Jedwab: Debate made more divisive by use of notwithstanding clause

Denial of recourse to domestic courts leads to civil disobedience and has a negative impact on social harmony, Jack Jedwab says.

https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-debate-made-more-divisive-by-use-of-notwithstanding-clause
Upholding the principles of diversity and inclusion in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada requires the defence of the freedoms that are enshrined in the Quebec and Canadian charters of rights. Paradoxically, in Quebec, it’s the Ministry of Immigration, Diversity and Inclusion that is failing to uphold minority rights with its presentation of Bill 21, which bans the wearing of religious signs by designated persons in positions of government authority.
A yet further paradox sees our minister responsible for inclusion adding a notwithstanding clause in Bill 21 to curtail legitimate recourse to the courts on the part of those directly affected by the legislation and/or others that are concerned over further possible infringements on freedom of religion as well as other charter rights. Although the minister insists that there is no rights violation in Bill 21, no legal opinion has been offered to that effect. It seems entirely  reasonable for Quebecers to conclude that the presence of the notwithstanding clause in the bill is an admission on the part of the government that the ban does indeed infringe on freedom of religion.
Even though it is made available to legislators, the notwithstanding clause should only be used in the event of an urgent threat to social harmony. To date no one has offered any meaningful evidence of any such threat emanating from teachers wearing hijabs, kippahs or crosses. And given the lack of police, judges and prison officials wearing religious signs, the legislation would, at best, address an imagined threat.