In my experience in the areas over which I have jurisdiction and responsibility, this is the first change of this nature. The reaction was sufficiently large and pointed. It lead me to the conclusion that the problem being raised was a serious one. It wasn't just a little semantic argument. It was a very serious concern that impressions were being left by the report that were not fair and accurate, and that the language needed to be modified.
When we looked at the language, we found that very similar phrases had been used in many other places at different times, including in reports that had been filed by the previous government, in reports that had been filed by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Indeed, some of the language also appeared at one point in time on the Order Paper of the House of Commons.
The language had been in use, but just because it had been in use for a certain period of time or for certain purposes does not mean you need to continue using a phrase that is running the risk of conveying misinformation and a misimpression of entire communities or entire religions.