If I understand the question correctly, in terms of the legal tools, one of the things that the minister said about codifying the definition was it was to give law enforcement more guidance and make it easier to lay charges. There's that, and, of course, removing the Attorney General's consent.
If we have laws, I think we should be able to effectively enforce them. I think the Attorney General's consent, when it comes to hate propaganda offences, is there because of the unique nature of the offence. When we have a direct incitement to violence or a direct threat, those are, of course, criminal words, and there's a direct connection with violence.
When it comes to hate speech, the connection is less direct. And there are the potential pitfalls that the court has identified, and so it's having another layer of review to say, hey, are the essential elements, the more complicated mens rea elements, met here?
I agree with Mr. Shack that there could be other ways to deal with the problem if these legitimate charges are not being brought, including guidance for Attorneys General so that this can be dealt with efficiently and consistently. That may be the way to proceed.