Summary: In the article, The niqab debate, let's not forget, is about individual rights written by Neil Macdonald, from CBC news, discusses the federal court ruling which knocked down the conservative ban on niqabs at citizenship ceremonies. Zuera Ishaq, a Pakistani-born women challenged the courts, and the prohibition. Justice Keith M. Boswell ruled that wearing a niqab does not interfere in any way while taking the oath, and the Minister of Immigration does not have the authority to forbid wearing one. Stephen Harper states that a full veil is antithetical to the Canadian way of living, as one is hiding their identity while committing to join the Canadian family. The conservative party feels the wearing of a Niqab allows inequality to
…show more content…
In 1982, the Constitution, the supreme law of land, was signed on April 17th, 1982, which included the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It reflects the social, political, and economic values that Canadian society holds. With the addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , its main purpose is to protect the minority over the majority. In this case, Zurera Ishaq felt her constitutional right to freedom of religion, section 2(a) of the charter was infringed upon, thus she took the matter to the courts. She had exercised that her civil right, which controls the power that the government has over its citizens had been violated. The judicial reasoning in this case, examines the law rather than beliefs, as Justice Keith M. Boswell purely made his decision on what the law entails rather than using morals in determining whether the ban should be uplifted or not. This represents legal formalism, as the courts purely interpret the law through what has been passed down through legislature, and use precedents to formulate an impartial decision. However, the vague wording of the charter gives more interpretation to the judges. Within the case, many precedents are used to aid to compel the judge. The notable case, Multani v Commission Marguerite-Bourgeoys can be used as a comparison for the infringement upon the right to religion. Wearing the niqab is part of the Islamic religious practice, although Multani argues so is the kirapn, which is a ceremonial weapon, part of the Sikh religion . To continue, Ishaq says the policy interferes with the practice, which is considered to be more than trivial. It is intruding upon the values of the Islamic religion. Similar to the Multani case, the governing board policy is stating there has been a violation of the code
In 1982, the Constitution, the supreme law of land, was signed on April 17th, 1982, which included the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It reflects the social, political, and economic values that Canadian society holds. With the addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , its main purpose is to protect the minority over the majority. In this case, Zurera Ishaq felt her constitutional right to freedom of religion, section 2(a) of the charter was infringed upon, thus she took the matter to the courts. She had exercised that her civil right, which controls the power that the government has over its citizens had been violated. The judicial reasoning in this case, examines the law rather than beliefs, as Justice Keith M. Boswell purely made his decision on what the law entails rather than using morals in determining whether the ban should be uplifted or not. This represents legal formalism, as the courts purely interpret the law through what has been passed down through legislature, and use precedents to formulate an impartial decision. However, the vague wording of the charter gives more interpretation to the judges. Within the case, many precedents are used to aid to compel the judge. The notable case, Multani v Commission Marguerite-Bourgeoys can be used as a comparison for the infringement upon the right to religion. Wearing the niqab is part of the Islamic religious practice, although Multani argues so is the kirapn, which is a ceremonial weapon, part of the Sikh religion . To continue, Ishaq says the policy interferes with the practice, which is considered to be more than trivial. It is intruding upon the values of the Islamic religion. Similar to the Multani case, the governing board policy is stating there has been a violation of the code