U.N. convention on women

Press, 15 August 1984, Page 18

U.N. convention on women

Sir, — I find the recent correspondence on the United Nations convention on discrimination against women, quite fascinating. On the basis of my contacts with battered women, the victims of rape, and the victims of child molestation, I had always thought that those who were committed to the preservation of all forms of discrimination against women were mostly men. I see now, from the correspondence in these columns, that there are also many New Zealand women who are equally committed to the preservation of discrimination against women. We certainly have a long way to go, don’t we? — Yours, etc., JOHN CHURCH. AUGUST 13, 1984. Sir,—ln reply to Yshbel Glass (August 4) I apologise for any inference of bias on the part of the New Zealand Country Women's

Institute in my earlier letter. I understand that Mr Lee was invited to redress the balance after Miss Dewe exceeded her brief. U. Dromgoole (August 9) went to the meeting on August 2 as a supporter of the convention and is named in the booklet distributed that evening as N.C.W. representative on Corso for 1982. The announcement today that the meeting’s chairman, Rosemary Novitz, has been appointed to the Ministry of Women's Affairs advisory group, explodes the N.C.W. and S.R.O.W. myth of neutrality concerning organisation and conduct of the meeting — Yours, etc., MRS J. NIHONIHO. August 10, 1984. Sir,—Miss Colleen Dewe, chairwoman of the Advisory Committee on Women’s Affairs, addressed a well-attended public meeting on the United Nations convention on women, which she signed on New Zealand’s behalf. Miss Dewe was given an opportunity to explain the meaning of the convention’s wording and allay the fears of the many people present who were opposed to . ratification. She did neither.

When asked, repeatedly, to say what benefit there would be to New Zealand in ratifying it, she avoided answering. One draws the obvious conclusion. Miss Dewe’s attempt to justify ratification on the ground that it would give moral support to oppressed women in Third World countries in no way explained why, for instance, textbooks in our schools should be censored to reflect the feminist viewpoint on sex roles in New Zealand society, as is required by the convention’s article 10c.— Yours, etc., M. VINEY. August 6, 1984.