If I could respond to the point of order, then, I was not responding to Ms. Bendayan's point of order. I was resuming my substantive commentary because I had the floor. It's quite legitimate for me to make substantive arguments about substantive issues when I have the floor, even if I am responding to points that were not points of order that were made as points of order. I agree that Ms. Bendayan's point of order was not a point of order. Insofar as I had the floor on a substantive matter, I was within my rights to make arguments on substantive matters.
On December 7th, 2022. See this statement in context.