HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON RACISM, THEN HOLDS GENERAL DEBATE ON RACISM AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

The Human Rights Council this afternoon heard the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance present his report and held an interactive dialogue with him. The Council then held a general debate on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

Githu Muigai, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, recommended that the Council focus on the rights of individuals and groups of individuals affected by racial and religious intolerance, discrimination or violence, as well as on the best way to prevent and combat such acts. A distinction should be made between intolerant mentalities which did not yet constitute human rights violations but may lead to such; the advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination; discrimination against members of religious or belief communities which was clearly prohibited by international human rights standards; and acts of violence which constituted blatant human rights violations. He expressed his support to the idea retained in the Durban Review Conference Review Conference outcome document that a series of expert workshops be held to attain a better understanding of the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national polices with regard to the concept of incitement to hatred in order to assess the level of implementation of the prohibition of incitement.

In the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur, some speakers noted with concern his particular focus on the conceptual and legal frameworks on the issue of incitement to racial or religious hatred, instead of reporting on the manifestations of the defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights by the adherents of Islam. Speakers said they did not share the approach of the Special Rapporteur, which had seemingly quoted selectively and without proper contextualisation from the report of Doudou Diene, the former Special Rapporteur. Mr. Muigai had not respected his specific mandate and had chosen to go beyond it. The fact that the report chose to deal with defamation of religions in a legal context simply reflected the opinion of a small group of States in the United Nations and did not reflect the daily lives of most humans. The Special Rapporteur should investigate the increasing trend of defamation of religions, which could not be separated from the increasing trend towards incitement to religious hatred and which inflamed it. The Special Rapporteur, instead of referring to philosophical terms, should focus on the rising manifestations of defamation of religions and their negative consequences and on the serious implications on the followers of Islam.

Other speakers said that they firmly believed in tolerance, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion or belief. They did not see the concept of defamation of religions as a valid one in a human rights discourse. International human rights law protected individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion or belief. It did not and should not protect specific belief systems. They agreed when the Special Rapporteur concluded that the strategic response to hate speech was more speech – more speech that educated about cultural differences, more speech that promoted diversity, and more speech to empower and give voice to minorities. In this context it was crucial to create a viable environment for all stakeholders, including human rights defenders, to participate in the public debate. This was key to foster tolerance, multiple diversity and human dignity. Speakers welcomed the shift in the treatment of the subject proposed from the sociological idea of defamation of religions to the legal concept of incitement to national or religious hatred. They regretted the instances of intolerance and of incitement to religious of ethnic hatred that had victimized Muslims in many parts of the world, but also highlighted that members of other religions were also affected by religious discrimination and hatred.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Sweden on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Tunisia on behalf of the Arab Group, Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Norway, Brazil, Syria, Qatar, Switzerland, Iran, France, Chile, Indonesia, Algeria, Azerbaijan, United States, Iraq, Malaysia and Nigeria.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Cairo Institute for Human Rights and also on behalf of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, United Nations Watch, European Centre for Law and Justice, Interfaith International and Indian Council of South America.

In the general debate on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, speakers said all acts of racism and related intolerance were equally unacceptable, and bore the inherent danger of escalating into violence or other deplorable acts. All States should take action and step up their efforts against multiple forms of discrimination based on gender, age, descent, sexual orientation or gender equality. There was a need to address with greater resolve and political will all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in all spheres of life and in all parts of the world. In recent years, the defamation of Islam had occurred regularly, with politicians and the media using the pretext of freedom of speech to harm the feelings of followers of Islam. The development of mankind was a history of the common development of cultures, societies and religions. Respecting cultural diversity and promoting dialogue between the different civilizations was the basis for harmonious development, common prosperity, and harmonious coexistence and the international community should work to promote the peaceful dialogue between religions in order to truly work for the protection and promotion of human rights.

Speaking in the general debate were Sweden on behalf of the European Union, Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Slovenia, Cuba, Belgium, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Russian Federation, South Africa, Egypt on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, China, Holy See, Libya and African Union.

The Human Rights Committee of Qatar took the floor, as did the following non-governmental organizations: Rencontre Africaine pour la Defence des Droits de l’homme, Mouvement Contre Le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples, United Nations Watch, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Ligue Internationale contre le Racisme et l’Antisemitisme, Association for World Education, B’nai B’rith International, International Club for Peace Research, International Movement against all forms of Discrimination and Racism, International Institute for Peace, European Union of Public Relations, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, Liberation, Institute for Women's Studies and Research, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, International Association against Torture, Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations and Association for World Citizens.

When the Council next meets at 9 a.m. on Thursday, 1 October, it will hear presentations by the Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Somalia and the Special Rapporteur on human rights in Cambodia, to be followed by interactive dialogues with them. The Council will be meeting in back-to-back meetings on Thursday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. At 3 p.m., the Council is scheduled to start to take action on draft resolutions and decisions before it. It will close its twelfth regular session on Friday, 2 October.

Summary of Report of Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Githu Muigai, on the manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers (A/HRC/12/38), which takes stock of the ongoing conceptual debate on the issue of “defamation of religions” and incitement to religious hatred. In a second chapter, the Special Rapporteur addresses the issue of religious discrimination and incitement to religious hatred. Following an overview of the information received, since taking up his mandate, on serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all human rights of their followers, he distinguishes between intolerant mentalities, incitement to religious hatred, religious discrimination, and violence perpetrated against members of religious or belief communities. The Special Rapporteur then highlights the interrelatedness of the applicable international human rights standards. Lastly, he presents a number of conclusions and recommendations, proposing a way forward in international efforts to combat incitement to racial or religious hatred. the Special Rapporteur reiterates the recommendation of his predecessor to encourage a shift away from the sociological concept of the defamation of religions towards the legal norm of non-incitement to national, racial or religious hatred. He also welcomes the consensus reached at the Durban Review Conference and recommends that policymakers rely on the robust and adequate language of the outcome document and implement it domestically. Finally, he recommends that strong emphasis be put on the implementation of the core obligations of States relating to the protection of individuals and groups of individuals against violations of their rights incurred by hate speech, and stresses the need to protect members of religious or belief communities from violations of their right to freedom of religion or belief.

The Council has before it the note by the Secretariat on the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the implementation of Human Rights Council resolution 10/22 (“Combating defamation of religions”) (A/HRC/12/39), which presents the High Commissioner’s request that her report be delayed till the Council’s thirteenth session, in order to include the broadest number of contributions.

Presentation by Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

GITHU MUIGAI, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, said that the issue at hand had been discussed for more than a decade and things had undoubtedly evolved over time. The Special Rapporteur noticed that what he would call the “terminology controversy” had unfortunately detracted their attention from real problems affecting the people they aimed to protect. The Special Rapporteur would therefore recommend that they focus on the rights of individuals and groups of individuals affected by racial and religious intolerance, discrimination or violence, as well as on the best way to prevent and combat such acts. In this regard, Mr. Muigai believed that the expert seminar organized by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights last October on the link between articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was an important development. The experts generally accepted that the debate on “defamation of relegations “ should rather focus on the existing legal concept of “incitement to racial or religious hatred”.

Another important development referred to in his report was the adoption of the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference Review Conference. It was Mr. Muigai’s firm belief that the outcome document reached a solid balance in reaffirming the importance of freedom of expression and highlighting the need to curb hate speech, and it undoubtedly offered robust and adequate tools to address current challenges. The Special Rapporteur’s report also referred to information he had received from the Islamophobia Observatory of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. On the basis of the information received, Mr. Muigai suggested that a distinction be made between intolerant mentalities which did not yet constitute human rights violations but may lead to such; the advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination; discrimination against members of religious or belief communities which was clearly prohibited by international human rights standards; and acts of violence which constituted blatant human rights violations. Whilst the information the Special Rapporteur had received both focused on members of one specific religion and on a specific region of the world, Mr. Muigai would like to highlight that other regions were also affected by instances of religious discrimination and incitement to religious hatred.

The last part of the Special Rapporteur’s report referred to the joint statement on “freedom of expression and incitement to racial and religious hatred”, presented with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Among others, they reaffirmed that the right to freedom of expression constituted an essential aspect of the right to freedom of religion or belief, as well as of the fight against racism. It therefore needed to be adequately protected in domestic legislation. Finally, the Special Rapporteur said that they needed to continue the discussions on this important debate to ensure that the rights of all were respect. To that effect, he expressed his support to the idea retained in the Durban Review Conference Review Conference outcome document that a series of expert workshops be held to attain a better understanding of the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national polices with regard to the concept of incitement to hatred in order to assess the level of implementation of the prohibition of incitement.

Interactive Dialogue with Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI, (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group had noted with concern the particular focus on the conceptual and legal frameworks on the issue of incitement to racial or religious hatred, instead of reporting on the manifestations of the defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights by the adherents of Islam. The African Group did not share the approach of the Special Rapporteur, which had seemingly quoted selectively and without proper contextualisation from the report of Mr. Doudou Diene, the former Special Rapporteur, and was concerned by the seeming diminishing and denigration of concerns related to the negative impact of Islamophobia on the full enjoyment of all rights by the adherents of Islam. The report of the Special Rapporteur seemed to pre-empt the totality of the spirit of the 2001 World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The African Group encouraged the Special Rapporteur to consult with progressive countries like Ireland, which had recently promulgated a Bill on Defamation of Religions, a concept which the Special Rapporteur sought to nullify. Furthermore, the African Group encouraged the Special Rapporteur not to underplay the potential clash of civilisations.

HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union firmly believed in tolerance, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion or belief. The European Union was convinced that a continuing dialogue could help them to overcome existing gaps in perceptions, concepts and ideas. However, the European Union's long-standing and well-known position on that issue had not changed. The European Union did not see the concept of defamation of religions as a valid one in a human rights discourse. International human rights law protected individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion or belief. It did not and should not protect specific belief systems. As the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the former Special Rapporteur on racism had pointed out numerous times in the past, from a human rights perspective, the concerns behind the concept of defamation of religions should be addressed as an issue of incitement to religious hatred. Noting that the report by the Special Rapporteur focused on incidents of discrimination belonging to one religion in particular, the European Union asked the Special Rapporteur if he had any information regarding other religions and what his assessment was of such cases, and in particular if he had noted any common patterns of discriminatory behaviour across religions? Additionally, did the Special Rapporteur have any specific concrete measures, best practices or actions in mind that States should promote in order to address violations of individuals rights owing to hate speech?

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the Organization of the Islamic Conference attached immense importance to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, which the Organization of the Islamic Conference believed was one of the core concerns in the present-day human rights discourse. While significant progress had been made towards evolving normative standards and instruments for providing protection against different forms of racism, there continued to be persistence of old forms of racism, as well as emergence of new ones. Among the new manifestations was defamation of religions and their followers under the garb of freedom of expression. As civilized societies, they were bound to exercise their freedoms judiciously and within the parameters of internationally accepted norms. This was precisely the motive that led the Organization of the Islamic Conference to craft the resolution on combating defamation of religions. Manifestation of defamation of religions and the negative consequences faced by the followers of those religions had not only increased in the past few years but had also been widely documented. Defamation of religions and stereotyping of their followers was a contemporary form of slavery that sought to undermine the democratic and multicultural fiber of many societies. The latest resolution on the subject not only reaffirmed the need to comprehensively deal with the subject, but also specifically tasked the Special Rapporteur to report on the “manifestation of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia”. The Organization of the Islamic Conference however regretted that the Special Rapporteur had chosen to go beyond his specific mandate.

ALI CHERIF (Tunisia), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, thanked the Special Rapporteur for his report. The Arab Group believed that the Special Rapporteur, in moving from the sociological concept to a legal approach, restricted far too much the study, making it too complex. The mandate had thus not been respected. Paragraph 68 of the Durban Outcome Document talked about religious hatred affecting certain groups. The Arab Group thought that it was important to confront these acts and to criminalize them. Countries becoming aware of such acts were asked to prohibit any manifestation of religious hatred, on a political and legislative level. The Arab Group also asked that anyone who was aware of acts against Muslims should act on these and put an end to religious hatred. The Special Rapporteur should look into manifestation of religious hatred at the national level.

MONA ELBAHTIMY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the Non-Aligned Movement was concerned that the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism had not covered in his report the issue of defamation of religions, and especially the issue of Islamaphobia and its impact, in particular on the human rights of individuals, as requested by the Human Rights Council mandate. It was the Non-Aligned Movement's conviction that the United Nations human rights mechanisms were tasked with monitoring all issues that had an impact on human rights. The Non-Aligned Movement invited the Special Rapporteur to investigate the increasing trend of defamation of religions, which could not be separated from the increasing trend towards incitement to religious hatred and which inflamed it. Indeed, defamation of religions constituted a form of incitement to religious hostilities and led to a denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of those affected. The Non-Aligned Movement was of the view that it was necessary and important to address the underlying human rights concerns related to the defamation of religions. Indeed, while the Special Rapporteur had challenged the raising of the issue of defamation of religions in a human rights context, the rationale of raising this issue on the international human rights agenda specifically in this context of human rights aimed to protect individuals in the exercise of their rights and freedoms.

CLAIRE HUBERT (Norway) said that it was Norway’s firm belief that the conceptual clarity and the action-oriented approach of the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism would benefit all in their continued work to address and combat national, racial or religious hatred that constituted discrimination, hostility or violence. Norway applauded the proposal of the Special Rapporteur to make a distinction between the four concerns he had outlined; this distinction clarified the different levels of concern, and reminded the international community of the imperative of adopting and implementing responses that were appropriate to each level. The report further highlighted the need to tackle the root causes of intolerance, and Norway could not agree more when the Special Rapporteur concluded by stating that the strategic response to hate speech was more speech – more speech that educated about cultural differences, more speech that promoted diversity, and more speech to empower and give voice to minorities. In this context it was crucial to create a viable environment for all stakeholders, including human rights defenders, to participate in the public debate. This was key to foster tolerance, multiple diversity and human dignity. Norway would be grateful if the Special Rapporteur could share examples of best practices with regard to developing such strategic responses to tackle the root causes of intolerance.

NATHANAEL DE SOUZA E SILVA (Brazil) said that the report of the Special Rapporteur could be deemed balanced and constructive. It was in full agreement with the positions defended by Brazil in the debates on defamation of religions in the Human Rights Council and during the negotiation of the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference. Brazil shared the Special Rapporteur’s concerns about the difficulties in establishing an objective definition of the expression “defamation of religions”, a concept that was prone to distortions. The Government of Brazil welcomed the shift in the treatment of the subject proposed from the sociological idea of defamation of religions to the legal concept of incitement to national or religious hatred. Brazil deeply regretted the instances of intolerance and of incitement to religious of ethnic hatred that had victimized Muslims in many parts of the world. It was to be highlighted however that members of other religions were also affected by religious discrimination and hatred. The Brazilian State attached great importance to intercultural and interfaith dialogue.

ABDULMONEM ANNAN (Syria) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his report, which was admirable, in particular with regard to information on incitement to religious hatred in European countries. However, the fact that the report chose to deal with defamation of religions in a legal context simply reflected the opinion of a small group of States in the United Nations and did not reflect the daily lives of most humans. The mention of the non-applicability of legal norms on racism to the defamation of religions could open the door to many wrongful interpretations. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur had drawn many selective examples in his report. In the recommendations, there was a mention of intolerant mentalities that did not yet constitute human rights violations. It also mentioned that international instruments were sufficient to guarantee the rights of minorities and groups and there was no need to develop them further. Did that not entirely contradict the report of the Special Rapporteur when it commented on the Declaration of the Durban Review Conference, which talked of the need to develop complementary standards?

KHALID FAHAD AL-HAJRI (Qatar) said that Qatar welcomed Mr. Muigai and thanked him for his report, which Qatar had read carefully. Qatar would like to emphasize that religious defamation was a complex concept with political, cultural, social and other dimensions, and therefore Qatar did not agree that a narrow legal definition was sufficient. Further, electronic media had also been used to harm without consideration of the negative impacts on individuals and their feelings, increasingly so recently; it was not enough to condemn these acts, they needed to be criminalized. Finally, Qatar emphasized States’ responsibility to act firmly against religious defamation, and called on the Special Rapporteur to follow-up and monitor countries’ actions in this regard.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his first report whose general scope they supported. Switzerland emphasized the need for independence of the Special Rapporteur. As was indicated in the report, the international legal arsenal had the necessary norms to fight against racial and religious hatred. Switzerland also supported the various distinctions that the Special Rapporteur had drawn. These behaviours required differentiated responses. What good practices could the Special Rapporteur share with them in the field of education in human rights and how would he favour, in educational programmes, the cultural and religious differences and how would he favour the integration of various cultures, through educational programmes, of the various cultures stemming from migration.

ASADOLLAH ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran) thanked the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism for his report and statement, and at the same time expressed concern at the approach taken in the report. Iran attached great importance to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and stressed that the integrity of the mandate should be fully maintained in reporting to the Human Rights Council. Iran was seriously concerned by the increasing trend towards manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, as well as the rise in acts of defamation of religions and Islamophobia. Various manifestations of defamation of religions and their negative consequences had not only increased in the past few years, but had been widely documented by Governments and others, including the previous Special Rapporteur on racism. It was expected that the present Special Rapporteur on racism, instead of referring to philosophical terms, should focus, rather, on the rising trends and the serious implications of the rise of Islamophobia on the followers of Islam. It was hoped that in future they would witness more comprehensive reports on that important topic.

RAPHAEL TRAPP (France) said that the work that had been accomplished by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism helped to better understand the meaning of the sociological concept of the defamation of religion. France however shared the conclusion of the previous mandate holder, according to which the debate must now move from a sociological context to a legal framework. Further, the approach adopted by the Human Rights Council to treat such important questions must be global. That was what the European Union and each of its members had attempted to undertake by regularly presenting a resolution on the fight against all forms of discrimination based on religion or conviction. Further, one could only be surprised that the sources of information that the Special Rapporteur cited in his report concerned only one religion and one region of the world. France observed with regret that this phenomenon could be witnessed in all continents and for all religions. Did the Special Rapporteur share this view, France asked.

RODRIGO DONOSO (Chile), speaking on behalf of a number of countries, said that the only subjects of international human rights law were human beings. It was for them that standards had been designed and they should be protected. The freedom to believe or not had to be protected. The different religions were not subjects of international law or human rights. Chile and the countries opposed any discrimination on the basis of belief held by any person. Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights said that the law should guarantee to all persons equal protection. They were concerned over the stereotyping of persons because of their belonging to a religious group. More dialogue was needed so that through education and tolerance they could defeat racism.

REZLAN ISHAR JENIE (Indonesia) said the defamation of religions remained a pressing problem that continued to be of world concern. For that reason, monitoring, commenting on and denouncing incidents of racism and related discrimination or religious intolerance were important ways of limiting their occurrence. In that regard, resolution 10/22 on combating defamation of religions had clearly tasked the Special Rapporteur with the duty of reporting on "all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular, on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers". Regrettably, they saw that that issue had not been properly addressed in the Special Rapporteur's report. There had been too many lessons in the past that had shown how unnecessary destruction and victimization could have been avoided if they had only shared the urgency of prevention and awareness-raising of tolerance. In that context, Indonesia shared the view that freedom of speech and expression formed elemental parts of any nation's democratic fabric. It was nevertheless critical that those rights should not be subverted and used to perpetuate uninformed and even malicious attacks on religious beliefs and fundamental freedoms. Indonesia asked the Special Rapporteur whether there were any new strategies which the Special Rapporteur would be undertaking in cooperation with States and stakeholders to address religious discrimination, including defamation of religions?

SELMA MALIKA HENDEL (Algeria) said that Algeria had examined with interest the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism. By its resolution 10/22, the Human Rights Council had asked the Special Rapporteur to submit a report on all manifestations of religious defamation. Algeria however noted with regret that the Special Rapporteur had examined a completely different question, namely the incitement to racial and religious hatred. Algeria was of the view that these two issues were totally distinct. Algeria also noted the focus put on the final document of the Durban Review Conference which had not focused on the question of the defamation of religions. Further, Algeria would like to highlight that the Special Rapporteur considered in his conclusions that the international norms already reminisced against discrimination and incitement to racial and religious hatred. Therefore, Algeria would like to know his view regarding paragraph 199 of the DPAD and decision 3/103 of the Council, which highlighted the urgency and the necessity to develop new instruments to complement the International Convention against Racial Discrimination of 1965.

HABIB MIKAYILLI (Azerbaijan) said that, as already mentioned by some previous speakers, the task of the Special Rapporteur emanating from Human Rights Council resolution 10/22 had been to report on the manifestation of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers. But in his report, the Special Rapporteur questioned the very existence of this subject. He encouraged a shift away from defamation of religions to the legal concept of non-incitement to racial and religious hatred. It was now evident that defamation of religions had impacted the life of many followers of religions, as reflected in the report. Azerbaijan attached great importance to the promotion of dialogue between cultures, civilizations and religions.

SARAH CLEVELAND (United States) said the United States was committed to the fight against discrimination, intolerance and xenophobia based on race, religion, or otherwise, and appreciated the consideration of these issues undertaken by the Special Rapporteur. While the United States did not support the concept of 'defamation of religions" for reasons well known to the Council, the Government was strongly committed to religious freedom, and had condemned the use of negative and derogatory sterotypes and discrimination, and/or discriminatory policies. All religious communities were affected by acts of intolerance and discrimination, and these instances should be acknowledged and addressed. The United States shared the view that these incidents were rooted in intolerance, and to tackle the root causes of this problem required a broad set of policy measures, including in the areas of intercultural dialogue and education. The best way for Governments to address the issues underlying intolerance was to develop effective legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime and to condemn hateful speech and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups. Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance were serious challenges facing the international community, and they should be examined methodically and deliberately.

HUSSEIN AL-ZUHAIRY (Iraq) said that Iraq welcomed the efforts deployed by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism. Racial discrimination had become a major challenge faced by the international community, and measures to combat such practices must be set up. Iraq called on all States to condemn any form of racial discrimination. There were currently new forms of racial discrimination due to the Internet and other new media. Iraq was also concerned at the increase of the discrimination against Muslims, and the linkages that were made between Islam and terrorism; this had not been mentioned by the Special Rapporteur in a very frank and clear way. Iraq was of the view that fighting hate speech and defamation was important to reach peace, security and coexistence among followers of all religions. The events of 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam; they, as Muslims, rejected all such acts, and Iraq had reaffirmed at the Durban Review Conference that it supported tolerance to peoples of all religions without any discrimination.

JOHAN ARIFF ABDUL RAZAK (Malaysia) reaffirmed that in view of the importance to the Special Procedures, it was important that the mandate holders adhered to their mandates, else it would lead to an erosion of trust. While respecting the Special Rapporteur’s independence in arriving at his own conclusions, they were concerned that the recommendations put forward touched the matter in a superficial way. The Special Rapporteur should also engage more constructively with delegations.

MOHAMMED I. HAIDARA (Nigeria) said racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance ran counter to human rights. Nigeria was concerned about the targeted attacks against religious communities or racial minorities. Such incidents constituted grave violations of human rights. This agenda item offered the Council an ideal opportunity to list and address such issues of concern. However, the report of the Special Rapporteur did not take sufficient account of such issues, but dwelt extensively on the concept of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred. The Special Rapporteur should focus his attention on compiling incidents and action taken to alleviate the situation. It was pertinent for the Special Rapporteur to pay attention to analyse the measures taken by United Nations bodies and organizations to reverse trends linked to religious defamation. Nigeria endorsed the proposal that a sustainable solution to the problem of hate speech, racism or defamation was a speedy implementation of the treaties on Civil and Political Rights and on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, as well as the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. It was increasingly self-evident that adoption in the media of a stance that demeaned religion significantly contributed to a rising trend of religious hatred. All of this should be addressed comprehensively by the Special Rapporteur in the future.

JEREMIE SMITH, of Cairo Institute for Human Rights, said that the Cairo Institute for Human Rights and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights fully endorsed the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism. They had consistently expressed concerns at the highly problematic term “defamation of religions”. They also still believed that the framework of so-called “defamation of religions” and resolutions on the topic were unduly restrictive of freedom of expression, and were often not effective in protecting religious adherents against discrimination, or in promoting understanding and tolerance. For this reasons, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights joined the Special Rapporteur in welcoming the developments that had occurred in the last year on the issue of combating advocacy of hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence. They however strongly disagreed with the view that the Special Rapporteur had exceeded his mandate in presenting a report that had taken stock of the ongoing conceptual debate on the issue, and that had intellectually examined the link between religious discrimination and incitement to religious hatred.

HILLEL NEUER, of United Nations Watch, said that this Council had just heard criticism by the Islamic Group to the Special Rapporteur for insufficiently reporting on defamation of religion. United Nations Watch joined the democracies that had rejected these remarks. They had to combat the practice of racial discrimination. Given the worsening situation of discrimination in Tibet, would the Special Rapporteur visit the region? Mentioning the increasing discriminations in Iran against various groups and their different supporters, would the Special Rapporteur visit the country? Turning to Libya, it had been documented how that country practiced massive discrimination against its two million black African migrants. Did the Special Rapporteur intend to visit Libya this year?

GREGOR PUPPINCK, of European Centre for Law and Justice, said the report confirmed the change of paradigm following earlier Special Rapporteurs. Too often, anti-blasphemy laws were used in an arbitrary way to persecute religious minorities. On the part of the report on incidents of Islamophobia, the European Centre deplored its lack of realism and partiality - it stayed dumb on true religious intolerance. There had been an Islamisation of Europe, where countries financed the building of mosques and Islamic schools. Europe represented a sanctuary of religious freedom, receiving applications for asylum from those born Christians in such countries as Iran, Syria, Algeria or Pakistan.

CHARLES GRAVES, of Interfaith International, said that since 9/11 the defamation of Islam had become a major problem, and especially after the Danish cartoon controversy. Interfaith International, in collaboration with other non-governmental organizations, had sponsored a side event at the Durban Review Conference on combating Islamophobia, which had been very relevant to the work of the Conference. The incitement to racial and religious hatred was a phenomenon largely affecting certain areas of the world, and Interfaith International had particularly noted this in South Asia, which was also illustrated by recent events in both Assam and Sri Lanka. In strangely paradoxical ways, the major world religion of Buddhism was involved. The incoming migrants, as well as the army and police, had been facilitating religious and racial hatred by their insensitive activities among the indigenous Buddhist populations. The reverse situation occurred in Sri Lanka, where evidence showed that a multitude of Hindu and Christian temples and churches had been destroyed in the last decade, and then often replaced by representations of Buddha. Sri Lankan authorities had often not punished the perpetrators, and this impunity was to be seen as an incitement to racial and religious hatred against the minority Tamils.

RONALD BARNES, of the Indian Council of South America, thanked the Special Rapporteur for his very insightful report. Even today, in 2009, there were cases and situations where there was denial of human rights based on the fact that indigenous people were denied their right to their ancestral lands because they were not Christians. This stemmed from a 1493 Papal Bulls Decree, which although it had been abrogated at least two times, including by the Vatican Council II, this principle was still part of United States jurisprudence.

GITHU MUIGAI, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in concluding remarks, thanked delegates for their comments, and he had taken very seriously the comments and observations made, and would make them part of his continuing work in the area. He thought there were real and serious contemporary problems relating to religious intolerance, particularly relating to Islamophobia. The international community had seen and continued to see, especially after 9/11, increased incidents of racial profiling, and increased incidents of direct and indirect discrimination based on ethnicity and religion. These issues were beyond conjecture and contestation, and he hoped he had said nothing that suggested in any way that he was not concerned about these developments. On the contrary, the report sought to express that these issues, being as important as they were, required an effective legal framework in which to be addressed. His predecessor had made a clear recommendation on how to create a framework in which to discuss this problem without degenerating into a sterile debate on nomenclature. All agreed that these were unacceptable developments and that they were damaging human rights everywhere in the world, and something must be done.

The disagreement was one as to methodology and as to the framework of action, but not as to the seriousness of the problem and the necessity to act seriously. With these assurances, delegates could rest in the knowledge that he would continue to study this issue, on which he felt strongly. He wished to refute the claim that the entire report was an intellectual exercise clarifying doctrine - it was not, and the document spoke for itself. He identified and isolated cases, deploring them in the strongest possible language. He had not questioned the validity of his mandate - the report was not about the validity of his mandate, but was about a specific aspect thereof, on which he felt he needed to clarify issues in order to make a coherent report. Delegates were assured of the necessity for a continuing dialogue on these questions. For the time being, in his personal opinion, it was more useful and productive to anchor remedies and responses to this very serious problem on contemporary international legal principles and standards, as it made it easier for the international community to call States to account, and to support States in formulating policies and laws that helped to eliminate this most unfortunate scourge. On continuing work within the Council and within the United Nations system in general relating to contemporary standards, a lot of useful work was being done and a lot of debate and dialogue was ongoing on how to broaden the scope, and create a framework within which the international community could systematically progress the legal principles and concepts now in use. The discrimination of human beings all over the world based on the exercise of their religion and their commitment thereto was a present and current problem, and the international community should mobilise around a clear, uncontested and enforceable legal framework, without abandoning dialogue and debate on how that framework would look tomorrow.


General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance, Follow-up and Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance were problems facing all societies and all countries throughout the world, and combating racism and discrimination was a priority for the European Union. There must be no categorisation of more or less dangerous manifestations of the phenomena: all acts of racism and related intolerance were equally unacceptable, and bore the inherent danger of escalating into violence or other deplorable acts. All States should take action and step up their efforts against multiple forms of discrimination based on gender, age, descent, sexual orientation or gender equality. It was imperative that States take seriously their international obligations and that they take concrete steps to implement them, including reporting periodically to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which should be used as the main legal instrument covering all different forms of racism and related intolerance the international community was confronted with today. All countries should genuinely engage with both national and international non-governmental organizations in a joint effort to fight racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

MONA ELBAHTIMY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the Non-Aligned Movement condemned all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, which constituted serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and impeded equal opportunities. The Non-Aligned Movement emphasized the need to address with greater resolve and political will all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in all spheres of life and in all parts of the world. The Non-Aligned Movement further expressed dismay at instances of religious and cultural prejudices, intolerance and discrimination. Everyone had the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression, and exercise of these rights carried with it special duties and responsibilities. The Non-Aligned Movement further expressed its concern at the negative stereotyping of religions, insults to and defamation of religious personalities, holy books and symbols, which impeded the enjoyment of human rights, and deplored all acts of ideological and physical violence and assaults, and incitements thereto. They took note of the ongoing progress made by States and called on all Member States to implement all provisions of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action as well as the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference to fight the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

ANJA MARIJA CIRAJ (Slovenia) said that combating racism and all forms of discrimination was a priority for the Government of Slovenia. As the current chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Slovenia wished to present some activities that the Council of Europe was undertaking. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance had the task of combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and intolerance; it had also focused on combating religious intolerance and, in particular, Islamophobia. In 2008, the Council of Europe had run a campaign against racism with the objective of raising awareness of the European public about how important it was to combat racism. In 2009, the Council of Europe had launched a Europe-wide anti-discrimination campaign “Speak out against discrimination”. The question of how to find a proper balance between the freedom o expression and protection against hate speech had been reflected upon during a Council of Europe conference.

MARIA DEL CARMEN HERRERA CASEIRO (Cuba) said the Durban Conference was a momentous milestone in the fight for equal rights between all peoples, however, full implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was still an unresolved manner. The international community was witnesses of the recrudescence and consolidation, in particular in the industrialised north, of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, in new and more sophisticated forms, with the establishment of parties on a basis of anti-immigrant, xenophobic and discriminatory platforms, and the proliferation of policies and discriminatory laws. In very many developed countries, there were anti-terrorist laws that allowed ample room for racist interpretation. The Internet continued to be used for the circulation of ideas based on racial hatred. There must be full implementation of the fundamental principles, targets and actions agreed in the Durban Declaration and Program of Action, which remained the best scope for the international community to act. The Durban Review Conference was a first step in this regard, but the full implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action did not come to its apogee at the Conference. Cuba was fully willing to support all actions to support the full implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the Durban Review Conference. All States should prove they had the political will and add their efforts to the international community to finally put an end to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

NICOLAS FIERENS GEVAERT (Belgium) said that agenda item 9 of the current Council was of particular importance. It was in fact unfortunately observed that acts of racism persisted in multiple forms, including in Belgium. This required a firm reaction by the international community, and they must continue to work for cooperation and action at the multilateral level. It was for this reason that Belgium continued its full involvement in the work initiated at the Durban Review Conference. Belgium sincerely hoped that all delegations would adopt a constructive spirit next month when the two inter-governmental working groups on the Durban process would meet. In this context, Belgium viewed it as of particular importance that the issue of discrimination, which persons throughout the world suffered on the base of their philosophical or religious conviction, would be given particular attention. This fight could only be effective if the concept of “defamation of religions” would be overcome, which was not reconcilable with freedom of expression. The progress made this year at the Durban Review Conference should not let the international community forget that they must intensify the condemnation of all forms of discrimination. In this regard, Belgium would continue to be particularly committed to strongly condemning discrimination on the base of sexual orientation.

MAYSA URENA MENACHO (Plurinational State of Bolivia) said that they had been party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination since 1966. Their new Constitution expressly mentioned sanctions against discrimination on several and various grounds. The Government had assumed the responsibility of fighting all forms of racial discrimination. The Ministry of Justice had recently sent a bill for the prevention and the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. The Government was also working to investigate cases of racist violent events. Trials had not been moving forward due to structural problems of the judiciary. The visit of the Special Rapporteur would be extremely useful to the Government. The Plurinational State of Bolivia was committed in its fight against all forms of discrimination and was working together with indigenous people and civil society.

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation) said the outcome document of April's Durban Review Conference was applauded. The discussions held affirmed the relevance of the outcome document of the Durban Conference, and showed the complex and sensitive nature of the issue, making it clear that it was only with political will and the adoption of measures at all levels that the evil that was racism could be overcome. The first practical step in this direction was the early adoption of the General Assembly of the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference. In the course of the April meeting, there were frequent statements to the effect that the Conference should be seen as a new boost to one of the most fundamental documents against international racism. Half a year had already elapsed since, and no changes had yet been seen. The High Commissioner should embark without delay on the development of a comprehensive plan to implement the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference and to report on the issue to the international community. For the sake of the radiant memory of those who perished in the Second World War, efforts must be made to not allow such a thing to happen today, even when States were trying to re-write history and reinterpret perceptions. There was an increase in the number of neo-Nazi and other groups in Europe. Racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia could not be contained separately - there needed to be political will, and persistent and consistent work. This was the only approach which would enable the international community to avoid a tragic repetition of the past.

KGOMOTSO DAPHNE RAHLAGA (South Africa) said that South Africa acknowledged the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, but regretted that the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the same subject was not available for discussion during the present session. Previous reports of the former mandate holder had laid a good basis and it was imperative to build on this foundation in a progressive and comprehensive manner. South Africa remained concerned at the lack of political will and commitment to eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The constant denial, by some, of the applicability of Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, was unhelpful. As for the report of the Special Rapporteur, South Africa wished to know from Mr. Muigai how he envisaged that the imperative need for States to domesticate the provisions of the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference would strengthen the protection regime in relation to addressing the root causes and consequences of Islamophobia? Could the Special Rapporteur also further elaborate on the innovative concept of “intolerant mentalities”, South Africa asked.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, wanted to know the reasons for the delay in the distribution of the High Commissioner’s report on the implementation of Human Rights Council resolution 10/22 (“Combating defamation of religions”) (A/HRC/12/39), while the report would be presented at the sixty-fourth session of the General Assembly. The Organization of the Islamic Conference wanted however to know how it was then possible that the report would be submitted to the ongoing session of the General Assembly but that it could not have been submitted to the Human Rights Council?

LU ZHIWEI (China) said the report of the Special Rapporteur assessed questions on the defamation of religion and incitement to religious hatred, and gave an account of their serious effects on human rights. The defamation of religion and incitement to religious hatred was an important issue and a matter of concern to the Human Rights Council. In recent years, defamation of Islam occurred regularly, with politicians and the media using the pretext of freedom of speech to harm the feelings of followers of Islam. The development of mankind was a history of the common development of cultures, societies and religions. Respecting cultural diversity and promoting dialogue between the different civilizations was the basis for harmonious development, common prosperity, and harmonious coexistence and the international community should work to promote the peaceful dialogue between religions in order to truly work for the protection and promotion of human rights. The outcome document of the Durban Review Conference had been successfully adopted, affirming the political will to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, strengthening international and national efforts to combat racism and advance the international cause against racism. The Durban Review Conference was a new landmark in the international cause against racism, and the next step should be for the international community to show the concrete will to implement its provisions fully.

SILVANO M. TOMASI (Holy See) said that resolutions and declarations were moving toward effective provisions for international protection and reaffirmation of the importance of dialogue. Such efforts were undertaken with the aim of preventing social conflict. However, such a negative perspective risked losing sight of the critical importance of the positive aspects of religious freedom. The delegation of the Holy See was of the opinion that the last report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism had taken a more positive approach to the issue. The Holy See therefore agreed with the Special Rapporteur that only an integrated approach based on the full respect of the right to freedom of religion could be the answer in combating the old and new phenomenon of discrimination on the basis of religious conviction and practice. Further, freedom of expression was not only a right but also a duty that needed to be strengthened, and the presumption should always be in favor of the possibility to exchange ideas and articulate opinions. The wise use of the media and of educational systems and textbooks could also teach mutual respect and appreciation. In conclusion, the road ahead pointed in the direction of comprehensive implementation of existing norms to protect freedom of religion and belief and of wise use of the freedom of expression.

HASNIA MARKUS (Libya) said that they refused all incitements to hatred for racial or religious reasons. They based themselves on the human rights instruments of the Libyan State, as well as the international instruments. Libya guaranteed the right to freedom of expression. But all throughout the current session, it seemed that this concept was elastic and that there were double standards. Some seemed to enjoy this right while others not. Through its presidency of the African Union, Libya was committed to fight against racism and racial hatred. All countries were invited to adopt the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. It was important to develop an international framework to address the damages caused by the slavery. Also, apologies should be made, as had been done by Italy.

KHADIJA RACHIDA MASR (African Union) said discrimination, whether it be based on race, belief, belonging to a social group or other grounds, produced egregious effects on the victim's ability to enjoy their economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights. Considering the emergence of new forms of racism and the recrudescence of various forms of discrimination, the conclusions of the Durban Review Conference were essential to make concrete the fight against racism. For historical reasons, the Commission of the African Union and the African people attached great importance to the fight against racism, and believed the conclusions of the Durban Review Conference were an essential benchmark in that regard. States should implement all their commitments and put in place programmes and plans of action to fight racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Dialogue with regional groups and partners should be set up on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the conclusions of the Durban Review Conference. The latter and its Outcome Document were in no way calling into question the established achievements of 2001, but reaffirmed the provisions of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, particularly with regard to the need for adequate protection of victims of racism and for national and regional and international plans, as well as in the emphasis on an approach targeted at the rights of the victims, which was the primary objective.

SALIM BEN RASHID Al-MRAIKI, of the Human Rights Committee of Qatar, said that racial discrimination existed in all societies, albeit in different forms. Qatar did not deny that there was discrimination based on gender or work in Qatar, but those were only individual cases, and there were no systematic practices. The absence of racial discrimination was attributed to legislation and other measures that countered racism, including the Labour Code of 2004, the National Human Rights Committee and the National Plan of Action. The National Human Rights Committee had participated in a number of meetings aimed at raising awareness and countering discrimination and it had organized campaigns and workshops, as well as mass media campaigns, and issued a number of recommendations related to the reunification of the families of migrant workers.

PETER ASH, of Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l'homme, in a joint statement with Interfaith International; and Espace Afrique International, of Rencontre Africaine pour la Defence des Droits de l’homme said that he was an Albino. He was like any other human being, except that his skin had no colour and his vision was impaired. In Africa several people still thought that the use of limbs of Albinos would make them rich. As a result, many Albinos were killed for their limbs, such as had happened to a five-year-old girl who had her throat cut and was dismembered in front of her siblings as the perpetrators – who would stand to earn thousands of dollars from the sale of her limbs to witch doctors – drank her blood. That was the story of just one of dozens of murders of albinos in Tanzania. Discrimination against Albinos was rampant. Some thought they were ghosts. He was thankful that a few days ago Tanzania had handed down the first convictions for such murders. Albinos abroad and in Africa were still waiting for justice. This carnage had to end now.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, denounced the fact that high-level politicians had recently made discriminatory comments and the fact that puns and racist debates was becoming widespread. The various phenomena of racism could not be done away with by legislation; the problem had to be dealt with from its roots.

LEON SALTIEL, of United Nations Watch, said the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action said that the Holocaust would never be forgotten, and called upon States to fight racism and impunity for war crimes, including crimes of genocide. United Nations Watch requested Syria to inform the Council about the location of a war criminal who had committed crimes during the Second World War. Justice and accountability had waited too long.

ROY W. BROWN, of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, wished to draw the Council’s attention to a particular form of discrimination against those wishing to change their religion in States where permission for citizens to change their religion had been denied. States had an obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to respect the religion or beliefs of their citizens, and to condemn absolutely calls for apostates to be murdered.

OLYMPE BAUDOIN, of Ligue internationale contre le Racisme et l'antisémitisme (LICRA), considered the report presented today by Mr. Muigai, as well as his recommendations, as globally positive. The League nevertheless regretted that the Special Rapporteur continued to focus on the fact that “intolerant mentalities” were characteristic of the West. That stigmatization was incorrect: if human rights were universal, racism was so as well, and it was on a world scale that all forms of intolerance had to be combated. Attempting to criminalize the defamation of religions was in reality nothing more than an undertaking to re-establish the archaic concept of blasphemy. By contrast, overcoming the concept of religious defamation in favour of that of incitement to religious hatred was to be welcomed. The League urged the Council to review its previous resolutions on the defamation of religions.

DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, in a joint statement with World Union for Progressive Judaism, was not at all surprised that the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism had at great length discussed Islamophobia, but only referred in passing to Christianophobia and Judeophobia. Although the Association for World Education had delivered full documentation to all four relevant Special Rapporteurs and to the High Commissioner on an egregious case of defamation of religion, there had been no condemnation or reaction. The question any independent person might ask was: Why such silence? The Association for World Education called for a universal condemnation of the blatant defamations of Judaism and the constant demonization of Jews in Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) publications and in the media of some Organization of the Islamic Conference States.

DAVID HACHUEL, of B'nai B'rith International, in a joint statement with Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations, said that recent events provided ample evidence that anti-Semitism was alive, even thriving. Several examples had taken place in the European region, the same area as the one reviewed by the Special Rapporteur. The Special Rapporteur was urged to address anti-Semitism shortly in order for the Council to have a thorough view on that extremely violent and worrying phenomenon.

LISET PALACIO MONTOYA, of the International Club for Peace Research, said the Islamophobia which the international community was confronted with was not just a result of terrorist attacks. Islam was assimilated in the popular mind with violence. To some extent, the fault lay with the vast majority of Muslims who had not been effective enough in countering the Al-Qaeda rhetoric. Racism of the old type had been defeated when apartheid was demolished in South Africa. The new type remained.

DAISUKE SHIRANE, of the International Movement against all forms of Discrimination and Racism, said the Special Rapporteur had a great responsibility to assist in the development of the follow-up to the Durban Review Conference and in the implementation of recommendations made in the outcome document of the Conference, which should help bring about progress in the efforts made by all stakeholders including the United Nations and civil society towards the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, especially based on work and descent. There were 260 million people in the world affected by discrimination based on work and descent, and the outcome document stressed the need to address with greater resolve and political will all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in all spheres of life and in all parts of the world.

PASCAL GYSEL, of the International Institute for Peace, said that in Pakistan Christians were being persecuted because of their faith. Pakistan was an Islamic country where Christians were a religious minority and faced religious, social, economic and educational discrimination. Formerly, Christians in the major cities of Pakistan had experienced discrimination, but up till now they had not had to fear threats of forced conversion or execution on a wide scale. However, the situation had worsened in the past few months. The international community could no longer remain silent spectators at a time when the attitude of the Government of Pakistan was that of callous indifference to the plight of the Christians. Those barbaric attacks on the Christian minority were as much an embarrassment for the international community, as it was for any society or people who had called themselves civilized.

AMELIE MARCHAL, of the European Union of Public Relations, said that today they found that religion, which should bring people together, was providing the impetus to divide. That process was most pronounced in States where the religious discourse had been hijacked by the most bigoted elements belonging to different religions. The European Union of Public Relations had watched with dismay as many developing nations had succumbed to the segregation and segmentation of society that religious bigotry engendered. The European Union of Public Relations wished to caution the European Parliament and the Human Rights Council not to be beguiled by groups whose origins lay in violence and who had conveniently adopted the language of self-determination and human rights to suit the present international temper. In addition, it was time for Pakistan to say goodbye to the Khalistani terrorist leaders still ensconced in its territory under the watchful eye of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies.

DAMIEN PERCY, of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, said that, like the Special Rapporteur, they supported the idea of the High Commissioner that a series of workshops be held in order to attain a better understanding of legislative patterns and judicial practice in the different regions of the world with regard to the incitement of racial and religious hatred. Legislation that encouraged such hatred represented a grave danger to the pursuit of human rights. Efforts should be made to prohibit the likelihood that States would introduce racist, xenophobic, intolerant or Islamophobic legislation or policy.

DIPMONI GAYAN, of Liberation, said that the future of Third World countries lay in their diverse biological resources. However, under colonial regimes, the rights of the people over coal, oil, tea, uranium, and other resources had been snatched away in the interests of international capital. The neo-imperialist forces took away peoples’ rights over their natural resources. Moreover, in the name of so-called development, mining of coal, oil and uranium was done in a haphazard manner with no consideration whatsoever for the displacement of people or the environment. In addition, Liberation appealed the Council to urge the Government of India to pay more attention towards the plight of the people living in the northeast region of India.

FARZANE MOSTOFIFAR, of the Institute for Women's Studies and Research, said women and children were two of the most vulnerable groups when it came to religious intolerance and Islamophobia, when intentionally or unintentionally they became targets of extremists, racists and individuals that by wrong and extremist interpretation of religion saw war among religions as a better option than dialogue, understanding and peace. Right now appropriate mechanisms existed at the disposal of the Council to address that – the Special Rapporteur could propose a new topic in the extraction of the common denominators in the main religions of the world to define women's rights. If that was done, then there would be no environment for the wrong definitions, wrong traditions and unbalanced look at women and men's rights in some societies to thrive, and while the lawful rights of women were guaranteed, the extremist interpretations which resulted in intolerance towards women in various forms of racism and Islamophobia could be brought to a minimum.

MAHMOUDREZA GOLSHANPAZHOOH, of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, said Islamophobia did not just mean opposition through soft or hard power against Islam, nor was it limited to the murder and abuse of women wearing the Islamic veil – Islamophobia could be found in very delicate layers. Sadly, in today's world, the concepts and tools for propagating Islamophobia had become modernized, with the media showing selective images and distorting facts alongside the images. In such an environment, the possibility of arriving at a fair and real perspective without prejudice became very difficult. Facilitating a suitable basis for the start and continuation of dialogue among intellectuals and scientists would prepare the basis for deeper and more transparent understanding of religion, which would be an important step.

ANDREA MARIFIL CALFUNAO, of the International Association against Torture, said that the indigenous peoples of Chile, and especially the Mapuche, were subjected to racism and discrimination on a daily basis. The Chilean educational system did not provide for bilingual education in the Wallmapu language and racism was seen in all segments of society, as well as in Chile’s policies regarding indigenous peoples. The constitutional reform which would recognize the existence of indigenous peoples was also largely refused by the Mapuche authorities, as it did not recognize their historic rights, including those relating to their ancestral territory. The International Association against Torture hoped that Chile would bear in mind each and every one of the recommendations that had been made by the Special Rapporteur, and that those recommendations would be implemented as soon as possible.

ORESTE FOPPIANI, of the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, said that Durban Review Conference representing a major step in the debate on freedom of expression and religious sensitivity, inasmuch as the expression “defamation of religions” had been withdrawn, correctly, from the Outcome Document. The Human Rights Council work should focus on the protection of persons rather than the protection of religions. However, the draft resolution put forward by the United States and Egypt on this question continued to talk of “stereotyping of religions” rather than stereotyping of individuals, and its language was a step backwards from the language in the Durban Review Conference Outcome Document. In addition, the draft should not be interpreted as authorizing States to restrict offensive discourse, rather than discourse inciting to hatred and violence.

JAN LONN, of the International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, said that the struggle against racism had been an exceptionally important part of the United Nations agenda. This year, as they were observing the twentieth anniversary of the 1989 General Assembly Special Session on Apartheid, it was unfortunate that they had to recall that there had been times when the fight against racism might have enjoyed a greater commitment in United Nations deliberations. The International Youth and Student Movement particularly deplored the manner in which the Durban Review Conference had been undermined.

GENEVIEVE JOURDAN, of the Association for World Citizens, welcomed the work of the Special Rapporteur. Racial discrimination could bolster authoritarianism within oppressive cultures. One had to open new spaces for dialogue in the area of human rights and to create truly multiethnic societies.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC09121E