*************************************************************************** The electronic version of this document has been prepared at the Fourth World Conference on Women by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in collaboration with the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women Secretariat. *************************************************************************** AS WRITTEN Statement by Choisir THE FOURTH WORLD CONFERENCE ON WOMEN Beijing, 4th-15th September, 1995. FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC ORDER I represent "The Right to Choose for Women" a non-governmental organization founded in 1971 by S. de Beauvoir, a group of famous women, a Nobel science prize winner and myself. Our goals: The right of women over their bodies, equality in every field (professional, social and political). "The Right to Choose for Women" which has affiliations in Africa, Latin America and Europe, also takes part in actions for egalitarian development between men and women, for a new balance of power between the rich and the poor countries and, finally, for peace and disarmament in the world. This should show how we fully agree with the goals of this conference. Notwithstanding some definite progress and some acquisitions one thought would have been irreversible, a tendency of throwing the right of women back into question- and even a regression - seemed to emerge in the preliminary documents during the working-out of the platform. When the historians and sociologists of the third millenium-that is tomorrow-read it and make an exegesis, there is no doubt whatsoever that they will ponder over- get indignant about? - this weird unfair and contradictory logic . Why are there such detours, such reserves and, thus, possible dismissals, when the basic and - after all ! - recognized rights of woollen are at stake? Why today, in 1995, should universality of rights still be denied to women whereas an impressive package of agreements, declarations and resolutions have been ratified by almost every. member country of the U.N.O (l) ? After the Mexico, Copenhagen and Nairobi commitment, women, mole especially in the al world, still represent two thirds of the illiterate and three quarter of the poor in the world. Where do national and intentional funds go? And what about world organization aid - which is, unfortunately, subject to drastic cuts - to promote the education of the two sexes and fight against the imbalance of wealth between them? Is it possible that half of humanity-the women- is reject of those agreements which have been discussed, bargained over and finally signed, only between the men in power. l will only stress two points: 1st point: The right of women to self-determination and maternal choice That is to say sexual education, contraception and, as a last resort, abortion which is a fundamental right, the basic freedom that puts an end to thousand of years of slavery because of accidental pregnancy and clandestine abortions. This right will not be questionned. It is up to women to decide because giving birth is an act of conscious responsibility. One does not procreate by chance, by mistake or because one forgets to take one's contraceptive We must consider the need of preventing physiological fatality. One does not procreate or abort by older of governments. Woman is neither a breeding animal, nor a demographic curve parameter one can manipulate depending on whether the curve is ascending or descending. The interference, in this debate, of religious dictates, whether they are U.N.O members or “specialised States" (I insist on putting this word in quotation marks) which have an observer- status in the U.N.O should be rejected as a matter of principle. Even though the l tiles of this conference do grant the above mentioned some special privileges, this do not confer upon them any kind of competence on the subject. Where do their knowledge, experience and concrete approach concerning the life of women and their sexuality come from? Civil law should not be confused with religious law. If that was the case, even democracy itself would be endangered, as well as freedom of thought and belief. Those women who believe in God and those who do not believe are, above all, citizens of a world where no one has the right to impose faith or the absence of faith. It is this which fight against fundamentalism of all religions which can, in some countries, go so far as to murder women because they refuse to obey their precepts. I am thinking to our Algerian sisters and I want to express to them our admiration and our affectionate solidarity with their struggle. 2nd point: I want to sum up my second point in one question: “What represents democracy for women?" The problems brought up - equality, peace, development, education. nuclear weapon, division of wealth ...- are, in a democracy, within the scope of parlementary debates. Who brings up these problems? Who debates them? Who decides their solutions ? 90% of the men and 10% of the women in the world. These women who are barely heard represent, nevertheless, half of the population of the world, and one third of the labour force, but do not even hold a tenth of the revenue and a hundredth of the property(2). When half of humanity - the men - decides and the other half- the women - is force to acquiesce or to give in, can we still talk about democracy ? It seems more like a caricature of democracy and perverted system. Democracy implies that the future of the world can be imagined, planned and created by the two sexes working equally together. Here, equality equals parity Here, parity means the same number of women and men in all levels of political decision making Democratic parity, which Madam Codaccioni, Minister of solidarity between generations in France, invoked at this platform, will permit a true refunding of the ideals of democracy. By quantitative equality, women will bring about a qualitative change required by the present state of the world. Universality of rights has, in the past fifty years, made some detours in its inevitable journey towards equality between the sexes. What Marx said about Hegel philosophy, I will applied to this procclamed universality: It was walking on its head. It is up to the women of the whole world to put it back on its feet again and to set it back on the right road. If half of the sky, half of the earth is not also half of the power, what do we call equality of the sexes? This question should be asked. It is up to our conference to give an answer. Be confident. GISELE HALIMI President of "The Right to Choose for Women'! Beijing, 1 3rd September, 1995 (1) 139 countries ratified the U.N.O agreement against sex discrimination (1979). (2) ILO Copenhage