Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - South Korea's treatment of mentally is persecution?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

South Korea's treatment of mentally is persecution?

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:11 pm Post subject: South Korea's treatment of mentally is persecution?

Quote:

Canada has granted refugee status to a mentally ill South Korean woman and her daughter on grounds the treatment of psychiatric patients and family members in their homeland is so shoddy it amounts to persecution.

Mi Sook Oh, 42, initially sought refugee status in Canada by claiming she had been persecuted in her native South Korea by a church representative who had "poisoned everyone against her" and had been arrested and held three times against her will.

People around the world knew about her case and her tormenter had close ties to the Bush administration, she told the refugee board two years ago.

The Immigration and Refugee Board determined she was, in fact, persecuted -- not by a church representative, but by a South Korean health care system that mistreats mentally ill patients.

Oh suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and had been been forced into mental institutions three times in South Korea without medication, the refugee board concluded.

Based on that mistreatment, the board granted Oh refugee status in October.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration appealed the decision.

And, last month, a federal judge ruled in favour of Oh.

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Mentally+South+Korean+refugee+status+upheld+historic+case/1715678/story.html

Good grief. We're now going to see a flood of this from around the world. Canada is now going to import thousands of crazies because they are crazy and from a nation with distasteful ideas of mental health.

VanIslander

Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:21 pm Post subject:

mises, you are the Canuck version of Gopher

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:28 pm Post subject:

Gopher and I don't agree on much of anything, actually. He and I do agree that our home nations are not NGO's.

VanIslander

Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:58 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

Gopher and I don't agree on much of anything, actually.

and you think that's evidence that you're not alike. you're like a pair of quarreling brothers

both argumentative right wingers

MUCH more alike than different

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:04 pm Post subject:

Yeah. So, how many tens of thousands will we import? I assume the mental health systems of Somalia and Sudan are sub-par as well. Russia, China, India? Of course. Canada acts like an NGO. We can't afford this.

VanIslander

Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

So, how many tens of thousands will we import?

uh, people are not imported or exported

and scaremongering about floodgates of 'bad immigrants' however defined is beneath you

are you worried that the gov't won't be able to turn away others? don't you know that precedent isn't an overarching consideration as it's a decision made on a case-by-case basis, so the odds of tens of thousand such decisions suddenly coming in are absurdly low

are you worried about the fairness of inconsistent ruling in future cases of the mentally ill? no, of course, not, that's not your politics

humanitarian considerations are relevant and considered on a case by case basis

Remember that family with the skin allergy to the sun who went to Prince George? they lost their case.

The system is NOT broken. Though economist after economist keep saying Canada needs much more immigration.

The woman will get the treatment she needs and her daughter will likely do what many hard working first generation immigrants do, especially Koreans, get a low paying job menial labour job that Canadians don't want to do, like clean toilets or motel rooms. Not a high percentage of Korean immigrants sit on welfare, nor Chinese or Indian immigrants to Canada for that matter, to address your fearmongering about floodgates of families coming in with mentally ill members.

Listen to yourself mises.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:56 pm Post subject:

VanIslander wrote:

The system is NOT broken. Though economist after economist keep saying Canada needs much more immigration.

Holy shit. You've not researched this at all!

Firstly, if you think importing the mentally ill, who will then be treated for free by Canadians, because they are mentally ill, I'm afraid there is no way we'd ever find any common ground.

Secondly,

http://www.thestar.com/article/652771

Quote:

Immigration system hurts more than helps, study finds

Dumping newcomers in pizza delivery jobs sets them up for a dismal future in Toronto, an innovative new study reveals.

The rags-to-riches immigrant stories Canada has been bred on don't work anymore, say the two professors who led the project that will be released today. In fact, given the increasingly fragile economy, many of the standard methods of dealing with newcomers are making their lives worse.

"The whole argument that, like they did in the `60s and `70s, immigrants will start off in survival jobs and move to stable jobs � that doesn't happen," said Patricia Landolt of the Centre for Urban and Community Studies at the University of Toronto

"Rather than wait around while we create an underclass, we need to deal with this now."

And not just for immigrants, she added. As of 2006, more than 40 per cent of all workers in Ontario worked in low-wage service jobs.

Landolt and Luin Goldring of York University were the lead researchers on the Immigration and Precarious Employment project, which over three years interviewed 300 Latin American and English-speaking Caribbean immigrants in Greater Toronto with a variety of incomes and backgrounds. The study includes a manual in Spanish and English for people who deal with newcomers, available at arts.yorku.ca/research/ine.

Rather than just measure one thing at a time � full-time work or benefit deductions or scheduling or how wages are paid � the project created an index of precarious work that factored all of them in.

"Each indicator of precariousness is not necessarily a problem. It may not even be illegal. But taken together they result in jobs that are dirty, dangerous and difficult," the study said.

Leading immigration academics and community activists are part of a policy group and a community group that will take the research further.

Among the major findings:

Despite an immigration policy designed to lure "the best and the brightest," education had no impact on whether immigrants ended up in a precarious job. The only thing that made a difference was the ability to speak English.

Their first job in Canada had a big influence on the rest of their work lives: Those who started with precarious jobs were more likely to stay in them. Bad advice was a prime factor in ending up in precarious work.

Temporary foreign workers "set the floor on how far down you can push everyone else," said Landolt.

On-the-job training helps improve immigrants' working lives, but government education and training strategies don't have much impact.

More than 75 per cent worked in non-union jobs and more than 70 per cent worked only part-time. Sixty per cent had weak or vague contracts. More than a third were paid cash.

50 per cent reported working with chronic pain.

30 per cent reported their work was dangerous.

Sources are Toronto Star, reporting on a York Uni study. Can't get much more lefty than that in the Canuck mainstream.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1423713

Quote:

UNITED NATIONS -- Immigration Minister Jason Kenney spoke Tuesday of "wide-scale and almost systematic abuse" of Canada's refugee system after a United Nations report showed a 30% increase in the number of people seeking refugee or asylum status in Canada.

Much of the increase comes from a major rise in the numbers of Mexicans, Haitians and Colombians claiming they'll face persecution if Canada sends them back to their respective countries, the UN says.

Here's a sample of our ghettoized, tribal and unstable future:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/28/what-canadians-think-of-sikhs-jews-christians-muslims/

Quote:

Canadians like to think of their country as a model for the world of how all sorts of people can get along together. But when it comes to the major faiths other than Christianity, a new poll conducted for Maclean�s finds that many Canadians harbour deeply troubling biases. Multiculturalism? Although by now it might seem an ingrained national creed, fewer than one in three Canadians can find it in their hearts to view Islam or Sikhism in a favourable light. Diversity? Canadians may embrace it in theory, but only a minority say they would find it acceptable if one of their kids came home engaged to a Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. Understanding? There�s not enough to prevent media images of war and terrorism from convincing almost half of Canadians that mainstream Islam encourages violence.

But what of the economics? McKinsey & Company published a massive study in 2006 on how immigrants impact pending liabilities which determined that on balance they have a neutral if not slightly negative effect. The UK House of Lords found that:

http://www.thestar.com/article/407890

Quote:

LONDON � Record levels of immigration to Britain have brought little or no economic benefit, a House of Lords report published Tuesday said, disputing the government's claims that immigration is good for the economy.

Economists, or those with multiple degrees in economics (such as myself) understand migration differently. In the US immigration devastates African Americans, as the illegal Mexicans are willing to work for less than the minimum wage, and work harder.

In Canada, we jack the Dr's and PhD's from third world countries to drive taxi in TO or Van. I don't know why white people wander the world talking about how wonderful their home is for jacking the only talent the third world has, but whatever. Professional associations (accountancy, medicine etc) keep immigrants out of professions and ensure they compete with Canadians (mostly new Canadians) for shitty jobs and drive down wages.

You know who likes the immigrations system? Banks. RBC advocated for 500k/yr (up from 230) + temp workers, slaves (sorry, maids), students, refugees etc.

VanIslander

Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:29 pm Post subject:

you are arguing for the plight of immigrants? how bleeding heart liberal of you!

your quotes show that the immigrants ARE doing the dirty and dangerous low paying jobs that need doing (they aren't going rag to riches any more, not getting ahead, stuck in menial jobs, but from an economic point of view that's irrelevant isn't it?)

Quote:

In the US immigration devastates African Americans, as the illegal Mexicans are willing to work for less than the minimum wage, and work harder.

this shows that immigration is having an economic benefit, providing cheaper labour and more productive labour

seriously mises, over nine out of ten economists used to be pro-immigration. has that changed in the last few years? i am not talking about assessments whether they are underemployed as taxi drivers and janitors with advanced degrees from foreign countries, but with the benefit to the canadian economy of a massive increase in immigration that's needed

mises wrote:

You know who likes the immigrations system? Banks. RBC advocated for 500k/yr (up from 230) + temp workers, slaves (sorry, maids), students, refugees etc.

banks and businesses, yes, they like it, as they should, as there is an economic benefit to increased immigration, it not be about stealing jobs from locals

anyways, i'll leave this thread to those who like to argue incessantly about issues that marginally concern them

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:56 pm Post subject:

Quote:

this shows that immigration is having an economic benefit, providing cheaper labour and more productive labour

At the expense of Blacks in the US. During the past quarter, the employment rate of Blacks in the US increased (all other groups decreased) because illegals are going home.

Quote:

seriously mises, over nine out of ten economists used to be pro-immigration. has that changed in the last few years?

You're confused. Anyways, after an undergrad, grad dip and masters in economics I've been around a few economists. The 9/10 is absolutely a number out of your arse. Government and bank economists will support it, for their own reasons.

I am pro-immigration. I also am opposed to the current Canadian system. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Canada needs dramatically reduced immigration numbers.

Quote:

i am not talking about assessments whether they are underemployed as taxi drivers and janitors with advanced degrees from foreign countries, but with the benefit to the canadian economy of a massive increase in immigration that's needed

What benefit? The Fraser Institute puts the total cost of the current system (added output minus added liabilities) at 18b CAD/yr. David Suzuki opposes taking people out of low consumption states and putting them in high consumption states. This causes sprawl (Barrie just annexed more farmland for sprawl) and a dramatic increase in the aggregate output of pollution/trash for the country.

Quote:

banks and businesses, yes, they like it, as they should, as there is an economic benefit to increased immigration, it not be about stealing jobs from locals

Bank like increased number because of the money multiplier. The more deposits they have, the more they can lend. Big business likes the cheap labour.

Quote:

anyways, i'll leave this thread to those who like to argue incessantly about issues that marginally concern them

I'll help you educate yourself. The platitudes are strong with you:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/news/3874.aspx

Quote:

Canada's Current Immigration Levels Undermining Tolerance and Acceptance

The paper, authored by a former Canadian Ambassador to Asia and the Middle East, Martin Collacott, is a sequel to a book published ten years ago by the Institute which supported the increased immigration levels which were then adopted. The earlier book noted that there were, however, some signs that the future might contain problems related to an inappropriate structure of immigration policy. The paper released today confirms the earlier warnings.

Amongst the new findings surveyed in the paper are:

1. Social and economic distress in the immigrant population is increasing as the economic performance of immigrants has dropped sharply during the past two decades.

2. The federal government has justified large-scale immigration on the basis that it is essential to economic growth but the government�s own research indicates that immigration and population increases play at best a minor role in economic growth.

3. The federal government has claimed that increased immigration would reduce the problems associated with our aging population but careful research shows that only overwhelming levels of immigration would have any significant effect on reducing the aging of the population and avoiding higher dependency ratios. There are, in any event, much more practical ways of addressing these problems.

4. The claim that we require immigration in order to cope with an anticipated shortage of skilled workers is unsupportable except in special cases.

5. While the federal government emphasizes the importance of attracting the best and the brightest immigrants to Canada, for purposes of political gain top priority continues to go to extended family members, who constitute a net cost to the taxpayer.

6. The federal government has not provided the public with an accounting of the total cost of immigration to taxpayers (estimated to be in the billions of dollars per year). A major part of the costs fall on provincial and municipal governments even though programs are designed with the interests of the federal government in mind.

7. Federal government plans to encourage more newcomers to settle in areas with declining populations make some sense in principle but will be difficult to implement on a large scale. In the meantime it plans to raise immigration levels, already the highest in the world per capita, even higher, with more than 90% of new arrivals settling in already heavily populated areas.

8. The Auditor General of Canada has made it clear that the resources available for the delivery of immigration programs are far from adequate to ensure the integrity of the program and protect the security of Canadians. The federal government�s priority is clearly on admitting large numbers rather than careful screening of applicants.

9. There are indications that increasing numbers of recent immigrants are having difficulty integrating into the Canadian workforce and society, a development which could produce social tensions and reduce public support for immigration programs.

Quote:

The real cost of immigration

Our immigrants are failing because we simply admit too many people who have little likelihood of economic success

Randall Denley
The Ottawa Citizen

Sunday, November 20, 2005

CREDIT (photo) : Fred Chartrand, The Canadian Press
In an economic update last week, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale said immigrant numbers will rise sharply by 2010 and hit 400,000 a year by 2012.

The bill for Canada's wrong-headed immigration policy continues to mount, as the arguments supporting it become more absurd. The most amazing number in Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's economic update last week was the little-noticed statistic on immigration. To maintain the modest 1.4 per cent annual increase in Canada's workforce that we have seen since 1990, immigration will have to reach 900,000 a year by 2050. That's about four times the number of people the country is now struggling to admit. And we won't have to wait until 2050 for the big numbers, either. The graphic showing immigrant demand starts to rise like a ski hill by 2010 and hits 400,000 a year by 2012.

Anyone who has followed the difficulties Canada has had admitting the still-large total of 235,000 immigrants a year would immediately realize these much bigger numbers just aren't going to happen. Surely, this should constitute the moment when the federal government finally realizes its plan to keep enlarging the workforce through immigration isn't going to succeed, and it starts to take a more rational approach.

Of course, that's not what this government intends to do. The Liberals have screwed in the light bulb, but the light has not yet turned on.

Instead of starting to prepare for a smaller workforce, the Liberals have promised to throw more money at the problem. The financial update/election platform promises $5 billion over five years to help immigrants and aboriginals get into the workforce.

Of that, $1.3 billion will help immigrants find work and learn to speak French or English. Although we are told we need a large flow of immigrants to meet the demands of a worker-hungry economy, our immigrants do have a tough time getting started. Even after two years in Canada, only 63 per cent of prime, working-age immigrants are in the workforce. That compares to the national rate of 81 per cent.

Workplace training programs for immigrants, aboriginals and people with disabilities will attract an additional $3.5 billion. Again, we see a disconnect between reality and the official line. Canada's new immigrants are highly skilled and educated, and yet we need to put in place major training programs for them. It's also good to know the government wants to train aboriginals for the workforce, while maintaining a policy that encourages many of them to live in farflung, poverty-stricken reserves.

Immigrant poverty is visible in every major Canadian city. In our typically Canadian way, we blame ourselves, but for the wrong reasons. Too many of our immigrants are failing, not because we don't spend enough, care enough, or are racist. We simply admit too many people who have little likelihood of economic success. Start with the 37 per cent who speak neither French nor English. Bit of a problem for finding a job, don't you think?

The total immigration number is always cited by the federal government, as if all those 235,000 people were eager to rush into employment. It's not surprising that immigrants who have actual employment skills would bring their spouses and children, then later want to bring over their parents and other relatives. It is misleading, though, to keep citing the total immigration number as if it represented a supply of ready and willing workers. It ignores the fact that only 57 per cent of our immigrants are in the economic class, the ones admitted because of what they offer in the workplace. The rest are family members or refugees.

That tells us the laughable 900,000 immigrant a year figure means we would be admitting hundreds of thousands of people who can't or won't work, just to net the required number of new employees. What's the real cost of that?

Immigration enthusiasts received more encouragement last week when Canada's current "low" employment rate of 6.6 per cent had some economists worrying about whether we had reached full employment and were facing an impending labour shortage. More immigration, of course, was the preferred solution. The economists conveniently overlooked the fact that 59,100 of the 68,700 new jobs that took unemployment to this supposedly low rate were part-time. That suggests we are underutilizing our workforce, not running out of workers.

Immigration has made Canada a more diverse and interesting country. If that was our goal, it has been achieved. It has done something to expand the workforce, but at a substantial cost. The government's own numbers tell us immigration won't create the growth in workers our government thinks we need.

Those are the rational reasons for large-scale immigration, and they don't stand up. What's left?

An article by Star columnist Jim Travers this week suggested that the Liberals were hyping the merits of immigration to secure the "ethnic vote."

Shocking. Could it be true?

Immigration at present levels dramatically increases inequality and social tension. Canada does not produce enough jobs for the population as it is (hence, the UNemployment rate).

Quote:

September 28, 2006: Recent C.D. Howe Report Says Immigration Cannot Keep Canada Young
PRESS RELEASE

A recent C.D. Howe report states that immigration cannot keep Canada young. Its findings repeat what a number of other demographic reports have said: attempts to use immigration to stop problems caused by an aging population do not work and are unwise. It is best to use other methods and to make use of Canada's existing population in dealing with aging-related problems.

In the words of the researchers, "...we should not overstate the contribution immigration can make to keeping Canada young---and, by extension, to alleviating the economic and fiscal consequences of demographic change. ' (P.9)

The report is significant because its careful research once again contradicts immigration industry statements that Canada needs high immigration in order to avoid a high percentage of old-age-dependent citizens.

The C.D. Howe study looked at three different strategies to deal with the aging-dependency issue.

One strategy was aimed at reducing the projected high percentage of people who would be potentially dependent by 2050 on government services (pensions and health care). This strategy would use immigration to achieve the reduction. By 2050, it is projected that 46% of Canadians would be 65+ and age-dependent. This strategy used four possible scenarios. Three of the four scenarios reduced the percentage by about 5 to 6%. The fourth scenario, which involved increasing Canada's intake to 1% of Canada's population and recruiting mostly younger immigrants, reduced the percentage by 13%. However, the practical difficulty it presents is that, as in Scenario #3, many of the immigrants brought here would have to be below 18 years old.

A second strategy was aimed at stabilizing the current percentage of old-age dependent people until the year 2050. This strategy would also use immigration to achieve stabilization. At present, about 20% of Canada's population is 65+, so the purpose was to keep the percentage of old-age dependent citizens at 20%. All three scenarios would require Canada to bring in very large numbers of immigrants every year. In one scenario, immigration intake would be up to 7 million per year by 2050----- at which time Canada's population would be a staggering 165.4 million. (The report did not mention the environmental or cultural consequences of such a massive increase in Canada's population.)

A third strategy looked at slowly increasing Canada's retirement age to 70. This technique did not use immigration to achieve its end, but would be superior to the other two strategies. By 2050, the maximum percentage of aged Canadians potentially dependent on government programmes would be about 33%. Researchers pointed out that simultaneous policies aimed at encouraging work and saving were also important. Saving, in particular, would decrease reliance on public coffers.

The full report is available at http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_96.pdf

Quote:

you are arguing for the plight of immigrants? how bleeding heart liberal of you!

If Canada goes out of her way to create fractured, impoverished, permanently unsuccessful and unassimilated ethnic ghettos in every major city, we're in for a big shock. It isn't "bleeding heart" to desire the country I plan to live in for the rest of my life to be robust.

Kikomom

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: them thar hills--Penna, USA--Zippy is my kid, the teacher in ROK. You can call me Kiko

Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject:

Her blog is in English: misookzoe.blogspot.com If anyone hears of a trust fund for the child, let me know. I'm bleeding heart enough to donate.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:20 am Post subject:

I am not sure about "persecution," but failure to treat run-of-the-mill paranoid schizophrenia with widely efficacious and available medications could certainly be construed as malpractice. Perhaps if Korea had good medical malpractice laws, the situation would right itself. Anyone know the malpractice laws here (if any)?

DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP

Joined: 28 May 2009
Location: Electron cloud

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:32 am Post subject:

To be honest, I read her blog and she sounds like she has a persecution complex and is claiming the Canadian Govt has illegally arrested her and her daughter and is toururing them... This woman needs medical treatment and probably a stay in an instituion. Then upon release she needs to be introduced to a stable environemt with caring people around her. Looks like Korea is a no no on that score (she will be shunned by society, let's be honest..) and I feel kinda sorry for her kid to be getting dragged along for the ride... Quite an unstable upbringing and a schizophrenic Mother who is not on meds is not going to be the best role model... I hope Korea can one day be more open minded and supportive towards the mentally ill...

Cheonmunka

Joined: 04 Jun 2004

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:50 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Understanding? There�s not enough to prevent media images of war and terrorism from convincing almost half of Canadians that mainstream Islam encourages violence.

Who would like their daughter to be put with a man who can 'legally' beat her up, nigh, even kill her because he doesn't agree with her. Consider me also, as one of those 'without understanding.'
Rolling Eyes

pc gone mad.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe