Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate that, and I appreciate the last two Conservative amendments, which I think have been made in very good faith.
On the first one, just to be clear, we had no testimony to the effect that the hammer and sickle should be included. There are a number of others, like the Ku Klux Klan symbol. I think this has to go through a thought process if we are to add other symbols, rather than just picking one and not another. That's why I voted against that amendment.
This one is much more compelling in terms of the discussion about it. My issue is that I think it is trying to achieve the opposite. Here's what I think it's trying to achieve. There's a terrorist group that has their symbol, and then, because they know the law has prohibited the display of the symbol, they themselves distort the symbol by one tiny iota so they can argue that it wasn't the symbol. The point of this section, I believe, is to capture that.
I would like to ask a question of the officials who are here. Presumably, this was drafted by the Department of Justice. Can you explain the intention of this section?