The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/111666
Top Court tales by Philip Slayton Niqab decision a mess Much-anticipated ruling shows some real rifts at the top court. 16 March 2013 www.CANADIAN to wear a face-covering veil or other mask in public places. Quebec has similar tendencies; the niqab is banned from polling stations in a provincial election, and recent Quebec governments have threatened legislation requiring people who wear face coverings to remove them if they work in the public sector or L a w ye r m a g . c o m do business with government officials. By contrast, the United States, intended to be a refuge for oppressed religious groups, generally has a permissive attitude towards religious display and expression. But even in the U.S., there has been constitutional controversy over the wearing of a niqab in the courtroom; Oleg Portnoy W hat to make of R. v. N.S., the strange Supreme Court of Canada niqab decision, handed down in December 2012? One thing���s for sure ��� it���s a mess. The majority of the seven-member panel failed to decide anything; the other judges divided diametrically on fundamental principle; the rest of us are left none-the-wiser on an important legal and political question. Oh dear! The facts are simple enough. Two relatives of N.S. were charged with her sexual assault. She was called as a witness at the preliminary inquiry. N.S. is a Muslim and said her religious belief required her to wear a niqab, a veil that covers her face. The accused sought an order requiring her to remove the garment while testifying, arguing it prevented effective cross-examination and interfered with the judge���s ability to assess N.S.���s credibility. The preliminary inquiry judge gave the order.�� The Ontario Superior Court reversed his decision. The Ontario Court of Appeal held if the witness��� freedom of religion and the accused���s fair trial interests could not be reconciled, the witness may be ordered to remove the niqab. N.S. appealed to the Supreme Court. Underlying R. v. N.S. is the relationship between religion and the state. That���s a worldwide issue, dealt with differently from place to place. Modern France, for example, created by atheists, bans the public display of religious clothing. In April 2011, France made it illegal