this is in fact very much like the "muslim travel ban", which the media yelled about for years, before the court tossed out on it's ear, because it was no such thing - and which i told you from the start would happen.

while it may be true that s. 28 would override s. 33., there is essentially no possibility that the court is going to accept that argument, as the law is clearly focused on removing religious people from positions of authority regardless of their gender, rather than targetting anybody by their gender. the more successful argument will work in the other direction: rather than make the argument that a beard is a religious symbol and the legislation is discriminatory (which is absurd on it's face), they should be arguing that there isn't anything inherently religious about wearing a scarf (while conceding that showing up to work in a niqab is obviously religious in intent and character). and, it isn't as though there aren't equivalent clothing requirements for men, or that these aren't equally prohibited.

while an argument of this nature may be politically successful - as we've seen recently in the united states - it is nothing more or less than a conspiracy theory, when applied in a legal context. the court isn't there to determine what the legislators are secretly thinking in their minds, but to determine what the law states, literally - and it is clearly not gendered in enactment, nor do i think it is intended to be.

but, again - this is the kind of vacuous speculation that you unleash when you don't allow the court to adjudicate.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-experts-say-there-are-ways-to-overturn-quebecs-secularism-bill/