True equality must mean an end to all discrimination

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Deputy Yerby is concerned about discrimination, acknowledges that discrimination occurs against men as well as women, but wants to commit to a convention to end the discrimination against women but not the discrimination against men. An act which is... discriminatory, is it not? How about we just try and end all unfair discrimination? Why does she have to create a gender divide: A 'them and us'? And how does she think that only ending discrimination against one gender is progress towards gender equality?

Why should we commit to such a biased convention? What actual areas does she even think require focus? At the very least this all seems very hypocritical.

I challenge Deputy Yerby to begin an open and public debate in these pages in order to clarify exactly what forms of discrimination she considers require addressing and, presumably, why she does not consider those against men to require addressing.

I think it was Yvonne Burford who warned us that female politicians have been observed to focus more on women's issues, but I think Deputy Yerby needs to be reminded that she represents a parish that also contains men, and she is employed to represent them all. This is the 21st century and we shouldn't be tolerating such divisive discrimination – particularly from an elected official.

Name and address withheld.

Editor's footnote: Deputy Emilie Yerby responds: Former Deputy Burford was a courageous and principled politician who worked hard to challenge some of the disadvantages faced disproportionately by women and girls, even in societies such as ours which have made considerable progress towards gender equity in recent decades. I am glad that your reader acknowledges her contribution.

However, I cannot agree with the rest of the letter. Your reader is perhaps unfamiliar with the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw), which opens by acknowledging 'the dignity and worth of the human person and the equal rights of men and women' and which aims to achieve 'the elimination of prejudices and practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.' Although the convention majors on the barriers faced by women, which are deep-rooted across societies, it recognises that true gender equality means change and opportunity for everyone.

I would encourage your reader to get to know the convention (a quick search for 'CEDAW' will provide a host of relevant results). I would be surprised if they could find anything in it that would not be a worthwhile ambition for a modern democracy such as ours. I would, of course, be happy to have an informed debate with your reader, and look forward to hearing from them in due course.