Ah, I see. I didn't realize the water was squirted out of a plastic flower on the attacker's lapel.

But joking aside, no court would ever interpret the act "on the face of it." Rotten fruit, pie in the face, fake blood, you're right, those have lots of historical precedent as symbolic acts of protest. "Mystery fluid flung at someone's face" has historical precedent too, but not so symbolic.

I understand what you're trying to say, but you're not thinking like a judge. If you were a judge, would you really want an article in a law book to describe you as the one who thought it was a good idea to greenlight the throwing of mysterious fluids at politicians' faces as an act of protest?

I'd shut up and take the L on this one. You're failing to understand and it's not getting better you.