I'm not doubting that they are, and maybe they have greater competence than I have. What I have attempted to get at here is simply the question that reasonable people at this stage, when considering legislation, will assess the legislation in a certain way. When I say that the legislation is not manifestly unconstitutional and is capable of a credible and reasoned defence, I am saying that if the government presses ahead with the legislation, as it is determined to do, it will have a good case to present in court, and the arguments that will be presented are capable of being accepted by the courts.
To address your larger questions about section 9, section 7, and the others, this is the history of dangerous offender legislation. If we look at Lyons, which again is the fountain, the locus classicus in this area, you will find not only sections 7 and 9; you'll find sections 11 and 12 of the charter being invoked and dealt with quite comprehensively and extensively in the course of the challenge to what was then relatively new dangerous offender legislation.