Is it discrimination or is it

something else? I wonder what those administering the law really think?

There is another story in this morning's paper about a family who are going to be deported because they have a child with a disability. The family have been living here for some years. Their child, the older of two, was born here but has been living in another country. They now feel they are sufficiently well established that they can support him physically and financially. The father apparently works in an area where there are severe shortages of workers.  He is said to be a "professional". 

They want to bring their child back here but they will be deported instead. They will be deported because their child is seen as a potential financial burden on the state. I don't know the child of course but it seems to me there are other ways of handling this situation.

It also seems wrong when convicted criminals who have migrated here, some convicted of very serious offences indeed, are given a second chance to stay here if they are deemed to have "close ties". We have even taken in people who have been convicted of serious offences in other countries if they are likely to face the death penalty in their own country. 

I had been thinking about this situation before I read this story because a friend of mine was in another situation where she has been seriously discriminated against. She came here with her husband. He was posted out here for work. They were supposed to be here for three years. I believe it is a very strong marriage and a remarkable one as well because M.... is profoundly deaf and her husband is hearing. They use Canadian Sign Language to communicate. M...'s second language is French and her third is English. Her linguistic skills are remarkable for someone with her degree of hearing loss. 

I met M... through the common interest of knitting and crochet. In an attempt to help her meet people with a common interest someone else I know suggested she join a group that claims to be there to promote these things. It was explained that her husband would need, at least initially, to help her communicate. The response shocked them and it shocked me. No, she was not welcome. No reason was given but it was obvious that they thought the communication barrier was too great. 

I do not belong to that group. I did once but returning to it was not possible or I would have done so and insisted that M... be allowed to go as well. I would also have done everything I could to see she fitted in. As it was M... and I did get together on quite a number of occasions. She would send me a message to say she had baked something and I would know it was a "I need to be with someone today." It was often if her husband had to be away overnight. She found that very hard indeed.

I always made her welcome. Our capacity to communicate with each other was limited by my problems in writing messages, my lack of manual dexterity with sign language, sign language not being as universal as people believe, her problems lip reading people who speak differently, English as a third language and more. For all that we managed. We even managed some laughs. Sometimes just being with someone else was enough. We knitted in companionable silence. 

Their time here was going to be limited and there were no difficulties made about her coming but she went home early. She went home with her husband's blessing because she was so lonely here. It could have been so different if there had been a group which had welcomed her, a group she could have looked forward to being with however hard communication was. Yes, it was discrimination and it was wrong. We have a lot to learn in this country about caring for each other.