Definition of ‘persons’ isn’t as it seems

Re: Feminism gone too far in Canada (Comment, March 4)

Contrary to what Erin Cardone and the public have been brainwashed to believe, the 1928 legislation: “In the matter of a reference as to the meaning of the word ‘persons’ in Section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867,” was not about women being persons or their right to vote.

It was about whether they were the persons contemplated in that section, which was about qualifications to hold a seat in the Senate. In describing the qualifications it used, “He shall …” The judges recognized that “he” always referred to men, therefore concluded the law did not provide for females to hold a seat in the Senate, and if legislators wanted them to, they could have.

On appeal to the Privy Council its judges, through some reasoning that was impossible to follow, ruled women were persons allowed to hold Senate seats in that section of the act. ‘He’ no longer meant ‘he’ in law.

Concerned that women’s groups were defaming the judges for self-serving political purposes, I wrote to the Supreme Court of Canada. Thereafter, the Hon. Justice Binny set the record straight at a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association several years ago, with limited success.

Persons are no longer just human beings, either, but now may refer to corporations.

Law schools have failed us terribly by admitting students who have virtually no scientific or technical background and are not versed in logic. I am ashamed to say, more often women fall into this category than men.

Young women are being encouraged to run for office even before they have anything to bring to the table.

Ann Kuczerpa

Oak Bay