That's all right. Thank you very much.
That's an important question, but first of all let me say again that it's too much to impose the obligation on a court of law to prevent a genocide. I think I need to make that very clear.
In Canada we have had our legal system here for hundreds of years, a lot longer than international criminal justice has been active, and people still commit those crimes we have in the Criminal Code, so we should not impose that obligation on a court of law. What a court of law does has to do with the extent to which political will is there is to ensure that there is punishment for the crimes.
I get the drift of your question. You have to do what you must as politicians, and there's a place for that as long as we leave room for the law to do its own job, its own work, and allow justice to be done.
Oftentimes, it's not unusual to have political statements lead the way. Even in law we recognize what we call “probable cause”. Mr. Stewart is a seasoned prosecutor here. Probable cause doesn't give you the proof you need to convict someone, but it does say there's something awful that's happened here that has caught the attention of the law, causing it to spring into action. That happens and I liken that to the sort of motion you have made.
There's a place for that as long as we recognize that, if there's no evidence, we're saying, this is what it looks like to us. You call it, and then you allow room for the law to come in and tell us whether that's really what it is. There are places for that sort of thing. Politics can lead the way, and the law then follows to do its work.
I don't know whether that helps.