I'll use chair's prerogative to ask a follow-up question of Mr. Ross.
As despicable and as unlawful as the statements made by Mr. Charkaoui are—and would be, if they were stated again—we don't know why the prosecution chose not to continue with the charges. Perhaps this is to Mr. Fortin's point.
I want to dig a bit into the concept of good faith, Mr. Ross.
In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred towards, for examples, homosexuals. I don't understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible, though there are other religious texts that say the same thing. How do we somehow constitute this as being said in good faith? Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke...or be a defence. There should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.
I just want to understand what your notion of good faith is in this context, where there are passages in religious texts that are clearly hateful.