Secular law will Violate Quebec's Own Charter of Rights & Freedoms

A lot has been said about the new secular bill proposed by the CAQ and backed by the vast majority of francophones in the province.
Premier Legault admitted that the bill would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and so to pre-empt any legal challenge, he promised to invoke the infamous 'notwithstanding clause,' which is in effect an escape clause allowing provinces to invoke legislation that contravenes certain charter dispositions for a period of five years.

"There is a clause that allows us to protect collective rights, to derogate from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of individuals. It has been done dozens of times before by several premiers, including Robert Bourassa. When we talk about protecting values, protecting our language, protecting what is different in Quebec, we must be ready to use it, "Premier Legault said in an impromptu press conference..." -Premier Legault

Section 33.

(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.

Now the Premier and almost all francophone commentators have been quick to support and defend the use of the notwithstanding clause as a legitimate tool, even while reminding everyone that Quebec never signed on to the Charter, which was in their opinion rammed down its throat unfairly by the majority in the ROC.
In effect, they argue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is illegitimate as far as Quebec is concerned, yet invoking its escape clause is legitimate.

But lost in the discussion is the fact that the province has its own Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms that the proposed law would also violate, something that absolutely nobody in political circles or the media is wont to point out.

If your reaction is "Whaaaa????" you are not alone. 

It is understandable that politicians are disinclined to discuss a potential violation of the tenants of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms because it is purely a creation of the Quebec government, brought to force by the National Assembly in 1975 under Premier Robert Bourassa.

....."the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms stands at the pinnacle of Quebec's legal system. Only the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enjoys priority over the Quebec charter." - Wikipedia

Enforceability

An illicit violation of the charter, whether by a private party or by the provincial Crown, may give rise to a cease-and-desist order and to compensation for damages. Punitive damages may be awarded in case of an intentional and unlawful violation.

But alas, like the Canadian Charter, the Quebec charter has it's own escape clause found in
Article 52.

52. No provision of any Act, even subsequent to the Charter, may derogate from sections 1 to 38, except so far as provided by those sections, unless such Act expressly states that it applies despite the Charter.

All the Quebec government has to do is to include a passage in any bill expressly excluding its disposition from the provisions of the Quebec charter, something it has done over thirty times since the Charter's inception.

Some of those derogations have been mostly uncontroversial, like excluding lawyers from small claims court or providing closed-door legal proceedings surrounding cases involving children or families or forcing doctors to break confidentiality to identify patients who clearly should not be driving.

But the majority of cases involve language and identity, where the invocation of the derogation is necessary because the restrictions placed on individuals rights are clearly a violation of both the Canadian and Quebec charters.
Today we in Quebec live under eleven different laws that have benefitted from the notwithstanding elements of the Canadian and/or Quebec charters.

In relation to Bill 21, the proposed secular law, when the Premier invokes the spectre of invoking the notwithstanding clause in regards to the Canadian Charter, he stands on firm ground with his constituency, the majority of francophones and especially the media who loathe the Canadian Charter which they never approved.
But the Premier's dishonesty abounds when he fails to make reference to Quebec's Charter of Rights as if it did not exist. The Premier, nor his party, nor the media ever, ever mention the fact that the new law will require the invocation of the notwithstanding element of the Quebec charter to be attached to the law.

What is the takeaway from all this?
Premier Legault, his party and the media are being grossly dishonest in omitting mention of the QUEBEC CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS of which Bill-22 will contravene.

The Quebec government will have to use notwithstanding elements to bypass both the Canadian AND the Quebec Charters, but only dare mention publicly the Canadian Charter.

A sin of omission.

Now one of the things that bothers me about the law and the discussion surrounding it is, WHY?
Why is somebody wearing a tiny kippah or a fashionable headscarf (not a full face veil) so dangerous?
I haven't heard a cogent or reasonable argument that didn't descend into racism.
At any rate, I found this pearl amongst the many comments in favour of the ban in the Journal de Montreal which more or less sums up the idiocy surrounding the law.

"I'm afraid that a veiled teacher is trying to influence my son with her religious beliefs. The CAQ removes her veil and presto.... I have nothing to fear.

I am a Muslim and I am afraid that the judge who wears a kippah is not neutral in his judgment. Take off the kippah and I'm now sure of his neutrality.

I don't trust a policeman wearing a turban. Get rid of the turban and presto... my confidence is restored.

Are we really that stupid?"