COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS DISCUSSES EQUAL RIGHT OF MEN AND WOMEN TO ENJOYMENT OF ALL RIGHTS

Press Release
CESCR, 28th session, 13 May 2002

(Morning)
Need for Temporary Special Measures for Equality of Women Emphasized

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this morning started its day of general discussion on the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights.

The Committee is holding the day of general discussion on article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights with the view to drafting a general comment on the issue.

In her opening remarks, Committee Chairperson Virginia Bonoan Dandan said that women were the most unprivileged group living in the privileged men's world; women also had to bear unequal conditions which society imposed on them; the inequality of women and men was showing widening poles in many societies; and the issue of equality was between the powerless and the powerful.

Ms. Bonoan-Dandan said that no society could claim that men and women enjoyed equal rights, regretting that stereotyped forms of discrimination against women continued and were deeply entrenched in many societies, putting women in conditions which prevented them from the full enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights. Women were subjected to de facto inequality and they were greatly disadvantaged by the worldwide discrimination against them, she added.

Other Committee Experts also participated in the discussion, raising issues which they said needed to be included in the draft general comment the Committee was envisaging to adopt in a year's time.

Guest speakers from the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and other private organizations also made statements in which they said that temporary special measures should be adopted by States parties in order to attain the equality of women in enjoying their economic, social and cultural rights. The Committee was advised to encourage affirmative action to be taken by Governments favouring equality between women and men.

Article 3 of the Covenant states that States parties to the International Covenant must ensure the equal rights of men and women to the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the Covenant.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will conclude its day of general discussion on article 3 of the Covenant.

Statements

VIRGINIA BONOAN-DANDAN, Committee Chairperson, in her opening remarks, said that women were the most unprivileged group living in the privileged men's world. Women had to bear unequal conditions which the society imposed on them. The inequality of women and men was showing widening poles in many societies. The issue of equality was between the powerless and the powerful.

No society could claim that men and women enjoyed equal rights, Ms. Bonoan-Dandan said. She regretted that stereotyped forms of discrimination continued, and were deeply embedded in many societies putting women in conditions which prevented them from the full enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights. Since the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action on Human Rights and the 1995 Beijing Platform on Women, the Committee had gathered sufficient experience on article 3 of the Covenant. Women were subjected to de facto inequality and they were greatly disadvantaged by the worldwide discrimination against them.

Ms. Bonoan-Dandan asked if the Committee was looking for the adoption of a general comment on the equal rights of men and women to the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights as set forth in the Covenant or a general comment on equality of men and women. The process of the drafting of the general comment on the issue of equal rights of men and women to the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights might take one year.

SAVITRI GOONESEKERE, Member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), said many women lived in poverty because of the denial of their access to socio-economic rights. Socio-economic rights needed a time-frame for their implementation with regards to women. The Committee had been demanding the integration of socio-economic rights at the level of Constitutions and not only at policy levels. When the rights were put in legislation, such as Constitutions, the next step would be their application. CEDAW believed that States should play a vital role in the implementation of the rights, including affirmative action, even if the economy was in the hands of the private sector.

CEDAW focused on shared family and society responsibility for women, Ms. Goonesekere said. The balance within the family should be based on equality and governments should be accountable for the respect of women in the areas of education and reproductive health rights. Domestic violence and the right to inheritance should be dealt with as areas where discrimination was usually committed against women. In addition, the enforcement of policies and legal measures should be addressed in the field of women's work, including the formal and informal sectors. CEDAW emphasized that the cultural impact of bias against women was a denial of their equality and the enjoyment of their cultural rights.

HANNA BEATE SCHOPP-SCHILLING, Member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), said that CEDAW had been working for the last twenty years to ensure the equality of women. With regard to article 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which was mandatory, there was a sense in the Committee that in order to reach a de facto equality, temporary special measures, to last for some time, should be applied. Referring to a report compiled by Marc Bossyut, member of the Human Rights Committee, she said that although she did not agree with all the terms used by him, the de facto equality - substantive equality, as it was also termed - should be supported by measures, such as positive action, positive discrimination or affirmative action. Without temporary special measures, it would be impossible to attain the desired target of de facto equality. Temporary social measures could be based on supra-constitutional measures or other legislative provisions. They could also be based on preferential measures, such as quota systems.

In many areas of politics, it was easy to establish quota systems, but it was difficult to implement them in education where there was a need to take temporary special measures, Ms. Schopp-Schilling said. CEDAW was endeavouring to ensure that temporary special measures be used in achieving the goal of equality. If the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was envisaging to adopt a general comment on article 3 of the Covenant, it should also focus on the application of temporary measures in achieving the goal of equality.

Discussion

Following the statements, Committee Experts expressed their views. An Expert said that if the Committee was to adopt a general comment, he preferred that the emphasis should be on the equal access of women and men to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. With regard to work, there was always discrimination and it was difficult to come out with evidence that such discrimination existed. It was also some women, because of children, who abandoned their professions. He asked if the Committee would recommend "affirmative action" in its general comment.

The same Expert also said that the Government of France, for example, had decreed legislation on the right to equal access of women to political activities; however, it had been difficult to apply it for many reasons. There were not enough women candidates to enter politics or to represent themselves in elections. The international community should have faith in the movements of women, particularly in the third world. African women were vocal in cases of female genital mutilation, for example.

Another Expert said that as for the cooperation with CEDAW, it was historic and it was important that there should be close collaboration on the converging aspects. On temporary special measures and affirmative action, there were a number of positions to be expressed. He said he was in favour of propagating affirmative action, and was against the use of strict quota systems, which might raise contradictions. The Committee should take more time to adopt a general comment on the issue.

Another Expert also said that if the idea of a general comment would be an interpretation of the articles of the Covenant beyond the initial idea to which States parties adhered to, he was afraid there would be contradictions on the issue. He was sympathetic about the application of temporary special measures. Abortion, for example, was not restricted in some countries while it was prohibited in others, so the Committee should be careful in such matters. The Committee had many things to learn from the experience of CEDAW.

An Expert asked if a radical form of affirmative action was not to the detriment of equality among individuals. It was a tricky issue that should be dealt with very carefully. The issue of the rights of women was not only a special sphere of CEDAW because gender-based discrimination was raised with regard to transsexuals or homosexuals which the Committee was familiar with.

Another Expert said that if one approached women as a vulnerable group, it would be wrong, since many women enjoyed their rights within the society. The use of language in the general comment should be carefully chosen. In the draft, it would be better to use "positive discrimination" instead of "affirmative action".

Ms. Goonesekere said that with regard to temporary special measures, there was inequality from one country to another, as seen over the course of CEDAW's examination of country reports. Article 4 of the Convention assumed that States parties should take special measures but without saying that their omission might amount to discrimination. The issue of violence against women had been a key issue at the CEDAW debate. It was the role of the Committee to interpret the provisions of the Convention in order to attain its goals. The protocol to the Convention had been adopted to handle complaints; however, the Committee had not so far received any individual or group complaints.

Ms. Schoop-Schilling said she was happy that the members of the Committee had apprehended the essence of substantive equality, which was dear to CEDAW. The temporary special measures should be incorporated in Constitutions as had been done by Germany and Finland, for instance. There were also other States that incorporated measures at the legislative level. Special measures should be permanent in their application and not temporary. According to reports received by CEDAW, some countries legalized prostitution as a profession, while others outlawed it. She said she was not in favour of establishing a rigid quota system so that it would not end up in courts.

Asked if CEDAW had taken a position on the issue of prostitution, Ms. Schopp-Schilling said that no stand had been taken so far but the issue was being dealt with as a form of exploitation.

Responding to a Committee Expert, Ms. Goonesekere said that couples were supposed to complement each other in an ideal partnership, but sadly, by recognizing the historic reality, one observed the unequal position of women in the deeply entrenched men-preferred patriarchal society.

Statements

MARSHA A. FREEMAN, Director of the International Women's Rights Action Watch (USA), said that if equality in the enjoyment of rights should be thought of as equality between men and women, a power mechanism for the enjoyment of rights should be established. Equality in the essence should be the issue of how men and women established the society and how to enact the laws to run the society. Historically, women were shackled by inequality and were prevented from exercising their choice and maintaining it. The issue of rights was to restore equality but not to take away from the other. The term gender had been misused in many aspects; and it did not refer to women, it was an analytical tool. If there was equality to the right to education, for instance, the consequence for boys and girls should be considered.

Ms. Freeman said that there was a case in which the education of women had been seen as over-privileged because of their number exceeding that of men in some societies. There should be fairness for both women and men in all aspects. Fundamental fairness should be dealt with by the Committee in its drafting of the general comment.

SHELAGH DAY, Consultant on women's human rights and economic equity issues (Canada), of the Women's Economic Equality Project (international coalition), said that the situation of women should be given special attention and the issues impeding their enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights should be highlighted. In Canada, for example, the Supreme Court had recognized the jurisprudence of human rights and had ruled out that a person who might face the death penalty should be extradited. Further, the cuts in social assistance rates below subsistence level had forced Canadian courts to examine the situation within the domestic context and the international treaties. With regard to the general comment, the harms committed against women and their lack of equal rights to the enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights should be considered. The issue of the enjoyment of the rights by women should be seen from the sex-specific prospective.

Ms. Day said that women did not enjoy autonomy, did not enjoy their economic, social and cultural rights, and were not participating in decision-making. When improvements were made concerning women's well-being, they would have a positive impact on all women's rights. Some countries still maintained laws that discriminated against women and that considered them as inferior. Policies and laws were gender-neutral in some countries, but still women were not enjoying their rights. In many societies, men were considered the main beneficiaries with women being their dependents. The overall impact of the conduct of States parties should be considered in light of the attainment of equality among men and women.

(Afternoon)
Stresses the Need to Implement Measures to Fight Discrimination against Women

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon concluded its day of general discussion on the equal rights of women and men to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, stressing the need to implement further measures to fight discrimination against women.

A member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women said that the rights of women were a human rights issue and were an integrated and holistic part of all human rights; temporary special measures to fight discrimination were seen in the context of women's unequal treatment. Rights were not only looked at from the legislative prospective but also from other angles.

Another speaker said that domestic violence used to be considered a private affair and women were left alone without any official help. Part of the main work achieved by the United Nations, through various conferences, was to turn domestic violence into a public affair.

Following the discussion, the Committee was envisaging to draft a general comment on article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is the equal rights of women and men to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 14 May, it will meet in private to have a discussion with States parties. It is scheduled to meet at 3 p.m. in public to carry out a follow-up to the Committee's day of general discussion on the right to education and a follow-up to the World Education Forum held in Dakar in April 2000.

Discussion

Following the morning discussion on the issue of equality between men and women to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, the two guest speakers, Savitri Goonesekere and Hanna Beate Schopp-Schilling, both members of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), continued to contribute to the discussion.

The guest speakers said that it was important to see the specific areas where women's rights were not fulfilled. A holistic planning should be made to eradicate discrimination against women. In addition, international jurisprudence should be integrated into courts, as done in India and Nepal, for example, in order to impact on domestic policies. When a law was enacted saying that women and men were equal, that might seem to be adequate, but if there was distortion in the applications of the provision, they should be corrected through the means of special measures.

Further, the speakers said that temporary special measures were designed to correct indirect discrimination that might occur in the process of the implementation of non-discriminatory rights. In day-to-day experience, one could observe that less and less direct discrimination was seen, leaving the place for indirect forms of discrimination. For instance a woman could be denied a job just because she was a woman, but instead of telling her that, they would tell her that the job had already been given to someone else.

If inequality was recognized as disadvantageous to women, measures had to be invented against the discrimination of women, the guest speakers said. More emphasis should be put on substantive equality. In addition, laws aimed at giving effect to the full enjoyment of women's rights and preventing discrimination against women might turn out to be discriminatory in the end. For that reason, laws should be revised to reconsider their effectiveness.

Another participant said that gender-sensitive budgetary allocation was important to advance the rights of women. Without neglecting national budgetary priorities, it was essential to allocate funds to areas where women's rights could be promoted. Without adequate budgetary allocation, the women might not fully enjoy their economic, social and cultural rights.

KRISTINA MORVAI (Hungary), speaking on "domestic violence as an equal rights issue", said that she wanted to talk about domestic violence and to establish a theoretical approach to that phenomenon. Domestic violence used to be considered a private affair and women were left alone without any official help. Part of the main work achieved by the United Nations, through various conferences, was to turn domestic violence into a public affair. In the second stage, domestic violence against women had become a human issue, with the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights interpreting the traditional aspects of the human rights approach. In the traditional approach of human rights protection, only acts of state agents were considered and not those acts committed by private persons. As a result of twenty years of work, governments were now able to write legislative texts to protect women. With the adoption of the optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, States had become answerable before CEDAW.

With regard to the right to adequate housing, for example, women had to abandon their homes in order to protect their children from the danger they encountered as a result of domestic violence. The behaviour of men thus had caused the escape of women from their regular domiciles. They became homeless and lived without shelter with their children. It was the duty of the State to provide safe shelter to the victims. Why did husbands beat their wives? They were battered and punished for having their own opinions and for failing to obey the men's directives. In addition, attention should be paid to the health of the women due to the violence they endured, and to children's conditions, who were disturbed because of the violence.

LEILANI FARHA, of Women's Programme Manager (Canada), speaking on "what article 3 means in relation to the right to adequate housing", said that women's special conditions should be seen in conjunction with their access to economic, social and cultural rights. Women were undervalued in many aspects, including with respect to housing. In Canada, a blatant form of discrimination was taking place on a daily basis. A gender-neutral policy might also have a negative consequence with regard to a mortgage loan; a woman seeking a loan had to deposit a given amount of money in order to get the loan. Since women were poor, they could not afford to obtain the loan; their home ownership was farfetched. The material conditions of women should be considered with regards to access to housing. With regard to non-discrimination, women were not enjoying their rights because of discriminatory policies and gender-stereotypes, among other things. Women were only enjoying partially their non-discrimination rights. It was important that States should facilitate the housing ownership of women by lowering the down payment and by allowing them to have access to interest-free loans.

INGRID WESTENFORP (Netherlands), speaking on "access to and enjoyment of the right to housing for women", said that domestic violence was a cause for homelessness. In the case of widowhood, a woman could lose her status within the family, and might become homeless. There were other specific aspects that made women homeless, the fact of poorness and lack of equality between the couple. In many cases, single-woman households might lead to homelessness due to the lack of support from a man. In addition, laws should not be based on strict equality of both sex, but creative laws should be designed to deal with specific issues of discrimination. Besides the laws, policy measures should be taken against stereotype discrimination against women.

A representative of ILO said that her organization had submitted a paper on the working conditions of women and on the issue of equal pay for equal value of work.

An Expert said that the ILO's input was helpful to the work of the Committee and hoped that the Organization would continue to provide input in the future.

Responding to some of the issues raised during the discussion, one of the guest speakers said that CEDAW put emphasis on family in its discussion of country reports. With regard to policy formulation, it should not be the exclusive job of lawyers. The process of law-making now involved the members of civil society. If there was change in inheritance law, for example, one had to anticipate a loophole if the views of women were not involved. With regard to domestic violence, some countries had enacted criminal provisions making wife battering a crime. Domestic violence was now a public and no more a private affair. However, the victims of domestic violence should report it to the police so that public prosecution could take place. It was important to emphasize that domestic violence had now become a public affair.

Ms. Schopp-Schilling of CEDAW said that domestic violence was discrimination against women and a denigration of their human rights. The power position of men throughout the ages had conceived violence as a means of love in some societies. However, that situation was a distorted love affair. In some countries, laws which had seemed favourable to the rights of women had turned out to be against the interests of women.

A Committee Expert said that the future general comment should embrace the issue of substantive equality on the same line with the one already adopted by CEDAW.

ANA IRMA RIVERA-LASSEN, of the Latin American and the Caribbean Committee for the Defence of Women Rights (CLADEM), said that her Committee had called attention to the necessity of review texts, treaties and other instruments from a gender prospective. It also used an ethnic and racial perspective with special emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights, full citizenship, sexual reproductive rights and the right to live free of violence. Women were the poorest among the poor people, that fact was repeated in studies and documents everywhere. In the regions of the Committee, governments decided their macroeconomic policies without taking in account the effects on women, their needs, rights or life conditions. Access to economic and programme policy designs were not facilitated to women. There were no adequate accountability mechanisms on trade and commerce that might affect women's citizenship. Privatization and commercial liberalization had produced new forms of poverty. States' budgets were shrinking basic social services affecting women.

MARIA HERMINIA GRATEROL, IWEAW-Asia Pacific (Malaysia), said that gender identity was overlapping dimensions; women's experiences were shaped by multiple identities that were drawn on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, economics, position and age, among other things. Since each level of a woman's multiple identity was valued unequally, the interplay of various levels of subordination and disadvantage often amounted to obstacles to the understanding and claiming of rights by women from discriminated groups. It was important to explore the ways that women's multiple identities determined how they viewed, asserted, demanded and realized their rights.

MILOON KOTHARI, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right to adequate housing, said that in his work he had attempted to present a framework of the existing segregation to the right to housing and he had provided guidelines to States to avoid such situations. He said the issue of globalization had to be dealt with concerning the impact of privatization and the means to protect the achievements already gained. The process of globalization should not affect the population and particularly women. There was also a need to emphasize that laws intended for national security purposes, following the 11 September events, should not be detrimental to the human rights of people, and such issues should be indicated in any important decisions of the Committee, such as the general comment. Peoples should be mobilized to defend their rights that might be affected by the process of globalization.

A Committee Expert said that in some societies women continued to elect men and not women. No women were being elected in official positions. In Jordan, for example, women did not elect women to parliament. The attitude of women towards trusting women should be changed.

Another Expert added that women accepted discrimination and they continued to suffer subordination. Women in indigenous communities and rural areas, for instance, affirmed their acceptance of discrimination. Many women did not trust women, and accepted that they were treated inferior to men. That was a daunting problem that still existed which needed a grass-root campaign against such attitudes.

A Representative of the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations Office Geneva said that the framework of the general comment would be useful to States in their implementation of the provisions of the Covenant. The Convention's article 4 (1) should be embodied into the Committee's general comment. The sharing of experience with CEDAW was also beneficial since that Committee had a long experience.

A representative from a non-governmental organization said that women should enjoy the indivisibility of economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights. Women should also enjoy the right to development as active participants. The idea of inferiority of women, which was referred to by an Expert, was not invented by women themselves but it was brought on by men.

In conclusion, Ms. Goonesekere said that the rights of women were a human rights issue and were an integrated and holistic part of human rights. The temporary special measures were seen in the context of women's unequal treatment. CEDAW had specifically described discrimination against women defining it as direct and indirect, private and public. It was not only an array of legislation which was aimed at promoting women's rights but it was also the policies that were taken into consideration. Rights were not only looked at from the legislative prospective but also from other angles. In addition, CEDAW considered that culture, which might be prejudicial to women, could be metamorphosed by some groups and subjected to change.

Printer friendly format

Back to top

This page was last updated on June 15, 2003

“IWRAW Asia Pacific is an independent, non-profit, NGO in Special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.”
©IWRAW Asia Pacific
Contact Us | Site Map