Your point is that under proposed paragraph 29(2)(b) of our amendment, a person demonstrating “unwillingness or inability” may capture an individual who has a mental difficulty or a deficiency that way. It may, and I can't deny that. Obviously this term would be open for the court to determine when it should or shouldn't apply. Remember, this would only say that the presumption would be set aside. It wouldn't necessarily mean that the court would have to hold the person, so if it were strictly an issue of a mental deficiency that could be addressed in other ways, I think the other provisions of the act would—
On March 7th, 2011. See this statement in context.