> The Parliament of Canada, a provincial legislature or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily ("notwithstanding") countermanding sections of the Charter, thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time. This is done by including a section in the law clearly specifying which rights have been overridden. A simple majority vote in any of Canada's 14 jurisdictions may suspend the core rights of the Charter.
Basically, imagine if states could pass temporary laws that were not allowed to be challenged as unconstitutional. For some reason, Canada allows that.
> Basically, imagine if states could pass temporary laws that were not allowed to be challenged as unconstitutional. For some reason, Canada allows that.
One argument in favour is that it preserves the ability to pass emergency acts without contorting the definition of 'rights'.
As a negative example, look at current US rhetoric regarding a "national emergency" over immigration. That is being used to justify acts that might under other circumstances be unconstitutional, but the only way the courts can allow it is to also allow broad, ad-hoc "national security" exceptions to constitutional rights.
If the US had something similar to the notwithstanding clause, the line of authority would be much clearer. An act that would otherwise be unconstitutional can still pass and become effective if the elected government certifies the need, on a temporary basis.
While this clause (and similar language in s.1 of the Charter, which states that rights are guaranteed to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.") ostensibly weakens the strength of rights in Canada, I believe that this presence invites courts to paradoxically take a stronger view of rights on a day-to-day basis. In particular, they're much more likely to truly inquire whether government actions are reasonable.
Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, known as the
notwithstanding clause, is part of the Constitution of Canada. Also
known as the override clause, Section 33 allows federal, provincial
or territorial governments to temporarily override, or bypass,
certain Charter rights. Section 33 overrides can last only five years,
when they are subject to renewal. Although the clause is available to
governments, its use is politically difficult and therefore rare. It
is known colloquially as the “nuclear option,” because its use is
considered extremely severe. Since the Constitution was patriated in
1982, the clause has been used only a handful of times by various
provinces. The federal government has never
invoked the notwithstanding clause.
This law almost certainly violates the charter IMO (except for the notwithstanding clause) because of freedom of religion and expression. What it gains them is the ability to pass this law without it being overturned. I'd say it's completely in character for Quebec to pass a law like this with no ulterior motives except what's on the box - preventing civil servants from wearing religious symbols.
Even if you think it almost certainly doesn't violate the charter, it gains them the ability to pass this law without wasting tons of money on lawsuits, and having people who object to it also waste tons of money on lawsuits.
> I'd say it's completely in character for Quebec to pass a law like this with no ulterior motives except what's on the box - preventing civil servants from wearing religious symbols.
Additionally, Québec is the province in Canada with the strongest sense of a unique cultural identity. It is the Francophone-majority province in an English-majority Canada, and it has a long history of using public policy to advocate in favour of its particular group identity.
In turn, they wish to prevent civil servants from wearing religious symbols in order to enforce a form of laïcité in the public face of the province, as a role model of what Québec "should" be like. Advocates are obviously concerned that this religious-symbol ban will drift downwards to affect people who seek to use government services as well.
An opt out clause that provinces have that allows them to prioritize cultural aspects higher than the constitution.
We have a situation where a very controlling and supervisory religion does not want to allow any reformation or 'backsliding' in their adherence. That means in speech and dress they must conform to their religion - even though many of the younger ones dearly want to reform and/or 'backslide'.
The priovince says while you work for us and are paid for us, you must dress like us. Do what you like at home/in private. A lot of Canadians do not want to deal with masked people in provincial offices or in the photo on their drivers licence or whatever, when those same Canadian are denied the ability to wear a mask. I have to admit that having a drivers licence of a masked women does not meet identification reality for that or for health or drug benefits. In fact, there have been many cases of people borrowing health(Free medical care cards in Canada) cards to use for non residents.
Added to that is the large group of young muslims who want reformation and to shake islam off their boots.
> The Parliament of Canada, a provincial legislature or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily ("notwithstanding") countermanding sections of the Charter, thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time. This is done by including a section in the law clearly specifying which rights have been overridden. A simple majority vote in any of Canada's 14 jurisdictions may suspend the core rights of the Charter.
Basically, imagine if states could pass temporary laws that were not allowed to be challenged as unconstitutional. For some reason, Canada allows that.