The Person's Case in 1929

[Riverwind]

Here are some links on this case:

http://www.famous5.org/frames/frame_education_issues.htm

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/llc/LCCS/LJCS/Vol_17/Hughes.pdf

I really do not see any difference between the decision of the British Privy Council that the definition of person should be extended to include woman and the current Supreme Court's decision to extend marriage to include gays.

Both cases pitted social traditionalists vs. reformers. The traditionalists used many of the same arguments about such a change would 'destroy' the family. Opponents of SSM should look at history and ask themselves if they really want to be associated with people who believed that woman did not deserve the right to seek public office.

I find it ironic that Alberta was the progressive force in the Person's case and Quebec opposed it.

[kimmy]

I find it ironic that Alberta was the progressive force in the Person's case and Quebec opposed it.

Not really. First off, I think you'll find a similar trend in the US: I believe frontier states were the first to extend sufferage to women-- Wyoming was the first, I think.

Something I read in an article by Preston Manning the other day might explain why.

According to T. R. Glover's Democracy in the Ancient World, democracy is first and foremost a "frontier phenomenon." The early Greek experiments began among the hardy farmers in outlying regions who first begat and reinforced the notions of equality and self-government. These notions were then carried back through trade to the city states where they were either rejected or incorporated into the governing structure.

Fast forward to the Canadian West, which had its political and economic beginnings as a colony of central Canada. The frontier conditions of the West, like those of ancient Greece, developed a more natural equality and independence than that which existed in the older, more stratified societies of Eastern and Central Canada. Those conditions generated the democratic impulses that shaped much of Alberta's political culture, and continue to fuel its demands for "reform" -- including more democratic and equitable federal processes and institutions -- to this very day.

(emphasis mine. full article here)

The argument seems to be that democracy is more likely to flourish in the absense of an elite, or established social heirarchy, as there's no extablished power-class to be threatened by change. Of course, Alberta is not frontier country anymore, and we now have as much of a heirarchy as you'll find anywhere. But this was not always the case, and Manning contends that this was the source of much of the political activism that originated in Alberta early in the 20th century... including, perhaps, women's suffrage.

I also read an article not long ago about pirates. The article contended that contrary to the popular image of a despotic captain who ruled his crew through terror and violence, pirates of the early 18th century often practiced a standard of democracy unequalled anywhere in the western world at the time. Captains were elected, major decisions were made by equal vote, and captured goodies were divided equally. Compared to navy and merchant sailors of the time, who were often "recruited" by press-gangs, and almost universally poorly treated and badly paid, the pirates were a brotherhood of man. What have pirates got to do with anything? well, just that much like Preston Manning mentions, we again find that in the absence of a highly stratified social order, people seem to have been willing to consider ideas that traditional society scoffed at.

-k

[Riverwind]

The frontier conditions of the West, like those of ancient Greece, developed a more natural equality and independence than that which existed in the older, more stratified societies of Eastern and Central Canada.

I suspect there is a lot of self-selection that goes on - most people in a 'frontier' society were not born there and had strong reasons to leave the society in which they were born. Their immediate children and grandchildren would likely learn the values that made them leave which would make the 'frontier' society culture for several generations.

It is interesting to contrast the different directions that BC and Alberta have taken as 'frontier' societies. BC (at least the lower mainland) is probably the most socially radical place in English Canada (measured by attitudes towards gays, drugs, the environment and religion) but tends to be politically in synch with Southern Ontario. Alberta is the politically radical (measured by the role of gov't) but socially conservative. I suspect the difference is due to immigration: recent arrivals from other parts of Canada and the world make up a huge segment of BC society.

[kimmy]

It is interesting to contrast the different directions that BC and Alberta have taken as 'frontier' societies. BC (at least the lower mainland) is probably the most socially radical place in English Canada (measured by attitudes towards gays, drugs, the environment and religion) but tends to be politically in synch with Southern Ontario. Alberta is the politically radical (measured by the role of gov't) but socially conservative. I suspect the difference is due to immigration: recent arrivals from other parts of Canada and the world make up a huge segment of BC society.

Perhaps the Lower Mainland (and the Greater Toronto Area) can be considered frontier societies in their own way, now, as the large amounts of non-european immigrants entering these areas are undoubtably changing these regions in recent years.

-k