TNAG-2154-FCO40-3074-Human-rights-in-Hong-Kong-United-Nations-Committee-on-the-El-1990 — Page 39

CONFIDENTIAL

4

057270

MDLOAN 3350

CONFIDENTIAL

FM FCO

TO ROUTINE HONG KONG

TELNO 243

OF 26150OZ JANUARY 90

1989

HKC2411

RECEIVE

IN REGISTRY

2.0 FEB 1990

DESK OFFI

INLEX

1

YOUR TELNOS 3626 AND 4142: UN CEDAW

REGISTRY

Action Taken

TOP COPY

DIST ?

Chase

eut.

for

1. WE ARE GENERALLY CONTENT WITH THE TACTICS PROPOSED IN TUR. BUT FURTHER INFORMATION IS NECESSARY BEFORE WE CAN TAKE A FINAL DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO EXTEND THE RATIFICATION OF CEDAW TO HONG KONG (AND IF SO, UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS).

2.

WE NOTE FROM PARA 2 OF TUR THAT IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT YOUR SMALL HOUSE AND RENT CONCESSION POLICIES ARE THE RESULT OF LAW AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE NEW TERRITORIES, ALTHOUGH NOT EMBODIED IN LEGISLATION AS SUCH. COULD THERE BE MORE SCOPE THAN YOU SUGGEST FOR ARGUING THAT THESE POLICIES ARE IN ADDITION THE

RESULT OF QUOTE ESSENTIAL AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OF ECONOMIC POLICY UNQUOTE? FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD THE FACT THAT THERE IS INADEQUATE LAND TO EXTEND THE SMALL HOUSE POLICY TO WOMEN CONSTITUE AN OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION? IF THERE IS ANY SUCH SCOPE, WE COULD SEE A CASE FOR DEFENDING THE NT LAND POLICIES UNDER ARTICLE 2(F) OF THE UK'S EXISTING RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS ON CEDAW. IN LINE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THIS RESERVATION, HOWEVER, YOU WOULD NEED TO BE PREPARED TO KEEP THESE POLICIES UNDER REVIEW WITH A VIEW TO CHANGING THEM IF OR WHEN THESE OVERRIDING ECONOMIC REASONS JUSTIFYING THEIR

RETENTION LAPSED.

3. WE DOUBT WHETHER IT IS CORRECT TO STATE, AS IN PARA 3 OF TUR, THAT ARTICLE 26 OF THE ICCPR PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION ON ANY GROUND INCLUDING SEX. WHILE ARTICLE 26 IS NOT LIMITED SIMPLY TO THE RIGHTS WITHIN THE COVENANT, IN SUBSTANCE IT IS CONCERNED WITH EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. THE WORDS QUOTE IN THIS RESPECT UNQUOTE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE ARTICLE CLEARLY LINK THAT SENTENCE TO THE FIRST SENTENCE. MOREOVER, AS PARA 5 OF TUR RECOGNISES, THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW AND TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION DOES NOT MAKE ALL DIFFERENCES OF TREATMENT OF WHATEVER NATURE DISCRIMINATORY. WE AGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 26 AS IN PARA 4 OF TUR. WE ALSO AGREE (PARA 6 OF TUR) THAT THE DIFFERENCES REFLECTED IN YOUR LAWS AND PRACTICES ARE ARGUABLY BASED ON REASONABLE AND OBJECTIVE

CRITERIA.

4.

WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED (PARA 3 OF OUR TELNO 1831) THAT IT

1

PAGE

CONFIDENTIAL

114.