The Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill passed its third reading unanimously today, plugging a loophole in our human rights legislation and finally bringing us into full legal compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. While the military had allowed women to serve in combat roles since 2002, they still had the legal right to discriminate - the only such exception remaining. Society has clearly moved on; while there are still dinosaurs who see women primarily as breeding units owned by society who therefore need protection as a valuable resource, the vast majority of New Zealanders would today regard such views as absolutely repugnant. Repeal of the offening clause was long overdue, and I'm glad Parliament has finally got round to it.
Women can't be Catholic padres though. They do, however, sit in the front row during Defence Force powhiris.
ReplyDeleteI agree that women should be accepted in to all of the same roles as men, including combat roles in the military.
ReplyDeleteMy only hope is that we don't go the way of some US units, where women are subject to different fitness and strength requirements for the same roles as men.
I remember when the current law was introduced and the exemption for the Armed Forces was made. Now I'm not condoning or saying the exemption should remain. But it should be acknowledged that society was different then. Had the armed forces not sought the exemption from the law, all manner of difficulties would have arisen. The services were not ready, (Ships in the early 1980s had no facilities for women for instance and no women had been trained for sea service) nor for that matter were the public of NZ. But to give the Armed forces credit, we knew that the was a need for change - the demographics were clear that the sole reliance on men for operational duties was unsustainable - (there were simply not enough boys in the population interested in a career in the military). The navy established a working committee to introduce ways of implementing policy directed towards women serving at sea of which I was an initial member. I am pleased to see that the changes we instituted have now resulted in this law change.
ReplyDeleteMacro: Effectively the exemption allowed the military time to make the transition. There were other ways of doing it (an explicit transition period in the law is typical), but it worked out pretty much the same - when it came time to amend the law, it was purely symbolic.
ReplyDeleteI/S I agree entirely! But believe me 25 years ago there was a great deal of head shaking and worry over women undertaking combat roles, and whether or not the public would accept it. Changes had to be made, I'm happy to have been part of that.
ReplyDeleteDont women already serve?
ReplyDelete