Substantive equality revisited

The CEDAW Committee, 'General Recommendation No.25: on temporary special measures' ( 2004) CEDAW/C/GC/25.indirect discrimination, reasonable accommodation and harassment.Meanwhile, in the US Supreme Court, conservative justices regard substantive equality as highly problematic. 7 It is argued in this paper that, whereas it is clear that the right to equality should move beyond a formal conception that likes should be treated alike, a substantive conception resists capture by a single principle.Instead, drawing on the strengths of the familiar principles in the substantive equality discourse, a four dimensional principle is proposed: to redress disadvantage; to address stigma, stereotyping, prejudice and violence; to enhance voice and participation; and to accommodate difference and achieve structural change. 8Behind this is the basic principle that the right to equality should be located in the social context, responsive to those who are disadvantaged, demeaned, excluded, or ignored.The four dimensional approach aims at providing an analytic framework to illuminate better the multi-facetted nature of inequality and to assist in determining whether actions, practices or institutions impede or further the right to equality.It is deliberately framed in terms of dimensions, to permit us to focus on their interaction and synergies, rather than asserting a pre-established lexical priority.In this way, we are able to understand the manner in which different dimensions might be used to buttress one another.Where there are conflicts, or one cuts across another, the tension might be resolved by referring to the framework as a whole, the aim being, not so much to insist that one has priority, but to create a synthesis which takes account of all the dimensions.For example, while dignity should be furthered, this should not be at the expense of redressing disadvantage.Similarly, affirming difference and identity should be circumscribed by the need to prevent stigma, stereotyping and prejudice.It is acknowledged that the boundaries between the dimensions can be fluid; but it is argued that it is analytically useful to keep them separate.The framework does not of course attempt to resolve all of the issues relating to the right to substantive equality.The aim of the multi-dimensional approach is ultimately an evaluative one, to provide a set of criteria to determine whether a law, policy, practice or institution is likely to fulfil the right to equality and to point to ways in which they should be reformed 7