We have some measure of that. I think we have relatively crude tool kits at present and I think some of the measures that have been introduced provide us with a much finer, more precise ability to intervene pre-emptively and proactively. There are different grounds for why different entities need to be more proactive in the pre-emptive realm, if you want.
I see this provision as complementary, not as a duplication, and I see it as a necessary complement. I believe that the judicial remedies that are built in are sufficient to reassure me that somebody who believes they have been treated inappropriately—because this provision represents a significant degree of state intervention in people's lives—will have appropriate judicial recourse against that intervention. To me, this is absolutely integral, but it's also why I would suggest that such interventions come in the way that they're proposed here, with a time limit, after which the minister or the appropriate institution needs to rearticulate that particular ban. I say this because inherently we all change over our lifetime and we shouldn't just.... In some ways we can use the examples of people who change their views on these particular issues, hopefully demonstrating that people do come to their senses and see that this is not a prudent course of action.