I think the justice system did what it could under the limits it's operating under. There are constraints, and I'll explain some of them.
The committee is interested in learning about Islamophobia. It is not one disease entity. There are many different types, and it has many different manifestations. The most benign form, if we can look at it from a disease model, is borne from ignorance about Muslims. There's a sly and sinister form borne from, let's say, geopolitics, where anti-Muslim hatred is used as a justification to keep Muslim voices out of the top spheres of power and influence—and that's intentional.
There's a form of Islamophobia that comes from the far left, and there's a form of Islamophobia borne from white nationalism. That type goes hand in hand with anti-Semitism, misogyny, anti-Black racism and being anti-LGBT. There are many different paths to the same end result. What we don't understand, I think, is how Islamophobia, when it goes up in one of these categories, affects the others. This is where governments, Parliament and academics can add value. If you don't look at all the different building blocks of hate, I don't think you'll get to some of the root causes behind the hatred that exists.
There's another element that is trying to catch up to the times. The way that hatred was spread in the past is very different from the way it is now. Technology companies have a large role to play, because they're not simple conduits of information. There's a way of getting radicalized and falling into echo chambers and filter bubble. That happens online. That's another big piece that we have to catch up on, and simple fact-checking isn't enough to keep people falling into circles of hate. Source-checking needs to be a big variable in how we look at how hate is spread. I don't think we're doing a good job there right now.