traditionally conflate green and blue into the same word? So much so that we have depictions of traffic signals where the top light is blue? Why are we right and they’re wrong? On the other hand, Thai, as one example, divides what we consider blue into “sky blue” (faa) and “ocean/dark blue” (namngern). While we might consider them two shades of the same color, to a Thai, like my wife, they are clearly different colors. To the ancient Greeks, orange was just a shade of yellow. Etc. etc.

                    1. We’re right because “America, Fuck Yeah!”

                      *cracks open Miller Lite*

                    2. So, by point out relativity in color terms, no one is denying that color exists. Again, all normal sighted humans can perceive visible light within the same spectrum. Color in and of itself is not a “social construct”; however, the semantic fields that are encompassed by the terms different cultures choose to label and divided the common spectrum of visible light can and do vary and the points at which they spectrum is divided is relative. So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the spectrum represented by the Kinsey Scale is accurate. Would we not expect to see a similar phenomenon as with color terminology across languages?

                    3. Is this the gay verbose version of “Is the dress gold or blue” quiz?

                    4. The gold/white vs. black/blue dress is actually an example of the fascinating, to me anyway, cognitive neuropsychology of color perception. As I understand it, it all revolves around which direction your mind believes the light is shining from.

                    5. *puts serious hat on*

                      Color is absolutely a relative perception. It is dependent on contrast between light and dark and between different colors. There is a lot of post-processing going on that has evolutionary purpose (edge detection, motion detection, contrast, etc…) and there are limitations of color detection. Why can’t we see in the infra-red?

                    6. It’s not my fault they’re color blind. It’s six colors and it’s gonna stay that way, capeesh?

                      Psh! /opens can of beer. Sprays cat.

                    7. ROY G. BIV

                      That’s 7 dude. Although legend has it they shoved indigo in there just for the acronym.

                  4. Objectively, ‘gay’ means ‘sexually attracted to the same sex’. If your ‘culture’ disagrees, your culture is wrong.

                    1. Technically, homosexual is the characteristic of being attracted to the same sex. Gay is a cultural identification. You can be a non-practicing homosexual, but not a non-practicing gay. Although all of these terms are culture-bound and ultimately meaningless so whatever.

                    2. Although all of these terms are culture-bound and ultimately meaningless so whatever.

                      No, you stupid homo. Objectively, my unexamined prejudices are obviously the objective truth.

                    3. What if all the homos keep sucking your dick, but you don’t know why?

                    4. “That’s a good point; and as someone who has actually taught college-level courses”

                      What a stupid fucking asshole you are arguing from authority on this.

                    5. Somebody is mad that he didn’t get hired at the local JC.

                    6. Now, Playa, there’s no shame in being a middle aged, male, kindergarten teacher who needs to change his handle on anonymous websites to get people to talk to him.

                    7. Wait, now you’re asserting that definitions of words are objective facts, and not cultural conventions? Just when I thought you couldn’t be more hilariously wrong about a subject…

          3. Back in the old days here there were a lot of tops who claimed they were straight because they were tops.

            1. The change in terminology was at least partly intentional. You had guys fucking other guys who weren’t “homosexual” by accepted cultural standards, which meant they had no investment in gay rights. The model everyone else on earth is using was pretty standard in the US/Europe prior to the ’60s.

              So sorry “straight” folks who like getting blowjobs from homeless boys at truck stops for $5 because they have a frigid wife, we done fucked that one up for you.

              1. YOU FUCKING MONSTERS

            2. And don’t forget the old model of the “bachelor” who moves to the big city, never marries, never tells his family anything, and the family never asks. That’s got to be pretty much dead by now, right?

              Incidentally, and for no other reason that the word “bachelor” reminded me of it, I have an old collection of Mark Twain that my grandfather got as a child as a gift from his bachelor great-uncle. I like knowing that my family’s old-timey homos had taste, you know?

    2. Hmm, this is what I get for not reading all the comments first.

    3. Tarran means “bottom” in Arabic?

      1. Ha, good catch (SWIDT?).

        1. Very nice Tonio. We’re all very amused with your comment. 🙂

      2. In Arabic, the top is positive and the bottom is negative. “Saleb” means gay bottom. Many, but not all, Arab men see a negative gay man as if he belongs to a third gender. Hence the top who fucks a bottom is no more gay than my American brother with a transgender wife is.

        Sharmota is another Arabic word without a one to one correspondence to an English word. It means whore/bitch/slut. The Eskimos have many words for ice. The French have many words for bitch. It all depends on the culture.

        1. By the way, “zeb” is Arabic for dick. I was surprised to see someone here pick it as a screen name.

  4. Country will harbor single dudes only if they’re gay, for now.

    That’s what happens when you do not know your enemy. Nobody said the 72 virgins waiting for you in heaven after you blow yourself to bits in a crowded agora have to be girls only…

      1. What’s the context? Is this something being condemned, or recommended?

    1. Didn’t Mohammed himself enjoy the company of many, many young boys?

      1. Who among us hasn’t?

        1. *Slowly scoots away from OMWC*

        2. Let he who is without sin throw the first bone?

  5. Three gays in a hot tub. One looks down, sees something white floating in the water and says, “Hey who farted?”

    1. * narrows sphincter *

    2. “May I push in your stool?”

      1. *shakes fist at the lot of you*

  6. Don’t act like that’s a stereotype.

    I’ve heard of her but am unfamiliar with her music. Am I out of the club?

      1. After that comes WATERED. To prevent a larger conflagration.

      2. Or it just means I’m old. *tear*

  7. The Canadian government is about as smart as our government. IOW, dumber than shit. So if I’m a Syrian guy who wants to enter Canada, I just claim to be gay. Pretty damn easy to outsmart the Canadian government I would have to say. But they have Trudeau the younger now, so it’s onward to utopia, complete with thousands of Syrian guy dudes!

    1. He really is President Zoolander. Even beyond this idiocy, there are plenty of cases of women and even children being suicide bombers and terrorists. This is what happens when you let your ideology do your thinking. The ideology says women, children and gays are wonderful and straight men are the problem. So you just let women, children and any man who claims to be gay in the country. How could anything go wrong?

      They really are this fucking stupid.

      1. I thought it was your ideology that said straight men were the problem, because they are “economic migrants” and not refugees.

        1. WTF are you talking about? Last I looked I think it is insane to let any of them in.

      2. Not to mention the actual terrorist still on the loose in France or Belgium who by all accounts is gay.

        1. Did you read the article in the Mail about the woman who was with those guys? Apparently she was the ring leader’s cousin. She basically sat around all day and tracked celebrity gossip on her phone.

          I hadn’t heard the one on the lamb was gay but it doesn’t surprise me. Joining ISIS has become a way for losers to rebel and feel important. The actual religion it professes seems to be less and less important.

          1. the one on the lamb

            You meant goat, right?

            1. No on the lamb like this

          2. There was some article in the NY Post that he spent his evenings doing/dealing drugs and hooking up at gay clubs.

        2. I’m sure he was just there scoping out the decadence, night after night. For research purposes. You know like Martin Ssempa and Peter LaBarbera.

          1. He has a lot of sins to pay for. He is just killing the infidel to make up for things.

        3. Ahmed Bin Felchin is gay? Damn.

      3. Progressive liberals tend to spew rhetoric first and then scramble when it doesn’t fit reality.

        He wanted 25 000 by the end of December when most people are on Holidays. It was ratcheted down to 10 000 when someone probably whispered in his ears his plan was a tad bold even for commies like him. The Liberals and their supporters are now spinning it as being ‘prudent’ not reneging on a promise.

        This is called ‘on the job training.’

        1. I don’t follow Canadian politics. So tell me how did Howard fuck up so badly to let that idiot win?

          1. I’m assuming that the last PM was Canada’s version of Dubyah, or something like that.

            1. Yes he was. A Canadian neo-con from the so-called ‘Calgary school’ who I think was actually created by an American; his name escapes me. I read about it in either McLean’s or The Walrus over 15 years ago.

              1. Three good things about Harper:

                1) He cut the civil service.
                2) He was generally a fiscal conservative. (Yes, he spent big after the 2008 recession, but less than all the pundits wanted. And he fought his budget back nearly into balance: less than 1/2% deficit at the end, if you accept the Liberal revision.)
                3) He did reduce taxes.

                1. 1) No he didn’t, His ‘cuts’ only reversed the earlier increase he brought about.

                  2) No he wasn’t his spending was out of control well before the recession. He LOVED big government.

                  3) Most of his ‘cuts’ were boutique tax bullshit, and cutting the GST which was stupid. The TFSA and corporate income tax cuts were good though.

                  1. And now you will have the opposite.

                2. He also removed the long firearm registration, abolished one of the more egregious anti-freedom sections of human rights act, and refused to bow down to CAGW madness.

                  1. Also, he kept us out of Kyoto and didn’t suck climate change cock, and signed a pretty important Pacific trade deal.

                    I think the Liberals restored the mandatory long-form census even though 95% of Canadians filled it out when it was made voluntary by Harper.

                    Clowns.

                  2. ” refused to bow down to CAGW madness.”

                    That’s being generous. He still pushed out subsidies for all kinds of bullshit.

                    While he abolished the registry, he brought in mandatory minimum laws for ‘crimes’ involving guns like owning one without permission. Thankfully, the wiser minds in the courts prevailed and struck many of these down.

                    “abolished one of the more egregious anti-freedom sections of human rights act”

                    That’s great but he still kept the CHRC around and increased its funding. The CHRC is the bigger problem than Section 13.

                3. He spent a lot to save his government because the Lib/NDP threatened to take him down unless he opened the purse strings. He reigned some of it back in once he got a majority.

                  1. His spending was out of hand well before that point. Further, if he had a brain he would have let the coalition happen and destroy itself. Instead, he tried ‘victory by surrender’. He never ‘reigned in’ shit he just stopped large increases in spending.

                    Harper was Canada’s version of Bush just without the Iraq War (which is better). He had years of mandate to achieve REAL reform-getting rid of supply management, tax simplification, etc etc-and the only things he gave a shit about were 1) putting people in jail for MJ and prostitution 2) increasing surveillance over Canada and 3) offering words of support to pipeline projects without ever seeing any get built. All that empty ‘centrism’ in the name of re-election -oh wait he fucked that up too.

                    The only big achievement of Canada’s conservative movement since abolishing the CWB monopsony was getting Trudeau elected. Conservatives: what a bunch of useless assholes.

          2. It’s all so sordid. He just ran a lethargic campaign and people were tired of him. His social policies (particularly on crime) were a travesty – dare I say retarded – though.

            1. If Harper had half a brain he would have stepped down in 2013 and the Conservatives would have won re-election. His campaign was pathetic. Years of hearing that asshole’s fan base fete him as a ‘political genius’ all so he could Romney it away.

              1. Not too many politicians relinquish power like that. Alpha-male and all that.

          3. Cannabis Prohibition. A favorite of the right. Even in America.

        2. Justin Trudeau’s delay in resettling 25,000 Syrian refugees may be a smart political move

          Don’t you get it? When Conservatives break a promise, it’s bad. When Liberals break a promise, it’s smart politicking, dontchyaknow.

          1. Are surprised the CBC are going to defend him as much as they can?

            1. The CBC created him.

              The CBC has promoted the myth that Pierre Trudeau ‘saved’ Canada for the last 40 years. They have pushed the idea that his son was the natural heir to Canada ever since he was first nominated as a candidate for parliament.

              The CBC will continue to support him right up until the day his memoir goes off the remainder shelf.

              1. Absolutely. It’s amazing how people uncritically buy into this shit. Actually, it’s retarded when you think of it how they treat Justin as if he holds the only proper vision of what constitutes Canada (whatever the fuck that means0 and possesses some sort of wisdom.

                I accepted the Pierre myth until I hit college and had to write papers. Then I smartened up.

        3. We’re still getting those refugees (Thank God) but it will just take a few months longer. I just hope he doesn’t stop at 25,000.

          1. 10 000 was last I heard.

            1. 10 000 by end of December. The rest come over the next few months.

      4. Not a single Canadian refugee has ever committed an attack on Canada.

        1. Never? Just at random, the 2013 VIA Rail plot? I happened to be in Montreal the day these jokers were arraigned, and I remember a lot of hand wringing over how Raed Jaser had managed to stay in the country.

          1. Were they refugees? I’m not seeing any indication they were.

            1. “Court records show that Mr. Jaser’s father, Mohammed, sought asylum claiming he had suffered successive waves of persecution: first as a Palestinian when the Israeli state was created; then in the UAE, where he was a migrant worker for 24 years; then in Germany when a racist mob tossed a Molotov cocktail at his family home while they were seeking asylum in Europe.

              In Canada, the family got a break ? officials gave them immigration status even though they didn’t find the claims persuasive. But Raed Jaser was deemed deportable in 1998 because of his criminal record.”
              Link
              Not sure if that makes him an official “refugee”, and they made a cursory effort to deport him because of his criminal record, but seems close enough. And that was just off the top of my American head.

        2. Not a single Canadian refugee has ever committed an attack on Canada

          So it is unpossible? Science you are a moron.

          1. It is certainly unlikely and not worth restricting immigration over.

    2. Yep. Trudeau the Lesser is proving about as dumb as I expected.

      But the CBC is still fellating him.

      1. The worst part is, we would be so much worse off if Harper were in charge. He would have gone full police state in response to the Paris attacks.

  8. The easiest cases are those of men who have served prison time for homosexuality or bear the physical scars of abuse.

    “Ok, don’t move… I’m trying to point my pen light in the right position…”

    What do you want? The whole thing is so silly it cries for satire!

  9. “This one time at terrorist camp…I mean, band camp…”

  10. Good job on the alt text, Scott.

  11. I’m surprised it took somebody this long to make this kind of thing explicit. As all the photographs chosen in support of this issue have shown, its not strapping young straight unattached males that people are sympathetic too.

  12. “I’m from ISIMP. The Islamic State In My Pants. “

  13. [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] staff are trained to identify gay refugees.

    Trained by whom? And who trains the trainers?

    1. And who trains the trainers?

      Bravo TV?

      1. LOL

        A season of Project Runway should do the trick.

  14. Canadian immigration officials should just hire male escorts and make any male who claims to be gay prove it. Do that and amend the rule to exclude tops and that should solve the problem of straight men lying to get into the country. It is one thing to blow yourself up for the jihad, but even lunatics have their limits.

  15. By the way, lying to infidels in the service of the Jihad is not only permitted, it’s very specifically encouraged in the Koran.

    1. Wow, how cunning. I bet they’re the first people who ever thought of lying for their cause.

      1. The Asiatic is inherently inscrutable and prone to despotism.

        1. They subscribe to an insidious ideology built on lies and conquest, not like democratic Americans!

            1. Among their chief weapons are such diverse elements as: fear; surprise; ruthless efficiency; and an almost-fanatical devotion to the Pope….

      2. Not many major religions claim to have the direct word of God telling them to lie.

  16. Someone is under-estimating Zoolander’s abilities. He’s going to spot gays like roadkill all by himself. All he’ll need is a monocle and a latex glove.

    1. And they don’t have have to turn their heads….

  17. staff are trained to identify gay refugees.

    I’m assuming they use GAYDAR.

    1. That’s not something that can be taught. And not every gay man has it.

  18. Even I lip-synch to “Hello,”

    Is that a thing? I sing along with songs, but I’ve never sat there and mimed the lyrics.

  19. What, no hat tip?

    Yeah, I found it interesting in yesterday’s news story how they went through verbal gymnastics saying how young men of fighting age would be passed over for other refugees.

  20. “ISIS just makes me want to SCREAM!”

  21. How does one prove they’re gay these days? Is there a quiz where they have to complete lyrics to Adele songs?

    It’s the era of intense identity politics where we give away goodies to various people based on their identities!

    As I have been saying all along, either someone somewhere who believes in this shit comes up with some hard metrics, or it’s all meaningless.

    1. Can’t someone “identify as gay” regardless of whether they are actually sexually attracted to people of the same sex? If you can identify as being black even though you are white or as being a woman even though you are a man, why can’t you identify as being gay if you want to?

      1. It’s probably a lot easier than claiming to be native american. So there’s the answer.

        1. Progressives are absolutely certain every white male has this enormous advantage by virtue of being white and male. Yet, there hasn’t been any cases of anyone who wasn’t trying to pass as a white male in decades. Meanwhile, every week there seems to be a new case of someone trying to pass as a minority. Funny how so many people want to pretend to be something they are not even though being so is the worst most horrible thing that could ever happen to someone.

          1. Did you seriously just claim that there hasn’t been anyone trying to pass as a white male in decades? WTF do you think most white transmen are trying to do?

            1. Okay. I lose track of my transvestites. Good point. But I wasn’t talking about transvestites. I was talking about people pretending to be black and Indian and such. Go find me a case of a black or an Indian trying to pass as white. It used to be incredibly common and unthinkable for it to happen the other way. Now the opposite seems to be the case.

              1. Go find me a case of a black or an Indian trying to pass as white.

                Wayne Brady?

                    1. “You had Paul Mooney say that white people like me because i make Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X.”

                1. Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?

                  1. I didn’t know you liked to get wet, Dave.

            2. You know this first hand? Or on the other hand?

              1. MSimon,

                There have been any number of high profile examples of white people trying to pass as something else over the last few years. Go find me an example of the opposite. I haven’t seen any. Have you? If not, why haven’t we?

                And also note the huge disparity between the number of male to female transgendered and female to male.

                1. If not, why haven’t we?

                  Maybe they are better at it?

                  Passing as white is something you could only do if you had very light skin. I’m sure there are plenty of people with some African or other darker skinned heritage doing that today.

                  1. Sure Zeb, but why don’t we ever hear about it? And I am not sure why they would be as a group any better or worse at passing than any other group.

                    The point is very few people if anyone is doing it. And that fact puts lie to the idea that there is any real advantage in this society anymore to being white. Back when there was a real advantage to being white, people did it all of the time.

                    1. And I am not sure why they would be as a group any better or worse at passing than any other group.

                      depends on who “they” are. I’m talking about light skinned African-American people. They are better at passing because they look pretty much like white people in many cases.

                      I do agree with your broader point. There isn’t a particular advantage to being white nowadays. There are advantages in many contexts to being part of a group that has been traditionally discriminated against. Racial disparities today aren’t a result of current white privilege, but mostly of past discrimination and bigotry and supposedly well meaning, but poorly conceived, attempts to help.

                    2. Zeb, I think another factor in this is that most white people don’t give a crap about non-whites trying to pass as white. And if they did complain, they’d be painted as racists. This is all about a huge double-standard driven by the racist, antiquated one-drop rule.

                    3. One-drop rule?

                      *Los Doyers’ ears perk up*

                    4. I may be projecting here, but I’d say that most whites don’t spend much time at all thinking about racial identity.

                2. John,

                  To get the flavor (damn comment threading) :

                  WTF do you think most white transmen are trying to do?

                  You know this first hand? Or on the other hand?

            3. Also, the number of male to female trans outnumbers the number of female to male trans by three to one if I am not mistaken.

              So actually your example proves my point. If there is so much advantage to being a male, why do so many more men choose to pass as female than women who choose to pass as male?

              1. If there is so much advantage to being a male, why do so many more men choose to pass as female than women who choose to pass as male?

                That’s an odd way to look at it. Why not believe what those people actually say rather than guessing at some cynical secret motive? They identify as women because they are more comfortable identifying as women.

                And I’m sure plenty of people don’t buy all the “white male privilege” stuff, but keep using it anyway because it works for them.

              2. If there is so much advantage to being a male, why do so many more men choose to pass as female than women who choose to pass as male?

                Improves the dating odds?

      2. Can’t someone “identify as gay” regardless of whether they are actually sexually attracted to people of the same sex?

        Sure. Today I’m identifying as a hippopotamus.

        1. While hippo identity is all well and good, those are currently not a protected class. Back to the refugee camp with you.

          Now, had you said you’re an Ibex… then, well…

          *stares at zep across table*

          1. OK, maybe I should be a rhino instead. I don’t want to be some fragile little deer thing.

            And who’s zep?

            1. Apparently there are a lot of RINOs here.

      3. I identify as a lesbian. I like women in a sexual kind of way. And I once had a lesbian GF although I was only bangin he bi GF. but I did get to eat out the lez a time or two.

      4. “You’re black. You said we were an interracial couple.”
        “We are. Because you’re Hispanic.”

        “That’s because I thought you should black.”
        “Why would you take me to a Spanish restaurant because I’m black?”
        “I don’t think we should be talking about this.”
        “So, what are you?”
        “I’m white.”
        “So, we’re just a couple of white people?”
        “I guess.”

        1. “Wanna go to the Gap?”

  22. Justin (PC Principal stance): You gay, bro?
    Syrian (sporing ‘I’m so gay I can’t think straight’ tank top. Pulls out record): You like, Elton John, bra?
    Justin: You’re in! See? I told you it would be easy stoopid conservatives!

    1. This needs to appear on South Park. It’s perfect so incredibly perfect.

  23. Is there a quiz where they have to complete lyrics to Adele songs?

    Obscene! To pretend to be gay… That’s cultural appropriation!

    1. That is right. And that is how we know this is going to work. I mean ISIS would never engage in something as vile as cultural approbation.

      1. First “Clearance Thomas,” now “cultural approbation”? My… my god. You’re an artist, and it’s BEAUTIFUL.

        1. I always try to include something for people who have a hard time understanding the conversations. You might not know what the hell anyone is talking about, but at least you can be entertained in some way. I am just inclusive like that.

          1. Don’t ever change, Red Tony.

            1. Your forgot to yell STRAWMAN. I mean if you are going to self identify as a moron, at least go all the way.

              1. Your writing skills have my complete appropriation.

                1. Almanian,

                  If only you were worthy of a good proof read. Seriously, it is an anonymous internet board. Who gives a fuck? What is the point of coming on here if not to bang out missives without worrying about the details?

                  1. John, does your butt hurt? Cause it appears that your butt hurts.

                    I’m just funnin’. Fuck you if you can’t enjoy my approbation.

                    🙂

                  2. It doesn’t matter, of course. But you have a special talent for amusing word substitutions. Sometimes it’s just too good to ignore. Don’t take it as an insult. It’s great.

              2. What, and tread on your turf? Nah, i’m good.

                1. True, you self identify about 20 times a day. So there is no reason to over do it.

                  Seriously, do you just not understand the conversation? I have never seen you say anything substantive. It is not that I disagree with you. You would have to say something for that to be true.

                  1. John – brother – it’s Thanksgiving tomorrow, and, as you’ve noted, it’s a stupid, anonymous internet…thing. I hate to see you go all…John over this. I implore you – relax, we’ll enjoy you love of fatties and entertaining spelling, and everyone enjoys some turkey tomorrow.

                    EXCEPT THE RUSSIANS, AMIRITE?!

                    Happy Thanksgiving, John – it’s never personal, it’s all in good fun, and it’d be different if we hated you. But we love you – MWAH!

                    1. Thanks, Almanian, for injecting the proper spirit here. If this isn’t for fun, we all need to get a life.

                      And I wouldn’t want John or you or any non-shitheads to change.

                    2. Nice “bury the hatchet” Almanian. Happy Thanksgiving.

                    3. Thank you. And yeah. I am a know it all asshole. It’s my move. Everyone has to have something

                  2. You could try looking harder.

                    I type shit into this website here because it’s fun and i enjoy it. If a lot of what i say isn’t ‘substantive,’ so what? Like you said above, “Seriously, it is an anonymous internet board. Who gives a fuck?”

              3. Your forgot to yell STRAWMAN.

                You trying to get him FIRED?

                1. It’s the day before Thanksgiving, nobody’s in the office to hear it if i did.

  24. Is there some statistical nonesense going on here? They found 20 guys pretending to be gay out of 1,300 refugee applications, but it isn’t clear if that is 1,300 males applying or 1,300 total. If it’s the former it’s 1.5%%, but if it’s the latter you start getting into questions of just how many of that 1,300 is it. If it’s 50-50 male-female you’re now at 3%, and if it’s only adult males you’re probably getting around 5-7% that they are able to catch pretending to be gay.

  25. Well, they can’t use the volleyball scene from Top Gun to weed them out. That sequence would turn even the straightest of arrows queer as a football bat.

      1. *oils up Fist’s back for him*

        1. Oils up fist? OK, it’s getting a little weird around here.

          1. Hey, we’re all “friends” here, right? RIGHT?

            1. I don’t really like any of you.

              1. I don’t really like any of you.

                In that case…

                *wipes oil off of fist*

                All right, let’s do this.

                1. You people aren’t invited to my threads anymore.

                  1. What about me?

                    *goo goo eyes Fist*

    1. +1 Val Kilmer Teeth Snap

      1. “Everyone’s sorry about Goose. Everyone…..everyone liked him.”

  26. The easiest cases are those of men who have served prison time for homosexuality or bear the physical scars of abuse.

    How do they verify that? And are gay abuse scars different than other kinds of abuse scars?

  27. Color me shocked that people would lie to get a pass into a country like Canada.

    In the mid ’90s I worked with a bunch of guys who emigrated from Russia. Almost all of them got preferential treatment for entry by claiming to be jewish. Working with them, it became pretty clear that most of them were about as jewish as I was (which is 0%).

    1. You know who else claimed to be 0% Jewish?

      1. Hitler?

      2. Lyndon LaRouche?

      3. Cut me some slack dude! Being 0% jewish sort of goes with being named Pope.

        1. Tell it to Simon Peter, Holiness.

    2. In the mid ’90s I worked with a bunch of guys who emigrated from Russia. Almost all of them got preferential treatment for entry by claiming to be jewish. Working with them, it became pretty clear that most of them were about as jewish as I was (which is 0%).

      Israel had the same Russian problem.

  28. From the national post link:

    Other times, claimants were rejected when they started lambasting IRQR workers as “faggots.”

    How could they be rejected. I thought it was okay for gays to say the f-word ( I am not gay).

    1. Think “nigga” and you’ll have some idea of when and where it is appropriate.

      1. Think “nigga” and you’ll have some idea of when and where it is appropriate.

        Yes, I was. It is well know that In middle eastern culture the word faggot (I just put on a pink shirt and I promise I will watch Glee in the very near future) is a term of endearment amongst the gay community.

        1. I’m guessing the IRQR workers are not known to be members of the gay community.

  29. I think this is a job for jesse and Johnny Longtorso (using the “Golden Girls” methodology, of course).

    Can Canyada get them work visas in a timely fashion?

  30. Helloooo Reboot! w/ a ‘die harder’ twist

  31. This “intense vetting process” is becoming more and more fascinating to me. So far, all I’ve heard in the media, here and major media is that there’s a vetting process, but I’ve seen very few details on how it works, how the questions are asked, what the background check process is, how answers are verified etc.

    The whole things reeks of top-men thinking.

    1. This.

      I figure the “intense” comes from the vetter drinking copious amounts of coffee.

    2. Here, read up. It is quite scrutinizing.

      http://blog.panampost.com/edit…..s-in-need/

      1. This is a weird article. I don’t have disagreement with the general thesis, but the details are… weird. Some snippets:

        ? The 2000 “millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam, who was going to attempt to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), had his refugee application (and appeal) denied, and was being pursued by Canadian immigration officials at the time of his arrest.

        Refugee application denied, yet there he was in Canada.

        The two terrorists implicated in the 2013 train derailment plot (Chiheb Essighair and Raed Jaser) were not admitted refugees either. Esseghair was a permanent resident completing his PhD at a Canadian university, while Jaser was a denied refugee applicant.

        Refugee application denied, yet there he was in Canada.

        I’m not agreeing with the conservative premise that Refugees represent an imminent threat to any western nation, but the idea that there’s a magical screening process seems dubious.

        Plus, if you read the rest of the terror cases in Canada, many were not refugees but immigrants.

        So the question remains, if we make obtaining refugee status as easy as immigration status, do you get more real terrorists?

        1. ” Esseghair was a permanent resident completing his PhD at a Canadian university”

          Studying at university can get you into Canada on a special entry or something. Not sure about the rest. Maybe they came in on a temporary basis and were applying for refugee.

          1. Student visa. Much, much, much easier than refugee or permanent resident status

  32. Single unaccompanied men will be excluded from the government resettlement program for now.

    Anyone remember The Perez Family? I for one would suffer the indignity of getting with Marissa Tomei if it gets me into a free country.

  33. There are some concerns, but it’s not as though guys will be trying to pull a Kilnger from M*A*S*H routine. One group found less than 20 guys trying to fake being gay out of 1,300 refugee applications:

    How was it confirmed that all the others were, in fact, gay? I read somewhere on the internet, I don’t remember exactly where, that they make them watch gay porn to see if they get an erection.

    1. I also like how the last sentence and quote are presented as a sort of relieving counterargument rather than a; “They’re known to be persecuted by their previous culture and don’t expect much different from their peers here.” warning.

      Like, if you offered the women guaranteed asylum for throwing out their burqas and only 20 women in 1,300 took you up on it, you just assume your burqa offer isn’t being abused and/or burqas are just really comfortable.

  34. Single unaccompanied men will be excluded from the government resettlement program for now.

    “Oh, I’m neither single nor unaccompanied. I’m traveling with my partner here. Right, Honey?”

  35. OK all you rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists – have a great day and hopefully a non-Pajama Boy plagued Thanksgiving.

    I am off to fondue a turkey with roesti on the side or somesuch.

    1. Keep your turkey fondling habits to yourself please.

    2. Happy Thanksgiving, my Swiss Chalet!! (I have no idea what that means)

      We’ll be BBQ’ing one, and doing the other in the oven. Q’ed my first turkey last Christmas – was epic, so we’re doing it again this year. About 5 hours, low and slow – looks like the cover of a magazine, tastes like heaven.

      1. Swiss Chalet

        Swiss house.

        Does the barbecue method make it any easier to have the dark meat properly cooked without the breast drying out?

        1. Try cooking it upside down in the oven, works pretty well for evening out the doneness. And a proper meat thermometer is key.

    3. As a proud sidewinder, I feel microagressed to have been left off the list. Turkey shall be as ash in my mouth over this.

      1. I’m way more sensitive than that. I have been femtoaggressed.

    4. Happy Thanksgiving.

  36. There are some concerns, but it’s not as though guys will be trying to pull a Kilnger from M*A*S*H routine.

    Well, of course. Everyone knows that Klinger was Lebanese, not Syrian.

  37. That’s a shame. Pretty sure a bunch of single guys left behind in refugee camps will be easier for the bad guys to recruit.

  38. unless they are accompanying their parents or can prove “membership in an LGBTI community.”

    Whoa whoa! What the eff is LGBTI?

    Of the more than 1,300 refugees who have approached IRQR, only 17 were detected as false claimants during screening, although Parsi said he fears the rate may be higher with direct UNHCR screenings.

    “It’s very easy to abuse and lie on these applications,” he said. “It doesn’t mean that Canada shouldn’t bring in LGBT refugees, but they need to be more careful and a new system brought in to support people who are in real need.”

    Detailed questions about the applicant’s sex life should be avoided,” it reads. “It is not an effective method of ascertaining the well-foundedness of the applicant’s fear of persecution on account of his or her sexual orientation and/or gender identity.”

    Other times, a gay claim may hinge on letters of recommendation, testimony from friends or family or an online profile.

    The screener’s task is made easier by the fact many countries producing refugees are notoriously homophobic.

    Men from hyper-masculine backgrounds are unlikely to masquerade as gay for a UN official. And if they do, they’re not very good at it.

    Just leaving this here…

    1. The I is intersex. Ambiguous genitalia, hermaphroditism, XXY, stuff like that.

      1. Seems like the “I” doesn’t really go with the others. Maybe the “T” too. The LGB part makes sense all being about sexual orientation. The I and T are something rather different, it seems to me.

        Kind of like the silliness of “people of color”. Do they ever consider that maybe some people might not like being lumped together into one overbroad “identity” like that?

        1. Do they ever consider that maybe some people might not like being lumped together into one overbroad “identity” like that?

          No, why? What do individuals’ lives and preferences have to do with furthering Social Justice?

        2. Do they ever consider that maybe some people might not like being lumped together into one overbroad “identity” like that?

          No, they don’t. Because it’s a system of identity just like any other, except it just creates new categories for administration. You can’t abandon identity altogether, we just need more boxes on the spreadsheet is all.

        3. That’s a loooong conversation. There are fractures in that coalition that have been building for decades.

          1. Isn’t that kind of the point though? The longer the conversation, the more identity-vetting jobs it creates.

            1. Huh? No, I mean that whether or not transgender and intersex should be part of the lesbian/gay/bi coalition is a long conversation. It’s one that’s been going on in the west intermittently since at least the 1920s, and is going to be wrangled differently in different cultures depending on whether or not there are accepted third genders or not. The problem with activists on both sides is they want discrete boxes to put people in and the lines are being drawn very arbitrarily.

              There are some great documents of The Daughters of Bilitis talking about how they’d encourage their members to only dress femme because they didn’t prefer the butch/femme dynamic that was heavily at play mid-century. Now they’re all embarrassed that they saw it as a pressing issue.

              1. I guess what I was saying is that if identity… ‘genres’ didn’t exist, it would kind of make the identity politics industry and identity studies kind of irrelevant.

                The whole point (to me) is to create a narrative around shared experience for people with a given identity. Once you establish that shared experience, results or effects of institutional discrimination, victimization etc., can follow– allowing for entire government programs to come into existence which allows those identities to be ‘managed’ and policies/goodies to be distributed therein.

                1. What you’re saying makes me think that you’re seeing shared experience as necessarily manufactured for political gain, but it’s not just being made up out of whole cloth. A few years ago a bunch of military guys beat the shit out of someone they saw leaving a gay bar. It’s a gay bar I’ve only been to once or twice, but had just been there recently. Even in our enlightened age I felt more uncomfortable going to a gay bar than I had before I read that news article. Now magnify that with the police raids, job purges, beatings, public outings and whatnot that *some* homosexuals experienced. Even those who were never caught had that hanging over them.

                  1. What you’re saying makes me think that you’re seeing shared experience as necessarily manufactured for political gain

                    I’m not, actually. I’m trying to say the exact opposite.

                    Shared experience is real, and very much tied to identity. I have no idea what it’s like to grow up black or gay in the 1950s. I have no idea what it’s like to deal with glass ceilings in the 60s and 70s.

                    Consequently, government (and other entities) have created set-asides for various groups based on these shared experiences. Minotirites get preferential treatment when applying at universities or certain jobs. There are low interest loans for minority/women owned business, preferential contracting with government agencies– the list goes on. Without making any argument for or against these set asides, they exist and they presumably have metrics for identifying who’s eligible for these programs. It’s also generally understood that these set asides are there to specifically compensate for institutional discrimination that either existed previously or exists now.

                    If anyone at any time can “declare” themselves to be in one of these traditional groups which enjoy certain set asides, then the set-asides become meaningless, do they not?

                    1. Fair enough, but I’m having a hard time thinking of concrete examples of people declaring themselves as arbitrarily part of a minority group to their benefit. In this case they’re talking about checking people for signs of being beaten up or lashed for their sexual orientation…If you want into Canada that badly…

                      Otherwise the idea feels like the tortured plot of I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.

                    2. Fair enough, but I’m having a hard time thinking of concrete examples of people declaring themselves as arbitrarily part of a minority group to their benefit.

                      In this particular refugee crisis or in general?

                      In general, I can. Reason had a great article here many years ago where a woman finally decided to claim her ‘women-owned-business’ goodies, and the City of New York sent out officials to make sure she was really really a woman, because they said there was quite a bit of fraud going on.

                    3. I’ve kind of lost the thread of this conversation then. I’m not sure how set-asides having checks and balances against fraud relates to whether trans and intersex should be on its own and not part of the QUILTBAG alliance.

                    4. having checks and balances against fraud relates to whether trans and intersex should be on its own and not part of the QUILTBAG alliance.

                      Well, yeah, the thread is getting pretty frayed, but I guess it all relates to Zeb’s question about people being lumped into one overbroad identity.

                      I guess my point is there seems to be a push to eliminate identity while at the same time paradoxically holding tightly onto it– often times by the people in the ID industries themselves.

                      We’re not eliminating identities so much as creating hundreds of new tiny ones, and making new set-asides (in this case, you get through the refugee vetting process if you fill a new set of boxes that didn’t exist 20 years ago)– but yet you still have to prove (to the satisfaction of the people managing the boxes) that you deserve to be in that box.

                      Yeah, it’s confusing, and I apologize for that.

                      Aside: Is it just me or is the LGBTQILSMFT thing beginning to look like that Matrix screensaver with continuously scrolling characters? I swear I can’t keep up.

                    5. I dunno. I think the mistake here is seeing “Identity Politics” as a discrete thing rather than an archipelago of often competing often cooperating interests. I work in a field where I see the box-checking at play constantly in a non-identity politics way. Sometimes ways to prevent fraud are hamfisted and sometimes they’re unobtrusive.

                      Aside: Is it just me or is the LGBTQILSMFT thing beginning to look like that Matrix screensaver with continuously scrolling characters? I swear I can’t keep up.

                      After the first four letters people just throw whichever ones they can remember at the moment at it and hope they didn’t forget any. One of the problems is individuals do whatever and different organizations pick one and make it part of their style guide, so from article to article, comment to comment it’s a different set. It doesn’t really change that often.

                      It’s a bit like parents throwing in your middle name when they’re REALLY serious.

                    6. Fun reading:

                      Today, some people have flipped the “one-drop rule” to claim minority status to try to gain perceived advantages in scholarships, college admission and in the workplace. In response, the Coalition of Bar Associations of Color [what now?!!] passed a resolution last year urging law schools to treat the practice of “box checking” as “academic ethnic fraud.”

        4. The point is they are different and often persecuted in some way.

          1. Let’s be honest, the dumbest inclusion is asexuals.

          2. So are lots of people, and probably worse than hermaphrodites. Why not just add all the paraphilias to that list too?

            1. Arbitrary childhood sexual reassignment surgery is NBD, right guise?

            2. Well, when “queer” is part of the list, I think that includes the various other paraphilias.

          3. Yeah, I get that. Just seems like a lot of different people are getting lumped together under one label/identity whether they like it or not.
            Maybe the transgender and intersex populations are just too small to get much recognition on their own and gay/bi people are somewhat natural allies. But the presumption that such a diverse collection of people are all one “community” or share a common identity seems a bit unreasonable.

        5. Kind of like the silliness of “people of color”.

          Also, technically that would mean that only Albinos don’t qualify as people of color. So are the SJW twats claiming that Albinos are oppressors?

      2. So what happens to Queer/Questioning? They’re just chopped liver now?

          1. Leave SugarFree out of this.

    2. “It’s very easy to abuse and lie on these applications,” he said. “It doesn’t mean that Canada shouldn’t bring in LGBT refugees, but they need to be more careful and a new system brought in to support people who are in real need.”

      You left out the best part:

      As Parsi and other LGBT activists have noted, gay men are among the refugees most at risk ? they are not only threatened in their home country, but face the possibility of being beaten or killed by fellow refugees.

      That is some good immigrant bashing there.

      1. No, I saw that but I was afraid of going over the character limit.

        No, this is exactly the kind of thing I’ve been getting at. You have refugees coming from an incredibly dangerous homophobic place, I’m not surprised they’ve got incredibly few people claiming to be gay, especially when sitting amongst thousands of other refugees, some of whom (according to one NGO worker) may be the very people they’re running from.

        1. My thought goes even further; you’ve got dozens of people fleeing a socially backwards, generally violent, and homophobic region of the world and you take the fact that homophobia is keeping people from abusing stupid policies as a good sign about the policies and practices overall?

          I wouldn’t expect the gay agenda and lots of other Western culture to go over well in whatever community you settle them in for the next decade or so, and that’s the good outcome.

          1. Not that turning away single men for not being gay (enough) is going to create any wins either.

          2. My thought goes even further; you’ve got dozens of people fleeing a socially backwards, generally violent, and homophobic region of the world

            I enjoy the fact that LGBT activists get a free pass at saying how awful middle eastern culture can be, without being labeled as Islamophobes.

            In crowded, gossip-heavy refugee camps, gay claimants take on a huge risk when they repeatedly “out” themselves to UNHCR officials working in thin-walled tents.

            If I were to reference this as support for a more cautious approach towards refugee resettlement, I would have to defend myself against claims of hate speech.

            1. I enjoy the fact that LGBT activists get a free pass at saying how awful middle eastern culture can be, without being labeled as Islamophobes.

              If I were to reference this as support for a more cautious approach towards refugee resettlement, I would have to defend myself against claims of hate speech.

              You and all the rest of us cis-hetero male shitlords are to just keep our privileged micro-agressive opinions to ourselves.

            2. Clark Street – Chicago is the destination address for gay Syrians. Or equivalent in other large cities.

          3. How many do you think are in a dozen?

  39. Just can see the Vonnegut/Heller outcome for a straight guy – try and apply for asylum, come out of a closet you’re not really in, flame your way through it, get denied, get sent back and killed for being gay.

    1. Eh, I think the general pretense in the camp will be that everyone who applied was faking it regardless. Makes them feel smarter than dumb Westerners, and reinforces the idea that there are no gays around here. Doesn’t matter if anyone truly believes it, as long as everyone acts like they do.

  40. You need me to what?

  41. …But I thought those Canuckis were all tolerant, open minded, progressives. You mean to tell me they don’t want to bring in a bunch of single males from a part of the world where a good sized portion of the single male population are radical terrorists? When did the The Tealiban Tea-hadist RACISTS take over the utopia of Canada?

    1. “a good sized portion of the single male population are radical terrorists?”

      What?

      1. *might be radical terrorists.

        Certainly more likely than women, young children, or old men. Whatever, I was in a hurry to make fun of Canadians and didn’t choose my words very carefully. Because who can pass up an opportunity to rip on the canucks?

      2. I imagine Loki thinks most of the Sicilian people he meets are made members of the Mafia too. Sigh.

    2. That’s why they keep cis gendered white heterosexual males out of Canada! Syrians are white, aren’t they? At least on weekends?

  42. How does one prove they’re gay these days?

    Gaydar?

    1. John Gaidar LEAP (google it)

  43. Best story of the day.

  44. No doubt, Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valenti will soon be condemning this egregious act of misandry on the part of the leftist Canadian government. No doubt, Any minute now.

  45. How does one prove they’re gay these days? Same way as in Hollywood: you sleep with the guy making the casting decisions and questioning your sexuality.

  46. By excluding straight Syrian refugee males, Canada is giving ISIS exactly what it wants. Think of all the rejected Syrian heteros who will now vow to join ISIS to retaliate against Canada.

  47. I distinctly recall a court case where a gay guy from Brazil claimed soldiers/cops beat him up when he dressed like a girl. The judge decided it looked to him like one of the five protected categories. The INS lawyer promised to appeal, and I have since seen vague references to a rehearing before the Executive Office of Immigration Review, but to this day I do not know the final disposition of that case. Newspapers report another such case panned out favorably for a similar respondent in 2010. However, Brazil is not where fanatical jihadists originate.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.