Sure. Thank you.
I'll just make one more comment on the amendment, then, and I'll wrap up on that.
I think the goal of this should be that we be united as a committee in identifying language we can use that isolates extremists and that condemns extremism. Generally speaking, I think we stay away from terminology like “Islamic extremism”—or at least I very much try to stay away from it—because the implication of that use of language for people from the Muslim community, they have told me, is that they see it as potentially making implications about or casting aspersions on all those who are Muslim. That's why I think that even the media, but certainly parliamentarians, try to be precise in their language to avoid the implication of associations with broader groups.
Although not all of the same issues apply, I think a similar principle applies, in that when we are calling it “extremism”, we shouldn't associate that extremism with another political philosophy or faith tradition or anything else. We should try to identify and isolate the extremism itself as being the thing we're condemning, not the group whose name those extremists may be trying to use. I think that should be taken into consideration by members as well, and I hope this amendment will pass.
Thank you.