I might add too there is a further clarification—extant clarification—under current legislation that makes it very clear that a protest activity, activist activity, does not constitute and cannot constitute an act of terrorism, so there are a number of safeguards already built in. But the reality is we know from our experience in this country now that it is possible for someone motivated for the right reasons, or we might say the wrong reasons—but, in their warped view of the world, they're motivated for the right reasons—to cause harm and to start making preparatory acts for it. There is the constant juggling act that this House and the State, generally, has towards its citizens of working out where the line between ensuring safety for citizens and ensuring the freedom of expression and action and movement is, as we have to look closely at those who express a will to do harm and prepare for an act to do that, and particularly when motivated for ideological reasons and also particularly when intended to induce intimidation, as the bill now proposes to create. So there are a number of safeguards already built into this, and in the end it is for our agencies, including the police, to make the assessment about threats and where to take appropriate action. 