Of course, that depends on the assumption that it's redundant. We've heard from my colleagues beside me that it's not redundant because it penalizes some forms of protest.
Let's assume it is redundant, that you can get anything in the Criminal Code in some other way. I think there is a value in specifics, saying a general statement means specifically this. It's a warning. It's information. It's advice. It's guides behaviour.
As we heard before, religious services have used it as specific warning. You can't do this. There's always room for debate with generalities by repealing the provision. What you do is, you give an argument to the defence that the law has changed, which may be defeated in the end, but why give them the argument in the first place?
I would say that would be lost.