They ' re still very balanced with them . If anything they fall off hard . <| sep |> I ' m sorry , i don ' t quite get the reason you provide that link . <| sep |> Before C 16 , restrictions on speech were about prohibiting things based on harm eg yelling fire in a crowded theatre since it can cause a stampede death . Peterson ' s argument is that the bill can be used to require people to use certain words . If he ' s correct , that ' s a rather alarming legal precedent to set . That ' s the crux of his argument . I can ' t tell you if he ' s right or wrong . But considering this whole thing came about because he ' s already in hot water because of his refusal to use pronouns such as xerxim , I ' d say his arguments have merit . <| sep |> Found out !