Not really, he made a fool of himself by saying that I didn't understand security of person, when in fact I was pretty much quoting directly from the controlling decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. He wrote that in reply to a post of mine that was pretty much word for word copied from the controlling Supreme Court of Canada decision. I just replaced "abortion" with "have sex", and then he replied to that saying it was nonsense. So he's pretty clearly put himself in direct opposition to Canada's Supreme Court at this point--his position isn't looking so good here. In fact, he did himself in by narrowly focusing on the human rights code, and not stepping back to see if the whole thing passed the laugh test.
At least though in his narrow focus on the irrelevant human rights code he was making some credible points about that, before the whole rug got pulled out from under him by R v Morgentaler.
But you... you've got nothing! You really don't have any clue why you think the things you do, you make stuff up. You wrote that SP's aren't free people and don't really have rights and other completely ridiculous thing that show you to be a man brimming with hatred towards women, or at least towards SP's. Now I know you've tried to back-pedal away from that one since, just, not very convincingly.
Time to let go babypowder, if you want to stick around and cheer on others--OK--but you really haven't got much more to add here, until you go out and educate yourself a little. I suggest reading R v Morgentaler, it's a good start, the SCC wrote it quite clearly and it's not that hard to read. Google it!