NATIONALITY OF WOMEN

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 40, 1 February 1932, Page 11

NATIONALITY OF WOMEN

CLAIM FOR EQUALITY WITH MEN. A LONG AGITATION. The subordinate position of women in the matter of nationality, and the necessity for measures giving them equality with men in this respect, were emphasised by Mrs T. E. Taylor, at the Conference of the New Zealand Federation of 'University Women at Christchurch. Dr. Jessie Scott presided, and introduced Mrs Taylor to the delegates, saying that the question had been seriously taken up by the Federation since 1928.

“We often hear people asking what is in this question of the nationality of women,” said Mrs Taylor. “That is merely a reflection of the general attitude of men and women who have not come into contact with ’he question. When they have seen what tremendous disadvantages are forced upon women, they will realise the all-importance of the matter. “The rule by which a woman follows the nationality of her husband is of comparatively recent origin, dating from the French Civil Code, which was formulated after the Revolution. It was not until 1844 that a foreign woman who carried an Englishman became English, and further developments in all countries have manifested themselves since. Right back to Plantagenet times there was no imposition of nationality on married women, and the practice of not allowing women to choose their own nationality is n modern phenomenon.” CASES OF HARDSHIP. Mrs Taylor enumerated several specific cases of hardship. An intolerable position, she said, was forced on in English woman who married an American in the United States. She had lost her English nationality, and could not attain American citizenship for 12 months, so that she was Stateless. She had enjoyed no rights whatever at home or abroad for a considerable period. International organisations of women had not ceased to work for the equitable codification of the laws of nation, ality. Married women should be able to choose their nationality—this choice was the crux of tho whole matter. The question had been raised twice at Imperial Conferences, and twice New Zealand Prime Ministers had been approached and asked to support the women’s demands. The Imperial Conference had refused to deal with the matter, and had handed it back to the British Parliament. Since 1922 the same Bill had been discussed in the House of Commons, but it had never succeeded in passing the second reading. International questions had always cropped up, and prevented the passage of the Bill. Responsibility had been thrown back on the Dominions, and, although Canada, Australia, and South Africa had shown themselves favourable to the proposition, nothing had ever come of it. THE CONFLICT OF LAWS.

“In 1928 the International Federation of University Women took the question up,” said Mrs Ta.vlor. “A committee of jurists went thoroughly into the matter and found that it wns the question of the conflict of laws which was holding up all favourable legislation. They came to the conclusion that, if womep were allowed to choose their nationality, there would be much less conflict of law than at present.” Nothing had come out of the consideration of the question by Ihe League of Nations. Representatives of many international women’s organisations had discussed possibilities : n committee with the Secretary-General of the League. They had decided to oppose any differentiation between men and women as regards matters of nationality and had urged the Ass’snib’y to take steps to submit to Governm Hits a ratification, founddd on national equality between the sexes. It was iiow clear that nothing favourable to the suggestions of the international committee had taken place at the last assembly of the League. Mrs Taylor was thanked for her address, and general discussion on the matter took place. . . . Miss M. E. Sims, Dominion President of the Federation, said that the question had been considered fully at the pan-Pacific conference of women, and that practically the same conclusions had been arrived at.