Skip to main content

Zunera Ishaq talks to reporters outside the Federal Court of Appeal after her case was heard on whether she can wear a niqab while taking her citizenship oath, in Ottawa on Tuesday, September 15, 2015.

PATRICK DOYLE/THE CANADIAN PRESS

A Federal Court of Appeal panel has dismissed a government appeal over a ban on face coverings at citizenship ceremonies in what amounts to a major policy rebuke of the Harper government.

The three justices ruled from the bench, saying they wanted to proceed quickly so that Zunera Ishaq, the woman who initially challenged the ban, can obtain her citizenship in time to vote in the Oct. 19 federal election.

Ms. Ishaq, a 29-year-old woman with devout Muslim beliefs who came to Ontario from Pakistan in 2008, refused to take part in a citizenship ceremony because she would have to show her face.

Story continues below advertisement

The swift ruling left Ms. Ishaq speechless, although she said she looks forward to casting her ballot.

One of her lawyers, Marlys Edwardh, said the Immigration Department would be contacted this week so she could attend a citizenship ceremony – accompanied by her lawyers "just in case."

The Harper government's rule banning face coverings at such ceremonies was earlier found unlawful by the Federal Court.

Justice Department lawyer Peter Southey argued unsuccessfully that the lower court justice made errors in his original decision to overturn the ban.

Appeal Justice Mary Gleason said the court had no reason to interfere with the earlier ruling.

The ban on face coverings sparked a bitter debate in the House of Commons when it was first announced.

At Tuesday's half-day hearing in Ottawa, a Justice Department lawyer told court that the government never meant to make it mandatory for women to remove their face coverings for citizenship ceremonies – a position that left both the judge and Ms. Ishaq's lawyers scratching their heads.

Story continues below advertisement

The admission appeared to be a climbdown from the Conservative government's past position on the issue.

The controversial edict was a regulation that had no actual force in law, Justice Department lawyer Peter Southey told a Federal Court of Appeal hearing.

"It indicates a desire in the strongest possible language," Mr. Southey said – an argument that appeared to come as a surprise to Justice Johanne Trudel.

"I cannot see how this is not mandatory," Justice Trudel said during the hearing.

Mr. Southey later told the court that the immigration minister was conceding that he "could not impose a mandatory rule in a guideline" for the purposes of this appeal.

Lorne Waldman, the lawyer for the woman at the centre of the case, dismissed Mr. Southey's argument, saying everyone from former immigration minister Jason Kenney, his successor Chris Alexander and even Prime Minister Stephen Harper have said in public they see it as a mandatory policy.

Story continues below advertisement

Reading from internal government e-mails, Mr. Waldman told court there was not "one iota of discretion" within the policy.

"Everything says mandatory, no discretion – that's the facts of the case."

The controversial case focuses on whether a Muslim woman should be required to remove her face covering to take the oath of citizenship.

Outside court, Ms. Ishaq questioned the federal government's new line.

"If it's not mandatory I would simply say, why they are fighting for it? Just let me go," she said.

"I can't even make sense of the statement – what the lawyer said about it that it's not mandatory. If it's not mandatory, so why that all this fuss is for?"

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter