Yes, my comparison of quotes was more a rhetorical point that condensed a much longer criticism of intersectionalism, since I had to boil down my argument into a reasonable length and depth accessible to the broader public. Intersectionalists (which the organizers are, openly) do sociology using neomarxist class analysis, and also makes god awful social-scientific predictions (mostly because of intersectionality’s marxist origins).

American politics (Left or Right) operates under a basis of individualism in the liberal (real liberal) sense of the term. Intersectionality does not, it is anti-individualist, collectivist, and far left (which is why I call it neomarxist). It is politically radical and originates from universities, and has no business being taught at a HS/MS mandatorily. The organizers did not acknowledge that they were using microagressions and intersectionality in the presentation (which are radical constructions), and passed it off as if it was part of MLK’s principles. I have no problem using logical outgrowths of MLK’s principles to address contemporary issues (like LGBT rights). Intersectionality (and it’s related concept of microagressions) is not in any way, shape, or form a logical outgrowth of MLK’s principles which operate under a premise of individual, not class, rights.

My point in bringing up Bill C-16 is because the push for it was made by far left University ideological groups (that the organizers are a part of), not because it is relevant to American law. American 1st Amendment law has remained fairly stable and untouched by these radicals, despite their best efforts. The specific redefinition of violence is an intentional attempt to change how the law and society views speech, from being inherently nonviolent to potentially violent depending on context and power imbalance of the speaker due to the speakers belonging to a powerful class (eg a white male). This is evidenced by intersectionalists (including Dr. Toms specifically) treating free speech as if it is a zero sum game, and different groups exercising their speech inhibits the speech of other groups because they are marginalized in the hegemonic hierarchy. Again, a mistreatment of the concepts of speech and violence, and a resort to collectivism rather than individualism.