Excuse me for interrupting, Ms. Levman, but time is ticking.
The reasonableness test you're talking about is whether it's reasonable to expect, given the context, that it would be possible for someone to lead their partner to believe that their safety is at stake. There's no doubt about it. If I tell my partner to take her medication or I'll kill myself, I say it because I think it will have an effect on her. So it's perfectly reasonable, and I can't deny it, for me to expect that, in this context, she'll think my safety is at risk.
However, the words that the subamendment seeks to add to the wording will make it possible to assess whether the action was taken with reasonable cause. This is a kind of safety net that we are setting up. In a case where, even if it was entirely reasonable to expect that an individual's behaviour would lead another person to believe that their safety was in danger, if the court finds that behaviour to be based on reasonable cause, shouldn't that person be exempted from an offence? That's another layer of proof, to use your expression.