So he more or less had to create a controversy out of nothing. The great majority of people consider the question a matter of courtesy and hold no strong feelings.
This is a pretty low resolution summary of their correspondence. It’s also pretty easy to argue that his behavior is better described as refusing to play the victim. For him, the loss of his rights is more impactful than the consequences of not complying, so he refused to play a part in the quiet loss of his rights.
From my understanding, it is purely the attempt to compel behavior from him that is his issue.
Well, this is now enshrined in Canadian law, so it doesn't matter much what the great majority of people feel. It only matters how courts will interpret the law.
Well, something is enshrined in Canadian law, but the heat of the debate over whether what Peterson claims Bill C-16 does is a desirable thing for a law to do sometimes obscures the fact that people—including people who are experts in law, which Peterson is not—have challenged his characterization of what the law actually does.