As you may know, in my report, as an alternative, I recommended a series of amendments to section 13, the process related to it. In my view, however, none of those is adequate to correct what I think is the more basic problem with the overall system, and I hold on to the view that the more appropriate response is repeal of section 13.
Certainly the changes that I think might improve section 13--again, without in my mind being adequate--include things that would cause it to more closely resemble a criminal procedure, including an intention requirement. I have enormous difficulty with the absence of any sort of intention requirement, given the extreme character of the expression it's focused on, and at the same time we have no way and no decision-maker who purports to measure the actual impact of the expression at issue. In the end, the focus is on the character of the expression, and you'll find the decision-makers invariably attribute an intention, understand it as carrying an intention over some time, which is in no way surprising, given the extreme character.
What I do agree with is that at the very end of the process, if you look at the decisions that have been reached by the tribunal in which they have found a breach of section 13, we are talking about extreme expression, I don't think there's any question. It is really everything else that occurs prior to that end point that, for me, is the difficulty.