University of Alberta Faculty of Law Blog

The Persons Case

A significant advancement was made for Canadian women when they were granted the right to vote by the provinces and federal government. However, this did not eradicate all inequalities that women faced in the early 1900s - one key example of these persisting inequalities was that women continued to be restricted from holding seats in the Canadian Senate [1]. Successive federal governments relied on the British North America Act of 1867 (the “BNA Act”) to support their refusal to grant women this right [2]. Specifically, section 24 of the BNA Act stated that “[t]he governor general shall from time to time, in the Queen’s name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, sumon 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” [3]. Governments relied on this section to argue that because “women would not have been considered to be ‘qualified persons’ at the time the 1867 Act was passed”, they were not eligible to hold seats in the Senate [4].

These political circumstances dictated that in order for women to be granted the right to be appointed to the Senate, strong actions were required. Just as Emmeline Pankhurst argued that “deeds, not words” were required to gain momentum in the women’s suffrage movement, such dedication was also necessary here [5]. While many Canadian women’s groups fought to have this bar on women holding Senate seats lifted, their efforts were futile. For example, although both Prime Minister Meighan and Prime Minister Mackenzie King promised to alter the BNA Act, such assurances proved to be hollow [6]. Emily Murphy, the first female magistrate in the British Empire, was troubled by this refusal of the federal government to amend the BNA Act. Thus, after being advised that any five people could “initiate an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada for clarification of any part of the [BNA Act]”, Murphy found four other women in Alberta dedicated to this cause [7]. This group of five women - Henrietta Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Emily Murphy and Irene Parlby - later came to be known as the “Famous Five” [8].

As a result of the Famous Five’s petition to the government, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) considered whether women could be appointed to the Canadian Senate in Edwards v AG Canada, which is more commonly known as the “Persons Case” [9]. The SCC ruled that pursuant to section 24 of the BNA Act, women could not be candidates for the Senate. This decision was “based on the premise that the BNA Act had to be interpreted in 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” [10]. This decision was appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the “Privy Council”), who reversed the SCC’s ruling.

The Privy Council recognized that constitutions were living trees, which meant that they were “evolving documents that could respond to changes in society over time” [11]. The Court therefore found that the BNA Act had to be interpreted liberally and broadly in determining whether women were included as “qualified persons”, and even acknowledged that “the exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours” [12]. These statements were a recognition of the fact that the circumstances in 1929 were very different from those in 1867. For example, in 1929, all Canadian women (with the exception of women in Quebec) had gained the right to vote. The Privy Council ultimately held that “the word ‘persons’ in s. 24 includes members both of the male and female sex and that, therefore, the questions propounded by the Governor-General must be answered in the affirmative and that women are eligible to be summoned to and become members of the Senate of Canada” [13]. Moreover, this ruling was “consistent with the legislative changes of the 1910s and 1920s concerning women’s suffrage” [14].

The Persons Case was significant in numerous ways. As a result of the Privy Council’s determination that “qualified persons” included women, the Senate was opened to women. This gave women the power to fight for change and greater rights through both the Senate and the House of Commons [15]. As well, the “legal recognition of women as ‘persons’ meant that women could no longer be denied basic rights on a narrow interpretation of the law” [16]. Finally, this decision illustrated an important principle of constitutional interpretation, whereby constitutional documents must be viewed as living trees that respond to evolving “social, political, and legal values” [17]. Thus, the Persons Case has lasting significance in Canadian law, extending beyond only women’s rights. The Famous Five will be examined more thoroughly next week, when we provide biographies of these five women who helped change the course of history in Canada.

 

[1] Neil Craik et al, eds, Public Law: Cases, Materials, and Commentary, 2nd ed (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2011) at 16 [Public Law].

[2] The British North America Act, 1867, SS 1867, c 3.

[3] Ibid, s 24.

[4] Public Law, supra note 1 at 16.

[5] http://www.biography.com/people/emmeline-pankhurst-9432764#synopsis

[6] Alberta, Alberta Women’s Secretariat, The Persons Case (Edmonton: Alberta Women’s Secretariat, 1991) [The Persons Case].

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Edwards v AG Canada (1929), [1930] AC 124, 1 DLR 98 (PC) [Edwards].

[10] http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/persons-case/

[11] Public Law, supra note 1 at 16.

[12] Edwards, supra note 8.

[13] Ibid.

[14] http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/persons-case/

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Leonard I Rotman, “Foundations of Canadian Constitutional Law” in Bruce P Elman, Gerald L Gall & Leonard I Rotman, eds, Constitutional Law: Cases, Commentary and Principles (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2008) 1 at 24.

 

Manitoba - Women's Suffrage Centennial

Today marks the 100th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote in Manitoba! This centennial recognizes the first province in Canada to enfranchise women. Accordingly, we felt it was timely to discuss Manitoba’s road to suffrage and the influence that it had on other provinces.

In January 1914, Nellie McClung led a group of five representatives to meet with Premier Rodmond Roblin in Manitoba, who was the leader of the Conservative party at that time. McClung, who was arguing on behalf of the Manitoba Political Equality League, asked Premier Roblin to grant women in Manitoba the right to vote in provincial elections. However, this meeting turned unpleasant as Roblin claimed that, “the right to vote would breakup families and leave the raising of children to servants” [1]. McClung responded to this statement by accusing Roblin of corruption, overspending and misappropriation of public funds. When the Liberal opposition party introduced a proposal later that year, which would grant women the right to vote, it was unsurprisingly defeated.

However, on May 12, 1915, Roblin was “driven from government in disgrace, [and] forced to resign in the face of allegations of kickbacks and corruption” [2]. As a result, a general election was called that resulted in the Liberal party coming into power. Under the governance of the Liberal party, the women’s suffrage bill received unanimous approval and was passed on January 27, 1916 - this made Manitoba the very first province in Canada to grant women the right to vote. There was also one other important point to be made with regards to the passing of this bill. Frances Beynon, a women activist in Manitoba, “realized that the [draft bill] contained the vote but not the right to hold elected office... [and] threatened to reveal this inequity unless the bill was changed” [3]. As a result, the bill was amended before its third reading to include the provision that women would also be eligible to hold elected office in Canada for the first time. As noted in our earlier posts, the success of women in Manitoba contributed to the effectiveness of the suffrage movement in other provinces. After women gained the right to vote in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan soon followed. However, women in Eastern Canada did not achieve success as quickly as in the Prairie provinces.

Women in the Prairie provinces worked hard to gain the support of many groups, including individuals in both towns and rural areas, the press and major producer associations. They also had the support of a few influential female leaders such as Nellie McClung, Francis Beynon and Emily Murphy, who were very well-known and respected across the provinces. Even though the women in the Prairie provinces “faced legislative opposition, they were not ridiculed and tormented as women in the Eastern provinces were on many occasions” [4]. As well, Manitoba had progressive views on women’s rights and citizenship even prior to the suffrage movement. Francis Beynon commented on the women’s suffrage movement in Manitoba as follows:

    “If there is any lesson in the success of the women of Manitoba for the less fortunate provinces in Canada, it is the necessity of getting a great body of people working for this reform. Every such movement will have its outstanding women, who by their force of character and platform ability will make a magnificent contribution to the cause, but back of this there must be a great body of quiet workers who act like a leaven upon the solid mass of public opinion… Their work is complementary and both are essential to the success of any great movement” [5].

Beynon’s words seemed to resonate with women in other provinces because soon after, the women’s suffrage movement spread across Canada. However, Prince Edward Island’s path to suffrage demonstrated that not all movements needed the “solid mass of public opinion” [6]. In Prince Edward Island, the success of the suffrage movement not only came from populist support, but also from the involvement of women who had “education, political connections, and other social capital” [7]. Moreover, women continue to make major social changes through the use of not only public support, but also through educational growth and developments. Thus, January 28, 1916, was a monumental moment in Canadian history as not only did women receive the right to vote for the first time, vital skills for effecting social change were developed through the suffrage movement in Manitoba.

[1] http://manitobia.ca/content/en/themes/wwv.

[2] Ibid.

[3] L Marsden, Canadian Women & the Struggle for Equality, (Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2012) at 160.

[4] Ibid at 161.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid at 162.

The Suffrage Movement in Ontario

Welcome back! As promised, this afternoon we will be giving a summary of the history of women’s enfranchisement in the province of Ontario. Ontario is viewed as the pioneering province, where the women’s suffrage movement was initiated and the national missionary efforts originated. Women had the right to vote for school trustees as early as 1850, and the right to vote in municipal elections by 1884.

The earliest suffragist vision can be traced to Dr Emily Howard Stowe of Toronto. After being refused entrance to medical school in Canada on account of her sex, Dr Stowe attended medical school in the United States and graduated in 1868. She remained highly interested in subjects related to women’s rights, and returned to the United States in 1876 to attend a meeting of the American Society for the Advancement of Women.[1] As discussed in our previous post, upon returning to Toronto, Dr Stowe launched the Women’s Literary Club which later became the Toronto Women’s Suffrage Association. Within the first few years of the association’s inception, women were permitted to attend the University of Toronto. [2]

In 1885, the first proposal for women’s franchise was introduced by the Liberal John Waters, who made a declaration that he would to continue to introduce suffrage bills in each legislative session until the motion was passed. Waters kept his promise, introducing no fewer than nine  measures, all of which were rejected by the majority.[3] After the defeat of Waters’ 1893 bill, legislative activity was mostly quiet for over a decade - other than in 1895, when Clara Brett Martin (Dr Stowe’s legal complement) passed an act permitting women to practice and study law as both barristers and solicitors. [4]

In 1905 and 1906, Liberal John Smith introduced bills proposing provincial enfranchisement of women, but the measures were withdrawn and defeated, respectively. Smith tried again in 1907 and 1908, but those bills were also defeated.[5]

In 1909, the International Council of Women held it’s Fourth Quinquennial Meeting in Toronto, and featured five days of discussion and resolutions related to women’s issues – the principal of which was women’s suffrage. Enfranchisement of Canadian women was endorsed by keynote speakers, such as Lady Aberdeen and Dr Anna Howard Shaw, to which the Canadian public had a particular affinity. Regardless of the endorsement, a bill introduced the following year was overwhelmingly rejected, along with the 3 bills introduced each year from 1912-1914. [6] The defeats continued into the following years, despite the victories for western Canadian women. The Liberal (opposition) party officially endorsed women’s suffrage in early 1917, and shortly thereafter the Conservative government followed suit. The Ontario Franchise Act was introduced on March 30 1917, and the Ontario Elections Act on April 5, 1917, both receiving royal assent on April 12, 1917.[7] Notably, and unlike most of the other provinces save for Newfoundland, Ontario women were not eligible to hold office when suffrage was attained – instead they had  to wait a full 2 years before that right was granted.

Check back tomorrow for a summary of the suffrage movement in Manitoba, the first province in Canada to permit women to vote. Any questions or comments can be left below, or via our twitter/Facebook!

 

[1] Cleverdon, Catherine L & Ramsay Cook. The Woman Suffrage Movement in Canada, 2d ed (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974) at 19-12 [Cleverdon].

[2] Ibid

[3] Cleverdon, page 23

[4] Cleverdon, page 26

[5] Cleverdon, page 30

[6] Cleverdon, pages 31-38

[7] Cleverdon, page 43

The Suffrage Movement in British Columbia

Yesterday we provided a condensed history of the suffrage movement in Alberta, which was the third province in Canada to achieve women’s enfranchisement. The achievement dates in Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be discussed on their upcoming anniversaries, and the peculiar history in Quebec will also be reviewed in a future post. Today, we will provide an abbreviated history of the suffrage movements in the other provinces of Canada. The dates when political equality was achieved provincially and the enabling statutes are as follows:

1. Manitoba – January 28, 1916 – An Act to amend The Manitoba Election Act
2. Saskatchewan – March 14, 1916 – An Act to amend the Statute Law
3. Alberta – April 19, 1916 – An Act to provide for Equal Suffrage
4. British Columbia – April 5, 1917 – An Act to amend the Provincial Elections Act
5. Ontario – April 12, 1918 – An Act to amend the Ontario Election Act
6. Nova Scotia – April 26, 1918 – An Act to amend and consolidate the Acts in respect to the Electoral Franchise
7. New Brunswick – April 17, 1919 – An Act to extend the electoral franchise to women, and to amend the New Brunswick Electors Act
8. Prince Edward Island – May 3, 1922 – The Election Act
9. Newfoundland – April 13, 1925 – An Act to amend Chap 3 of the Consolidated Statutes of Newfoundland (Third Series) entitled “Of the Election of Members of the House of Assembly”
10. Quebec – April 25, 1940 – An Act granting women the right to vote and to be eligible as candidates

As evidenced by the list above, British Columbia and Ontario’s attainment was a full year after the first 3 provinces’, and only a week apart from one another. Despite their close proximity in time, British Columbia and Ontario have a very different history leading up to the attainment of suffrage. This morning will be an overview of British Columbia’s suffrage chronicle, and we will return this afternoon to review Ontario’s pioneering efforts.

British Columbia’s suffrage movement  is considered “isolationist” in approach, as the movements on the west coast had little effect on the rest of Canada. As far back as 1873, women were given the right to vote in municipal affairs in British Columbia, and the suffrage movement began shortly thereafter, in the mid 1880s. [1] Between 1884 and 1899, eleven bills were introduced in the legislature in attempt to give women more political privileges - none of which survived past the second reading. However, during that time women in BC were successful in attaining equality in local school elections, where they could vote for and be elected as school trustees.[2]

Although the first decade of the 20th century was relatively quiet, 1912 saw several events which bolstered the suffrage campaign. At a labour convention in Kamloops, a resolution for women’s suffrage was drafted and subsequently endorsed by the British Columbia Federation of Labour. In addition, the Local Option League declared itself in favor of equal rights for women. Most significantly, the Bar Act of British Columbia was re-introduced to allow women to practice law within the province. [3] During this time, suffrage groups were active in petitioning for equal rights. One of the most notable suffragists in BC was Mrs Gordon H Grant, who was active in one of the main suffrage organizations (the Women’s Christian Temperance Union) for over 30 years and also led the Political Equality League (PEL). The PEL was responsible for organizing delegations, holding public meetings, and bringing petitions containing ten thousand signatures to the legislature. [4]

World War I meant a reprioritization of concerns and suffrage was put on the backburner to deal with war matters. Women’s efforts during the war were recognized by the conservative Premier William John Bowser, who announced his willingness to support women’s suffrage so long as a majority of the voters of the time approved via a special referendum. Premier Bowser was met with considerable scorn because of his arguably unjust and contradictory change of heart, but the bill was nonetheless pushed through and received royal assent in May 1916. [5] The referendum was held on Election Day – September 14, 1916 – and won by more than two to one. However, yet after the controversy and corruption surrounding the Bowser administration, the Liberal Brewster government was voted into power in the election. Due to a technicality, the Bowser Suffrage Act was never proclaimed into force, so the new Liberal party introduced a bill to amend to the Provincial Elections Act on March 27 1917, which effortlessly passed its third reading and received royal assent on April 5th, 1917.[6]

In BC, like other provinces, the press had a large role in advancing the movement. In the early years, the province’s two leading (and politically polar) newspapers, the Liberal Victoria Daily Times and the Conservative Weekly British Colonist, gave attention to the debates through editorials and new reports. The Daily Times continued their coverage into the 1910s and, unlike the rest of Canada, had a tendency to spotlight the radical (and sometimes violent) stories arising from British suffrage campaigns. [7] During the war, the Federationist ran a weekly column dedicated specifically to suffrage topics. However, the editorial ceased to report on the suffrage controversy after its April 14 1916 column, which asserted that women’s movement into the labour field meant capitalists would support suffrage in effort to continue to exploit cheap labour. [8] The press continued to give attention to the referendum question during the 1916 election campaign, but it was other matters (such as natural resource development, corruption, and railroad policies) which received the greatest attention.[9]

Check back this afternoon for Ontario's suffrage history!

 

[1] Cleverdon, Catherine L & Ramsay Cook. The Woman Suffrage Movement in Canada, 2d ed (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974) at 84-87 [Cleverdon].

[2] Cleverdon, page 88

[3] Cleverdon, pages 90-91

[4] Freeland, Gregory. "Canadian Women Gain The Vote." Salem Press Encyclopedia (2015): Research Starters.

[5] Cleverdon, pages 94-98

[6] Cleverdon, pages 99-100

[7] Cleverdon, pages 84-87

[8] Cleverdon, page 97

[9] Cleverdon, page 99

The Suffrage Movement in Alberta

On April 19th, 1916 Alberta became the third province in Canada where women obtained suffrage – just a few short months after Manitoba and Saskatchewan (January 28, 1916 and March 14, 1916, respectively). [1] And unlike their counterparts in the British Isles and United States, the prairie women did not resort to violent methods in effort to obtain suffrage. [2]

Alberta has almost always displayed a liberal attitude towards women – it was the first province to elect a woman to the legislature, the first to appoint a female judge, and only one of two provinces who permitted women to sit on juries until the 1950s. The relative ease for Albertan women to obtain suffrage is often attributed to the public appreciation for their heroic pioneering qualities, which (along with educational backgrounds of the leading suffrage activists) encouraged their interest in the political development of a new country. [3] Throughout the movement, the women of the prairie provinces consistently received unwavering support from their male counterparts, who had few qualms with women’s political equality.[4] The vital effect of men’s support meant the endorsement of women’s suffrage by the United Farmers of Alberta – initially a purely male association which later became the provinces leading political party. [5] As well, the Grain Grower’s Guide, a weekly periodical distributed throughout the prairie provinces, officially endorsed the suffrage movement and had a section dedicated to women’s issues since the papers inception. The section was frequently used to disseminate suffrage news and discussion, and even contained a question asking for the public opinion of women’s enfranchisement (which respondents were overwhelmingly in favor of). [6]

Prior to the establishment of Alberta as a province, there were few attempts to advance female suffrage other than ordinances allowing some unmarried women to be school electors and trustees, and the right to vote in municipal elections. When Alberta joined Confederation in 1905, there was immediate controversy surrounding the dower rights law, which initially denied women any right in her husband’s estate - despite the fact that those wives equally struggled to establish a new frontier. The Liberal Rutherford government of the time framed a new law to give women certain property rights, which provisions were substantially influenced by Mrs Emily Murphy. [7]

The suffrage movement gained momentum in Alberta in 1910, when married women’s right to vote in municipal elections was pursued.  Campaigners travelled across the province in effort to spread the message of political freedom. In 1912, the United Farmers of Alberta adopted a resolution calling for equal political rights for women, and one year later the first suffrage organization in Alberta (known as the Equal Franchise League of Edmonton) formed, with both male and female members.[8]  The next year, the League and the Local Council of Women of Calgary petitioned (with 12,000 signatures) the legislature to strike out the world “male” in the Alberta Election Act of 1909 and replace it with “person”. Premier Sifton would not sponsor the measure until a more widespread demand was evident among women themselves, a difficult task considering the hindrance to effective organization such a scattered province imposed. [9]

Finally in 1915, at the UFA annual convention, a Women’s Parliament was held, resulting in the formation of a UFA women’s auxiliary and giving women the opportunity to engage in economic and political discussion.[10] In March 1915, Mrs Nellie McClung and Mrs Emily Murphy called upon the Premier to introduce a suffrage bill, and that September, Premier Sifton sent a letter to the president of the UFA with encouraging support. In the letter, the Premier stated that he had “given instructions for the preparation of a statute placing men and women in Alberta on the basis of absolute equality so far as provincial matters are concerned” which would be introduced at the next legislative session.[11] Prior to the opening of that session, the Premier was given a petition with 40,000 signatures endorsing political equality. Then, on February 24, 1916, he announced his intention to introduce the promised bill, and did so the very next day - opining that the women’s pioneer heroism gave them an “unalterable right by eternal justice to be placed on an equality with men”. [12] The bill provided women complete political equality in provincial, municipal, and school matters. The bill’s second reading and third readings passed, leading to Alberta’s enfranchisement of women on April 19,1916.

Check back tomorrow as we continue with our historical summary of the women’s suffrage movement, and give a brief overview of its progression in other provinces throughout Canada!

[1]Cleverdon, Catherine L & Ramsay Cook. The Woman Suffrage Movement in Canada, 2d ed (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974) at 2 [Cleverdon].

[2] Cleverdon, page 47

[3] Cleverdon, page 66

[4] Freeland, Gregory. "Canadian Women Gain The Vote." Salem Press Encyclopedia (2015): Research Starters.

[5] Cleverdon, page 46

[6] Cleverdon, page 47

[7] Cleverdon, page 67

[8] Cleverdon, page 68-69

[9] ibid

[10] Cleverdon, page 71

[11] Cleverdon, page 72

[12] Cleverdon, page 73

 

Lessons in Leadership by Kim Armstrong, Deputy Minister for Status of Women

Last week we overviewed the perseverance of suffragists through diversity to achieve the right to vote. However, enfranchisement was only a step towards equality. In 1916, women were not on equal footing with men within the workforce, and this disparity persists today. Kimberly Armstrong, QC, who serves as Deputy Minister for Status of Women, recently visited the Law Centre to encourage women in the student body to pursue leadership roles in their careers.

She followed the lead of Judy Elder (1954-2002) in her goal of encouraging women to embrace their career ambitions. Ms. Armstrong, who previously attended an exclusive professional development program for women in executive leadership roles (The Judy Project), shared the knowledge which she gained from the training with the law students attending her seminar on January 7, 2016.  

She opened with a quote from a speech delivered by Judy Elder only weeks before she passed away:

“If you acknowledge the importance and power of your ambition, recognize that it is there to drive you to greater achievements and sustain you through the challenges. And if you couple it with competence, hard work and the morality that you learned at your mother’s knee, you can defeat the insidious erosion of feeling inadequate, the fear of being in charge, the doubts that we all have about our capacity to lead.”

The quotation set the stage perfectly for Ms. Armstrong’s presentation about the internal and external obstacles faced by women in becoming leaders.

In regards to external obstacles, Ms. Armstrong discussed diversity in the workforce. Companies all too often proudly state the number of “diverse” employees in high-ranking positions, including women. However, Ms. Armstrong cited Kathleen Taylor (Chair of the Board, RBC) in explaining that meeting a diversity quota in an organization is meaningless if the input given by those individuals is not adequately valued. Representative diversity means nothing if the woman’s voice in her role is not acknowledged by her male counterparts -- diversity is not fully achieved unless the increase in numbers of diverse members occurs alongside inclusion of their diverse perspectives by the group. This idea is a reminder to be wary of numbers, and to instead focus on whether the uniqueness of women’s perspectives in the corporation is included in decision-making.

Ms. Armstrong also discussed the bias against women in hiring, which is subconscious at most times. The Heidi and Howard case study is a perfect example of this tendency. Participants in the study take the role of potential employers and are given a write-up of a successful entrepreneur. They are then asked whether they would hire this individual. While the information is otherwise identical, the applicant is named either “Heidi” or “Howard”. The participants found Howard to be more kind and genuine, more likeable, and more likely to be hired. Heidi was found to be more self-promoting and power hungry. Additionally, while perceiving Howard as aggressive had no impact on the decision to hire him, Heidi was liked less if she was perceived to be aggressive.

In regards to internal obstacles, Ms. Armstrong advised the women attending her presentation not to self-censor due to fear of how you will be perceived. Focus on goals larger than yourself, and contribute to the conversation if it builds towards that goal, regardless of concern for how you will present to others. Ms. Armstrong also advised the attendees to take time for reflection, which is a task that women are less likely than men to do. Time for reflection has been shown to increase productivity.

Ms. Armstrong discussed utilizing social media, the different patterns of men’s and women’s networks within an organization, tailoring one’s style of communication to the intended audience, and multiple other suggestions to assist her audience in achieving leadership in their future careers. While the sum of her knowledge cannot be neatly tied up into this blog post, Ms. Suffragette wanted to share highlights of this presentation delivered by a successful female leader to future female leaders. Ms. Armstrong provided practical advice for overcoming the obstacles to leadership equality in the Canadian workforce between men and women, which demonstrates the continued fight for equality 100 years after women’s suffrage.

War at the Ballot Box

As evidenced in this week’s posts, women’s suffrage groups have existed since the late 1870’s and a myriad of supporters, opposers, and events have influenced them.  To finish off this discussion we will examine the impact World War I had on the suffragist movement. World War I was arguably one of the main driving forces behind women gaining the right to vote nationally; however, as will be examined in this post, this victory was bittersweet.

The fight for equality at the 1917 ballot box became confounded by the need to demonstrate or describe what equality meant. Not all women at this time were thinking of the same concepts or ideas when they fought for this democratic equality, yet they used the same types of words to express their vastly different goals. Women were divided in their opinion as to whether the 1917 right to vote granted a definitive sense of equality, or whether it was simply a figment to cover up an underlying political goal. However, despite such contentions, “the visible, publicly acknowledged wartime work of women encouraged many reformers to press their more comprehensive demands” resulting in an incredible spread of women’s rights and suffrage not only in Canada but around the world. [1]

Due to the country’s colonial status, Canada was automatically at war when Great Britain declared war on Germany in 1914. Canadian troops were extensively involved almost immediately and as a result, “men were expected to fulfill their imperial and masculine duty by soldiering, [and] women’s wartime work was designed to literally and figuratively reinforce men’s service.”[2] As such, and although a temporary aberration, women transcended traditional gender roles by “serving in the war, taking over from men in factories and offices, holding families together while men were overseas, and working in voluntary organizations that supported the war effort.” [3] Given this strong involvement and support from women, it was almost impossible to continue to keep them out of the political sphere.

As a result, the right for women to vote federally came in three stages. First, the Military Voters Act of 1917 was passed which allowed nurses and women in the armed services to vote. Second, the Wartime Election Act extended the vote to women who had a close relative serving overseas. And third, on January 1, 1919, every woman aged 21 or older was given the right to vote in federal elections, “provided she met the same qualifications that a man would require to vote in her province.” [4] Although these stages signified a “win” for women in the political sphere, not all women fully agreed. Canadian women fell into different camps of thinking in regards to wartime policies on conscription and the limited enfranchisement of women.

Prime Minister Robert Borden introduced these policies as he headed into the 1917 federal election. Many soldiers had already lost their lives in the war, but Borden was determined to step up Canada’s war effort. To achieve this, Borden believed that mandatory military service would be a viable option. However, he needed pro-conscription votes in order to implement this policy. As such, he gave only selected women a vote through the Military Voters Act and Wartime Elections Act, since he believed that women who were related to soldiers would be potential supporters. Accordingly, and probably not surprisingly, many of these “chosen” women agreed with the politics of the Acts, stating that, “it is only right that those women who have sent their sons off to fight should have special privileges… The men who have given their services must be represented and the slackers who have remained behind should not be allowed to control the policy of the country. The women will vote for their relatives at the front, and where the men already have the vote, they will be represented doubly- which is just as it should be!”[5]

However, the prime minister’s “Trojan horse” stance on women’s suffrage was also met with intense opposition. Suffragists argued, “it was apparent that under these terms a woman’s political and patriotic responsibilities had nothing to do with her own achievements, labour, or beliefs. Instead it was being defined solely as having sent her husband, son, brother, or father off to war.” [6] They further declared that “women should receive the vote based on their status as equal citizens, not as pawns in Borden’s war effort.” [7]  These sentiments showed a common dividing line between women’s views of what it meant to have equality.

The irony is undeniable - the 1917 election “positioned women as critical political players and gave them the best opportunity to date to exercise their political power; [even though] wartime pressures allowed for only one type of vote to be considered appropriate by the majority.” [8] However, amidst women gaining enfranchisement, women turned against each other and resorted to partisan favouritism. Unfortunately, this partition between women and their ideas of equality continue to be elusive, as is evidenced by the lack of consensus as to what feminism means in the modern day.

 

[1] A Prentice,  Canadian Women: A History, (Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988) at 122.

[2] T Brookfield, “ Divided by the Ballot Box: The Montreal Council of Women and the 1917 Election” (2008) The Canadian Historical Review at 480 [Brookfield].

[3] http://www.canadahistoryproject.ca/1914/1914-08-women-vote.html

[4] L Marsden, Canadian Women & the Struggle for Equality, (Ontario, Oxford University Press, 2012) at 69.

[5] Brookfield, supra note 2 at 490.

[6] Ibid.

[7] P Mitchell, About Canada: Women’s Rights, (Winnipeg, Fernwood Publishing, 2015) at 81.

[8] Brookfield, supra note 2 at 500.

A Petticoat Polity Part II

The discussion of enfranchising women began shortly after confederation. In 1876, the Toronto Women’s Literary Club, which was a cover for suffrage activity, was founded by Dr. Emily Stowe (Canada’s first female doctor).[1] The club dropped the secrecy in 1883, and was re-named as the Toronto Women’s Suffrage Association. Subsequently, suffragist organizations began developing across the country with the exception of Quebec whose suffrage movement did not take hold until the 1930s.

The suffragist position was simply this: “no taxation without representation”. Essentially suffragists argued that as tax-paying citizens who are bound by laws, a voice in the democratic process is not only just, but also makes for a more balanced and informed point of view.

Although the women’s suffrage movement was supported by some, it was more commonly met with great opposition. The key (ridiculous) oppositional arguments were as follows:

1. Religious: 1 Corinthians 11:9, “the man was not made for the woman, but the woman for the man”, was cited by Ontario’s Minister of Agriculture in 1893 to support his anti-suffragist position. Religion-based arguments frightened many away from supporting women’s suffrage until Dr. Hughes, Superintendent of Education in Toronto, released a pamphlet citing enough bible passages in support of gender equality to silence the religious argument against suffrage.
2. Marriage and childbirth rates would crumble if women voted: Suffragists countered this unfounded fear by using statistics which demonstrated the impressive marriage and birth rates in countries where women were enfranchised.
3. Women won’t use the vote anyways: Suffragists responded by citing the low voter turnout rate of males, and the absurdity of the suggestion that men ought to be disenfranchised as a consequence. Additionally, suffragists provided statistics from countries where women were enfranchised which rebutted this argument.
4. Women do not need the vote because they are able to use “loving persuasion”: Translation? Bat those lashes at your hubby and he will surely vote as you would like him to.[2]

Although the argument that representation for women was “just” may not have swayed the country, those who disliked the impacts of urbanization (such as alcohol abuse, prostitution, neglect of children) believed that if women were granted the right to vote it would double the voice of family values in the political sphere.[3] In addition to supporters who hoped to gain more votes in favour of family values, the suffragist movement was also advanced by farmers in the prairie provinces, who had a special appreciation for the work done by a family’s matriarch. The success of the western provinces at winning the vote is partially attributed to the support of farmers’ associations who endorsed women’s suffrage, and “carried the idea of equality into their own organizations by admitting women to full membership.”[4] Various news outlets also supported the movement, or at least helped to publicize the cause, by devoting recurring columns in local newspapers to suffragists.

Suffragists began introducing bills to give women the vote as early as 1885 in various provinces, but none swayed the Assembly to which they were presented. On one occasion, the women presenting petitions alongside the 1909 bill in New Brunswick “were greeted by insults, whistles and jeers from MLAs in the corridors, who asked the sergeant at arms to ring the division bells until the women left the building”. A sexist verse and laughter accompanied the derision.  

Despite these treacherous roadblocks, suffragists and their supporters persisted. In 1914, a satirical play was hosted by Manitoba’s Political Equality League, wherein Nellie McClung mimicked Premier Roblin in a debate over whether or not men should have the right to vote. After the men’s delegation stated their case for male suffrage, McClung complimented the men on their appearance and then dismissed them, proclaiming “Oh no, man is made for something higher and better than voting...Politics unsettles men, and unsettled men mean unsettled bills, broken furniture, broken vows, and divorce!"[5] Pointing out the absurdity of the arguments against women’s suffrage in a comical way caused a surge of support for women’s democratic equality.

The positive public reaction to the mock parliament, coupled with the role played by women in WWI and the changing political climate, soon led to the attainment of women's suffrage in the province of Manitoba. The Liberal government of Manitoba, who had promised to enfranchise women if elected, won the provincial election in 1915 by a landslide.. Suffragists presented petitions in support of the vote to Premier Norris, and on January 27, 1916, the bill for women’s suffrage was passed. [6] The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan enfranchised women within months of Manitoba, and Ontario and British Columbia did so the following year. On May 24, 1918, An Act to confer the Electoral Franchise upon Women was passed, giving canadian women the right to vote in federal elections across Canada.[7]

 

Stay tuned tomorrow, where we will discuss the impacts of WWI on the women’s suffrage movement.

 

[1] Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. A History of the Vote in Canada  (Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing, 1997) at 65 [A History of the Vote].  

[2] Cleverdon, Catherine L. & Ramsay Cook. The Woman Suffrage Movement in Canada, 2d ed (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1974) at 6-9 [Cleverdon].

[3] A History of the Vote, supra note 1 at  65.

[4] Cleverdon, supra note 2 at 13.

[5] Historica Canada: https://www.historicacanada.ca/content/heritage-minutes/nellie-mcclung

[6] Jennings, Cec, “Winning Back the Vote” (2015) 95:5 Canada’s History at 33.

[7] Parliament of Canada: http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/compilations/provinceterritory/ProvincialWomenRightToVote.aspx

The James Forcillo Trial

James Forcillo is a Toronto police officer who's been charged with murder after having shot a young man (who was pretty high at the time) on a streetcar.  The victim was carrying a knife, and had threatened people, but seemed more disturbed than dangerous.  He was shot multiple times by Forcillo in a pretty short time period, all of it captured on video tape.

I am really curious about this case, which just went to the jury.  In this video blog,  I examine the case, and how it is really being driven by the Canadian definition of murder – even though this case differs a great deal from what you would consider an “ordinary” murder case.  The "problem" such as there is one, is that Canada has little interest in "compromise" verdicts, which is why a technical application of the law (which the jury might ignore) seems to require a verdict of either guilty for murder or a full acquittal.  I'm not satisfied, thinking that a manslaughter conclusion might be the best option - but the Code makes it hard to get there.  In this blog, I consider "compromise verdicts", and, in particular, whether there should be a partial defence for legitimate but unreasonable uses of force.

The VLog was created as closing arguments were being made in the case, but I decided to hold back publication until the jury began to deliberate. I apologize for any errors in characterization that conflict with the addresses that actually occurred.  I do not think these were significant, and hope the VBlog still has some value for you, even after a verdict comes in!

 

Beware of the Petticoat Polity

Although this year marks the centennial of the women’s right to vote in several provinces, there are many instances of women voting prior to 1916. The journey of the women’s vote in Canada was actually quite a roller coaster. Today’s post will begin to explain the bumpy ride to enfranchisement. Tomorrow we will continue our brief history lesson where today’s post leaves off.

Prior to confederation, the anglophone colonies which would eventually form Canada inherited English common law. Women in England did not vote, but this was a convention rather than written as law. Therefore, in the colonies which ultimately became Canada, there was no law preventing women from voting.[1] Lower Canada inherited French civil law, which better enabled women to own property than English law.[2] Property ownership and age were the main voting requirements, so there are quite a few recorded incidents of francophone women voting in the early days of pre-confederation Canada. However, women throughout most of the other colonies had also been known to vote.

The earliest account of women voting occurred in 1793. The women met the official voting requirements of owning property, so their votes were not challenged.[3] Those women would have been either widowed or unwed, as a married woman’s legal standing was transferred to her husband upon marriage in those days. Another example of a women voting occurred in 1809 when 80 year old widow Marie-Josephte Papineau voted for her son to sit in the Assembly of Lower Canada.[4] Ironically, her grandson who also won a seat in the 1809 election, developed a political agenda later in his career which included illegalizing women’s voting.  

Women’s votes threatened the status quo and quickly gained media attention. In 1820, a Royal Gazette article discussed the possible repercussions of this “absurd and unconstitutional practice” which may spiral into a petticoat polity wherein women could acquire greater power and become judges, magistrates, and even members of Parliament.[5] Women’s votes were often challenged and struck off from the poll book, but some, like Marie-Josephte Papineau’s did stand.

Prince Edward Island passed a law making it illegal for women to vote in 1836, and by 1851 laws were in effect in all British colonies which banned women from voting.[6] The ban on women voting was justified as a protection to women from being dragged to the polls by husbands and fathers against their will (which is at odds with the fact that only unmarried women could vote before the ban), and protecting women from the violent environment of the polling stations. In 1867, Canada’s Constitution (called the British North America Act, 1867) granted the right to vote upon every male British subject of at least age 21 who was a householder.[7]

Today we have traced the history of the women’s vote from 1793 to 1867. In tomorrow’s post, we will discuss the development of the women’s suffrage movement which sought to grant voting rights to every woman who met the age and property requirements set out in the BNA Act.

[1] Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. A History of the Vote in Canada  (Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing, 1997) at 61.

[2] Jennings, Cec, “Winning Back the Vote” (2015) 95:5 Canada’s History at 30 [Jennings].

[3] Ibid at 30.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Klein, Kim, "A ‘Petticoat Polity’? Women Voters in New Brunswick Before Confederation", (Autumn 1996) XXVI:1 Acadiensis at 71, citing Montreal, 25 April 1820, printed in the New Brunswick Royal Gazette, 20 June 1820.

[6] Jennings, supra note 2 at 30.

[7] The Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3 at s 41.

Magna Carta and Women's Rights - Part II

Magna Carta was one of the first documents in history to provide women with specific rights under the law and it was also a significant guiding force in the women’s suffrage movement. Moreover, although this document was written 800 years ago, Clause 7 has recognizable contemporary counterparts in Alberta. This illustrates both the revolutionary nature of the rights provided by Magna Carta and that this document was well ahead of its time.

Clause 7 of Magna Carta provided that “[a]fter her husband’s death, a widow shall have her marriage portion and her inheritance at once and without any hindrance; nor shall she pay anything for her dower, her marriage portion, or her inheritance which she and her husband held on the day of her husband’s death; and she may stay in her husband’s house for forty days after his death, within which period her dower shall be assigned to her”. This clause recognized that some protections should be afforded to a woman upon the death of her husband. In Alberta, both men and women have similar rights under the Dower Act [1]. The Dower Act recognizes that upon the death of one’s spouse, an individual gets a life estate in the homestead, as well as in the deceased’s personal property. While the Dower Act applies to both men and women, its application is also limited because the rights afforded by it are only extended to married persons. As well, it only applies to the homestead, which is a place the couple owns and lives in, and does not include property that is rented or has shared ownership (i.e. joint tenancy or co-tenancy). Another piece of legislation in Alberta that provides similar protections as Clause 7 of Magna Carta is the Wills and Succession Act (the “WSA”) [2]. In particular, the WSA provides for the temporary possession of the family home. While Clause 7 of Magna Carta stated that a widow could stay “in her husband’s home for forty days after his death”, section 75(1) of the WSA states that a surviving spouse or partner has a right to possession of the family home and goods for 90 days.

While Clauses 8 and 11 of Magna Carta also provided rights to women in 1215, these clauses do not have contemporary equivalents. Clause 8 provided that “[n]o widow shall be compelled to marry so long as she wishes to live without a husband, provided that she gives security that she will not marry without our consent if she holds of us, or without the consent of the lord of whom she holds, if she holds of another”. Further, Clause 11 stated that “if a man dies owing a debt to the Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing of that debt….” This clause would be condemned in Canadian society today for its discriminatory nature. While there is no similar legislation in Canada, Clauses 8 and 11 of Magna Carta are nonetheless significant as they represent the beginning of the movement towards the greater recognition of women’s rights.  

Finally, although the above clauses afforded some protections to women, Clause 54 provided a significant limitation on the rights of women. In particular, Clause 54 stated that “[n]o one shall be taken or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman for the death of anyone except her husband”. It has been noted that this clause may have been intended “to improve the efficiency of the King’s courts, [by] disposing of malicious indictments by women, themselves merely acting as agents of other men” [3]. Clause 54 thereby had the effect of excluding “half of the population from judicial procedures henceforth available only to men” [4]. Thus, while Magna Carta made advancements in the area of women’s rights, inequalities were also perpetuated by this document.

The clauses outlined above are significant, as they represent one of the first steps in the development and protection of women’s rights. In fact, Magna Carta “has come to symbolize equality under the law” [5]. This brief history of Magna Carta and the protections it afforded to women is the starting point for the numerous issues we will discuss over the next three months. It is important to understand how far we have come (and how far we still have to go) in attempting to achieve gender equality. Check back tomorrow to learn about the history of the women’s suffrage movement from 1793 to 1867. As well, stay tuned in the upcoming weeks for an interview with Len and Suzy Rodness, Co-Chairs of Magna Carta Canada, on the relevance of Magna Carta to the women’s suffrage movement and women’s rights generally.

 

[1] Dower Act, RSA 2000, c D-15.

[2] Wills and Succession Act, SA 2010, c W-12.2.

[3] http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/the-clauses-of-magna-carta

[4] Ibid.

[5] http://magnacarta800th.com/tag/1215/

Magna Carta and Women's Rights - Part I

Over the next two days, as an introduction to the history of the women’s suffrage movement, we will briefly consider the relevance of Magna Carta. For those of you who are new to our blog, we previously examined the legal implications and relevance of Magna Carta in Canada to celebrate the document’s 800th anniversary. While Magna Carta was formed hundreds of years ago, it continues to influence legislation, values and justice in the present. Moreover, Magna Carta provided a small but significant step in the recognition of women’s rights and the women’s suffrage movement.

Magna Carta was drafted as a peace treaty between King John of England and the rebel barons, and King John affixed his seal to the document on June 15, 1215 at Runneymede. Although Magna Carta failed as a peace treaty, it was one of the first substantial legal limitations to the monarch’s power and it played a vital role in the development of human rights. While the primary group that received protections under Magna Carta was noble men, women were also protected to a limited degree. However, these protections were primarily afforded to elite women. As Dr. Carolyn Harris noted, the clauses in Magna Carta that pertained to women reinforced “the status of the nobility as a distinct social group and [ensured] that children from first marriages did not lose their inheritances” [1]. While the protections in Magna Carta applied to a limited subset of the population, the recognition of such rights was unprecedented.

The most significant and lasting contribution of Magna Carta for women was that it provided the impetus for the further recognition of women’s rights, which eventually included the right to vote in many countries. As Dr. Harris stated, “Magna Carta is one of the key documents to bridge the divide between the status of women in medieval England and the twenty-first century Western World” [2]. Therefore, while “Magna Carta had little impact on the lives of the vast majority of King John’s female subjects because the clauses concerning marriage rights pertained to elite women alone”, it is significant because “the rights granted to a small group of women in 1215 eventually spread throughout the population” [3].

Magna Carta stood as a “symbol of justice” in the fight for women’s rights across the world and it even influenced the women’s suffrage movement in the 20th century [4]. For example, Magna Carta was “looked to by women agitating for female suffrage in the Bahamas in the late 1960s” [5]. As well, in England in 1915, Helena Normanton claimed that “denying women the right to vote was ‘expressly contrary to Magna Carta’, which had stated [in Clause 40] that right and justice should be neither delayed nor denied” [6]. Finally, the Women’s Social and Political Union, which was discussed in one of our introductory posts, had an official newspaper entitled Votes for Women. In a 1911 issue of this newspaper, a feature article used Magna Carta “to justify direct action against the authorities” [7]. An image for this article depicted Magna Carta being presented to King John by the barons [8]. These historical events demonstrate that not only was Magna Carta revolutionary in its recognition of women’s rights, it directly influenced the women’s suffrage movement. Thus, the importance of Magna Carta in the struggle to gain enfranchisement cannot be underestimated.

As the above analysis demonstrates, Magna Carta was one of many necessary steps in women's fight for suffrage. In tomorrow’s post, we will outline some of the clauses in Magna Carta that specifically recognized the rights of women. As well, we are excited to announce that we will be interviewing Dr. Carolyn Harris later this semester on the suffragist movement as it was perceived by the monarchy!

 

[1] http://www.magnacartacanada.ca/women-and-magna-carta/

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-in-the-20th-century

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

Ms. Suffragette - Meet Leri

My name is Leri Koornhof and I’m a second-year law student at the University of Alberta. I’m the 5th and final member of the 2016 Ms. Suffragette team. Unlike my colleagues who previously blogged under the alias Ms. Magna Carta, I’m new to this! I’m very excited to be part of this project and for the opportunity to express my views on why we still talk about suffrage and how women’s issues relate to the study of law.

Suffrage is among the myriad of goals that people seek in an effort to be viewed, to be treated, and to work as equals. As my 4 colleagues and I explore women’s issues in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the enfranchisement of women, we stay mindful that across the world there are women who still do not have this right. We also consider that even within a particular country, there are power structures that impose segregation of rights upon certain groups. In my home country, South Africa, non-Caucasian women and men did not become enfranchised until 1994. In Canada, First Nations women did not become enfranchised in 1916, but had to wait until the law changed with respect to all First Nations people.

So, you might ask, why is this history still important in the context of Canadian law schools where approximately half the students are women? By studying the women’s suffrage movement and the fight for greater equality under all areas of the law, we can achieve a better understanding of our current laws and freedoms. As the history of women’s suffrage demonstrates, social pressure from marginalized groups is critical to achieving change.

I look forward to your opinions and insights over the next three months as the Ms. Suffragette Team considers issues central to women’s suffrage and how it relates to law and society today. If you’d like to become part of our mailing list email “add me” to MsSuffragette@gmail.com or check us out on Facebook and Twitter.

Ms Suffragette- Meet Nicole

What’s in a name? This familiar adage recognizes that a name is simply just a word unless, and until, it is correctly leveraged to encompass something more, something of meaning. Suffragette, by definition, is “a women seeking the right to vote through organized protest.”  [1] However, this name means much more. This name not only recognizes the fight and struggle that women faced in order to gain equal voting rights, but it also recognizes a larger movement; a movement which endeavored for greater equality for women in all aspects under the law.

This movement that the Suffragettes started continues into our present day. Today, they are called the 21^st Century Suffragettes, and they fight for much more than the right to vote. They challenge the fundamentals of society and the issues of inequality that it creates for women. As such, over the next three months, we will examine these barriers that women have overcome and those that they continue to face. We hope that throughout this blog you may be able to answer one very pressing question: what would YOU fight for now?

My name is Nicole and I am a third-year law student at the University of Alberta. I am one of four other law students who will be generating a critical analysis of the women’s suffrage movement in Canada. We chose to blog about this topic since it is the 100^th anniversary of women voting in Canada for the first time. I believe this anniversary needs to be commemorated because it signifies the moment in time where women obtained a political voice, a voice that finally gained them status as “persons” under the law. This status denoted a step towards the liberation of women and was crucial in obtaining many of the rights women have today.

Please feel free to e-mail us at mssuffragette@gmail.com if you have any questions, comments, or potential topics you would like us to discuss. Also, follow us on twitter @MsMagnaCarta and on Facebook for links to our daily posts!

Stay tuned to hear from the last member of our group tomorrow!

 

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/suffragette

Ms Suffragette - Meet Kathleen

“Deeds, not words”

What does the phrase “deeds, not words” mean to you? How is it related to the women’s suffrage movement? I challenge all our readers to bear in mind this phrase over the next three months and consider why it was crucial to women gaining the right to vote.

In the 2015 movie entitled “Suffragette”, the phrase “deeds, not words” was encapsulated in the quotation “it is deeds not words that will get us the vote” [1]. “Deeds, not words” was the slogan of the Women’s Social and Political Union (the “WSPU”), which was founded by Emmeline Pankhurst. The WSPU was a group in the United Kingdom composed solely of females and was dedicated to fighting for women to gain the right to vote [2]. The phrase “deeds, not words” embodied the idea that if women wanted the right to vote, strong actions would be required. In our blog, we endeavor to illustrate the actions that women historically took in their fight for suffrage, as well as those actions that women in contemporary society must continue to take in hopes of achieving equality.

For those of you who are new to our Law & Social Media project, my name is Kathleen and I am a third-year law student at the University of Alberta. This semester, myself and four other law students will commemorate the 100th anniversary of women voting for the first time in Canada. I am so excited to have the opportunity to spend the last semester of my legal education exploring this significant event in Canada’s history. I strongly believe that everyone should have an in-depth understanding of the women’s suffrage movement. Not only is it important for us to appreciate the historical struggles that women faced in gaining the right to vote, but we must also recognize that women continue to face unequal treatment both within Canada and across the world. I hope that our blog posts will challenge your current notions regarding women’s rights and inspire you to join our discussion.

 

[1]http://www.thecultureconcept.com/circle/suffragette-emmeline-pankhurst-leading-women-of-influence

[2]http://www.biography.com/people/emmeline-pankhurst-9432764#synopsis

Ms Suffragette - Meet Kate

My name is Kate Andress, and I was previously a member of “Ms. Magna Carta”, a group of 5 law students at the University of Alberta which blogged about Magna Carta in commemoration of its 800th anniversary. After celebrating that milestone, myself and 4 other law students are dedicated to generating discussion on a new milestone: 100 years since the enfranchisement of women in Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.  

As a third year law student at the University of Alberta, I have spent the past few years learning about rule of law and principles of natural justice. It is absurd that women were implicitly barred by Canada’s Constitution from voting, and it was not until 1918 that the federal government granted democratic rights to women. 100 years ago provincial franchise was extended to women in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Some provinces, such as Quebec (1940) and the Northwest Territories (1951), were slow to follow suit.

I am excited to blog and generate public interest about the women’s suffrage movement in Canada, because suffragists fought for decades for democratic equality and their struggles ought not be forgotten. Women’s equality is a pressing issue to this day, in the form of pay inequality and disproportionate violent victimization. I hope to use my time in the Faculty of Law’s course, entitled “Law & Social Media”, to discuss the history of women’s suffrage and its present day implications.

Over the next 3 months, I will discuss topics including: Canadian suffragists as compared to the militant suffragettes of Britain, key players in women’s suffrage, Indigenous women’s roles in governance pre-colonization, enfranchisement of Indigenous peoples and Asian immigrants, and women’s rights a long time ago in a galaxy far away....

Follow us on twitter @MsMagnaCarta and on Facebook for links to our daily posts!

Ms Suffragette - Meet Venessa

Welcome back to another semester and a brand new year!

    The right to vote is something which many may take for granted at times, but (as evidenced by the 2015 federal election turnout), not something that is necessarily taken lightly. It may be difficult to imagine one of the most fundamental democratic necessities being absent from over half of the population's bundle of basic rights - and yet, it was only a mere 100 years ago that Canada's first few provinces began to permit women to vote.

    My name is Venessa, and I'm one of the members of the "Ms Suffragette" blog team. We are part of the Law and Social Media class, which consists of 5 University of Alberta law students – all of whom will introduce themselves over the next few days. Some of you may have heard of “Ms Magna Carta”, and our blog team has the same goal of providing useful substantive discourse, but with an entirely different subject matter. This term, in celebration of the 100th year anniversary, the focus will be themed around women obtaining the right to vote in some Canadian provinces.

    Throughout the next three months, our blog team plans to explore the history of the suffrage movement, the key individuals who fought for these rights, and even some of the shortcomings of the movement. Women's suffrage has taken significantly different routes across the globe, and is currently at different stages throughout the developing world. As well, the movement has led to the development of a wide array of other rights for women,  many of which we plan to explore. Although the women’s suffrage movement is the focus, the suffrage movements of other disenfranchised groups will also be highlighted.

    We hope that you find the content interesting and useful, and as always, we welcome you to be part of the discussion. You can comment below any of our posts, or send us a message via Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/MsSuffragette). If you’d like to receive a daily link to the our blog posts, simply contact us via email at MsSuffragette@gmail.com or through Facebook!

Update on training for lawyers interested in helping with refugee sponsorship

The training session scheduled for Wednesday January 13 from 3:00 – 6:00 pm will be held at The Studio at the Winspear Centre, 9720 – 102 Ave NW. The session will be filmed and made available to lawyers who are unable to attend in person. 

No background in immigration and refugee law is required, and you can attend the training sessions even if you are unsure about committing yourself to assist with sponsorship applications.

To sign up for the training session, please send an e-mail to Kate Nunn nunn@ualberta.ca with “I will attend the Jan 13 training session” in the subject line.

More information is available HERE. 

Baseball Hall of Fame

Congratulations to two deserving superstars: Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Piazza for getting into the HoF. 

Griffey got 99% of the vote, the highest percentage ever, so that is also an amazing statistic to add to his list. While one could show many of their highlights for the two, including the Clemens-Piazza smackdowns, I shall post this clip: