Okay, well, maybe we'll put it in capital letters and maybe judges will pay more heed to it.
Your brief is very well done. I just honed in on one part, where you “believe that it is essential to maintain the subjective element in self-defence, an element that has been affirmed in decades of case law”. I agree with that statement. But when I read through Bill C-26, I can't find any fear or any legitimacy for any fear that the subjective element in self-defence would be removed. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It appears to me that the subjective element is reinforced where the legislation uses deliberate language, like “they believe on reasonable grounds” in proposed paragraph 34(1)(a) and in proposed paragraph 34(1)(c) that “the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances”.
It appears to me that the word “reasonable” reinforces the common-law importance of subjective response with respect to the actions of the person. I was wondering if you have comment or if you agree or disagree with my assessment.