My Opinion
I believe that the actions of the Famous five were highly respectable because before the person case, women were not qualified to be appointed to the senate or any political form. Under the BNA Act and Constitutional act of 1867, only men were fit to be appointed. Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby were the women whom shaped the future lives of all Canadian Women. These actions not only benefited the women’s of Canada, it drastically changed the political environment for all Canadian citizens; both male and females.
I believe that women and men are both deserve equal rights and should be treated the same. Women’s being a part of the government is very important because males and females have different points of view. Without the perspective of a female, some ruling and laws could be biased against women; much like the BNA act and the Constitutional act. The BNA act and the Constitutional act were directly targeted towards the men because there were no female representatives in the government at the time.
This was suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada when they first declared that the word “person” did not define the women’s. The letter of disapproval states that the word person doesn’t define women’s because there were no female representatives in the government when the 1867 BNA Act was written. It also states that the Act was written to ensure the tradition of the British Governing system thus women are not allowed in the senate or in government politics.
“To the women’s disappointment, the Supreme Court ruled in 1928 that women were not persons under the BNA Act. One of the Supreme Court’s arguments held that the Act should be interpreted in light of the times in which it was written” (Freeman-shaw, and Haskings-Winner 32)
Although I salute that Supreme Court trying to keep the tradition of the British Governing system, it is important to understand that the role of the women in 1920s were completely different from the women at the time of the BNA Act (1867). Women were gaining more political ground after the involvement throughout the government while WWI. Women won the right to vote for the federal government and had equal rights in the Federal Divorce Act in 1925. These were some key information that the Supreme Court did not take into hand while making the final decision. I think that the Supreme Court was concerned about ensuring the traditions rather than finding the appropriate solution to help both women and men.
If I was to take part in the debate between the Supreme Court and the Famous 5, I would alongside the famous 5 as I also believe that it is important to have women’s presence in the senate.
Women are person’s monument, Parliament Hill, Ottawa. I think this is a great way of paying respect and honouring the secrete battles fought by the famous 5 to bring women into the senate. The person case is one of the most significant and remarkable times for the women as it changed the future for all women’s of Canada.
I believe that women and men are both deserve equal rights and should be treated the same. Women’s being a part of the government is very important because males and females have different points of view. Without the perspective of a female, some ruling and laws could be biased against women; much like the BNA act and the Constitutional act. The BNA act and the Constitutional act were directly targeted towards the men because there were no female representatives in the government at the time.
This was suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada when they first declared that the word “person” did not define the women’s. The letter of disapproval states that the word person doesn’t define women’s because there were no female representatives in the government when the 1867 BNA Act was written. It also states that the Act was written to ensure the tradition of the British Governing system thus women are not allowed in the senate or in government politics.
“To the women’s disappointment, the Supreme Court ruled in 1928 that women were not persons under the BNA Act. One of the Supreme Court’s arguments held that the Act should be interpreted in light of the times in which it was written” (Freeman-shaw, and Haskings-Winner 32)
Although I salute that Supreme Court trying to keep the tradition of the British Governing system, it is important to understand that the role of the women in 1920s were completely different from the women at the time of the BNA Act (1867). Women were gaining more political ground after the involvement throughout the government while WWI. Women won the right to vote for the federal government and had equal rights in the Federal Divorce Act in 1925. These were some key information that the Supreme Court did not take into hand while making the final decision. I think that the Supreme Court was concerned about ensuring the traditions rather than finding the appropriate solution to help both women and men.
If I was to take part in the debate between the Supreme Court and the Famous 5, I would alongside the famous 5 as I also believe that it is important to have women’s presence in the senate.
Women are person’s monument, Parliament Hill, Ottawa. I think this is a great way of paying respect and honouring the secrete battles fought by the famous 5 to bring women into the senate. The person case is one of the most significant and remarkable times for the women as it changed the future for all women’s of Canada.