"His claim to fame is misunderstanding a discrimination law about transgenders."
If that was true, why did his university send him a warning letter that essentially confirms his concerns? He consulted a lawyer on the matter, he confirmed them as well.
Laws are subject to interpretation, bad laws are subject to bad interpretations. He considers bill C-16 a bad law. There no "one correct understanding" of a law, otherwise we wouldn't need lawyers and legal cases would be trivial matters.
The fact that you refer to bill C-16 simply as "a discrimination law about transgenders" shows that you poorly interpreted it yourself.
"Which is all you need to know about him."
I interpret that as a display of pure and utter ignorance - was that your intention?
If that was true, why did his university send him a warning letter that essentially confirms his concerns? He consulted a lawyer on the matter, he confirmed them as well.
Laws are subject to interpretation, bad laws are subject to bad interpretations. He considers bill C-16 a bad law. There no "one correct understanding" of a law, otherwise we wouldn't need lawyers and legal cases would be trivial matters.
The fact that you refer to bill C-16 simply as "a discrimination law about transgenders" shows that you poorly interpreted it yourself.
"Which is all you need to know about him."
I interpret that as a display of pure and utter ignorance - was that your intention?