The changing face of New Zealand?
The changing face of New Zealand?
It is pleasing to see the changing times here in New Zealand and around the world. It is ok to be you whatever ethnicity, whatever gender, whatever relationship preferences, whatever religion, whatever origins and how visually you want to look.
This no longer appears to be a barrier. The question appears to be who is best for the job. A certain maturity has creeped in over time and our current New Zealand parliament is an example of that transformation.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan MP an Indian born, Singapore raised New Zealander who now finds herself with ministerial portfolios.
In the United States
The USA elections has also produced a similar trend with Kamala Harris. A women of Indian Jamaican origin who identifies herself as a black women is Vice President-elect.
Much rejoicing is underway as they are first in their own right in their own country. But are these ladies any less than their counterparts of different composition one may ask and what is the fuss?
The answer to the first part is No. In fact if the packaging is not present, in an even playing field they probably would have been ahead of their game.
The answer to the second part, they broke a barrier that was present until now and that is why there is a fuss, a rejoicing. The unspoken rule of limit has been broken, well for now it seems. A ceiling can be put on at any time, it depends on perspective and the times.
The unspoken rule (despite merit) you would not be considered because it was not done, you could not be equal and play on the same field. You are good to have around for representative purposes and donations but you do not have a voice, a presence as an individual in your own right, your uniform came in the way.
In a recent parliament when a different party governing had an ethnic women with a PhD in science, her academic ability nor competence was used. She had no voice. Such has been the wastage over the years, all because you were not wearing the right endorsed uniform.
Let’s learn from these reflections.
Time has come to truely look at our policies and look at which uniform is it suiting and has relevance to.
Is it relevant to those wearing other uniform? If not then let’s make it applicable.
In our field of immigration polices one that is blatantly obvious as problematic is the requirement to live together to establish partnership. Only recently this was mooted as the New Zealand way.
Outdated notions: the living together requirement
Now that we having a changing face of New Zealand maybe it is time to relook at how we have been making our policies that effect New Zealand as a whole, what is the platform we are using to develop them. Is it fair to all or is it creating a barrier?
Not all people live together before marriage so let’s stop assessing them against this threshold. For them the measure of assessment should be different. If we can now pass laws that allow euthanasia then we can allow people to be live together after marriage and not necessarily only before. It does not necessary have to be arranged for this to happen.
The logic has completely escaped me when it was not too long ago in New Zealand that is how it was. The pendulum has completely swing the other way now.
Given the honour and status that some communities and cultures have given to the institution of marriage even in New Zealand, then this recognition is now overdue. After the hippy era the pendulum had swing in New Zealand to live freely and the institution of marriage went through a radical change. No longer was there a requirement or tradition or taboo not to live together before marriage or be married at all.
When assessing those coming into New Zealand applying to bring their spouses over are being assessed against post New Zealand hippy age platform. This has resulted in polices that have been dismissive, scathing and disrespectful of others way of existence and understanding of the institution of marriage.
A very arrogant take has resulted, my way or the highway.
The Human Cost of this requirement
Idesi Legal has been witness to the human cost of this requirement.
Much injustices has resulted, huge negative consequences, so much sorrow, stress and health issues have resulted. The public has entered into the private domain steering people’s life in a certain direction, sometimes leading to breakdown of relationship, families becoming enemies, depression and mental health issues resulting including physical and psychological ailments.
People’s basic human right to be with someone has been breached because of the requirement to show evidence of living together when that was not what they did. Because they did not they could not provide the evidence of living together as for them that occurred after marriage as such the whole relationship was dismissed as not meeting policy requirement.
The absurdity was only not obvious to powers at bee but also not to the policy makers. There was an irony in this liberal thinking.
These post hippy age evolving standards were imposed on those from those countries and cultures where the pendulum had not swing. There were being penalised for not changing their ways.
In these cultures and communities the starting point of cohabitation is after marriage not before. That after all was the initial way even in New Zealand. It is not completely foreign. The spectrum has swing too much to the other side. By disrespecting this institution is not a gain but a way back wards in time. It is a reverse discrimination for those that value that way of being. It is not a liberal way of assessing but a closeted and close minded way of assessing because it is not recognising another way of being.
Time for change
With the changing face of New Zealand let’s hope there is a changing way of how these polices are drafted and implemented so as not to create barriers. Let’s instead create an even playing field for all and not only for those from a euro centric background where the pendulum has swing to when is the timing of living together is concerned.
