I have a question.
I am in favour of the amendment, there is no problem. On the other hand, I have some questions. You are adding the proposed subsection 279.04(2)(a), which says "used or threatened to used violence" to introduce the concept of "force", or of "another form of coercion". Violence and force are two different concepts.
Do you use the word "force" in a very general sense? I refer to some comments from one of my colleagues here: it is not necessarily a violent act. Is it just to prevent differing interpretations and start playing with words? Is the goal really to extend as much as possible the meaning of that word? I am only trying to understand the idea behind the amendment.