It wasn’t in the particular article that came up at the start of this chapter of the discussion. I do remember something about it from last year or whenever, but not the details.
Anyway, we have an unsubstantiated claim that it was these complaints that drove two (or three?) businesses to failure, no details on how.
Of course it’s not desirable, but what are you going to do? Any law can be abused through false accusations. It’s not a new thing. If you abolish every law that’s susceptible to abuse, that means you abolish every law, period.
If you abolish human rights tribunals, as I said, people will still make legal complaints, including frivolous ones, and they will probably take longer (on average) to resolve. Can the system be improved? Of course it can, but blaming one particular law that didn’t actually criminalize anyone’s behavior is not going to fix anything.
What, exactly, will never happen? JP and his fans paint a picture of Canada filled with pronoun police, pronoun prisoners in pronoun gulags, and so on. What actually happened is that one person (apparently a fan of Yellow Peril, an earlier version of the “Great Replacement”, i.e. not your average leftista) filed a bunch of frivolous complaints and lost. If the particular law she invoked didn’t exist, she could still file frivolous complaints one way or another, and she would still lose. What are you going to do, go back to hand-to-hand combat to settle disputes? Oh right, you said in the other thread that you don’t want that. So you don’t want law, but you do want law. It’s a paradox. 
You speak as if jurisprudence didn’t exist. This is not actually new. It’s just that one category has been added to existing legislation that bans discrimination and hate speech. The courts have been over these things before. There are books about them. JP wants you to think it’s a revolutionary topsy-turvy thing. It’s not.
How about that line quoted earlier where JP refers to the trans rights movement as a “murderous ideology”? We were talking about whether or not he’s lied. (He said in another interview that “everyone lies” but he’s “certainly more careful about it now”.) Is it really a lie, or is it more accurately described as a delusion?
What he means, of course, is that the trans rights movement is a Communist Conspiracy™, just like secularism, labor unions, homosexuality, the Beatles, and many other things that have somehow not managed to destroy civilization.
I won’t claim to have a window into his soul, but I think it’s fair to say he has some kind of issue here, probably delusional (rather than mendacious), and probably made worse by his chronic anxiety and depression.
To be clear, BD, I do not condone frivolous legal complaints. What I have a problem with is this idea that the law is tyrannical because it inconveniences a few people. It’s like those extreme libertarian arguments that if taken to their logical conclusion would result in anarchy (which wouldn’t hold anyway because it’s a paradox, so you would end up with a government after all, and probably not better than the one you went to such trouble to get rid of).
Yes, governments do bad things, but we’re better off having a mediocre government than having none at all. Yes, laws get misused, but we’re better off having a mediocre legal system than none at all.
Andrew is on record saying things to the effect of most people don’t know how to handle money, if you give them a pile of money they’ll be broke within a year and so on. And whatever I think of his own business savvy (the discussion was actually about Trump’s business savvy and the number of times he’s declared bankruptcy throughout his life), I can’t say he’s 100% wrong. Have you never seen a badly run business? Have you never worked for one? Have you never wondered how in the hell a business managed to keep going for so long despite being run by such incompetent people?
I don’t know the people who owned and operated those two or three businesses that failed (compared to the 14 or 15 other businesses that didn’t fail despite being targeted). I don’t know how smart they are or aren’t. But I do know that shit happens in life, it’s been happening since long before the pronoun wars, it’s going to keep happening long after the pronoun wars are over, and if you’re not prepared for shit in general, you really shouldn’t take on the responsibility of running a business and having other people depend on you for their livelihood.
Again, the HRC is not tyrannizing the business community or immigrants. It’s there to get legal complaints about discrimination and hate speech sorted out faster than they would be in the regular court system. If you have evidence that HRC’s themselves are the problem, go ahead and share it. I don’t see that here.
But again, how would you have it? Add more steps to the complaint process? Meanwhile they’re trying to reduce steps in the regular courts to save time and avoid having cases thrown out due to delays. Yes, I agree that the system needs help, but that’s a much bigger problem than one person’s frivolous testicle complaints.
You’re asking for something unrealistic. You can dress up a frivolous complaint with irrelevant details to make it look serious. The clerk receiving it can’t just reject it on the spot if all the i’s are dotted.
True story: once upon a time (like 60 years ago) in the capital city of a certain other country, there was a peculiar woman who kept filing complaints about some nasty people using brain implants to spy on her. Every single person in the court knew she was crazy and knew she was going to lose every single time because she couldn’t prove her claims, but she always had all the paperwork in order and followed the proper procedures, so the consensus was, fine, let her have her day in court, and another day, and as many days as necessary, subject to the court schedule and all the usual rules. Equal treatment, even for crazies. 
And somehow that country is still standing and doing reasonably well. The system did work and still does, not perfectly, and certainly not in a Minority Report catch-them-before-they-do-anything way, but well enough.
Yes Canada can and should do better, but again, this one law is not the problem.
Because it’s a country that values freedom of speech. It’s the country of R v Zundel, among other things. Again, this law is not really new, it’s just building on existing law, which goes way, way back. These claims of the the sky falling need to be examined in context.
Well, calling people adherents of a “murderous ideology” isn’t exactly endearing. 
JP isn’t classy enough for you?
I mean, really Andrew, your lack of loyalty to your guru is shameful. 
True. It works for some people – ask the Inuit.
Please enlighten me. 