And it was speculation..... If you actually read it it's not very conclusive, suggests that you would need to post a notice to accompany the document, and does not reference any concerns in particular, cites no references, and has no basis in reality.
Legal advice is always speculation. Either there's a precedent set that matches it exactly and the advice is concrete, or there's related precedent that leads the expert to his conclusions and it's a best guess, or they have no fucking idea and can only guess what a judge will say based on their experiences with related matters in court. Ultimately there are no guarantees. Judges can even break from precedent where they feel it's appropriate. It would have to go to court and have a judge make a decision. And again and again until we were really sure of much of anything. That's a potentially expensive and damaging way to get an answer.
For example, a Feminist group would consider a man they aren't attracted to giving them a compliment as harassment.
I doubt it.
Oh, well now I feel better! Derezo doubts it!
Clearly you haven't seen any of the "cat calling" videos made by the Feminists for YouTube.
As a general rule, this is sexual harassment. Just because it's often unpoliced doesn't mean you can sexually harass fellow contributors if you don't adopt this code.
I was unaware of the OHRC until you posted that link so I had to do some research. Dear, god, how the fuck are these people funded by the tax payers? Fuck them.
It's essentially a SJW arm of the government. Their description of harassment is mostly reasonable, except for...
Section 10 of the Code defines harassment as “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought to be known to be unwelcome.”
It's good that it specifies the part about "known or ought to be known to be unwelcome." However, note that this is entirely subjective. Different people will have different lines to cross at different times. And "unwelcome" is simply too permissive. Some people would find criticism of their ideas or work "unwelcome". That shouldn't make it harassment, but obviously if the definition is so vague anything is possible.
It's also worth noting the terminology used...
 "Vexatious” conduct or comment refers to actions or words that are annoying, distressing or agitating to the person experiencing them; for example, conduct has been found to be vexatious where the person complaining finds the comments or conduct worrisome, discomfiting and demeaning: see Streeter v. HR Technologies, 2009 HRTO 841 at para. 33.
"Annoying?" That's pretty open ended. Essentially, the definition is vague enough so that anything could be considered harassment. A SJW might insist that it's annoying that you wear socks and sandals. Maybe she gets very upset at the sight of it. That would technically fit the definition. If she makes this known to you are you required to not wear socks and sandals? Is it really causing her any harm? Is it really any of her business? The problem with "harassment" is that it's so incredibly subjective. I've already explained that. This doesn't change that.
Definition of "vex" said:
verb (used with object)
1. to irritate; annoy; provoke:
His noisy neighbors often vexed him.
2. to torment; trouble; distress; plague; worry:
Lack of money vexes many.
3. to discuss or debate (a subject, question, etc.) with vigor or at great length:
to vex a question endlessly without agreeing.
4. to disturb by motion; stir up; toss about.
5. to afflict with physical pain.
Holy Christ, lack of money!? That's a terribly ironic example for this particular case. Could a woman that works part time make a harassment claim because she is only earning part-time pay and it's distressing that she can't afford her bills?!
Fuck it, can I make that same claim working full-time because I'm struggling to pay mine?
Definition of "comfit" (not a typo) said:
verb (used with object)
1. to confuse and deject; disconcert:
to be discomfited by a question.
2. to frustrate the plans of; thwart; foil.
3. Archaic. to defeat utterly; rout:
The army was discomfited in every battle.
Wow, now confusing somebody or thwarting their plans fits the definition too! This is getting incredibly relaxed. Better be careful interacting with women and minority groups in the work place! Maybe it would be best to avoid them entirely!
The law states there is not.
The law is referring to legitimate harassment. Merely being called a name is not something the police will worry about. In fact, a man could call a woman a name in the street in front of a police officer and he probably wouldn't even flinch 9 times out of 10 (and that 10th time he was probably going to flinch anyway). Now if he threatens her or goes too far with it then the policeperson might intervene, depending on their own sensitivities, but there's a blurry, wide line between legal and illegal. Again it's subjective, but typically, the kinds of things that happen online that girls and women complain about are not criminal. We know this because alongside them are other girls and women and other minority group members that are enjoying in the fun.
Just because a person is anonymous does not mean you have the right to harass them Are you serious here?
Again, harassment is a serious charge. Merely calling somebody a name is not harassment. For example, when somebody posts an idea to the Linux kernel mailing list that Linus disagrees with it is not harassment when Linus replies back calling that person an idiot. It's simply communication. The idea is so bad that Linus is insulting your intelligence. It's not that big of a deal. Linus is not a criminal for it.
Again, not legally. You can make it public, but your address is private information until you explicitly share it with the public, such as by allowing companies to publish in the white pages.
I suspect that this is highly specific to jurisdictions. From what I can tell it's regulated how government and private companies use and distribute your private information, but not individuals. Nothing I've found defined your home address as private information. On the contrary, they all said it's public information.
Do they have any success stories with their intention? Has anyone actually been sued or is this just what you think could happen to some jerk on the internet?
I'm uncertain. "OpalGate" is what started it all and is essentially a precursor to the Contributor Covenant. It was created after the fact to presumably make this easier in the future, and in particular to make projects required to do it.
Here's a well reasoned discussion about this in relation to that:
Perhaps a better question is, have contributions to projects adopting the CoC changed since its adoption, and for the better or worse. I seriously doubt that much of anything has changed. If anything productivity has probably gone down with the distraction and divisive politics.
I think that a read through this issue thread for Ruby's adoption helps to signal their intention pretty clearly: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004. They aren't satisfied unless there's required "enforcement" built into the "contract". Fortunately the BDFL of Ruby appears to be a smart person so it doesn't sound like he wants to adopt anything of that nature for obvious reasons.
There's also this issue thread, which has since allegedly been deleted without notice by GitHub staff, in which a social justice warrior angry that his pull request with the Contributor Covenant was rejected accuses the project of discrimination, asserting that the project lead doesn't understand because he's white (despite not being white, with the SJW even retorting that he sure looks white...), ultimately ending with the duplicate issue being closed and the SJW attempting to intimidate him into compliance by reporting it to the non-profit organization that oversees development of the project:
They hadn't even adopted it yet, but already the BDFL was being threatened with it. I think that's all the evidence any reasonable person needs.