Before I looked up the Canadian code, I read Peterson's message from the UvA venue. The substance of it is incoherent and appears primarily to convey his aesthetic judgment about Dutch protesters' agitation for a remedy to his speech, which they agree is offensive to them.

The letter from UvA "employees and ... student organizations" --translated from Dutch to English and purportedly quoted in part by Peterson--appears incoherent, too, because this content does not specify UvA rights and responsibilities of any and all persons, required by laws of the Netherlands.

Do you see where Peterson's rhetorical appeal to a Canadian act, C-16, is headed? Nowhere. It is unreasonable, irrational, incoherent. Consider the limitations of his implied freedom from interdiction, or "rights," while resident in the Netherlands.

First, jurisdictional authority (NE, EU, statutes and case law).
Second, statutory (not colloquial) definition of a "hate speech" act.
Third, provisional rights, protections, and criminal penalty.
Fourth, exclusions, if any, by "protected class" of persons.
Fifth, and most important, exclusive use, thereby prohibition, of propaganda by government.

In the first instance, no expert legal opinion is needed to ferret Peterson's ignorance of the foregoing or his condition as an employee of the government of the Netherlands and appropriate law enforcement, when the people have demanded of government a remedy to his ignorance. And that remedy, foremos is the injunction of "his" exclusive freedom. Nadie es libre.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.