The Canadian Film History - Report Example

The Canadian Film History The Canadian Film History Introduction The Canadian history has been highly represented in heritageminutes, which comprise of sixty second films with each of them focusing on a specific topic of the Canadian history. They have existed since 1991 after their introduction in March 31 the same year. Initially, the Heritage Minutes found their way into schools in an effort to aid teachers in teaching Canadian history. However, these heritage minutes have moved on to appear on television and in movies. One of the heritage minutes presents Emily Murphy who was an activist of the women right in Canada in the early 20th century. The one-minute film on Emily Murphy features a woman staring out of a window in the initial seconds. The woman then begins a monologue. It emerges that she is Emily Murphy, who discusses the Persons case in great depth. This Persons case happened in 1928 and served as a benchmark in the rights of women. Kate Nelligan takes the role of Emily Murphy in the Heritage Minute. The Heritage Minute presents a brief summary of the Persons case, which was one of the critical cases that determined the place of women in the Canadian society. This paper will present an argument based on the Heritage Minute presenting Emily Murphy. For a long time, different events in the Canadian history did not receive much attention. The main purpose of initiating the Heritage Minute was to ensure that Canadian history appeared more regularly in the education system. The Heritage Project had recognized the difficulties of teaching the Canadian history. Therefore, they introduced the Heritage Minutes after a rigorous consultation process with a wide range of experts. The minutes would serve as myths that would introduce some of the national conviction in the classroom setting. The success of the Heritage Minutes has received criticism in the past. Whereas some have argued that the minutes are a brief reminder of some of the critical aspects of Canadian history, critics have highlighted that they are oversimplified (Koshan, 2008). The Heritage Minute described above focuses on Emily Murphy, one of the women of those named “famous five” in 1928. This nickname came forth because of their unrelenting efforts to fight for the human rights. Worth noting is the fact that in the early 20th century, Canadian women did not enjoy the voting rights or the privilege to hold any office. Some changes occurred before 1918, allowing only a small percentage of the women to participate in the voting process. However, the other women lacked the voting rights because of their race, ethnicity, or religion. Emily Murphy was one of the women who exhibited the determination to fight for womens rights (Library and Canada, 1928). She had proved successful in becoming the first female magistrate in Britain. Previously, women did not have a chance to hold such positions. Before becoming a magistrate, Murphy had participated in numerous social issues, especially those regarding women’s rights to own property. These issues served to enhance her profile. Worth noting is the fact that her 1867 Act of British North America that described the responsibilities of both the federal government and other provinces used the term “persons” in plural. In the singular form, the Act used the word “he”. The usage of these words highlighted that only men qualified as persons, as they used in the Act. This was of critical concern to Emily Murphy and affected her personally when she was serving as a magistrate in the British Emperor. In her early cases, one lawyer pointed out that her ruling was void because being a woman; she did not have the relevant qualifications of taking up the role of a magistrate. This was because she did not qualify as a “person” in accordance with the 1867 British North America Act. Other women magistrates faced similar challenges. Coincidentally, the same time saw womens groups placing emphasis on the need for women in the senate (Koshan, 2008). The terms used in the 1867 Act, which highlighted that only men qualified as persons, barred women from the senate. The 1928 Persons case emerged in the effort to address the question "Does the word "person" in Section 24 of the B.N.A. Act include female persons?" Emily Murphy and the other four women who held prominent positions pursued this case. This was because they had realized that the usage of the term “persons” and its interpretation in daily use denied the women a change in politics and holding public offices. The Supreme Court took a period of five weeks to argue the case and ruled that the term “persons” as was used in the Act did not include women. A close analysis of the court record from the Supreme Court on 24 April 1928 reveals that the question forwarded by the five women sought to understand whether women were eligible candidates for the senate. In reference to this issue, the court ruled that they were not eligible. The specific judgments from the court record document said, “The questioned being understood to be “Are women eligible for appointment to the Senate of Canada” the question is answered in the negative” (Library and Canada, 1928). After the Supreme Court ruling, the five women pursued an appeal in the Privy Council in England, which represented the highest court of the country. The decision of the Privy Council was the greatest milestone in the fight for womens rights. This is because on 18 October 1929, Lord Sankey made the announcement that, “that the exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours. And to those who would ask why the word "person" should include females, the obvious answer is, why should it not?" this made it evident that women could hold both political and public positions (Library and Canada, 1928). It is unfortunate that Emily Murphy did not live to achieve her dream of serving in the senate. The Heritage Minute with Emily Murphy is one of the myths presenting a monologue of Emily Murphy, a role played by Kate Nelligan describing her achievements as the first female magistrate and the success of the Persons case in 1929. Worth noting is the fact that this Heritage Minute describes the interpretation of the constitutional language that gave women full rights. The above is the reason why the topic on Emily Murphy and the Persons case appears in Heritage Minutes that highlight critical aspects of the Canadian history (Library and Canada, 1928). Although Heritage Minutes have served as critical aids in the teaching of the Canadian history, they are oversimplified and only a little is said during the entire clip. The purpose of the one-minute video clips is to capture the attention of students concerning a specific topic in the Canadian topic. In the case of Emily Murphy’s Heritage Minute, important facts such as her being the first magistrate and the Persons case become evident. In my opinion, the 1928 Supreme Court ruling did not receive attention in the clip. Moreover, the 1929 decision by the Privy Council should have appeared in the minute to place emphasis on the milestone achieved by Murphy. Without doubt, not all the above facts surrounding the case and the life of Emily Murphy appear in the one-minute clip. This means that there is a high level of omission in the production of the Heritage Minute (Cameron, 1995). Despite the intended purpose of the Heritage Minute, the omission of critical information may contribute to a wrong context for the clip. As mentioned above, court records depicting the 1928 Supreme Court ruling served as a critical primary source in understanding Emily Murphy’s Heritage Minute. The court record presents the ruling in brevity. Notably, court documents served as critical primary sources in the understanding of the historical events that occurred in the courts. However, just like other primary sources, there are limitations of these documents. The fact that the document has existed since 1928 only means that the author may not be alive for further clarifications of the information in the document. Moreover, the court record does not highlight the people who were behind the Persons case. Moreover, the court record does not provide perspectives of her individuals on the issue presented before the court (Cameron, 1995). Secondary sources considered in the understanding of Emily Murphy’s Heritage Minute provided contextual information, including her background, the Persons case, the Supreme Court ruling, and the Privy Council ruling. Secondary sources interpret the events and offer an analysis of original information surrounding the event. They may not be highly reliable because the authenticity of the sources becomes an issue. Moreover, information distortion may lead to loss of credibility. Conclusion Evidently, Heritage Minute has existed since 1991, with the purpose of the Heritage Project being to ensure that the teaching of the Canadian history is easier. The introduction of the Heritage Project emerged after the realization that many Canadians lacked the knowledge about critical historical events. On the issue of womens rights, Emily Murphy emerges as one of the critical individuals who fought for womens rights. One of the Heritage Minutes, and the 1928 Persons case highlighted above, present Emily Murphy. As highlighted above, the Persons case ruling by the Privy Council gave women full rights after they were qualified as Persons by the council’s ruling. References Cameron, E. (1995). Heritage Minutes: Culture and Myth. Canadian Issues / Thèmes Canadiens, (17), 13-24. Koshan, J. (2008). The Persons Case: The Origins and Legacy of the Fight for Legal Personhood. Canadian Journal of Women & The Law, 20(2), 343-351. Library and Archives, Canada (1928). A ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, 1928: Women are not "persons". Retrieved on 2nd Dec. 2014 from http://www.heroines.ca/history/persons.html. Read More