There is an attempt to make this debate about one word used by Leanne Wood. It is, after all, the simplest thing to do, but then it is simpler to arrest someone who steals a loaf of bread than ask why they are hungry. It is simpler to jail a woman moved to violence than address decades of coercive control. It is simpler to censure a woman of colour than listen to her call out everyday racism on tv. And that is what happens every day, because it is simpler not to rock the boat, not to lift the lid, to say that the system must be respected. It would be simpler to just say that Leanne should not have used that word, give her a slap on the wrist and then move on. That's what most people want to happen. It would be simple and wrong. When you are dealing with people, prejudice and politics, systems don't always fit. You need to inject a bit of judgment and humanity. You also need to be able to take the long view. So, it isn't Leanne's choice of words that I want to focus on today, it's the double standards at play, the context of the situation and the words, the attitudes and the actions that prompted her anger.

'"Women's rights and international development". God help @Plaid_Cymru".

These are the words that really give context to today's debate. This is the ancient, entitled, misogynistic attitude that runs like a torrent through the heart of this discussion, and through the heart of Welsh politics. The world view has not shifted as much as we would like to pretend in this place. It has not shifted in this place as much as we often pretend. As recently as last year, an Assembly Member, not a blogger or a commentator, but an elected Member, produced a sexist, deeply insulting video about a woman he works with. A councillor in my own borough, who actually chaired the safer communities committee at the time, repeatedly referred to refugees as 'rapefugees' on Facebook; 5,000 refugees died in the Mediterranean the same year he made those remarks, hundreds of women and children fleeing persecution. The friends and colleagues of the Prime Minister say he has a woman problem. He refers to Muslim women as 'letterboxes', an intervention that preceded a 375 per cent rise in Islamophobic incidents. The Prime Minister used the death of Jo Cox to make a flippant point about Brexit, an outburst that moved MPs to tears, not because they are women or weak, but because they mourn their friend and feel genuine fear for their own safety. The Prime Minister's own words are being used in death threats against women MPs.

Can I tell you the two things that connect the Prime Minister, the councillor and that Assembly Member? They are all men and none of them were censured. And are we really getting ready to censure Leanne Wood for a one-word outburst—a politician whose opinions on gender issues and immigration have earned her death threats and daily abuse that require police intervention? Really? She’s the bad guy in all this? Here’s the third difference between Leanne’s one-word offence and that of the three men I mentioned: hers was an entirely instinctive response, a human response to someone known for sexist views who is attacking a new, young, female colleague shortly after the death of a much-loved friend and colleague. It was not a planned intervention designed to provoke outrage, hatred or division.

The lesson here seems to be that as long as you invest money and focus-group your intolerant language, and choose a message carrier in trousers, then you’re free to say what you like, unchecked by the authorities. It simply does not make sense, measured against anything and everything we claim to hold dear in this Assembly. If the result of the policy is nonsensical, then surely we should not shrug and blame the process—we should change the policy and the process to match the reality being faced by too many women. And can I say to Andrew R.T. Davies: most of the abuse I get online is not even repeatable here or—[Interruption.] No, I haven’t got time. Here or any anywhere else.