But it is also true that I have had a bit of a role in ensuring that safe zones are not part of the legislation as passed, just as the Law Commission originally recommended that there be no safe zones in this legislation, because they said that it was futile. And, actually, the principle of opposing prohibitions on abortion is exactly the same as the principle for opposing prohibitions on free speech. It's not that we like the bad things that some people say; I detest the odious ogres that have been described standing outside abortion clinics. I'm not sure what else I can do to ensure that none of them are very likely to ever vote for me. However, I do believe that while they shouldn't be saying it, it is a greater evil—and the Attorney-General alluded to it—to have a Government that is allowed to decide what you can and can't say. There are people who have stood up in this debate and said, "Oh, but this is an exception." The difficulty with standing for a principle like free speech is that it is a principle. Once you say, "We're prepared to make some exceptions", the challenge is to actually explain where someone in that position would stop making exceptions. Nobody has got up and explained where they would stop making exceptions—that's what people can never do once they abandon principles such as free speech.