These are somewhat flexible, as I said in my answer to some of the questions. We didn't want to confine the list and say that's it, this is the list, because the first argument would be, of course, if someone is charged, that they didn't come within the definition of paragraph 34(1)(h) and therefore this defence is not open to them. It may be circumstances that haven't been contemplated yet in jurisprudence or situations that may develop in the future that put it into a slightly different context.
We deal with this all the time. For instance, if you look at the Criminal Code, it refers to telephones. As you know, that's not the only way of communicating anymore. If you sat down 45 years ago, basically that was it—and telegrams and all that. We know that people don't send telegrams to each other anymore, that there are hundreds of ways of communicating, and not necessarily by telephone.
I think we're better off if we write the Criminal Code in a way that doesn't confine it to what is reasonable or what may take place in the future. You'd probably agree with me if on this list there were other legitimate reasons why an individual was using force to protect themselves. You'd say that it's reasonable, but we wouldn't want to get caught by the fact that they only proposed a closed list back in 2012 when they wrote this particular section of the Criminal Code.