Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Female representation in society
Female representation in society
Female representation in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Persons Case
The Persons Case (officially Edwards v. A.G. of Canada) was a constitutional ruling that established the right of women to be appointed to the Senate.
The case was initiated by the Famous Five, a group of prominent women activists. In 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women were not “persons” according to the British North America Act and therefore were ineligible for appointment to the Senate. However, the women appealed to the Privy Council of England, which in 1929 reversed the Court’s decision. The Persons Case opened the Senate to women, enabling them to work for change in both the House of Commons and the Upper House. Moreover, the legal recognition of women as “persons” meant that women could no longer be denied
…show more content…
rights based on a narrow interpretation of the law. Women, the Vote and Political Office By 1927, most Canadian women were able to vote in federal elections and provincial elections (except Québec). Women first achieved the vote — and the right to hold political office — in Manitoba in January 1916, followed soon after by Saskatchewan (March 1916) and Alberta (April 1916). British Columbia and Ontario gave women the right to vote the following year (April 1917). Nova Scotia followed suit in April 1918 and Prince Edward Island in May 1922. New Brunswick gave women the vote in April 1919, although they could not stand for provincial office until March 1934. Only Québec women could not vote in provincial elections in 1927 — indeed, they had to wait until 1940 for that right. Newfoundland, which was not part of Canada at the time, gave women the vote in April 1925. (See also Women’s Suffrage.) In May 1918, the majority of Canadian women over the age of 21 became eligible to vote in federal elections. The following year, they received the right to stand for office in the House of Commons. In 1921, Agnes Macphail became the first woman elected to the House of Commons. However, the Senate was still closed to women. This was because of the way the Canadian government interpreted Section 24 of the British North America Act. Persons in the BNA Act The British North America Act (BNA Act) of 1867 — now known as the Constitution Act, 1867 — was the law that created and governed the Dominion of Canada. According to Section 24 of the BNA Act, only “qualified persons” could be appointed to the Senate: The governor general shall from time to time, in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified persons to the Senate; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, every person so summoned shall become and be a member of the Senate and a senator. Qualified persons included those of at least 30 years of age who owned property worth at least $4,000 and who resided in the province of their appointment. However, the BNA Act did not specify whether “persons” included women or not. In 1867, “person” was legally understood to refer only to men. Consequently, the Canadian government had since that time interpreted “persons” in Section 24 as including men only. They held this position in 1922, for example, when female activists in Alberta proposed Emily Murphy, Canada’s first woman magistrate, for a Senate position. Thousands across Canada (including the National Council of Women of Canada, the Federated Women’s Institutes and the Montreal Women’s Club) supported Murphy’s appointment, and many newspapers championed her cause. Yet the government responded that even though it “would like nothing better than to have women in the Senate […] the British North America Act made no provision for women.” This was not the first time that Murphy had herself been discounted as a “person”; in 1916, on her first day as a magistrate, a lawyer challenged her on the basis that she was not a “person” and therefore not qualified to be a judge. The Famous Five Petition According to Canadian legal scholar Sheryl Hamilton, five different governments from 1917 to 1927 suggested that although they would like to appoint a woman to Senate, Section 24 of the BNA Act made it impossible. In 1923, Prime Minister Mackenzie King asked Senator Archibald McCoig to propose an amendment to the Act, but the proposal was never made. To activists, the government was using Section 24 of the BNA Act as an excuse for stalling. In August 1927, Emily Murphy invited four prominent women activists (Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards) to her home in Edmonton. Her plan was to send a petition to the Canadian government regarding the interpretation of the word “persons” in the BNA Act. According to Section 60 of the Supreme Court Act, a group of five persons could petition the government to direct the Supreme Court to interpret a point of law in the BNA Act. On 27 August 1927, the Famous Five signed the letter, which was sent to the governor general. The petition asked that the Supreme Court rule on the following two questions: 1. Is power vested in the Governor-General in Council of Canada, or the Parliament of Canada, or either of them, to appoint a female to the Senate of Canada? 2. Is it constitutionally possible for the Parliament of Canada under the provisions of the British North America Act, or otherwise, to make provision for the appointment of a female to the Senate of Canada? The minister of Justice, Ernest Lapointe, believed that it would be an “act of justice to the women of Canada to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada upon the point.” The Supreme Court was therefore directed to consider the following question: “Does the word ‘Person’ in section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867, include female persons?” The Supreme Court (Chief Justice Francis Alexander Anglin, Mr. Justice Lyman Duff, Mr. Justice Pierre-Basile Mignault, Mr. Justice John Lamont and Mr. Justice Robert Smith) ruled unanimously on 24 April 1928 that women were not “persons” under Section 24 of the BNA Act, and were therefore ineligible for appointment to the Senate. Their decision was based on the premise that the BNA Act had to be interpreted the same way in 1928 as in 1867, when the Act was passed. It was generally accepted that in 1867, “persons” would have included men only, which was supported by the fact that women could not hold political office at that time; thus, they argued, the BNA Act would have specifically referred to women if they had meant an exception for Senate appointments. Privy Council Decision The Famous Five were disappointed, but not defeated. There was one higher authority to which they could appeal: the Privy Council of England. After much deliberation, the Privy Council reversed the decision of the Supreme Court on 18 October 1929, concluding that “the word ‘persons’ in sec. 24 does include women, and that women are eligible to be summoned to and become members of the Senate of Canada.” Lord Sankey, who delivered the judgement on behalf of the Privy Council, also remarked that the “exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours […] and to those who ask why the word [persons] should include females, the obvious answer is why should it not.” Furthermore, their Lordships do not think it right to apply rigidly to Canada of to-day the decisions and the reasonings therefor which commended themselves […] to those who had to apply the law in different circumstances, in different centuries, to countries in different stages of development.
In 1867, Canadian women were unable by law to hold political office. However, the situation in 1929 was very different, as most women were able to vote and become candidates in all federal and provincial elections (there were two exceptions: in Québec, women did not have the vote; in New Brunswick, women could vote, but could not hold political office). The Privy Council judgment was therefore consistent with the legislative changes of the 1910s and 1920s concerning women’s suffrage.
Significance
On 15 February 1930, Cairine Wilson was sworn in as Canada’s first female senator. The implications of the Persons Case, and Wilson’s appointment, were far-reaching. First, the Privy Council decision meant that women had been legally recognized as “persons.” This meant that women could no longer be denied rights based on narrow interpretations of the law. Second, women could now continue to work for greater rights and opportunities through the Senate as well as the House of Commons. The Persons Case was a significant moment in the history of women’s rights, even though the struggle for equality continues almost 100 years
later. Since 1979, the Governor General’s Awards in Commemoration of the Persons Case have been awarded annually to five individuals who have advanced the equality of women and girls in Canada. In 1999, the Women are Persons! monument was unveiled at the Olympic Plaza in Calgary, Alberta; a similar monument was installed on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario, the following year. The statue is also featured on the $50 banknote that is part of the Royal Canadian Mint’s
died on September 1, 1951, in Victoria, British Columbia. She was part of an important social/political change in Canada because her contributions helped achieve woman suffrage and the advancement of women rights, including the eligibility to become a Senator. She was elected to the Alberta Legislature in 1921 and was the first woman on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Board of Governors. In addition, she was a delegate to the League of Nations. In 1927, McClung and four other women: Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louis McKinney, Irene Parlby, and Emily Murphy came together to be known as the “Famous Five”. Emily Murphy’s authority to preside as a judge was challenged by a lawyer on the basis that women were not considered to be "persons" under the British North America Act. As a result, they launched the "Persons Case”. They asked the question, “Does the word persons in section 24 of...
In Canada, women make up slightly more than half of the population. However, throughout Canadian history and modern day, women are needing to stand up for themselves and other women to bring about change. Canadian women are strong and have the power to work together and bring about change. Jennie Trout stood up for Canadian women that wanted to be in the medical field, women during WWI made a difference in their lives by entering the workplace and standing for their right to work, Nellie McClung was a leader for women’s suffrage, and The Famous Five campaigned and won The “Persons” Case allowing women to be considered persons under the Canadian Constitution. These women were instigators of change. Change for women only occurs when ambitious and courageous women stand up for a difference that they deserve.
The election was the first in which the majority of Canadian women were allowed to vote.
In 1911, the Dower Act was finally passed in Alberta, which gave women the right to own one-third of their husband’s property.1 Emily Murphy's important decision to help amend the law in a way that it was beneficial to women showcases her determination to make sure women got their rights. Even though the law was not totally fair, it still shows that Emily Murphy took an initiative and helped women reach a step closer to their goal. Before Murphy took this essential action, many women were left homeless, since they had no right over their husband's property, and if she had not done so, many more women would fall victim.
Cameron, Jamie. "Justice in Her Own Right: Bertha Wilson and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The Law Society of Upper Canada. N.p., 2008. Web. 29 Dec. 2013. .
Since the beginning of the 17th-century and earlier, there has always been different perspectives on women 's rights. Men and women all over the world have voiced their opinion and position in regard to the rights of women. This holds especially true in the United States during the 18th and 19th century. As women campaigned for equality, there were some who opposed this idea. There was, and always will be a series of arguments on behalf of women 's rights. Anti-women 's rights activists such as Dr. John Todd and Pro-women 's rights activist Gail Hamilton argued intelligently and tactfully on the topic. There were many key arguments made against women’s rights by Dr. John Todd, and Gail Hamilton 's rebuttal was graceful and on par with her male counterpart. Let 's examine some of Dr. John 's arguments against women 's equality.
Sixty- nine years after the Declaration of Independence, one group of women gathered together and formed the Seneca Falls Convention. Prior and subsequent to the convention, women were not allowed to vote because they were not considered equal to men. During the convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton delivered the “Declaration of Sentiments.” It intentionally resembles the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal…” (Stanton, 466). She replaced the “men” with “men and women” to represent that women and men should be treated equally. Stanton and the other women in the convention tried to fight for voting rights. Dismally, when the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced to the Congress, the act failed to be passed. Even though women voiced their opinions out and urged for justice, they could not get 2/3 of the states to agree to pass the amendment. Women wanted to tackle on the voting inequalities, but was resulted with more inequalities because people failed to listen to them. One reason why women did not achieve their goals was because the image of the traditional roles of women was difficult to break through. During this time period, many people believed that women should remain as traditional housewives.
Williams, W. W. (2013). Ruth Bader Ginsburg's equal protection clause: 1970-80. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 41.
The contentious little book titled Women, Power, Politics maintains politics to be devalued, acknowledging the fact that only few people do vote, and women are unable to achieve within the realm of Canadian politics. Sylvia Bashevkin, the author of the book argues that Canadians have a profound unease with women in positions of political authority, what she calls the "women plus power equals discomfort" equation. She evaluates a range of barriers faced by women who enter politics, including the media's biased role of representing the private lives of women in politics, and she wonders why citizens find politics is underrepresented in Canada compared to Belgium. In clear, accessible terms, Bashevkin explains her ideas on how to eliminate “low voters turn-out,” “devaluation of politics,” "gender schemas," and "media framing.” She outlines some compelling solutions to address the stalemate facing women in Canadian politics which are; contesting media portrayals, changing the rule of the game, improving legislative quotas, electoral reform, movement renewals, and so on. This response paper would addresses the reality of a political mainstream, actions which should be taken against the oppressive elements of reality, and the awareness it brings through economic, social, and political environment.
Gender equality had always been a vast topic for the ancients to solve and for modern society to improve on. From the society's early beginning of Masculinity to the gender equality contemporary world that we are maintaining, year 2016 has been exactly a century since women in Canada had first received their right to vote in the 20th century. In today’s world, it is not uncommon or abnormal for abounding amounts of females voting or running for political parties. This hundred-year recognition was earned through many female’s and male’s withstand to rights for women to vote. Many trials and obstacles were present for women when they were fighting for their right
Women’s suffrage was a defining moment for Canada because women made up approximately half the Canadian population. By giving them the right to vote, it allowed Canada to be a more democratic country. Women getting the right to vote had a huge impact on the election of 1917 because women who were married to soldiers in the war could vote because of the War time Elections Act. It was also a big step for women to get involved more in the society during World War 1. In addition, the women contributed in the war effort a lot by making the products sent over seas to our soldiers, who had left their jobs to fight for their country in World War 1. This also was creating other opportunities for the women to get involved with society by taking the men’s places in the factories.
“Honey, you’re not a person, now get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!” If a husband were to say these words to his wife today, he would likely receive a well-deserved smack to the face. It is not until recently that Canadian women have received their status as people and obtained equal rights as men. Women were excluded from an academic education and received a lesser pay than their male counter parts. With the many hardships women had to face, women were considered the “slave of slaves” (Women’s Rights). In the past century, women have fought for their rights, transitioning women from the point of being a piece of property to “holding twenty-five percent of senior positions in Canada” (More women in top senior positions: Report). The Married Women’s Property Act, World War I, The Person’s Case, and Canadian Human Rights Act have gained Canadian women their rights.
Throughout history, women have always fought to gain equal political rights, but conventional roles kept women from getting enough political representation. Many suffrage groups founded by women challenged the conventional roles of women during 1840 to 1968 with the dream of obtaining equal political representation. In 1919, the nineteenth amendment, drafted by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton was passed. The 19th amendment has been desired by many women for years. Although the 19th amendment passed and women thought that they were able to be equal in politics, many women did not get equal political representation due to their conventional roles at the time period. Women were not able to achieve high roles in politics, shown through the fact that there has never been a woman president in the history of the United States. The presidency of women did not occur due to the perceptions that generally, women should be protected and hidden, not out in the open and leadin...
Surprising the Minister agreed, and made Murphy the judge of that court, making her the first woman magistrate in the British Empire. However, on her first day as the judge, she was questioned by a lawyer who declared, as a women, she was not a person in the eyes of the British Law. This led Murphy to start the famous “Persons Case” to prove that women were considered persons and therefore allowed to be appointed to any government job they were eligible for, like the senate. The Famous Five; Louise McKinney, Henrietta Edwards, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby and herself, led the Persons Case to The supreme court of Canada. After losing the case from Canada, they carried on their battle to the highest court in the British Empire; the Privy Council in Britain. In 1929, women were indeed declared as persons under the British North American Act.. Emily Murphy wanted all women to have the right to be able to serve in an important political power positions and because of the Persons Case, they were allowed
After the end of the Second World War, Canada was in a state of reconstruction, both socially and politically. The conclusion of this terrible war brought a will and need for change. The government and its citizens took vows to implement progressive change for the future of the country. Among thousands of people who started gradually working towards causes to make a difference, some reformists attracted more attention to the eyes of Canadian citizens as well as the Federal Government. A particular activist, who started her campaigning even before the beginning of WWII, achieved the most progress for her cause during the years after the war. Due to her work dedicated to women’s rights in Canada, especially in Quebec, and her impressive political