I'm going to follow on what my colleague Julie was saying earlier.
In the right-wing extremism section, it says:
It may be difficult to assess, in the short term, to what extent a specific act was ideologically driven, or comment while investigations are ongoing or cases are before the court.
To one of my previous questions, it was mentioned that there are fluid investigations ongoing and that we would not want a plot to occur on Canadian soil. I agree with you 100%. I would never want to see what had happened in 1985 ever happen on Canadian soil again. I hope you catch the people who are up to no good, because they indirectly, or directly in this case, end up impacting whole communities at times. I think all of us would be outraged if any religion, Catholicism or Protestantism, were ever brought into any organization that had committed an act, and we wouldn't do that. However, it seems as though, from this perspective, there's an insensitivity originally to other faiths that don't originate from the western world.
In short, why wasn't the “but” language, which is included in the right-wing extremism section, included in those other sections? You're saying they are fluid investigations. How do you know for sure whether they were ideologically driven? Those exceptions are definitely referred to in the right-wing extremism section.