U.N convention on women

Press, 30 August 1984, Page 20

U.N convention on women

Sir, — In reply to Mary Broughton’s question about loss of freedoms because of ratification of the United Nations convention on women, the following are examples from Australia. A school in Tasmania had books containing sex stereotyping removed from its library. Thefc included the Bible. Catholic schools are being hindered in their teaching according to their beliefs, which would include stereo-

typed roles. Views differ on these matters, as was obvious from Susan Taylor’s letter, but people should be allowed to bring up their children as they believe is right, not as the State dictates. This affects religious freedom as well. A job creation scheme involving heavy physical work had to take on equal amounts of men and women. A couple on the unemployment benefit, with a young baby, did not have the freedom to decide who would work, the woman had to go because there were already enough men on the job. — Youis, etc.,

ANNA STOLK. August 28, 1984. Sir, — Dr Viney avoided stating his eligibility, in terms of my last letter — a necessary prerequisite for males for debating abortion or the convention. However, the Human Rights Commission’s paper answers his question — “family planning could not be construed as support for abortion.” The importance of Colleen Dewe’s emphasis on world-wide implications of ratification is clearly demonstrated in the current values placed on Pakistani women. But changes are still needed in New Zealand. Dr Viney correctly fears that stereotyping in textbooks is one discrimination poised for elimination. While males and females are pigeon-holed, and girls and women depicted as inferior in schoolbooks or elsewhere, all people are being conditioned. For instance, if this conditioning leads women to accept, as proper, a spokesman for women, whether it be Dr Viney or Mr McLay, then it is obvious they have not had equal opportunities, and change is essential. — Yours, etc., B. ROBERTS. August 28, 1984.