Guest Report post Posted March 15, 2011 Thanks for posting this RobX! And ... Good for the USA! Although the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women's Universal Periodic Review felt the need to aim this recommendation specifically at the USA, I'm sure that had the CEDAW perceived Canada to be similarly lacking in this area, then Canada would have cheerfully agreed to accept the same recommendation in the same context. (Not that Canada has a perfect record in accepting CEDAW recommendations.) Tones used in diplomacy are quite different by their very nature from tones used in a legal dispute. Saying something "should" be the case is very easy to do! Which is why I presume this wording was used. Such statements entail no practical obligations. Note that the USA has hardly agreed to change anything specific or concrete by agreeing with this recommendation - including its anti-prostitution laws. Nevertheless, I say again: Good for the USA! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest T**E******s Report post Posted March 15, 2011 It's interesting to see that the USA has stepped up to the plate to protect women, leaving Canada wandering aimlessly in the bleachers. Maybe Canada can see past the morals to the underlying issue, protecting women (and others). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
