The question I wanted to get to is quite fundamental. It appears to me quite clear that despite your observations about the minister's musing about you're either with us or with the child pornographers, Anonymous was not reacting to that; they were reacting to the bill. They don't want any bill that might be able to uncover the guise of their own anonymity. They were reacting to Bill C-30. They made no reference in any of their comments to Minister Toews about his musings on either being with us or with the child pornographers.
My question, then, is simply this: do you not believe that the threat was based on the legislation introduced rather than on anything he might have said in an offhanded comment?