Ishaq诉加拿大:女权主义干预中的“社会科学事实”

D. Phillips
{"title":"Ishaq诉加拿大:女权主义干预中的“社会科学事实”","authors":"D. Phillips","doi":"10.22329/WYAJ.V35I0.5271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the role of social science in feminist intervener advocacy, focusing on the 2015 case ofIshaq v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). InIshaq, a Muslim woman challenged a Canadian government policy requiring her to remove her niqab while reciting the citizenship oath. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed several motions for intervention by feminist and other equality-seeking organizations, emphasizing their improper reliance on unproven social facts and social science research. I argue that this decision departs from the generous approach to public interest interventions sanctioned by the federal and other Canadian courts. More importantly, the Court’s characterization of the intervener submissions as relying on “social science facts” that must be established through the evidentiary record diminishes the capacity of feminist interveners to effectively support equality and access to justice for marginalized groups in practice.","PeriodicalId":56232,"journal":{"name":"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ishaq v Canada: “Social Science Facts” in Feminist Interventions\",\"authors\":\"D. Phillips\",\"doi\":\"10.22329/WYAJ.V35I0.5271\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the role of social science in feminist intervener advocacy, focusing on the 2015 case ofIshaq v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). InIshaq, a Muslim woman challenged a Canadian government policy requiring her to remove her niqab while reciting the citizenship oath. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed several motions for intervention by feminist and other equality-seeking organizations, emphasizing their improper reliance on unproven social facts and social science research. I argue that this decision departs from the generous approach to public interest interventions sanctioned by the federal and other Canadian courts. More importantly, the Court’s characterization of the intervener submissions as relying on “social science facts” that must be established through the evidentiary record diminishes the capacity of feminist interveners to effectively support equality and access to justice for marginalized groups in practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":56232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22329/WYAJ.V35I0.5271\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22329/WYAJ.V35I0.5271","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文探讨了社会科学在女权主义干预者倡导中的作用,重点关注2015年沙克诉加拿大(公民和移民部长)一案。InIshaq,一名穆斯林妇女挑战了加拿大政府的一项政策,该政策要求她在宣读公民宣誓时摘下面纱。联邦上诉法院驳回了女权主义和其他寻求平等的组织的几项干预动议,强调他们对未经证实的社会事实和社会科学研究的不当依赖。我认为,这一决定背离了联邦和其他加拿大法院对公共利益干预的慷慨态度。更重要的是,法院将干预者提交的材料定性为依赖必须通过证据记录确定的“社会科学事实”,这削弱了女权主义干预者在实践中有效支持边缘化群体平等和诉诸司法的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ishaq v Canada: “Social Science Facts” in Feminist Interventions
This article examines the role of social science in feminist intervener advocacy, focusing on the 2015 case ofIshaq v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). InIshaq, a Muslim woman challenged a Canadian government policy requiring her to remove her niqab while reciting the citizenship oath. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed several motions for intervention by feminist and other equality-seeking organizations, emphasizing their improper reliance on unproven social facts and social science research. I argue that this decision departs from the generous approach to public interest interventions sanctioned by the federal and other Canadian courts. More importantly, the Court’s characterization of the intervener submissions as relying on “social science facts” that must be established through the evidentiary record diminishes the capacity of feminist interveners to effectively support equality and access to justice for marginalized groups in practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Triumph of the “Therapeutic” in Quebec Courts: Mental Health, Behavioural Reform and the Decline of Rights The Influence of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on Canadian Jurisprudence in the First Decade Since its Ratification Students in Name Only: Improving the Working Conditions of Articled Students Via the Application of the BC Employment Standards Act People With Disabilities Need Lawyers Too! A Ready-To-Use Plan for Law Schools to Educate Law Students to Effectively Serve the Legal Needs of Clients With Disabilities as Well as Clients Without Disabilities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1