When I was a child, one of the weekly shows which I really enjoyed watching on our 15-inch b+w TV was Star Trek - the original, classic , wholesome and progressive Star Trek, with Captain James T Kirk (William Shatner) and First Officer Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and the rest of the Enterprise crew. Sadly, I haven't seen the show in years now, however, when I do ever get the opportunity, I find that it is as enjoyable and entertaining as it was ages ago.
I remember being so impressed and awestruck with many of the technological advancements of that future era. (Isn't it a bit depressing though, that advancement and development in human character had not progressed at such a similar rate?!) Captain Kirk never budged anywhere without his 'communicator' and Chief Medical Officer McCoy was able to rattle off a medical diagnosis but with the scan of his hand-held medical instrument. Did any of us ever grow tired of observing inter-galactic conferences being held on the communication monitor at the front of the bridge? How about Communications Officer Uhura opening contact with another Federation official? (I regret that I do not remember / know the technical terms of the Enterprise instruments mentioned above).
Well, forward 40 years and are we living Star Trek today or what?! Not 100%, but you get my gist. The 'communicator' = our cellphone. Heck, some phones today even flip open just like the 'communicator' did! Medical diagnostic scans? OK, ours are not yet hand-held (though they may be portable), but we sure have competent scanning technologies which assist medical teams in reaching a medical conclusion. Finally, equipped with webcams and associated paraphernalia, we can very well have voice and audio conversations with anyone from anywhere on the globe (or beyond for that matter).
I share this with you because I read a very interesting article in the Montreal Gazette last week ('Virtual visitations' becoming the norm in divorce settlements, by Misty Harris, 16 November 2010) regarding the growing prevalence of 'virtual visitations', i.e. in divorce settings, non-custodial parents are communicating with their children via Skype; video chats and/or instant messaging.
Indeed, it might be worth reminding that when parents divorce each other, they don't divorce their children! No matter how mom and dad feel toward each other, the court always tries to ensure that the children maintain as much contact with both parents as is possible and as is the case. This would normally include planned visitation sessions and/or extended stays, so that while the children are not with both parents all the time, they get to at least spend some time with both parents (at different times, of course).
Sadly, in an ideal world, this would not be a solution. However, for whatever the reasons, broken families are a reality and as a society, we must do whatever we can to lessen the harsh impact of the child's new home environment, where both parents are no longer habitually resident.
Sadly, in an ideal world, this would not be a solution. However, for whatever the reasons, broken families are a reality and as a society, we must do whatever we can to lessen the harsh impact of the child's new home environment, where both parents are no longer habitually resident.
With what would have been unthinkable years ago, parents and courts are now turning to cutting-edge communication technologies to help bridge and fill newly-formed gaps in parent - child relationships. According to the newspaper article, computer-assisted communication is currently most often used when great distances separate parent and child and actual in-person contact is either not available or available only in a diminished capacity or not possible at all. Notwithstanding, Canadian courts presently do order it on a case-by-case basis and experts predict that it's just a matter of time before such arrangements becomes de rigeur in all cases.
Resorting to technology should not be flouted as the sure-all answer and accordingly, its use has not been allowed as of right in all cases. Not necessarily because there's a problem with the particular venue, but rather because in certain instances, the court was not prepared to buy into it as a substitute for in-person contact.
For example, a custodial parent may not unilaterally decide to pick up and move away with the child, far from the non-custodial parent, effectively depriving the latter of his/her ability to spend 'real time' with the child. Court approval would have to be accorded to the moving parent, in order to justify altering the other parent's rights and modifying the divorce agreement.
For example, a custodial parent may not unilaterally decide to pick up and move away with the child, far from the non-custodial parent, effectively depriving the latter of his/her ability to spend 'real time' with the child. Court approval would have to be accorded to the moving parent, in order to justify altering the other parent's rights and modifying the divorce agreement.
In another scenario, in a case in Kingston Ontario, the mother of a child was denied her request to move to New Zealand with her child, even though she had given assurances that she would facilitate regular webcam sessions between the girl and her father. The Ontario Superior Court ruled that due to the extreme time differences between the two locations, contact with her father could only be made at awkward hours and would thus make for a complicated and unrealistic schedule.
Ultimately, as in all cases involving children, the court looks to what is in 'the best interests of the child' and moves from that starting point in its decision-making.
I was wondering and hypothesizing how the use of 'virtual communication' could potentially be viewed by immigration officials in immigration matters. There are several instances where your 'being there' or physical presence is necessary to pass over a legal threshold. For example, when completing a spousal sponsorship application and claiming to have lived together 'common-law' for one year, could one make an argument that any periods of time physically spent apart should be overlooked, if the couple had always remained bonded via Skype? It's still speaking, it's seeing each other, it could be sharing a daily routine together - just not physically there. Would that count?
Or in the Spouse/Common-law Partner Questionnaire, where the sponsoree is asked to provide details about the development and growth of the relationship with the sponsor and how they came to be in that committed relationship. Would stating that one had engaged in an intense on-line relationship, would that be convincing and sufficient enough for a favourable opinion from the deciding immigration officer?
How about a virtual trip to Canada in lieu of an actual 'exploratory trip' in an immigration application?
And what about a employment position clinched on Skype or Windows Messenger?
Finally, what if someone had hooked-up a 24-hour-a-day webcam connection to his/her family/school/place of work in Canada, would that satisfy the 'presence in Canada' requirements for Permanent Resident and/or Citizenship statuses?
Finally, what if someone had hooked-up a 24-hour-a-day webcam connection to his/her family/school/place of work in Canada, would that satisfy the 'presence in Canada' requirements for Permanent Resident and/or Citizenship statuses?
When I was a student in law school, part of our training consisted of preparing and pleading a fictitious case in a moot court [a make-believe court, presided by laypersons acting as judges]. In this exercise, a team of two students was paired against another team. Each side had to make a case for the plaintiff and defendant respectively. A date was fixed and the four students were set to plead their causes before the 'judges' - usually a law professor, a practicing lawyer and a third or fourth-year law student.
A professor once recounted this story: On one occasion, a student showed-up for his turn at the moot court dressed in his best workday clothes - jeans, coloured shirt, no tie, running shoes - looking generally dishevelled. When one of the judges on the bench admonished him for appearing so, the student replied, that since this trial was anyway just in moot court and was therefore imaginary and pretend, could the judge just not imagine that the student was dressed in a much more respectable fashion? Without skipping a beat, the judge replied that he would be inclined to accept the student's suggestion, so long as the latter was also prepared to imagine - that he had received an 'A' as his grade!
Point is: sometimes, 'virtual' doesn't cut it! Sometimes, you just really really need the real thing.
I would think and hope that each case mentioned above, should be decided on its own merits, with common-sense as the guiding principle. To say that a couple cannot initiate and nourish an amorous relationship on-line is not to be living in the 21st century. Indeed, there are so many sites devoted to exactly this cause: helping people find loving relationships on-line. To deny this reality to would-be immigrants would be unjustifiable and unreasonable. Of course, people do have to get together to really know each other well, but Skype can go a long way in keeping those flames alive and going.
On the other hand, could a virtual trip by prospective immigrants truly replace a hands-on visit to our country? Really, there are great informative presentations of Canada on-line. It may even be possible to get more information by sitting in front of a computer or a television. But honestly, you can only get the complete feel for something when you are truly there, when you experience it in the raw with your senses. Feeling the cold / the heat / the snow / the sleet; driving through neighbourhoods and breathing in its distinct flavours; visiting the premises of a possible employer and meeting with employees; hearing all the languages and shaking hands with people in the community where you plan to settle - all these things have to be experienced first-hand in person. No book or video can clue you into these experiences.
If you want to live here as a permanent resident or become a citizen of this great country, it's not enough to do it 'virtually'. You have to experience the real deal.
In closing, we really ought to embrace these technologies whenever we can, depending though on the context of the given situation. Skype & Friends have the potential to make our lives so much richer in human experiences "to seek out new life and...to go where no man has gone before" (so to speak!), but can never replace the true meeting and bonding of human spirits.
If you want to live here as a permanent resident or become a citizen of this great country, it's not enough to do it 'virtually'. You have to experience the real deal.
In closing, we really ought to embrace these technologies whenever we can, depending though on the context of the given situation. Skype & Friends have the potential to make our lives so much richer in human experiences "to seek out new life and...to go where no man has gone before" (so to speak!), but can never replace the true meeting and bonding of human spirits.
