again....

in the united states, you have something called the hatch amendment act that bans political activity while employed in the public sector. we have something similar to this in canada, which allows for reasonable restrictions on free expression in order to ensure that public servants are actually acting in the public will, and are not being directed by outside institutions like political parties or, in this case, religious institutions.

i have a hard time distinguishing between a church and a political party, but that opens up another can of worms - i think churches should be treated as political entities under the law, and taxed as such, as well. removing the taxation exemption from religious institutions would be an excellent companion law, to really get the point across.

if you can't come to work without taking your scarf off, you're demonstrating a conflict of interest. and, the courts are actually pretty clear on the point - this is well within the confines of the law on both sides of the border, with little ambiguity around it.

this law would survive a charter challenge.

that said, i think the government made a big error in invoking s. 33 and it may lead to it's unraveling, in the end. there may be specific sections that are too broad, and in some ways it may not be broad enough. the court system should be brought in to help make the law better, not shunned as a threat to it's existence.

but, if you're in america, you want to think of it basically as a corollary of the hatch amendment act. that's how quebeckers are actually approaching it: they want a firewall between religion and government.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/07/quebec-bans-religious-symbols/593998/