If you don't mind, I'm going to take it. I want to ask Ms. Segal a question.
Ms. Segal, I'm in complete agreement that this should not be sexual assault law. I'm in complete agreement that we need to radically change the way that we frame this. Where I have difficulty.... Pretty much each and every person who has come before the committee has said that there has to be both transmission and the intention to transmit.
I have great difficulty. You're the first witness who has mentioned recklessness. I'm not sure whether it's recklessness or wilful blindness, but there has to be something beyond an intention to transmit. An example would be in the case of two partners where one partner specifically asks the other, “Do you have any STDs?” and the other person lies. To me, that's at a standard where, if there's transmission, then there should be legal consequences, even if there was no intention to do so.
Can you talk about where LEAF is with regard to recklessness and why you chose recklessness as the standard?