Reference..
B
that, from a political point of view, extension of CEDAW might "stir up" the women's lobby. However, judging from recent newspaper coverage (I attach an article from the Hong Kong standard, 14 May 1990), the women's lobby is already well aware of the potential mileage in both CEDAW and the
BR.
20. Of the matters referred to by HKG, it is only in relation to employment practices that significant new obligations would be incurred under CEDAW. There is no JD or BL problem here. To extend CEDAW in good faith, HKG would have to be prepared to adopt anti-discrimination legislation or other measures. It might be argued that such measures need not necessarily be in place before extension; the obligation is "to take all appropriate measures". However there would have to be an intention to start down this path within a reasonable period of time. The Reservation to Article 2(f) cannot be applied as a defence to Article 11 (in answer to query in HK Tel 1554, para 10). The economic arguments cited in TUR for not prohibiting wage discrimination are unlikely to impress the CEDAW Committee, nor do they seem to have any rational basis. The enactment of equal pay legislation here in 1970 has, as far as I am aware, had no demonstrable effect on the health of the economy although of course I cannot comment authoritatively on this point.. Does HKG have evidence that there has been any such effect in any other country with similar legislation?
21. Finally, since reservations to treaties cannot be made subsequent to ratification, we cannot enter any new ones for Hong Kong. If any of the existing ones are inappropriate for HK, we see no reason why they should have to be included in the extension. (in answer to HK Tel 1554, para 11).
22. I have discussed this minute with John Rankin, who is in agreement. Apologies for its length!
14 June 1990
JM Banett
Jill Barrett
CODE 18-77
K12ABR
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.