With respect, I think we all believe that these are well-intentioned amendments that are being brought forward for discussion, and we're receiving them in that vein, but on this particular one there is a concern about focusing in on, or making paramount, the perceptions of the individual, because they may in fact be unreasonable in the objective test.
The point here is to keep it open for both to be looked at, because as far as I am aware, the jurisprudence, over my years of practice, is that both elements are looked at in the analysis. There's how that person perceives it at the time, and all the other factors that are still here in the legislation and that in fact have been identified as we go through this; there's also the idea of an objective look at it, because there are people who might perceive a threat, while any of us sitting here would think that it was unreasonable to perceive a threat in those circumstances.
We're trying to keep that balance there.