Convention on women contentious

Press, 4 May 1984, Page 1

Convention on women contentious

Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, and Greece are among the 52 countries which had ratified the United Nations Convention on the elimination of discrimination against women by December last year.

When Australia announced that it would ratify the convention, with some reservations, the Australian Foreign Minister, Mr Bill Hayden, said a “mischievous” campaign had been waged against it.

In New Zealand much of the opposition to the convention has come from fundamentalist morality and Right-wing groups.

Some of those who have campaigned against it are the New Zealand Working Women’s Council, Inc., the Concerned Parents’ Association, the Christchurch Integrity Centre, the Feminists for Life, and Concerned Christian Women, a Christchurch group.

The Feminists for Life group, which was formerly called Women for Life, published and widely circulated a pamphlet about the convention entitled, “What Every Woman Should Know.” The pamphlet was sent to members of Parliament.

. The reasons given for its opposition to the convention are that it would sweep away traditional family values, require abortion on demand, and that it would curtail religious freedom because parts of the Bible would be banned from schools on the ground that they are sexist. Some have objected because of the cost of some of the proposals, such as maternity leave and child-care facilities, and others have criticised the number of Communist countries among the signatories to the convention.

On the other side of the debate, most of the mainstream churches and the great majority of women’s organisations support the convention.

In the background paper on the Government’s attitude to the convention, which was released in February, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Cooper, said that New Zealand society had nothing to fear

if the convention was ratified.

He said that many of the criticisms were based on a misunderstanding of the convention itself or of the legal effect of ratifying an international treaty.

The Government could ratify the convention with reservations in areas which were inconsistent with New Zealand law or policy.

“I remain to be convinced that ratification of the convention will alter in any significant way social attitudes in New Zealand,” he said.

“I do believe, however, that by ratifying it we may help women in many other countries who do not enjoy the same high level of human rights that we have here.” u New Zealand became a signatory of the convention in July, 1980, and its ratification has been under consideration since then.

Late last year, the Cabinet decided to defer ratification of the convention until further work could be done to ensure that existing New Zealand laws were in line with its requirements.

The convention, which has 30 articles, provides for the elimination of discrimination against women in public, political, social, economic, cultural, and legal life. It calls for the elimination of prejudice and stereotyped roles for men and women, the elimination of discrimination in marriage and family relations and elimination of discrimination against rural women.

It emphasises the right of women to work, to be educated, to have equal access to health facilities and calls for the development of a network of child-care facilities.

Mr Cooper said in his background paper that the convention’s obligation to pursue a policy of elimination of discrimination meant the Government would have to ensure that women were not denied human rights and fundamental freedoms.

“Successive governments in New Zealand have long been committed to such a policy. It is given effect in the Human Rights Commission Act,” he said.