Tories seek stay on niqab ruling,
Move meant to keep ban of face veils at oath ceremony until top court hears appeal
OTTAWA— The highly charged issue of face coverings worn by would-be Canadians at citizenship ceremonies was thrust into the election campaign when the Conservatives challenged a recent court decision quashing the so-called niqab ban.
The federal government said Friday it is asking a judge to temporarily set aside a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision allowing women to wear face coverings while taking the oath of citizenship.
The government has already said it will seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and Friday’s move is intended to prevent citizenship candidates from taking the oath with their faces covered until the Supreme Court can hear the appeal.
The result is Zunera Ishaq, the devout, 29-year-old Toronto Muslim who successfully argued against the niqab ban in court, may not be able to become a citizen soon enough to cast a ballot on Oct. 19 after all.
“It’s very important to her and I’m sure she’s very disappointed,” her lawyer, Lorne Waldman, told the Star. “She was very anxious. She really wanted to get her citizenship because she really, really wanted to vote.”
Waldman said his firm will try to get the federal government’s lawyers to go to court immediately so this next phase of the case might be settled in time for Ishaq to have a chance to vote in the election.
Ishaq argued in court that the ban on face coverings during citizenship ceremonies violates the Citizenship Act, which says candidates must be allowed the greatest possible religious freedom when they take the oath.
The government appealed the original Federal Court decision, but lost. A three-judge panel at the Federal Court of Appeal ruled from the bench on Tuesday, saying they wanted to proceed quickly in upholding the original Federal Court decision so that Ishaq could become a citizen in time to vote.
But Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said there is wide support for the niqab ban.
“Look, when someone joins the Canadian family, there are times in our open, tolerant, pluralistic society that as part of our interactions with each other we reveal our identity through revealing our face,” he said in Calgary.
Asked why the Conservative government is moving now to seek a stay of the appeal court decision rather than waiting until after the Oct. 19 election, Harper told the media: “The reason why now is because we had a court ruling that we’re responding to expeditiously.”
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said it is appalling the government would go to so much trouble to keep one person from having the right to cast a ballot. “That is completely irresponsible,” he said in Montreal.
“Canada defends the rights of minorities, we respect people’s rights. That’s what we will always do. This government quite frankly is demonstrating time and time again its lack of respect for people’s rights and freedoms.”
The government has spent more than $250,000 in legal costs on the case, according to information obtained from the government by the Liberals.
NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair noted the courts have set the blame squarely on the current government’s shoulders for imposing an unlawful rule.
“We will respect the courts,” he told reporters in Regina. “In the same way courts guarantee the freedom of expression and freedom of the press, the courts are there to guarantee the freedom of religion.”
Trudeau and Mulcair have said they would not go to court to try to reinstate the ban on face coverings during citizenship ceremonies.
In a statement early Friday an- nouncing the government’s legal move, Denis Lebel, Harper’s Quebec lieutenant, said, “Both Justin and Thomas Mulcair are offside with Canadians on this issue. They owe Canadians an explanation for why they think someone should be able to hide their identity while taking the oath of citizenship.”
However, lawyers point out that the issue is a question of religious principle, not of identity, since would-be citizens who wear a veil must remove it to identify themselves separately to a female government official before obtaining citizenship.
“It’s fairly clear that the motivations behind this are political and the government seems to think that this is a wedge issue that will appeal to some of the people who vote for the Conservative party,” Waldman said.
The Tories said, if re-elected, they would introduce legislation banning face coverings during citizenship oaths within 100 days.
The niqab ban was inspired in part by Quebec’s experience with the socalled charter of values, a document tabled by the Parti Québécois government, which proposed banning the display of overtly religious symbols by people in the public sector.
While the charter, which was never passed into law, was extensively criticized and partly blamed for the defeat of the PQ government in 2014, the issue of the niqab still resonates in the province, where the Tories hope to increase their seat count.
That’s likely why it was left to Lebel, a Conservative candidate in Quebec, to announce the plans to seek a stay, rather than Justice Minister Peter MacKay, who is not running for reelection.
It was only a few days ago that Ishaq, who moved to Ontario from Pakistan in 2008 to join her husband, was expressing her excitement over the courts’ rejection of the niqab ban introduced by the Conservative government in 2011.
“Now, I am going to be the Canadian citizen, and I will be enjoying the full rights in Canada as well, so very lucky for me,” she said outside court.