why is it important that the crown demonstrate a rational basis of fear - not a subjective basis, that is not an opinion, but an objectively determinable, reasonable basis of fear - in order to prove a harassment charge?

because you're talking about a restriction of expression, which is the most fundamental right in the constitution. our legal tradition, both constitutional and pre-constitutional, is very clear: an individual's right to expression can only be infringed upon when it succeeds in or threatens to meaningfully harm somebody else.

a more restrictive concept of harassment would consequently be struck down as unconstitutional on the first possible basis. that is not something that is consistent with canadian law.

the reason we insist on this caveat is that it is a very real possibility that a politician, like a mayor, or perhaps a powerful person like a landlord, may otherwise infringe on somebody's rights of expression, if given any sort of space at all, whatsoever. so, we insist: it is not enough to be offended, it is not enough to be annoyed, it is not enough to be bothered. it is not even enough to be afraid, without good reason. there must be a meaningful expression of realistic harm, and must even be a clear and present danger.

this is what being in a free society is all about: learning to tolerate people that are different than you.

again: i hope the voters in her borough make the right decision at the earliest opportunity.