I hadn't had my hand raised initially to wade in on this, but since I have listened to the discussion I decided I have a view that would support the motion as it is, and it's not because Glen hasn't made a very good point or the points are there. We're only talking about two meetings and the possibility of a third, which is doubtful. It's kind of focused. If we go into the fall, then I'd be amenable to amending it or expanding it if the will is there.
I agree that sometimes it's hard to tell. Is anti-Semitism religious-based or is it something else? It's extremism. It's terrible and awful and, as pointed out, one of the worst most common forms of discrimination, and can be violent as well. I think this study, and the intention of the mover from the very beginning, was to deal with the specifics of ideologically motivated—politically motivated, I guess you'd call it—extremism as a new phenomenon that we need to look at.
If we only have two meetings, let's stick to that. That's not say anything about the concerns of other equally important types of extremism, but given the nature of the recommendation from the beginning and all the debate so far, I don't think we should change it for now.