What if you did not count as a person anymore? You would be denied of many rights and freedoms we take for granted today. This was the situation women faced in the past. Before 1929, women didn’t count as “persons”. Although they weren’t denied of all their rights, women weren’t allowed to become senators. Five women in Alberta decided to take action and formed the Famous Five. The Famous Five fought for the rights of women by winning the Persons Case and they’re the reason why women are considered persons today.
The Famous Five are prominent people in Canadian history and they have established many of our rights. The Famous Five consists of Emily Murphy, Henrietta Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, and Irene Parbly. They are most well-known for winning the Persons Case, but the Famous Five also contributed to the creation of libraries, travelling health clinics, distance education, mother’s allowance, equal citizenship of mothers and fathers, and prison reform. The Famous Five have made many significant contributions to Canada.
The Famous Five are most well-known for winning the Persons Case. The Persons Case started with Emily Murphy wanting to be Canada’s first women senator. She was supported by the Federated Women’s Institute and National Council of Women. Also, over 500 000 people wrote letters and signed petitions to support Murphy being appointed as a senator (Alberta Online Encyclopedia, 2004). However, Robert Borden, the Prime Minister during that time, refused to appoint Murphy into the Senate as women weren’t “persons”. Two other prime ministers, Meighen and Mackenzie both promised to make changes to the British North American Act to include women as persons, but both failed to do so. Frustrated, Emily Murphy...
... middle of paper ...
...ugh the Persons Case gave women more rights, it still didn’t mean everyone was treated fairly. Some women were still unable to vote because of their race. In addition, after the appointment of Wilson to the Senate, the government appointed only a few women as senators. For example, in the 18 years Prime Minister Mackenzie King served in office, he appointed 67 senators. None of them were women. (T. Tyler, 2007). This shows that the victory of the Persons Case didn’t mean that women were always treated equally.
The Persons Case gave women more rights and equality. It allowed women to contribute more to society and be involved politically. The fact that one third of Canada’s Senate is women shows the Persons Case’s influence on our society. Although women weren’t always treated equally after the Persons Case, it gave them many opportunities they didn’t have before.
Canadian equal right activist, Emily Murphy was writer, journalist, and magistrate, political and legal former born on 14 March 1868 in Cookstown. Emily was the first magistrate of Canada, and is best known for her role in the Persons Case, the effective battle to have ladies proclaimed “persons” in the eyes of British law (Jackel, 2001). She launched the successful campaign for recognizing women as “persons” under the British law in Persons Case. In 1929, under the BNA Act, the women were declared as legal persons and could serve as the member of congress and judges. Some of her achievements also include: being the first female magistrate in the British Empire, author of several books, and president of the Women’s Canadian Club, and was active
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. .
Emily Murphy played a vital role in helping women reach a level of true equality during the twentieth century. When visiting a prairie farm, Emily Murphy noticed a stressed woman. The woman was stressed because her husband had sold their land and ran off to the United States, leaving the woman homeless. Becoming very determined, Emily Murphy set out to change the law. 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. Women being able to own property was a significant matter in those days, and this was only made possible with the ...
Before World War I, equality for woman and men were very unfair. Woman weren’t even legally “persons”; they weren’t allowed to join parliament or the senate because they weren’t legally “persons”, therefore these jobs were occupied by men only. During World War I and World War II, many men had left for war, thus meaning there were many job openings that needed to be occupied as soon as possible, women then began to take on stereotypical male jobs which men thought women couldn’t do or couldn’t do as well. Women showed their capabilities and realized they shouldn’t be considered less than men. In retaliation of not being considered “persons”, women decided to take action. The famous five brought the persons case upon the supreme court of Canada in 1927, which was finally determined by Judicial Council of Britain's Privy Council in 1929. The “persons” case involved women not legally being “persons”. After the famous five won the case, women were legally considered “persons” then women began to join important jobs such as members of parliament and the senate. Along with becoming “persons”, women were beginning to get their right to vote in provinces slowly. In 1916, four provinces gave women the right to vote provincially and, finally, in 1940, the last province (Quebec) gave women the right to vote provincially. Later, in World War II, there was another change in
Following World War 1, Canada became bitterly divided due to the political change moves. For one of the first times, women started to stand in equality. Towards the end of the decade, the “Person’s Case” was established, which is case stating that women are eligible to partake in the Canadian Senate. Before this case women were not considered “person’s” in the eyes of the law, and according to the BNA act only “persons” were aloud to join the Canadian Senate. However, the famous five, Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby changed that case as well as the world for women. Soon, women were having the same rights as men. Another challenge faced, was the Winnipeg general strike which occurred in 1919. Winnipeg’s building trades workers walked off their jobs demanding for higher wages and less working hours. Soon, everyone started to leave their jobs. This caused problems because families were unsuccessful in obtaining the resources they needed. To stop this maddened the government started to arrest individuals. The General Strike left a legacy of bitterness and controversy among labour groups across Canada. It was a failure. The “Persons’s Case” and Winnipeg general strike have come to symbolize the politics of the
Due to the a sentence of working men's, women were suggested to do men’s work, such as making clothes for oversea men, filling bullets and shell bombs with materials, and many more occupations and works that were once the ‘privilege’ only to men. After WWI ended, women were forced to leave their occupation and return back to their life as typical ‘house maids’. This did not only cause the women’s anger and rebellion due to the fact that their jobs were taken away from them, but it also planted seeds deeply within women’s hearts of the consciousness of gender inequality. Before women in Canada had ever taken on jobs before, their lives were all about pleasing their men and baring, caring for their children. Women did not have a life of their own before the famous The Person’s case, led by Emily Murphy, Irene Marryat Parlby, Nellie Mooney McClung, Louise Crummy McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edward; however , that is to say after the women in the prairies had granted votes for them. To resume, the newly funded experience for the women due to their new jobs had sparked the courage and anger in them. This can also explain the year of women first received their rights to vote in 1916, barely two years after the outbreak of WWI. While women’s men were away fighting during WWI, votes were given to women during conscription so that the wives could vote in place of their husband.
In conclusion, women throughout the decades have strived, from protesting to going on trials, to point out their rights. “Will women soon be treated equally as men?” A day when women and men having the same rights is still under way and has a far way to go as from the antebellum period. However, what makes women so unique, especially during this era is the numerous of contributions these respectful woman played a part of in order to see dramatic changes in America’s society. Some of the extraordinary ideas developed by them explains the success leading into what we call America today. Therefore, it is proven that women are certainly not helpless species, but are useful citizens who aroused much commitment for their “race” and nation.
One thing The Affluent Society points out, this also gave rights to women. Even though the Act was passed, it took time to put the...
From 1960 to 1990 the women’s movement in Canada played a significant role in history concerning the revolution of women’s rights. Although it was a long road coming for them, they were able to achieve the rights they deserved. Women struggled for equality rights to men but primarily their rights as a person. Since the 1960s women’s rights had significantly changed, they had to work hard for the rights that they have in the present day. Females across the nation started speaking out against gender inequality, divorce, and abortion. This uprising coincided with the Women’s Movement. Through the Royal Commission on the status of women they were able to gain equality rights and they were able to have access to legal abortions through the Charter Rights of Freedom and obtain no-fault divorce through the Divorce Act of 1986.
Throughout the centuries there have been many groups pursuing equal rights for themselves. These groups feel that they are excluded from privileges others possess and are subject to injustices that others are not. These groups feel they deserve better and that their presence in the world is unequal to others’. In the United States a large percentage of women started to feel they warranted equal rights to men. Margaret Fuller was among the supporters of the movement and published ground-breaking article called “The Great Lawsuit.” In “The Great Lawsuit”, Margaret Fuller tries to stop the great inequalities between men and women by describing great marriages where the husband and wife are equal, by stating how society constricts the women’s true inner genius, and by recording admirable women who stand up in an effort for equality.
Today, you see women working in large businesses and think nothing of it. Before women had the rights they do today, you wouldn’t see them in large jobs, on television, in movies, or selling and buying property. Women have the rights that they do because of the hard work of many important women, Women’s Rights Conventions, the 19th Amendment, and many other important processes that worked toward women having the same rights as men.
For a long time traditional liberal legal theory has struggled to win gender equality through the courts, but has not made the necessary gains. This theory advises women to change their relationship to the male power structure, and offers two ways in which women can do this to attain equity: the “sameness” approach and the “difference” approach. The first approach, “sameness,” suggests that women should stress male-female similarities. Traditional theory justifies this approach by saying, “to the extent that women are no different from men they deserve what (men) have” (33). Traditional theory advises women who feel different to from men use the second approach, and stress t...
Every woman in the world has heard at least one “you cannot” in her lifetime. Believe it or not there used to be a time when society believed that statement and women were confined to cooking, cleaning, or housekeeping. Today, there are many amazing women pursuing their dreams, such as Hillary Clinton, a very famous politician, and Sally Ride, the first American woman in space. The women back in the 1840’s are the reason women today have this freedom, the women who changed feminism forever. The women’s suffrage movement was a long-standing battle for equality between men and women that should have been instituted from the start of our country due to women’s increasing political intelligence and work ethic. This became instituted thanks to Alice Paul and Susan B. Anthony whose work was primarily in the 1880’s. Alice Paul and Susan B. Anthony are still some of the most influential women in history because of their bravery and mental strength in the women’s suffrage movement.
Catherine Mackinnon’s radical feminism theory argues that societally is patriarchally dominated by males (MacKinnon 16). The legal system therefore has an inherent male bias. As seen in Susan Glaspell’s short story, “A Jury of Her Peers,” the male-dominated jury would not have acknowledged the psychological trauma of Mrs. Wright’s situation. The facts of the case would have proven her guilt, but the male-dominated legal system would not have accounted for the experiences of Mrs. Wright. As domestic women, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters were able to identity with Mrs. Wright and understand her
39). In reflecting upon the historical prevalence of men within the facets of law and government, it becomes clear that until quite recently, women were notably absent or underrepresented in the creation, implementation, and evolution of the legal framework which is used to govern Canada. In deconstructing the relationship between society and law, it then becomes necessary to consider the impact of this. A feminist framework in general provides unique insight into the experiences of women, a view which Commack (2014) notes is typically neglected in more traditional theoretical frameworks used to understand the affiliations between law and society (p. 33). Commack (2014) goes on to highlight why this is problematic, explaining that in the perception of radical feminists, “what passes for objectivity, neutrality, and justice [in the Official Version of the Law] is really a male-centered or masculinist way of adjudicating”