To be specific, he wasn't criticising the use of preferred pronouns, he was criticising the Canadian government for forcing people to use these pronouns under penalty of law.

His protest was against government compelled speech.

Yeah, and it was a dumb protest because he misunderstood what the actual bill was about:

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...

Quoting the article:

" In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them."

Conveniently leaving out what happens if you don't pay a fine: you can end up in jail.

Another thing is they state things need to become really bad before you get prosecuted so it won't happen. Well that all depends on the political climate. Plenty examples in the world for that.

Lastly they mention other places in the law where speech is limited. But they point at places where certain speech is forbidden, not where it is compelled.

The entire article looks disingenuous.

No, he didn’t. He’s one of the few that looked into what it actually said and how it was to be interpreted. Everyone else misunderstood it, and that’s the problem. University lawyers agreed with him.

Yes, but spend some time watching him speak about preferred pronouns and it is clear he has inherent distaste for them.