A bit convoluted, don't you think?
"conduct .... that you appear to acknowledge will be in violation".
Kind of echoing Peterson's own statement framing the law as an assault on his freedom.
I'd say it is fair comment, and that it is shorthand for accusing him of grandstanding. While nothing he has done is likely actionable, I think he is violating the spirit of the law, and I think that is exactly what he wants to do.
I think we already went around this a couple of times, and the prevailing opinion (do I need to pull the quotes again?) is that there is very little if anything the university can do to enforce that opinion.
No one has made a legal complaint against him. I have already said that if he wants to put himself against the law he can certainly do that. If that is what he is gunning for can he honestly consider himself its victim here?