Yes, thanks.
I think we've gone down a path that's kind of sterile here in that I don't think Professor Cotler's defence of why he and the Liberals were at Durban has anything to do with whether or not they realized, post facto, that it had turned into an anti-Semitic hatefest. He's quite clear that he thinks it was an anti-Semitic hatefest. His defence is that he was asked to stay by the Israelis in order to help mediate that.
So the line that Mr. Volpe is going down I don't think is the defence that Professor Cotler is going down at all. It's actually in complete contradistinction to it, and a contradiction of it.
But this raises the question, to me, that if it is the case that what Professor Cotler has asserted is correct, and when he was here as a witness in this case he based his defence of his actions on the fact that he'd been asked to...and he drew attention to an article published by Rabbi Melchior from Israel, who asserted that he had asked the Canadians to stay there. That article was published on the very day that Professor Cotler was appearing. Therefore, that information could not have been available to the authors of the ten percenter at the time the ten percenter was put out, which suggests that it was put out as a good faith assertion of all the facts that could have been knowable to the MPs putting it out at the time.
Now, would that constitute, in a case before the courts as opposed to being a point of privilege, a legitimate defence, or would that be seen as not being relevant?