CODE 18.77
Mr Parker
Legal Advisers
Mr Bunten
Hong Kong Department
(separate copies)
Reference..
A
Maitaa HKC 031/3
ALL Ing?
20/4
(8
CEDAW: EXTENSION TO HONG KONG
1.
ALAS J
- ALE Panni
Please see the attached self-explanatory letter from Mrs Jennie Chok of the Hong Kong Government, and the draft chapter on the extension of CEDAW to Hong Kong to which she refers.
2.
Mr Hand will be replying to both of Mrs Chok's points, and I would propose the following on CEDAW extension:
"We would welcome the extension to Hong Kong of the UK's ratification of CEDAW. I have no major problems with the substance of the draft chapter, but would like to offer the following observations:
- paragraphs 3 and 4: the Committee (as it is referred to in the Convention) is more commonly known as "CEDAW";
- paragraph 18: I presume the complaints referred to would be under Hong Kong legislation introduced subsequent to the extension of ratification? The Convention itself does not establish national complaints mechanisms;
paragraph 19: this point perhaps merits greater emphasis;
- paragraph 22:
I think it is misleading to make extension of CEDAW and the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation dependent upon public perception of the extent to which discrimination is a problem. They are not irrevocably linked; legislation could be introduced whether or not ratification of CEDAW is extended. And the very existence of sex discrimination means it is a problem that needs addressing, regardless of wider public perception.
I believe the "Pros" outweigh the "Cons", even though they are numerically fewer! The concerns expressed in the "Cons" are widely recognised, but it is less a case of Government intervention (para 21a) and more of equalising the opportunities for all to participate in all areas of daily life, particularly the labour market. There are sound developmental arguments for ensuring this, as to do otherwise
1
/is