It'll be interesting to follow, especially with the common thread between this and what's happening in Ontario being the use of the nonwithstanding clause.

BUT whereas Ontario's usage should be challenged for infringing workers rights, it's not so clear-cut for Québec.

Everyone is worker, not everyone is a Québécois.

I'd adamently argue this is the most important differentiating fact between the two usages of the clause.

Anywas, back to it:

"However, in his decision, Blanchard exempted English schools from the religious symbols ban."

So it's applied where French is mainly used, ie in the schools and in the government in Québec.

And well since the Québécois are a nation within a united Canada, it's blurry.

Québécois have been a legally a nation for about ~16 years now.

So unless that motion by Harper was purely symbolic, meaning full of empty promises, isn't this for the Québécois to decide?