9 Early indications are that the New Zealand provision may have been used more often by men to challenge affirmative action measures for women on the basis that they do not treat men and women in exactly the same fashion, than to advance women’s equality, 10 although this has also arguably been a feature of the Canadian experience as well. 8 Instead, there is simply a right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of sex. New Zealand does not have organisations like the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund and lacks a positive statement of equality for women in its constitution. 7 It may also reflect subtle jurisprudential and political differences between the two jurisdictions in which these legal battles were played out. This reflects differences between the two women involved. See also Gwen Brodsky & Shelagh (.)ĤAnother point of difference between the trials involving Louise Nicholas as a complainant and Jane Doe’s litigation is that the legal battle involved in the latter, but not in the former, was self-consciously shaped by a sophisticated feminist political framework.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |