What is OP-CEDAW?
Text of OP-CEDAW
Signatories and States Parties
Becoming a States Party
Administration
Communications Procedure
Inquiry Procedure
Practical Application

Applying CEDAW Principles

 

Discrimination & equality

 

Direct & indirect discrimination

 

De jure & de facto discrimination

 

Past & present discrimination

 

Crosscutting discrimination

 

Permitted distinctions

 

Intersectional or Contextualised Approach to Discrimination

State obligations

Applying CEDAW Provisions

Choosing a Procedure

Assessing Risks and Opportunities

Case Studies

OP-CEDAW Remedies
Relevant Case Law
"Our Rights are Not Optional"
FAQs

 

www
iwraw asia pacific



 


Direct and Indirect Discrimination

The CEDAW Convention's includes both direct (intended) and indirect (unintended) discrimination. From the outset, Article 1 states that discrimination occurs when the distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex has the "intention" or "effect" of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women of their rights.

Women as compared to men face many obstacles sanctioned by culture and religious practice and by entrenched male interests in key institutions such as political parties, trade unions, religious institutions and the courts; hence, neutral rules or laws may disadvantage them. Not putting in place enabling conditions nor altering rules to enable women to access their rights and opportunities is considered discrimination under the CEDAW Convention, because of its discriminatory effects even if such was unintentional.

  • Direct discrimination
    E.g. (1) A clause in the contract that employer can terminate employment if employee becomes pregnant. (2) A company policy of hiring only men.
  • Direct discrimination
    E.g. (1) An aquaculture project in Bangladesh was found to discriminate against women because it required that all participants own ponds. Since women did not inherit their parents' property or those who did, did not have access to the pond as they had moved to their husband's villages, they could not participate in the project. (2) In Australia, women retrenched from a steel mill because of the ruling "last hired, first retrenched" filed a case of discrimination successfully. While it is true that the women concerned were hired last, the fact was that the mill had a discriminatory policy several years previously of not recruiting women as it was considered inappropriate for women to work in steel mills. The fact women were last to be hired was the consequence of this historic discrimination, hence applying the rule of "last hired, first retrenched" in the case of these women was considered to be discriminatory against them although it was unintentional.

This page was last updated on November 1, 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