U.N. convention on women

Press, 23 August 1984, Page 20

U.N. convention on women

Sir, — K. Orr is a virtuoso in formulating unsubstantiated generalisations. He (?) begins with six, and continues with erroneous deductions about my earlier statements. Abortion is not raised in the convention, but actions which have led to abortion show how women’s rights have been violated. I focus on one action area — rape. Only if K. Orr believes rape is criminal and abuses women, should he air views on women. If rape results in pregnancy, is it not further abuse to force a woman to bear a criminal’s child? Because of possible pregnancy, only men who have never had extra-marital sex, nor raped within marriage, should dare an opinion on abortion or endangered family life, or decide whether women need a human rights convention. Yet Parliamentarians with known sex-outside-marriage records impose their will on women re abortion and the convention. The value of family life, threatened by such politicians, is safeguarded in the convention. — Yours, etc., B. ROBERTS. August 20, 1984.

Sir,—Valda Woods points out that the benefit to New Zealand of the ratification of the convention would be that it would give support for the struggles of women in courttries which need to change lawsythat are oppressive. However,

this still does not answer the question given to Miss Dewe: “What is the benefit to New Zealand of ratification?” — Yours, etc., CHRIS CHASTON. August 20, 1984.