text: It is equivocal. for instance, the term 'hate' with regard to hate speech does not take the broadest possible interpretation of the word 'hate'. He goes on to talk about passionate disagreement and how things can get heated, but this is not significantly relevant to Canadian speech laws which are not criminalizing emotions. The speech statutes deal with, as I've stated, the promotion of genocide, and propaganda which promotes violence or discrimination against -- in this case -- transgender people. And as stated, there is existing court history for what qualifies. 
  
  He talks about how some of the things he teaches may become illegal. Defences against 319 in the criminal code include that the statements made are true, an opinion on or based on a religious opinion, or a statement regarding a matter of public interest believed to be true by the speaker. So what is it he intends to say which fails those defences and violates section 319? Again, there is case history for the threshold.