[HeWhoLurksLate]

   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.

Source: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/notwithsta...

It's basically a way to get stuff through without repercussion, but its hard to do.

Seems suspicious that they're including it. My question is: What does it gain them?

[gpm]

> What does it gain them?

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.

[Majromax]

> 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.