I can do that, but it's simply an opinion on an extremely difficult topic. What I'm trying to suggest is that there's a spectrum here. It begins with things that are obviously offensive, but only offensive at one end. At the other end, it has items that are clearly producing harm and that I believe should be regulated by the law.
The person I'm quoting is a very conservative judge in England, Lord Devlin, who said that the law should be used when the issue at stake involves feelings of intolerance, indignation, and disgust. If we apply that here, we should ask whether the remarks of Anonymous on the web about the Honourable Vic Toews engender in us, and particularly the committee members, feelings of intolerance, indignation, and disgust; any two of those, I think, would do for this.
This is obviously very subjective. We're beyond harm, but we're in an area where we do have to ask whether we should use the power of the law or whether we should leave it as something outside of it. All I can say is that the answer changes over time. It's really up to this committee to ask if they feel, as MPs, that this kind of threat produces not only indignation and disgust but a very real potential harm. Then I think that you go on.