Okay. It was based on that conclusion and the unwritten principles that the community I represent, Montfort Hospital, won its case, essentially. So I buy in very much to the fact that it's a breathing, living document. Reading in is part and parcel of a living, breathing constitution.
You referenced one matter in particular. You say in your notes or in that article that “Possibly the most controversial use of this”--what you call a “doctrine”--“was to read in sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination under Section 15”. Do you disagree that sexual orientation should be read in, as you say? Do you think sexual orientation should be a ground for discrimination?