First of all, in answer to your question about child pornography, no. I would oppose any plans to change that. That is the bill that has been litigated and defined, and considered by the courts of this country. That is the term that is used in all my international discussions with other G-8 justice ministers. This is the term that is used at the United Nations.
The term “child pornography” goes beyond just the depiction of child sexual abuse images. It's broader than that. I can tell you that the definition includes not only images depicting the actual sexual abuse of a real child but also the depiction of such abuse of an imaginary child, images that do not depict the sexual abuse of a real or imaginary child but that depict a child's sexual organs for a sexual purpose, written or audio material that advocates or counsels unlawful sexual activity with the child, written or audio material.... It's considerable. It's larger. It's part of the lexicon of our legislation in this area. I am not prepared to change that because I believe that would restrict what we are talking about.
With respect to that, I'm sure you would be very aware of how difficult it is to get any piece of legislation passed. I had legislation that took about a year and a half that included provisions to protect 14- and 15-year-olds, for the first time since the 1890s, against child sexual abusers. And you would be aware of the fact that there were members of your caucus who were tripping over each other to get in front of a camera to say that there was somehow--