Rabat Plan of Action to Prohibit Advocacy of National, Racial or Religious Hatred Constituting Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence

Conclusions and recommendations of the four regional expert meetings organized by OHCHR in 2011, adopted by experts in Rabat (Morocco) October 5, 2012

I. Preface

1. In 2011 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) organized a series of workshops in various regions of the world experts dedicated to the promotion of national, racial or religious hatred and its interpretation by international legislation in the field of human rights. During the meetings, the participants reviewed the situation in various regions and discussed policy responses, both non-legal and of a legal nature relating to incitement to hatred.

2. Events were held in Europe (Vienna, 9 and 10 February 2011), Africa (Nairobi, 6 and 7 April 2011), in Asia and the Pacific (Bangkok, 6 and 7 July 2011) and in the Americas (Santiago de Chile, 12 and 13 October 2011). [1] Thus, the purpose of OHCHR was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the implementation in life at the national and regional levels of legislation, legal and political practice in the field of propaganda of national, racial or religious hatred, consisting in calls for discrimination, hostility or violence [2] , while contributing to the development of a fully respectful attitude towards freedom word (self-expression), protected by international law in the field human rights. The main focus was on the relationship between freedom of expression and hate speech, especially in the field of religion - issues that are increasingly in the spotlight and repeatedly served as a cause of friction and episodes of violence both between different communities and inside them.

3. Expert the 2011 meetings provided a wealth of information and a range of practical proposals for more efficient methods of implementing relevant standards of international human rights law. [3] To sum up the series meetings held in 2011, OHCHR initiated final meeting of experts (in Rabat, 4 and 5 October 2012) to make a comparative analysis of the results of the four previous meetings, to formulate possible actions at all levels, and to think about best ways and means to share experience.

4. In work expert meeting in Rabat was attended by four moderators and experts who participated in all four previous meetings, including including the Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech and expression, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, representative of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and representative NGO "Article XIX"

5. IN in accordance with the practice of previous meetings, the participating States were invited to participate as observers. They were encouraged to include leading experts to the delegations. To participate as observers were also relevant departments, funds and programs of the United Nations are invited, as well as relevant international and regional organizations, national human rights institutions and civil society organizations (including including the press, academic and religious organizations).

6. Below The final document reflects the conclusions and recommendations of the Rabat meeting by experts who participated in all four workshops or moderated one of them.

II. Context

1. Since the world become more interconnected and the fabric of society more multicultural, incidents that have occurred in recent years in different parts of around the world have again drawn attention to the problem of incitement to hatred. Should, emphasize that, despite this, many conflicts that have unfolded in the world in recent decades, to varying degrees also contained an excitation component national, racial or religious hatred.

2. All rights human are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. This interdependence becomes most evident in the course of the discussion on how the right to freedom of speech correlates with other human rights. Realization of the right to freedom of expression makes possible a lively, multifaceted debate on issues of interest to society, voicing different approaches and points of view. Respect for freedom of expression is critical to ensuring democracy and sustainable human development and promotes peace and security on earth.

3. Nevertheless, Individuals and groups are, unfortunately, victims of various forms of discrimination, hostility or violence due to such factors as, for example, ethnic or religious affiliation. One of the specific problems in this areas - containment of the negative consequences of manipulating issues of race, ethnicity and religion, protection against unwanted use notions of national unity or national identity, which are often in use, including for political and electoral purposes.

4. Not uncommon claims that freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief are difficult to combine and may even contradict each other. On the contrary, they interdependent and reinforce each other. Freedom to confess or not to confess religion or belief is impossible in the absence of freedom of expression, since free public discourse depends on respect for variety of deep convictions inherent in people. Similarly, freedom of expression opinion is necessary to create conditions in which it is possible to conduct a constructive talking about religious matters. Indeed, free and critical thinking in an open discussion is the best way to check if the religious interpretations of the underlying values ​​underlying religion, or, on the contrary, they distort them.

5. calls concern over the fact that incidents that could actually qualified as a violation of Art. 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) do not lead to prosecution and punishment. IN At the same time, members of minorities are de facto persecuted in as a result of abuses of vaguely worded rules of internal legislation, law enforcement and procedures, which adversely affects other members of the community. This dichotomy, namely (1) the absence of pursuit in cases of "real" incitement to hatred and (2) harassment minorities under the guise of national hate speech laws, seems to be very common. Laws against incitement to hatred, used in different countries of the world can be classified as heterogeneous, sometimes overly narrow or vague; legal practice in the field of excitation hatred is scarce and inconsistent, and although states have adopted appropriate procedures, most of these procedures are too general, not applied systematically enough, poorly focused, and efficiency is not properly analyzed.

6. In the light of the above, holding four meetings in all regions of the world and the final meetings in Rabat with the full participation of experts from relevant organizations and special mandate holders is a very timely and useful initiative.

III. Implementation prohibition of incitement to hatred

1. On this background The following conclusions and recommendations are a synthesis of long-term, open and in-depth reflections of experts. These conclusions are in the area legislation, judicial infrastructure and political strategy – aimed for the support of all parties interested in the implementation of the international ban on propaganda of national, racial or religious hatred, representing constitute an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

A. Legislation

conclusions

1. IN in line with international human rights standards, which must comply with legislation at the national level, statements, falling under the definition of "hate speech" may be limited in in accordance with Art. 18 and 19 ICCPR on various grounds such as respect for rights of others, public order, and sometimes even considerations of national security. States are also required to “prohibit” speech amounting to “incitement” to discrimination, hostility or violence (in accordance with Art. 20.2 of the ICCPR and, if some other conditions, also in accordance with Art. 4 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).

2. Discussions in during various meetings demonstrated the absence of a legal prohibition on inciting hatred in the legal codes of many states around the world. Except In addition, legislation prohibiting incitement to hatred is inconsistent in terminology, which is often inconsistent with Art. 20 ICCPR. The wider definition of incitement to hatred in the legislation of the country, the more there is room for arbitrary application of these laws. Terminology, related to crimes in the area of ​​excitation of national, racial or religious hatred is different in different countries and is becoming more and more vague as legislation is added to new categories restrictions on freedom of expression. This increases the risk of incorrect interpretation of Art. 20 ICCPR and the emergence of further restrictions on freedom of expression opinions not covered by Art. 19 ICCPR.

3. Legislation some countries provide for offenses related to incitation as racial and religious hatred, while others deal with purely racial and ethnic issues. In some countries also there are prohibitions on inciting hatred for other reasons. Different approaches States to the distribution of issues between civil and criminal law. In many countries criminalize incitement to hatred crime, while in others it can be considered both criminal and and civil, or exclusively civil legislation.

4. On internationally, the prohibition on incitement to hatred is clearly defined in Art. 20 ICCPR and Art. 4 ICERD. In General Comment No. 34 the Human Rights Committee Stresses that prohibitions on disrespect for religion or other belief system (including blasphemy laws), beyond except for the specific circumstances provided for in paragraph 2 of Art. 20 Pact. Such bans must also comply with strict requirements paragraph 3 of Art. 19, as well as articles 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26 of the ICCPR. For example, it is unacceptable that such a law discriminate in favor of one or more religions (belief systems) or against them, as well as discrimination against adherents of any religion(s) in relation to others, or discrimination against believers on the basis towards unbelievers. Such prohibitions should also not be used to preventing criticism of religious leaders or comments on issues religious doctrine and principles of faith, or as a punishment for such criticism or comments.

5. Art. 20 ICCPR provides for a high threshold of liability in accordance with fundamental principle that restrictions on freedom of speech must be an exceptional measure. This threshold must be considered in conjunction from Art. 19 ICCPR. Indeed, the constraint admissibility test (consisting of three parts - legality, proportionality and necessity) also applies to cases incitement to hatred, i.e. restrictions must be established by law, defined narrowly enough to ensure the legitimate interests of the public, and must be necessary for the protection of those interests in a democratic society. This means, among other things, that the restrictions must comply with the following requirements: they must be clearly and narrowly defined, meet a strong social necessity, they must, to the least extent possible, intrude into the social and personal life, not be too broad (i.e. do not assume broad or indefinite restrictions on free speech), be proportionate in the sense that benefit to protected interests outweighs damage to freedom of expression opinions, including on the sanctions they impose.

6. At the level states, blasphemy laws are counterproductive because they can lead to actual censorship of dialogues and discussions between different religious and worldview systems and within them, as well as to the suppression of criticism, which, for the most part, can be constructive, healthy and necessary. Except In addition, many blasphemy laws provide varying levels of protection for different religions and in practice were often used and used in a discriminatory way. There are numerous examples of persecution religious minorities or non-conformists, atheists and non-believers as a result use of religious offenses laws or excessive diligent application of various neutrally formulated laws. Moreover, the right to freedom of religion or belief, as provided for in relevant international legal norms, does not imply rights to religion or a faith that is not subject to criticism or ridicule.

Recommendations

• In terms of general principles, a clear distinction must be made between three types of statements: a statement that is a criminal offence; a statement that is not criminally punishable, but may be subject to civil action or administrative sanctions; statement that is not subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, but, nevertheless, causing concern from the point of view view of tolerance, correctness and respect for the rights of other people.
• Taking in attention the relationship between Art. 19 and 20 of the ICCPR, States must ensure that that national legislation on incitement to hatred be based on direct link to Art. 20 ICCPR (“propaganda of a national, racial or religious hatred, which is an incitement to discrimination, enmity or violence”), as well as to consider reliable definitions for key terms such as hate, discrimination, violence, hostility, etc. IN In particular, legislation may rely on guidance and definitions articulated in the Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality (Camden Principles). [4]
• States must ensure that the three criteria for restricting freedom of expression - legality, proportionality and necessity – apply also to cases inciting hatred.
• States should take into account the guidance leading international expert mechanisms in the field of human rights, including including the Human Rights Committee and the Committee for the Elimination of Racial discrimination (CERD) and their General Comment No. 34 and General Recommendation No. 15 as well as indications of relevant special procedures mandate holders Human Rights Council.
• States recommended to ratify and effectively implement the relevant international and regional human rights instruments, withdraw existing objections, and comply with the obligation to submit appropriate reports.
• states, whose legislation contains laws on blasphemy, must abolish them, because such laws adversely affect freedom of religion or beliefs and the possibility of a healthy dialogue or discussion about religion.
• States should adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, including preventive and punitive measures to effectively combat arousal hate.

B. Law enforcement

conclusions

1. Independent judicial infrastructure, which is regularly brought into line with current international standards and legal practice, whose representatives act impartially, objectively and with respect for the due process legal process is critical to ensuring that in every in a particular case, the facts and legal qualifications will be assessed in accordance with international human rights standards. In addition, to protect the rights human needs other checks and balances, such as independent national human rights institutions established under Parisian principles.

2. Level recourse to judicial and quasi-judicial mechanisms in cases of alleged initiation hate is often extremely low. In many cases, the victims belong to disadvantaged or vulnerable populations. Worldwide information about case law on the prohibition of incitement to hatred is provided reluctantly. In some cases, this can be explained by the lack of legislation, lack of adequate legislation, or lack of judicial assistance, accessible to minorities and other vulnerable groups, who make up the majority victims of incitement to hatred. The lack of information about judicial practice can be associated with the lack of available archives, but also simply with the lack of appeals to the court due to insufficient public awareness and distrust of judicial system.

3. It was proposed to set a high threshold for imposing restrictions on freedom of expression in determining arousal hatred and for the application of Art. 20 ICCPR. The criterion of severity required for overcoming the threshold, implies that only the most difficult and emotionally charged insults are classified as hate speech. Possible parameters for assessing the degree of hatred, may include cruelty of what was said, the degree of harm the speaker called for, the frequency and the number of statements and the degree of their publicity. In connection with this, there was proposed a six-part test to determine the statements to be criminal prosecution.

4. Context : Context is very important in assessing whether particular statements incite discrimination, hostility or violence, it may have a direct relation to intent and/or reason. Contextual analysis should place statement in the social and political context prevailing at that moment, when that statement was made or circulated.

5. Speaker : It is necessary to take into account the position or status of the speaker in society, in particular, the position of the person or organization in relation to the target audience statements.
6. Intention : Art. 20 ICCPR presupposes intent. negligence and recklessness are sufficient grounds for the application of Art. 20, which requires "propaganda" and "inciting hatred" and not just spreading. In this regard, the article assumes the presence of a triangle relations between the object of the utterance, the subject of the utterance and the audience.
7. Content or form : The content of the utterance is one of the main objects judicial review and a major component of incitement to hatred. Analysis content involves finding out how direct and provocative the statement was, as well as consideration of the form and style, the nature of the arguments put forward by the speaker, balanced argumentation, etc.
8. Degree of publicity : This paragraph includes such elements as the accessibility of the statement, the nature addressee, significance and size of the audience. Further considerations - is whether the statement is public, what are the means of its dissemination. Necessary take into account, the statement was spread through a single leaflets, by broadcasting in the media or via the Internet, what was the frequency, number and breadth of coverage, did the audience have the opportunity to to act in accordance with provocative appeals, a statement was circulated (or work of art) in a narrow circle or was publicly available.
9. Probability of conscription implementation, including inevitability: inciting hatred, by definition, is a crime in the bud. The action to which induces an utterance, does not have to take place in order for the utterance to could be considered criminal. However, to some extent there must be the potential risk of harm has been identified. This means that the courts must will establish that there was a real possibility that the statement could provoke actual action against the target group, giving itself report that in this case a fairly direct causal relationship.

Recommendations

• nationwide and regional courts should receive regular updates on international standards and international, regional and comparative law practice with regard to incitement to hatred, since, faced with such cases, courts must conduct a thorough analysis based on good thoughtful threshold criteria.
• States must ensure the right to a fair and public hearing competent, independent and impartial tribunal formed in in accordance with the law.
• Due attention should be paid to minorities and vulnerable groups, their representatives should be provided with legal and other assistance.
• States should provide persons who have suffered real damage as a result of initiation hatred, the right to an effective remedy, including civil or out-of-court compensation mechanism.
• Criminal sanctions associated with illegal forms of speech should be considered as extreme measures, which should be used only strictly justified in special situations. Consideration should also be given to the possibility of civil sanctions and remedies, including compensation for material and moral damages, together with the right to rebut and the right to reply. It is also necessary consider the possibility of using administrative sanctions and remedies protections, including those defined and enforced by various professional institutions and regulatory bodies.

C. Politics

conclusions

1. For all the importance of legal response, legislation is only part of a set tools that can be used in the fight against hate speech. Any relevant legislation should be complemented by initiatives coming from different strata of society and focused on the plurality of political and practical measures to educate public consciousness, tolerance, awareness of change and open discussion. The purpose of these steps is to create and strengthen culture of peace, tolerance and mutual respect between people, government officials and the judiciary, as well as influencing on the media, on religious and local leaders communities to increase their ethical and social responsibility. States, the media and society bear the collective responsible for protesting and take action in accordance with international human rights law.

2. Political and religious leaders must refrain from expressing intolerance or statements inciting violence, hostility or discrimination. Their hard and timely statements against intolerance, discriminatory stereotypes and hate speech also play a crucial role. It should be made clear that the application violence in response to incitement to hatred is categorically unacceptable.

3. For Addressing the root causes of intolerance requires a much broader set of strategic measures, for example, in the field of intercultural dialogue (mutual understanding and interactions): fostering pluralism and the appreciation of diversity, focus on enabling minorities and indigenous peoples to exercise their right to freedom of expression.

4. States are responsible for ensuring that minorities have the opportunity to enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms, for example, by facilitating registration and functioning of their media organizations. States should encourage communities in their quest to access a wide range of opinions and information and sharing, and to welcome the resulting healthy dialogue and discussion.

5. Some regions have clearly preferred an extra-legislative approach to dealing with agitation hatred, in particular by applying social and political measures and creating various types of institutions and processes, such as commissions to establish truth and reconciliation. The work of regional human rights mechanisms, specialized organizations, an active civil society and independent monitoring institutions is fundamentally important in all regions of the world. Besides, positive traditional values ​​compatible with internationally recognized human rights norms and standards can also contribute to combat incitement to hatred.

6. Facilities mass media and other means of communication play a fundamental role in ensuring freedom of expression and equality. In the global scale, traditional media are still important, but they undergoing significant transformation. New technologies - including digital broadcasting, mobile telephony, the Internet and social networks - make it possible significantly wider dissemination of information and give rise to new forms communication, such as the blogosphere.

7. Steps taken by the UN Human Rights Council, in particular, the adoption without a vote of the Resolution 16/18 "On the fight against intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and the use of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief”, create a promising platform for effective, integrated and comprehensive action by the international community. This resolution requires implementation and constant state control over execution at the national level, including through the Rabat Action Plan, which is a contribution to its performance.

Recommendations states

• States a greater degree of involvement in a broad campaign against negative stereotyping and discrimination against individuals and communities based on their nationality, ethnicity, religion or beliefs.
• States should promote intercultural understanding, in particular in gender questions. In this regard, all States have a responsibility to build a culture of peacefulness and the duty to end impunity.
• States should provide teachers with additional training on values ​​and human rights principles by initiating or reinforcing a focus on intercultural understanding in school curricula for students of all ages.
• States should allocate more resources to the training of officials security, law enforcement and persons involved in the dispatch justice, and drawing their attention to issues relating to the prohibition of inciting hatred.
• States should consider establishing institutions for equality, or strengthening such a function within existing national human rights organizations (established in accordance with the Paris Principles), with a higher level of professionalism in promoting social dialogue, as well as with the power to receive complaints in cases of incitement to hatred. For effective implementation of such functions, new adapted manuals are also needed, tests and recommended practices to avoid arbitrariness and contributing to the harmonization of practice at the international level.
• States should guarantee the systematic collection of data on crimes related to incitement to hatred, and to ensure that the necessary mechanisms and institutions.
• States should develop a public policy and regulatory framework that contribute to the development of pluralism and diversity of the media information, including those using new media technologies, and provided would be the absence of discrimination in access to and use of communications.
• States should strengthen support for international human rights mechanisms, in particular treaty bodies (such as the Human Rights Committee and CERD) and mandate holders of special procedures as they provide advice and assistance to States in work on the implementation of human rights legislation.

Recommendations United Nations

• Control The High Commissioner for Human Rights must be provided with the resources necessary to adequately support international expert mechanisms, called upon to protect freedom of expression and freedom of religion, prevent incitement to hatred and calls for discrimination, etc. States should support such the efforts of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to strengthen treaty bodies, and ensuring adequate resources for the system of ad hoc procedures.
• management High Commissioner for Human Rights is invited to cooperate with States wishing to avail themselves of its assistance to strengthen the normative and the political framework relating to the prohibition of incitement to hatred. In this links OHCHR may consider – drawing on the experience of four regional meetings as part of this process, the creation of tools that match international human rights law, such as the compendium recommended practices and elements of model legislation in the area of prohibitions on inciting hatred. In order to promote progress in the development national legislation and case law in this developing area, OHCHR may also consider organizing regular legal colloquia to provide national judiciaries updated information and to stimulate the exchange of experiences on food bans inciting hatred.
• Necessary increase the level of interaction and cooperation between relevant treaty bodies, and special procedures mandate holders, including where necessary, through joint steps to denounce propaganda national, racial or religious hatred, which is an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
• Various institutions United Nations system, including the Office of the High Commissioner Human Rights, the Alliance of Civilizations Initiative and the Office of the Special Genocide Prevention Adviser should intensify cooperation with aim to achieve maximum impact and stimulate joint activities.
• Cooperation and the exchange of information needs to be strengthened (a) between the various regional and interregional mechanisms such as the Council of Europe, the Organization for security and cooperation in Europe, European Union, Organization American States, the African Union, ASEAN, and the Organization Islamic Cooperation, and (b) between these organizations and the Organization United Nations
• Consider implementation at the national level and in cooperation with States Parties measures to implement the recommendations of this document addressed to States.

Recommendations other stakeholders

• non-governmental organizations, national human rights institutions, and other civic associations should create and maintain dialogue and mechanisms that promote intercultural and interreligious understanding and knowledge.
• Political parties must adopt ethical principles that govern the conduct of their representatives, especially during public speaking, and monitor their compliance.
• self-regulation, where it is effective, remains the most appropriate way to solve professional issues related to the media. IN in accordance with Camden Principle 9, all media should, as a matter of moral and social responsibility and through self-regulation, participate in the fight against discrimination and promote intercultural understanding, including as follows:
• Accept measures to ensure that their messages are placed in context, are balanced and based on facts, while doing everything to ensure that acts of discrimination are brought to the public.
• Understand the danger posed by discrimination against individuals and groups and negative stereotypes about them when they are disseminated by the media.
• Avoid unnecessary references to race, religion, gender and other group characteristics, which may contribute to intolerance.
• Level Up public awareness of the harm caused by discrimination and negative stereotypes.

• give attention to different groups or communities, giving their representatives the opportunity to speak out and be heard in a way that contributes to their better understanding, and, at the same time, reflects the attitudes of these groups or communities.

• Besides, voluntary professional codes of conduct for the media and journalists should reflect the principles of equality, and effective steps should be taken to proclaim and put them into practice.

IV. Final remarks

1. Despite systematic attention paid to the concept of freedom of expression in international law in the field of human rights and in many national legislations, practical application and official recognition of this concept are carried out not fully all over the world. At the same time, in many parts of the world, international human rights standards on the prohibition of inciting national, racial or religious hatred has yet to enter the national legislation and political strategy. The above explains how objective complexity as well as the political delicacy of defining arousal hatred in the spirit of respect for freedom of expression.

2. The above conclusions and recommendations are steps towards solving these problems, which, it is to be hoped, will contribute both to further work within countries and international cooperation in this area.

---

[1] Approximately 45 experts in various fields have adopted participation in four regional meetings and a meeting in Rabat. Over 200 observers took part in the debate.

[2] Art. 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and political rights reads: “Any speech in favor of a national, racial or religious hatred, which constitutes an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

Later in this will be referred to in the text as " excitement hate ."

[3] With a message from the High Commissioner to the four expert meetings, background studies, expert reports, Stakeholder presentations and meeting reports can be see the link: www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Articles19-20/Pages/Index.aspx

[4] These principles were prepared by Article XIX based on discussions held by a number of stakeholders with the participation of human rights experts in the field international law specializing in issues of freedom of expression and equality. The principles are a progressive interpretation of the international law and international standards, accepted state practice (in in particular as reflected in national laws and decisions of national courts), and also general legal principles recognized by the international community.

In accordance with principle No. 12, the legal systems of countries should indicate (expressly or with authoritative interpretation) that the terms "hatred" and "enmity" refer to "intense and irrational emotions of condemnation, hostility and dislike for towards the target group" that the term "propaganda" should be understood as implying “having an intention to publicly incite hatred against the target group” and that the term "incitement to hatred" refers to "statements about national, racial or religious groups that create an immediate threat of discrimination, hostility or violence against persons belonging to these groups.”

Sources

• Rabat Plan of Action on Prohibition of Advocacy of National, Racial and Religious Hatred Constituting Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility and Violence (in English) // Website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2013. February 21.