The Persons’ Case In October 18, 1927, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Emily Murphy and Irene Parlby (the famous 5) requested the governor general to direct the supreme court of Canada to consider whether women were eligible to become senators under the act of British parliament which governed the country at this time. The government was of the view that only men were eligible to become senators, but the minister put forward the following question for the courts consideration: does the word “persons” in section 24 of the British North America act 1867 include female persons? The word “person” meant only male persons. From 1850 on, “person” became synonymous with male person. This was the reason that Canadian women had to put forward the above question in the first place. The supreme court of Canada replied that the word “person” did not include female persons. Fortunately for Canadian women, the famous 5 were able to appeal to an even higher court, the british privy council. On October 18, 1929 they overturned the decision of the supreme court by deciding that the word “person” did indeed include persons of the female gender. The definition of “person” became a threshold test of women’s equality. After 1929, the door was open for women to lobby for further changes to achieve equality. As women across Canada can confirm today, that struggle continues. Moral Personhood The problems of moral personhood focuses on determining which beings are members of what we might call the moral community. Animal rights advocates contend that at least some animals have the same moral status as humans. The issue in these cases involve what it takes to be a morally significant person. The term “person” in this sense is not necess ...