Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was fine with the initial version of the motion. That said, I rather think that we must try to avoid elements that could divide us, as is the case with these two terms. I think that anything that attacks the rights of women or the rights of LGBTQ+ communities constitutes extremism. I completely agree with the motion as initially worded, but I am quite ready to accept it being amended to focus on extremism only.
Mr. Genuis is absolutely right to point out that there are suspicions of women being forcibly sterilized in the People's Republic of China. I don't think that is a country we could refer to as far-right. He also pointed out very appropriately the fact that Islamist extremism, which attacks women and the rights of gays, lesbians and so on, is also extremism. I think that any attack on the rights of women or of the LGBTQ+ community constitutes extremism.
I would tend to rather agree with Mr. Chong's amendment, namely that we should stick to the term “extremism” only. That would avoid politicizing our motion and dividing us. Its effect would be to make our motion unifying and make us all recognize ourselves in it.
Ultimately, the objective is to look into any extremism that could attack the rights of women and of LGBTQ+ communities. I must say that I am in favour of Mr. Chong's motion, even though I think it was very appropriate to vote in favour of the initial motion.