Counter-radicalization is a very tough nut to crack, because by definition you're targeting groups that are almost inherently suspicious of and resistant to efforts of outreach by any agents or elements of government. Just the very issue of building up a level of trust is something that impedes the process of proactive counter- or anti-radicalization processes.
It is in some way related to this legislation, in that, as I mentioned earlier, the distinction of how you categorize the counselling or the promotion of hatred and radicalization is an important element there, because it would be a mistake for us to think of one-on-one dynamics, that there's somebody fomenting radicalization and that individual has a specific target. Very often it's a wide net that is cast out, and the individual seeks to reel in whoever is caught in the net, so we have to be sensitive to that point.
I'm still of the view that the most effective effort is proactively putting in place the tone and environment within specific communities that will allow them to take ownership of the process of creating space between those who would aim to radicalize elements or segments of the community and those who are offering a meaningful alternative.