yeah. i'm going to file a s. 2 as well.

this is kind of awkward, but i think it's necessary due to the initial definition of "harassment" that was provided to me by the cop. the truth is that, in canada, which has a single federal criminal code and no provincial codes, harassment has a stronger wording and burden than many jurisdictions in the united states - in canada you have to explicitly show a genuine basis of fear. it is not enough to simply be annoyed, or simply be offended, there is a burden on the crown to show the potential for concrete harm. and, it is for that reason that i've demonstrated such a high degree of confidence - i know that these charges are premised upon an error of law, and i'm consequently the one dealing with actual harassment, here.

however, in the united states, harassment laws that explicitly included the term "annoy" have been struck down as unconstitutional, under a 2011 ruling.

so, i'm in a weird situation where i'm fighting against an error in law that is rooted in an american understanding of "harassment" that has been ruled unconstitutional in america, and never existed in canada in the first place - but that one would expect would be struck down as unconstitutional here, too, if such a law did exist. so, if i was arrested for being annoying under what is an american statute that has already been struck down, i should be challenging the arrest on the basis it exists on - even if it is in truth extralegal, in addition to the arrest being extrajudicial.

what that means is that i'd be seeking a judicial ruling that explicitly states that behaviour that is annoying but not threatening is not covered under harassment laws, which is perhaps what the society needs in order to work through the colloquialism.

again: this is why the cops are supposed to ask a judge for a warrant.

so, that's s. 2 & s. 7. i'll have to think about anything else i'm going to bring up...