legislation designed to discourage strategic lawsuits against public participation (para. 58). [171] Moreover, the promotion of equality is not one of the core values underpinning freedom of expression (i.e., the search for truth, participation in social and political decision making, and diversity in forms of self-fulfillment and human flourishing) (Keegstra, at p. 728; Irwin Toy, at p. 976). Assigning any role to the promotion of equality in the assessment of the public interest in protecting expression goes against the doctrine of content neutrality embraced by this Court in its jurisprudence on s. 2(b) of the Charter (see, e.g., Irwin Toy, at p. 968; Keegstra, at p. 729; R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731, at pp. 753-58). The more we evaluate the worthiness of expression in light of values unrelated to freedom of expression, the further we move from content neutrality. More importantly, the promotion of equality is in no way a factor tethered to the text of s. 4(2)(b) of the PPPA and, for this reason alone, is not a relevant factor in the public interest weighing exercise (Pointes, at para. 80). [172] Ultimately, both Mr. Hansman and Mr. Neufeld had the right to express themselves on SOGI 123. It may be that Mr. Neufeld’s statements crossed the line and that he breached the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210, but that is for the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to decide following a hearing on the merits of the complaints filed against Mr. Neufeld. 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) (“SLAPPs”); “the protection of individual reputation and freedom of expression” are