I'm sorry, if you don't mind. I wanted to give you a chance to answer that question, not to take up all the time I have.
With regard to withdrawing tools, it seems to me the fundamental tools that a company has that it could potentially use, in a situation where it might be causing ongoing harm, are those that come through the securities commissions. There's a forensic exploration we could get into of previous practices, but presumably our goal is to prevent new practices that represent some form of human rights abuse.
If you're a company, like Nevsun, for example, and you want to float a new bond issue to support an expansion to your mining operation, you have to pass certain hurdles in terms of demonstrating that you have taken appropriate actions with regard to human rights, environmental stewardship and so on.
Wouldn't it make more sense to focus our attention on tightening up those restrictions, making sure they're more inclusive, and with that mechanism, you can't go ahead and get more funding from the private sector unless you have passed those scorecards?
Would that not be a more effective way of ensuring that no ongoing human rights abuses can take place at a mine site, textile factory or wherever?