NEWS
4 Obiter Dicta
From Niqabs to Tom Brady
A look at this month’s most pointless appeals
nadia aboufariss › opinions editor
I
n l e s s t h a n twenty-four hours, appeals
were announced in two cases that made massive headlines both in Canada and the US.
After the Federal Court of Appeal held that the
ban against wearing niqabs during citizenship ceremonies is unlawful, the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration announced on 18 September 2015
that they would appeal this decision to the Supreme
Court of Canada (SCC). The day before, Roger Goodell,
Commissioner of the National Football League (NFL),
made a formal declaration of his intent to appeal
the Brady v NFL decision made earlier this month.
Personally, I find both appeals ludicrous. If the SCC
decides to hear the niqab case, it will more than likely
add another notch to the very long list of losses for the
conservative government in Ottawa. Goodell, on the
other hand, has bullied his way to the point where
not only his league, but also other leagues may suffer
as a result.
Let’s take a look at these two appeal requests and
see if there’s any chance of victory.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v
Zunera Ishaq
So far the government has spent almost $300,000 on
this case. After paying what feels like that much to
go to law school, that number scarily does not seem
like a lot. However, spending any money on useless
appeals and encouraging distracting issues during a
federal election just annoys me on principle. Zunera
Ishaq has removed her niqab for all security purposes,
for her driver’s license, and for her actual citizenship
test, but apparently that isn’t enough.
The problem with the government’s case is that
it isn’t based on any sort of law. It isn’t a question of
security or identity, since in Ishaq’s situation these
things have already been established. The case is
based on feelings: the government finds the niqab
“offensive” and feels it isn’t appropriate to wear at
an oath ceremony. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the government’s case without discussing the
Charter of Rights and Freedom, instead stating that
the ban on niqabs violates the Citizenship Act (R.S.C.,
1985, c. C-29), which states that religious freedom
should be allowed to be expressed during citizenship
ceremonies. In what feels like a jab aimed at the government, the judges ended their ruling by saying that
they didn’t want to go into the Charter argument so
as to expedite Ishaq’s citizenship process and give her
a chance to vote in the federal election on