Mr. Matas, you referred to the refutation of the nine reasons the Minister of Justice gave for dropping section 176. You went into some detail.
I want to ask you an interpretation question. Section 176(2) says, “Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose...”.
In your opinion, what can be counted into that? What is counted as a “moral, social or benevolent purpose”? There were some witnesses who spoke before about this. I have a B.C. Humanist Association blog here, and I used it in some of my arguments during the debate in the House I had with Mr. Mendicino on this bill. They said it could potentially protect humanist associations and their benevolent meetings. The Kiwanis Club came to me and asked if this would protect them as well.