"Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular."
that still isn't compelled speech. it's just ensuring that there are consequences to discrimination against a protected class of people
like i said before, the only situation where it might be compelled speech (depending on how you view the expanded list of neutral pronouns), is undecided. don't mistake me for saying that trans people shouldn't be addressed by their proper pronouns. they don't even mention non-binary or gender nonconforming so it's not something that you can be entirely sure of.
unless court cases related to discrimination against transgender peop are handled drastically differently from cases related to discrimination against other protected groups (they won't be), OR other court cases related to said discrimination fall into the realm of compelled speech (they don't), there's no legitimate reason to believe that this will be the case. Jordan Peterson's points were nothing but fear-mongering
i'm talking about non-binary people that aren't trans and decide to use an unusual pronoun and i don't understand why you're purposely ignoring that fact but because we occupy the same ideological ground i'm just going to let it go ---
let's positive thinking [this post tastes like lunch]