Sure, it’s a very subjective term. But if you read even the oldest laws which we take for granted, those concepts (such as “reasonableness”) are designed to be open to interpretation. If someone were to stand trial for this, it would be up to the Court to determine whether what they said satisfies the definition provided by the legislation, and that in and of itself is a lengthy process that is designed to be as just as possible, which I can say with some certainty because Canada’s rule of law is relatively good. There are absolutely merits to the policy considerations of this term but what statutory interpretation guidelines haven’t covered, the case law will eventually iron out. In any case, this is not the type of vague wording which triggers an Orwellian collapse.

Plus, if something goes wrong, I can guarantee there will be more than enough objection to it… people have a track record of leaping to the opportunity to defend freedom, even at the cost of common sense.