I appreciate the intent of those. Those two amendments in the abstract, I think, are part of the solution to the problem we've identified. But I think what we have to look at, and what really caused us pause in all this, is the phenomenon that we're seeing domestically, and have seen in spades internationally, that people will take advantage of a jurisdiction like this to pursue their own agenda that has nothing to do with human rights. It will be systematic, and it will be pervasive, and it will be continuous, and they don't really care about anything except their agenda. They will use this forum to pursue it.
So those amendments, I think, are part of the solution but not the whole solution. I think we need a whole set of safeguards in place to deal with this problem.
What we're seeing with this, which, as I say, we're also seeing internationally, is the creation of a platform to actually work against the very intent. I think one has to think systematically about....
What we're dealing with conceptually is the balancing of two very different human rights: the right to freedom of expression and the right to be free from incitement to hatred. They need to be balanced off against each other. We're seeing this played out practically in this section.
Now, you ask whether we're better off with those amendments. I would say we're better off with a system that works well, devised in such a way that it realizes the intent in preventing abuse.
Will those amendments alone be enough to do it? I'm not sure. I would prefer a whole set of amendments that deal with the problem.