i'm more opposed to the use of the notwithstanding clause than i am to the legislation itself; i think this is an issue that the courts should be dealing with, as it is fundamentally about individual rights. by invoking the notwithstanding clause, the government is likely to turn people that are indifferent to this or are even potential allies into active opponents.

but, i've posted my views about this here, previously. i'm not actually opposed to a ban on religious symbols by public employees, but i would insist it be applied across the board - which would mean removing the crucifix from the assembly, as well. my sympathies here are not towards "religious freedom" (which i consider to be a contradiction in terms), but towards the right to avoid religion and towards secularism in government, in general. while private practice is a different issue, i don't think i should have to tolerate religious symbols being shoved in my face when i go to get my health card renewed - these are things that should be kept out of public spaces, so as to not infringe upon the rights of the non-believing.

but, these laws are of course tricky, and it is easy to get the balance of them wrong; something that is designed to protect the rights of non-believers should not too drastically infringe upon the rights of others. it is not likely that the legislature is going to find this balance without some back and forth from the judiciary.

so, i would call on legault and his party to remove the invocation of the clause from the legislation, and allow the courts to carry through with their constitutionally enshrined role in the process.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/secularism-quebec-bill-22-1.5076196