Center for Teaching the Rule of Law

August 27, 1927 – Five Canadian women file a petition to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking, "Does the word 'Persons' in Section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867, include female persons?"

8/27/2021

0 Comments

 
PictureWomen are Persons! Monument to the Famous Five in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Henrietta Muir Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Emily Murphy, and Irene Parlby are known in Canada as the "Famous Five."  Their fame arises from asking a deceptively simple question -are women considered to by "persons" under the law?  To modern readers, the question seems ridiculous, but in 1927 in Canada, the issue was very much a point of contention, and the initial answer which the Famous Five received may very well surprise you.

On August 27, 1927, they petitioned the federal government to refer the issue of the eligibility of women to be senators to the Supreme Court of Canada. This petition was the foundation of the Persons Case, a leading constitutional decision. Although most Canadian women had the vote in federal elections and all provinces but Quebec by 1927, the case was part of a larger drive for political equality. This was the first step towards equality for women in Canada and was the start to the first wave of feminism.

The question the federal government posed to the Supreme Court was: "Does the word 'Persons' in Section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867, include female persons?" In 1928, the Supreme Court unanimously held that women were not "qualified persons" within the meaning of s. 24 of the British North America Act, 1867. The five women appealed that ruling to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court of appeal in the British Empire. The women of the famous 5 collectively came together for the supreme court on March 14, 1928 to fight for women's status as "persons". This attempt failed and the court deemed women not qualified for this status. On October 18, 1929, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council overruled the Supreme Court and held that women were "qualified persons" and eligible to be appointed to the Senate. 

Some saw this as "radical change"; others saw it as a restoration of the original framing of the English constitutional documents, including the 1689 Bill of Rights, which uses only the term person, not the term man (or woman for that matter). Some others have interpreted the Privy Council rule as causing a change in the Canadian judicial approach to the Canadian constitution, an approach that has come to be known as the "living tree doctrine".

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    CTROL Blog

    This blog will be used by Center Staff to post articles addressing issues concerning the Rule of Law and how it is taught and understood in our communities, nation, and world.

    Categories

    All
    American Revolution
    Capital Punishment
    Civil Disobedience
    Civil Law
    Civil Rights Movement
    Colonialism
    Criminal Law
    Death Penalty
    Economic Equltiy
    Economics
    Editorials
    Educators
    Fractured History
    Freedom Of Religion
    Freedom Of Speech
    Gender Equality
    Government
    Historical Sources For The Rule Of Law
    Immigration
    Indigenous People
    International
    Jim Crow
    Labor
    Laws
    Literature
    Miscarriage Of Justice
    Nativism
    Property Rights
    Race Relations
    Riots
    Slavery
    Taxation
    The Holocaust
    Today In The History Of The Rule Of Law
    Trials
    United States Supreme Court
    US Constitution
    Vigilantism
    Voting Rights
    Women Of Note
    World War II

    RSS Feed

About

Vision
Rule of Law Project
Rule of Law Blog
​Site Map
Navigation Help

Offerings

Educator Resources
Student Resources
Attorney Engagement
Community Engagement

Contact and Support CTROL

Contact
Support
Privacy Policy
​Contact the Webmaster
© COPYRIGHT 2009-2021. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.