Quebec's National Assembly continues, focus shifts to religious symbols bill

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.

In Canada, everyone must wear helmets when operating a motorcycle; riders who wore turbans were exempt from this rule. A bill was proposed to ratify the exemption, ppl cited discrimination and the bill was shot down.

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.