CODE 18-77
Mr Gwynn
United Nations Department
HONG KONG AND CEDAW
Reference...
pite 0
HKC 241/1
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
20 FEB 1990
DESK OFFICE
INDEX
}
CISTRY
Taken
1. Please refer to your minute of 14 December.
2. I agree that it would make sense for HKD to lead on this subject henceforth: we seem to have reached an agreed position on the legal and UN aspects; the difficulties now relate to the Chinese and relevance to the Basic Law and Bill of Rights.
3. I suggest that I issue your draft telegram. Since Hong Kong
have chased us for a response (Hong Kong telno 4142), I should be grateful if you and copy addressees could let me have any further
comments (of their own or on what I suggest below) by Monday 8
January.
4.
I have the following comments on your draft telegram:
(a) Para 4: insert in front of eleventh line:
"... appropriate source for rights. We might therefore be
open to challenge. However, if this seems to be the only way forward we would be willing to run the risk. After all, as we
have extended ratification
•
"
(b) Paras 5 and 6: I think we need to explore more explicitly
the implications of going down this path. I suggest amending
to read:
11
existing commitments under the ICCPR. But,
before going down this path we need to look carefully at the implications. Firstly, are you able to assess the likelihood of a challenge? Is there, for example, a vociferous women's lobby in Hong Kong which is likely to pick up this point and ask a competent body to advise whether your present law and
policy was contrary to the ICCPR, CEDAW or Hong Kong's Bill of Rights? Secondly, we note from para 7 of TUR that you would be prepared to amend your law and policy in this event.
MUKAFN