unfortunately, our constitution also has a veto in it and, while i support the law, i don't like that quebec wants to use the veto for this purpose. to me, that's the more substantive issue here, the trivialization of the notwithstanding clause.
my take on this is that hijabs should actually be banned under the public service employment act, and this extra layer of law is superfluous (at least insofar as it applies to federal workers). but, the right precedents to cite are the precedents related to the "political activities" section of the public service employment act. the crux of my argument is that overt displays of religion are a form of political propaganda, rather than some kind of intrinsic belief, or something. and, that's just secularism taken to a post-modernist next level: i don't even accept that religion is a valid idea. your church is just a political group, and should legally be treated the same way that we treat a political party. no woo about religion in law, please - let's be strictly rational about this and interpret a church or a mosque as what it is....and membership in a religion as what it is, too.
i think that this argument would be successful, in court.
but, the government of quebec does not appear to have taken up my arguments on this point, so i don't expect the ruling to have anything to do with it. they're insistent on arguing for the concept of sovereignty, instead, and i suspect that they'll get it - but i don't like how they're doing it.
of course, quebec has a charter as well, and these arguments would not be effective at a lower court. those who oppose the ban may have made a tactical error in going to the supreme court and letting quebec cry "anglo domination!" rather than a local court, where their issues could be more directly considered. too late now...
so, that's what i'd expect - yes, it's unconstitutional, but they used the veto, and tough titties. the subtlety in the ruling will likely lie in whether they do an oakes test or not, and what it looks like, and i'm going to hold off on that because we have a relatively new justice. i would not expect mclachlan to save the law via an oakes test, or at least not via the arguments the government is using (and, to be clear - the government doesn't care about this, it's just pushing the point about autonomy). this new guy is decidedly less libertarian, and he might deliver a ruling that seems a little uncanadian to most people that grew up with mclachlan leading the way.
and, that's something we're going to have to get our head around - trudeau shifted the court dramatically to the right, and doesn't seem to fully understand it. he may be more upset by the ruling than anybody, tomorrow.
so, i expect the law to stand via the veto, and i suspect it'll stand via the oakes test as well, but i'm less confident about the second point.