|
|
May 18, 2007
It's not a capital to Canada
Jerusalem's passport status gets re-examined by federal court.
REBECA KUROPATWA
Eliyahu Yoshua Veffer was born in Jerusalem and is now living in
Toronto. In 2004, when he was 17 years old, he took the minister
of foreign affairs to the Federal Court of Canada over the status
of Jerusalem on Canadian passports.
His aim was to have "Jerusalem, Israel" put in place of
just "Jerusalem" on his passport, under "place of
birth." In January 2005, David Matas, senior legal counsel
for B'nai Brith Canada and Veffer's lawyer, brought the case before
Justice Konrad von Finckenstein without success. The court did not
rule in his favor, noting that Canada does not recognize Jerusalem
as being the sovereign city of either Israelis or Palestinians.
On Tuesday, May 8, 2007, the Federal Court of Appeal in Winnipeg
heard arguments from Matas, appealing the lower court's decision.
The appeal took place in Winnipeg for the expediency and convenience
of Veffer's lawyer. A three-judge panel heard the appeal.
Sharlene Telles-Langdon, lawyer for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
began her address to the panel of judges by saying, "The status
of Jerusalem is key to this case and is one of the most sensitive
questions in today's world. To say otherwise is to ignore the violence
in the Middle East for the last 50 to 60 years."
She added that the Canadian policy is to make no statement on the
status of Jerusalem. And the international community doesn't recognize
Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, "So you can't just put
whatever you want on your passport. As things stand, nothing is
being said about Mr. Veffer's religion, just his geopolitical place
of birth."
Until there is peace and agreement on the sovereignty of Jerusalem,
this passport law cannot be changed, said Telles-Langdon.
The status of Jerusalem is significant to each of the three faiths,
she continued. "The first court decided to give equal rights
to all three – Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Non-Jewish
parties must be considered. There should not be special attention
paid to Mr. Veffer just because he is Jewish. Canada cannot show
preference to any particular faith."
Matas said that discrimination and religion are always "thorny
issues. Mr. Veffer's personal opinion is that Jerusalem is the capital
of Israel. He is entitled to his rights to equality and freedom
of religion, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The
Government of Canada is denying him the truth of who he is. Therefore,
he is the victim of discrimination."
Jerusalem is the exception to the rule, conveyed Matas. "The
only thing being asked of this court is that it not make Jerusalem
the exception. There are several points that are not an issue in
this case, and that the judges are not being asked to rule on. These
are Israel in law, any religion and the location of the capital
of Israel. It is not the role of the court to say where Judaism
should or should not stand regarding the issue of Israel."
The first federal court ruled that there was no discrimination against
Veffer, because passports are silent to religion. "But my client
has strong beliefs," said Matas. "The policy affects him
by impact."
The government stated that a passport is a means of intergovernmental
communication and nothing more. But, Matas argued, "It is a
common form of identity – not just a case of one branch of
the government sending a communication to another. The notion that
the government can dictate who you are or what your identity is,
is not acceptable, even if it is a government document."
Freedom of religion is all about allowing people to make different
choices, said Matas. "In this case, that would be [the choice]
of those who live or who were born in Jerusalem. The law must take
into account the circumstances of the individual. Mr. Veffer has
a right to preserve his identity. Freedom of religion and equality
are intertwined. We are not asking the Government of Canada to endorse
his choice – only to recognize it."
The panel of judges have reserved their decision. Matas estimated
that it could be at least three months before a decision is given.
Telles-Langdon requested that, if the court finds in Veffer's favor,
that a year passes before the decision goes into effect. Matas said
this is unnecessary, as this is a simple task that is long overdue.
Rebeca Kuropatwa is a Winnipeg freelance writer.
^TOP
|
|
