Advice for migration

[Guest]

Which of following country is best for living? and why would you say so? Australia, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway & Switzerland

[GoldenLag]

Any one of them are like in the top 10. So i wouldnt choose any 1 over them. Even though nationalism is pointing me towards one of them. 

 

Why do you ask

[aezakmi]

I'd say Australia

 

just because of the weather.

[Canada EH]

5 hours ago, Chamidu Udagedara said:

ustralia, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway & Switzerland

#1 Switzerland - It is an amazing country, but I'd have to look at their tax rates, good for rich people and finance industry.

#2 Australia - Not sure of their immigration problems, have to look into that, same with tax rate, close to Asia, good for importing Chinesium goods.

#3 New Zealand, Cheap medications, cheap health care, no immigration

#4 Norway if they are apart of the EU, and do not have an immigration problem.

[captain_to_fire]

2 hours ago, Canada EH said:

no immigration

Not true https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas 

 

Notwithstanding the fact that NZ has the best good looking immigration website 

[captain_to_fire]

7 hours ago, Chamidu Udagedara said:

Which of following country is best for living? and why would you say so? Australia, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway & Switzerland

Immigration is faster if you’re a skilled professional with experience. 

[JZStudios]

It entirely depends on what you want to do when you're there. I personally don't feel great about any of those places aside from maybe New Zealand, but that's more because I haven't looked into it.

I'd love to visit Iceland, but I wouldn't want to live there. The economy is pretty terrible and cost of living is ridiculously high. I guess the jobs pay "well" to compensate, it's really just some insane inflation.

Canada passed a law so now you can be fined or jailed for using the wrong pronouns or "hate speech."

[Canada EH]

2 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

Not true https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas 

 

Notwithstanding the fact that NZ has the best good looking immigration website 

Is NZ really a goal for Refugee's?

[captain_to_fire]

3 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

Is NZ really a goal for Refugee's?

I don't think OP is asking for refugee status, nor do I think that being an immigrant is exactly the same thing as being a refugee. 

 

[Canada EH]

Some countries have a lot of newcomers coming in. I was picking based on the country and also depends on the goals of the traveler.

[Teddy07]

These are all good countries to migrate to in my eyes but Switzerland is clearly number one in my eyes. The pay is good, beautiful, mountains, snow.... 

 

8 hours ago, Canada EH said:

#1 Switzerland - It is an amazing country, but I'd have to look at their tax rates, good for rich people and finance industry.

1

 

It is actually pretty good. The net personal average tax rate is only 17%  according to the OECD 2018 stats, while the average for developed countries is 25% with some countries go up to 40%.  source(full table):  http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/taxing-wages-20725124.htm

 

Moving to Switzerland is one among many reasons why I quit my job and get a better education (computer science degree). However, I am not solely fixated on Switzerland. I just now that I won´t stay in Germany because there are so many things that bother me. Just look where Germany is on the list. I have to do a lot of work first such as improving English skills even more.

 

I like to talk about it because it reminds me why I undergo all the hard work.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

I don't think OP is asking for refugee status, nor do I think that being an immigrant is exactly the same thing as being a refugee. 

 

Yeah! I'M m not looking for refugee status :-) 

[Supportsneedlove]

12 hours ago, Canada EH said:

#4 Norway if they are apart of the EU, and do not have an immigration problem.

 

Norway is not apart of the EU.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Norway also (like all of Scandinavia) has a pretty high cost of living. The language is also pretty difficult, again like the rest of Scandinavia (and Finland). So there's really only one question left: Do you like the cold @Chamidu Udagedara?

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Supportsneedlove said:

 

Norway is not apart of the EU.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Norway also (like all of Scandinavia) has a pretty high cost of living. The language is also pretty difficult, again like the rest of Scandinavia (and Finland). So there's really only one question left: Do you like the cold @Chamidu Udagedara?

I really don't mind cold weather but I prefer the sunny weather

[dizmo]

I wouldn't live in Australia, too many things that will try and kill you If you can survive there though, good on you.

I'd probably say Norway or Switzerland, closer to the EU so you can still enjoy a lot of what it has to offer. Depending on where you're coming from, they may or may not be too open to you based on what's been happening in recent times. Something to consider.

I naturally love Canada, however it's not the cheapest place to live (for the good parts).

 

10 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Canada passed a law so now you can be fined or jailed for using the wrong pronouns or "hate speech."

No. No we didn't. Get your facts straight.

9 hours ago, Canada EH said:

Is NZ really a goal for Refugee's?

Why not? It's one of the most beautiful countries on the planet, super safe, etc.

[JZStudios]

8 hours ago, dizmo said:

No. No we didn't. Get your facts straight.

The Criminal Code creates criminal offences with respect to different aspects of hate propaganda. Those offences are decided in the criminal courts and carry penal sanctions, such as fines, probation orders and imprisonment. The federal government also has standards with respect to hate publications in federal laws relating to broadcasting.

 

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected constitutional challenges to the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code, and has also rejected challenges to the hate publication provisions in human rights legislation. The Court has ruled that while the provisions restrict freedom of expression, the restrictions are justifiable under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

 

Let's be real, who and what exactly constitutes "hate speech" and who gets the deciding factor on that?

 

Also, most Australians get real upset if you say things want to kill you there, despite 8 out of 10 of the worlds deadliest animals living there.

 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, JZStudios said:

The Criminal Code creates criminal offences with respect to different aspects of hate propaganda. Those offences are decided in the criminal courts and carry penal sanctions, such as fines, probation orders and imprisonment. The federal government also has standards with respect to hate publications in federal laws relating to broadcasting.

 

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected constitutional challenges to the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code, and has also rejected challenges to the hate publication provisions in human rights legislation. The Court has ruled that while the provisions restrict freedom of expression, the restrictions are justifiable under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

 

Let's be real, who and what exactly constitutes "hate speech" and who gets the deciding factor on that?

 

The same people who decide any crime - the judges and (if applicable) jurors, based on guidelines produced by the elected governing body.

 

The point is that, if you - for example - call a MTF transgender person "sir" instead of "ma'am" once (especially if it's not obvious they've transitioned), no one is going to jail over that.

 

However, after they've expressed that they do not like it when you call them "sir", and asked you to call them "ma'am", if you continually call them "sir", to antagonize them, you've crossed the line into hate speech.

 

Calling someone the wrong pronoun by accident is not going to get anyone put in jail. Repeatedly disrespecting their wishes and calling them the wrong pronoun is not accidentally saying it once.

 

Hate speech has always (afaik) been illegal in Canada - or at least has been illegal for quite some time now, anyway. So, dunno what to tell you about that. Free Speech doesn't give you the right to call black people the "n-word" or say that all Jewish people should burn. While some people have this view of "black and white" free speech (anything and everything is acceptable), that has never been the case in Canada.

[dizmo]

17 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

The Criminal Code creates criminal offences with respect to different aspects of hate propaganda. Those offences are decided in the criminal courts and carry penal sanctions, such as fines, probation orders and imprisonment. The federal government also has standards with respect to hate publications in federal laws relating to broadcasting.

 

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected constitutional challenges to the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code, and has also rejected challenges to the hate publication provisions in human rights legislation. The Court has ruled that while the provisions restrict freedom of expression, the restrictions are justifiable under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

 

Let's be real, who and what exactly constitutes "hate speech" and who gets the deciding factor on that?

 

Also, most Australians get real upset if you say things want to kill you there, despite 8 out of 10 of the worlds deadliest animals living there.

 

Again, maybe you should actually read up on the incorrectness you spout before you spout it.

 

https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2017/09/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail/

https://factcheck.afp.com/no-canadians-cannot-be-jailed-or-fined-just-using-wrong-gender-pronoun

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

[Drak3]

17 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

you've crossed the line into hate speech.

Still amazes me that the correct use of a term is somehow hate speech just because someone finds it offensive.

[Andreas Lilja]

Canada has the troglodyte neoliberal side of the U.S. I'd pick Norway.

 

[wasab]

On 12/14/2018 at 2:22 PM, Chamidu Udagedara said:

Which of following country is best for living? and why would you say so? Australia, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway & Switzerland

Antartica

[wasab]

22 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

Immigration is faster if you’re a skilled professional with experience. 

Faster still if you can swim across. 

[Canada EH]

5 hours ago, Raskolnikov said:

troglodyte neoliberal

That would be Quebec!

[JZStudios]

5 hours ago, dizmo said:

Again, maybe you should actually read up on the incorrectness you spout before you spout it.

 

https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2017/09/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail/

https://factcheck.afp.com/no-canadians-cannot-be-jailed-or-fined-just-using-wrong-gender-pronoun

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

Oddly enough, in the first link you mention they state that "repeated offenses could constitute harassment."

At the level of anti-discrimination, C-16 means that you can instigate a complaint for discrimination or harassment. Using the wrong pronouns repeatedly after being made aware that a person uses other pronouns might amount to harassment, a position that is taken by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

 

And again, as to hate speech, what exactly does that entail? It claims:

"In terms of hate speech, it is forbidden to incite “hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace” in a public space."

So to me, that sounds like Canada's Kermit, Jordan Peterson is having a civil discussion and people barge in spraying shit in peoples eyes while threatening them constitutes that, but it often goes unpunished.

 

Your second link doesn't say much, but the third again reaffirms.

Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun.   The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”.  In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.  And the remedies?  Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures).

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

The same people who decide any crime - the judges and (if applicable) jurors, based on guidelines produced by the elected governing body.

 

The point is that, if you - for example - call a MTF transgender person "sir" instead of "ma'am" once (especially if it's not obvious they've transitioned), no one is going to jail over that.

 

However, after they've expressed that they do not like it when you call them "sir", and asked you to call them "ma'am", if you continually call them "sir", to antagonize them, you've crossed the line into hate speech.

 

Calling someone the wrong pronoun by accident is not going to get anyone put in jail. Repeatedly disrespecting their wishes and calling them the wrong pronoun is not accidentally saying it once.

But there's not really any defining line of what is and isn't hate speech. Kind of like the Irishman that got fined because he taught his girlfriends pug to "heil" Hitler.

Each case has to be a long, drawn out process.

 

If "repeated misuse" of a pronoun enters hate speech, what number is that set at? 5? 10? 15? How do they even prove that? Hearsay, or do they need some kind of video or audio evidence? Would they only need to record it once, or 50 times?

What you guys fail to realize is just how slippery a slope that very quickly turns into.

 

I never said you'd be jailed for saying it once, but being fined for it at all is ridiculous.

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Free Speech doesn't give you the right to call black people the "n-word" or say that all Jewish people should burn. While some people have this view of "black and white" free speech (anything and everything is acceptable), that has never been the case in Canada.

Actually, it explicitly is. That's why it exists. No one said it was "acceptable," although that depends on the individual you're talking to.

[Andreas Lilja]

49 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

That would be Quebec!

How is Quebec the neoliberal poster boy of Canada.