Human Rights Council holds debate with Special Rapporteur on Racism and Chair of Working Group on People of African Descent

Human Rights Council
MIDDAY 28 September 2010

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and the Chairperson of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, under its agenda item on Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance and follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. It then held a general debate under that agenda item.

Githu Muigai, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, said numerous cases of acts of violence or discrimination, or incitements thereto, against believers were brought to his attention in the last year. These acts were strictly prohibited by international human rights law; States should therefore denounce and prosecute acts of violence against individuals and should also take all necessary measures to ensure that all individuals enjoyed their human rights without discrimination of any kind. The report concluded that advocacy of racial or religious hatred was an external manifestation of something much more profound, which was intolerance, ignorance or bigotry. His second report related to the implementation of the General Assembly resolution entitled “Inadmissibility of certain practices that contributed to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”. All States should be more vigilant vis-à-vis extremist political parties, movements and groups which promoted either explicitly or implicitly the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination and xenophobia, as well as acts of violence or incitement to such acts against specific groups of individuals.

Mirjana Najcevska, Chairperson of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, presented the report of the Working Group on the situation of peoples of African descent in the United States. The Working Group was impressed with the wide-ranging and comprehensive legislative framework that protected and advanced the right to non-discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity and noted with satisfaction the many programmes and other initiatives implemented by the government to combat racial discrimination affecting people of African descent. The Working Group also noted the existence of a circle of poverty and challenges related to education, employment opportunities and the administration of justice affecting the lives of people of African descent. The experts remained particularly alarmed and concerned by the onerous employment situation of many women of African descent, poor access to quality education and with aspects of the administration of justice that adversely affected the African American population; particularly disproportionate incarceration rates compared to the general population and the seemingly discriminatory application of some laws.

The United States, speaking as a concerned country, said the United States agreed with the conclusion of the Working Group that a comprehensive solution to inadequate access to quality education was needed. To that end, the Obama Administration was implementing the “Race to the Top” programme, a competitive grant programme designed to encourage and reward the states that were creating the conditions for innovation and reform in education. The Department of Education had also launched the Promise Neighbourhoods programme, which was the first federal initiative to put education at the centre of comprehensive support services that were designed to improve educational outcomes for students in communities of concentrated poverty, the United States said. The United States clarified the reference in the Working Group’s conclusions related to the abolition of slavery and said that while the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, it allowed the state or federal government to compel the labour of anyone convicted of a crime.

In the interactive discussion, speakers welcomed the preliminary report on the human rights challenges posed by extremist political parties and groups and said that those were greatly responsible for igniting old and new manifestations of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance throughout the world. Such organizations were not operating in a vacuum and their performance was greatly influenced by official State policies and that was why States bore the primary obligation to ensure fundamental freedoms and the protection of its citizens from violence. Despite an impressive arsenal of anti-racism and anti-discrimination legislation, many challenges remained. Laws were not enough to fight racism and intolerance; there was a need for a broad set of policy measures, in particular preventive measures. More vigilance vis-à-vis extremist political parties and groups by States was needed, and governments should address early-warning signs through a wide range of measures to create a peaceful society.

Several speakers welcomed the Special Rapporteur's recommendation to move away from the notion of defamation of religions towards the legal concept of advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, in order to anchor the debate in the relevant existing international legal framework. A number of countries raised concerns about the cases mentioned in the preliminary report, and made remarks about the shortcomings in the methodology used by the Special Rapporteur. Several speakers commented on the scope of the preliminary report and noted that although the Special Rapporteur was mandated to evaluate in particular the ongoing serious implications of Islamophobia, this issue wasn't dealt with in a clear and sufficient manner allowing the Council to evaluate the full aspects of this phenomenon.

Speakers also welcomed the report of the Working Group on People of African Descent and their visit to the United States and welcomed their recommendations which, when implemented, would ameliorate the challenges faced by the people of African descent, particularly in the area of unemployment, lower income levels, access to higher levels of education and quality health care. Speakers expressed the hope that the United States would soon take decisive measures to address this discrimination in accordance with their well known commitment to democracy and human rights.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on racism and with the Chair of the Working Group on people of African descent were the representatives of Belgium on behalf of the European Union, Venezuela, India, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Indonesia, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Honduras, Armenia, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Denmark, Brazil, United States of America, China, Ecuador, Djibouti, Russian Federation, Norway, Malaysia, Maldives, Senegal, Libya, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Thailand, Azerbaijan, Algeria, the African Union, Sweden, Bangladesh and Philippines. Also speaking were International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, Human Rights First, Ligue international contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme and Cairo Institute of Human Rights.

In the context of the general debate, speakers said that work to combat racism and xenophobia remained a global challenge that needed a multilateral response, but with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination States had an effective and relevant international instrument to tackle this challenge. Despite the progress in the fight against racism, there was resurgence in the manifestations of contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in various parts of the world. Many measures undertaken so far failed to recognise the root causes of the problem. It was the responsibility of States to adopt effective measures to combat criminal acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, particularly by including appropriate legal measures in constitutions and so filling the judicial vacuum in dealing with the issue of religious intolerance. Speakers welcomed the series of expert workshops being organised by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to attain a better understanding of the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national policies in different regions of the world with regard to the concept of incitement to hatred.

Speaking in the general debate were the representatives of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Belgium on behalf of European Union, Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Syria on behalf of the Arab Group, Libya, Russian Federation, Cuba, United States of America, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Guatemala, Turkey, Iran, Israel, Kuwait, Holy See and Azerbaijan.
The following National Human Rights Institutions and non-governmental organizations also took part: Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peuples, Fraternité Notre Dame Inc., International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, Charitable Institute for Protecting Social Victims, International Educational Development, Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, International Humanist and Ethical Union, France Libertés-Fondation Danielle Mitterand, Liberation, Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association of Cameroon, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, United Nations Watch, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Association for World Education, International Club for Peace Research, European Union of Public Relations, International Institute for Peace, Commission to study the Organization of Peace, World Union for Progressive Judaism, Rencontre Africaine pour la défense des droits de l'homme, International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, Association of World Citizens and Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization.

The Council will continue its meeting this afternoon when it will hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Cambodia under the agenda item pertaining to technical assistance and capacity building.

Documents

The Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Githu Muigai, on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, (A/HRC/15/45), addresses the human rights and democratic challenges posed by extremist political parties, movements and groups, including neo-Nazis and skinhead groups, as well as similar extremist ideological movements. The Special Rapporteur, following a brief introduction, examines how these parties, movements and groups may pose challenges to the human rights principles of non-discrimination, the rights to life and to security of person, the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, as well as to democracy.

The Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Githu Muigai, on all manifestations of defamation of religions, in particular the ongoing serious implications of Islamophobia, for the enjoyment of rights by their followers, (A/HRC/15/53), refers to cases pertaining to Human Rights Council resolution 13/16 brought to his attention and makes related observations. The cases cover a wide range of issues and appear to fall under five broad and non-exhaustive categories. The themes covered include: (a) acts of violence or discrimination, or incitement thereto, against individuals on the basis of their religion or belief; (b) attacks on religious sites; (c) religious and ethnic profiling; (d) religious symbols; and (e) negative stereotyping of religions, their followers and sacred persons. In conclusion, the Special Rapporteur presents some recommendations.

Corrigendum, (A/HRC/15/53/Corr.1), is currently unavailable.

The Report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent: Mission to the United States of America, (A/HRC/15/18), summarizes information received during the meetings it held with Government officials and civil society organizations regarding the general situation of people of African descent in the United States and the situations that expose them to discrimination and outlines the action taken at various levels for their well-being. It concludes with recommendations that the Working Group believes will, if implemented, make tangible improvements in the situation of people of African descent in the United States.

The Note of the Secretariat transmitting the report of the Secretary General containing proposals for a programme of work of activities for the International Year for People of African Descent, (A/HRC/15/59), is currently unavailable.

Presentation of Reports by the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the Working Group on People of African Descent

Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, said the report he was introducing today dealt with reported cases on issues pertaining to Human Rights Council resolution 13/16, and should be read together with his earlier report which focused on the legal and conceptual questions concerning the debate on "defamation of religions" and incitement to racial or religious hatred. Since submitting his first report on the topic, he had continued to receive regular information on issues pertaining to Human Rights Council resolution 13/16. One of the most recent examples was the plan of a small group of individuals in Florida to organize a "Burn a Koran Day", an initiative he very much regretted. This event demonstrated that actions undertaken by a small group of persons could sometimes have worldwide repercussions. The cases contained in the report covered a wide range of issues and appeared to fall under five broad and non-exhaustive categories: acts of violence or discrimination, or incitement thereto, against individuals on the basis of their religion or belief; attacks on religious sites; religious and ethnic profiling; bans or restrictions on religious symbols; and negative stereotyping of religions, their followers and sacred persons.

Numerous cases of acts of violence or discrimination, or incitement thereto, against believers were brought to his attention in the last year. These acts were strictly prohibited by international human rights law; States should therefore denounce and prosecute acts of violence against individuals and should also take all necessary measures to ensure that all individuals enjoyed their human rights without discrimination of any kind. States should also live up to their responsibilities under the relevant international human rights standards which protected religious sites. States should not resort to profiling based on discriminatory grounds prohibited by international law, including on racial, ethnic or religious grounds. States should also have the objective to safeguard both the positive freedom to display religious symbols and the negative freedom from being forced to display religious symbols. Concerning negative stereotyping of religions, vigorously interrogating and criticising religious doctrines and their teachings was thoroughly legitimate, and constituted a significant part of the exercise of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The Council should focus on how advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence could be effectively combated. The report concluded that advocacy of racial or religious hatred was an external manifestation of something much more profound, which was intolerance, ignorance or bigotry. Tackling the root causes of manifestations of religious intolerance affecting individuals' human rights required a broad set of policy measures, and States should put a strong emphasis on a broad range of preventive measures which aimed at fostering a peaceful society, in particular in the areas of education, awareness-raising and interreligious and intercultural dialogue.

The second report related to the implementation of the General Assembly resolution entitled Inadmissibility of certain practices that contributed to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Due to the fact that extremist political parties, movements and groups most often relied on intolerance, discrimination, exclusion and xenophobia, their persistent existence posed major challenges to democracy and to a number of human rights and freedoms, including the principle of non-discrimination; the rights to life and to security of person; and the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association. States were faced with a complex dilemma when countering extremist political parties, movements and groups. They must ensure the full enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression, and allow all political parties, movements and groups to enjoy their right to freedom of assembly and association, while taking measures to counter extremist political parties, movements and groups. The Special Rapporteur emphasised the key role that political leaders and parties had to play, and recommended that political parties base their programme and activities on respect for human rights, and refuse to enter into any alliance with extremist parties of a racist or xenophobic character to form majorities wielding political power in a given State. All States should be more vigilant vis-à-vis extremist political parties, movements and groups which promoted either explicitly or implicitly the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination and xenophobia, as well as acts of violence or incitement to such acts against specific groups of individuals. No State was immune from such attempts to debase humans and create divisions within society.

MIRJANA NAJCEVSKA, Chairperson of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, presented the report of the Working Group on the situation of peoples of African descent in the United States of America and thanked the US Government for its invitation, as well as its help and assistance before and during the Working Group’s visit to the country. The Working Group was impressed with the wide-ranging and comprehensive legislative framework that protected and advanced the right to non-discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity. The Working Group also noted with satisfaction the many programmes and other initiatives implemented by the United States Government to combat racial discrimination affecting people of African descent. Furthermore, the structure used by the Government for collecting and analysing disaggregated data on race proved to be an important tool in the identification of racial disparities in access to employment, education, health and other fundamental rights and in the design and implementation of policies to remedy the identified challenges.

The Working Group also noted the existence of a circle of poverty and challenges related to education, employment opportunities and the administration of justice affecting the lives of people of African descent. The experts remained particularly alarmed by the onerous employment situation that many women of African descent endured, working two or three jobs in order to support their families as single mothers. On the issue of education, the Working Group was informed that one of the structural reasons for poor access to quality education was that public schools were funded by local property taxes and so the poorer neighbourhoods had less revenue to spend on their schools.

Notwithstanding the efforts put forth by the American government to address racial imbalances, the experts believed that the history of slavery and electoral disenfranchisement still lingered in the present-day structures of the nation. The experts were also quite concerned with aspects of the administration of justice that adversely affected the African American population; particularly disproportionate incarceration rates compared to the general population and the seemingly discriminatory application of some laws. The members of the Working Group were informed that there was not an appropriate education system for children in adult prisons and children were forced to work during their imprisonment for very low compensation. In conclusion, the Working Group firmly believed that the lessons of this visit would be of benefit for its upcoming visits to Portugal and Canada.

Statement by Concerned Country

MARK J. CASSAYRE (United States of America), speaking as a concerned country, said the United States welcomed the visit of the Working Group on People of African Descent and said it agreed with the conclusion of the Working Group that a comprehensive solution to inadequate access to quality education was needed. To that end, the Obama Administration was implementing the “Race to the Top” programme, which was a competitive grant programme designed to encourage and reward the states in the United States that were creating the conditions for innovation and reform in education. “Race to the Top” encouraged ambitious plans in core education reforms and sought to achieve substantial gains in student achievement, improved high school graduation rates, and better student preparation for college and careers. It aimed to close achievement gaps. The Department of Education had also launched the Promise Neighbourhoods programme, which was the first federal initiative to put education at the centre of comprehensive support services that were designed to improve educational outcomes for students in communities of concentrated poverty.

The United States clarified the reference in the Working Group’s conclusions related to the abolition of slavery and said that while the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, it allowed the state or federal government to compel the labour of anyone convicted of a crime. This exception applied broadly to every person in the United States, not only to African Americans. Because the term “slavery” was associated with the chattel slavery of African Americans before the Civil War, use of the term to apply to convicted prisoners might be misleading, the United States said. In closing, the United States said it greatly appreciated the visit of the Working Group and looked forward to working with it in the future.

Clustered Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Racism and the Working Group on People of African Descent

NICOLE RECKINGER, (Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union), said the European Union welcomed the Special Rapporteur's recommendation encouraging States to move away from the notion of defamation of religions towards the legal concept of advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, in order to anchor the debate in the relevant existing international legal framework, and fully shared this recommendation. Although the European Union noted that the concept of defamation of religions was not a human rights concept, it acknowledged the concerns behind the discourse, which were not limited to one religion, or to one region. The report enumerated incidents that appeared to fall under five categories, warranting different approaches under international human rights law. By providing this framework, the Special Rapporteur had contributed to advancing the debate on intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, but the European Union wished for a clear common understanding of which of the incidents under the five categories should be the subject of discussion within the Human Rights Council. The European Union acknowledged that despite an impressive arsenal of anti-racism and anti-discrimination legislation, many challenges remained, including in Europe, noting that laws were not enough to fight racism and intolerance and that there was a need for a broad set of policy measures, in particular preventive measures.

FELIX PENA RAMOS (Venezuela), thanked the Special Rapporteur and the Working Group for their reports. Venezuela stated that it would enthusiastically take part in the year of African descent. Venezuela also regretted that the Special Rapporteur on racism highlighted in his report an isolated incident that occurred some two years ago in Venezuela in a place of worship. The delegate reiterated that freedom of religion or belief was a fundamental and protected right in Venezuela and had never been under attack. In conclusion, the Government of Venezuela remained committed to combating all forms of religious hatred or intolerance.

GOPINATHAN ACHAMKULANGARE (India), said India thanked the two Special Procedures on their report and said it wished to comment on the report of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The Special Rapporteur emphasised in his discourse that he had not referred to action by States and did not take a position on his own on the cases cited in the report. India wished to express reservations as to the methodology used to list the cases in the report. India, as a concerned country, referred the case mentioned to the Supreme Court and found it was non-existent. Even if it was accurate, just listing cases alone without mentioning the context would not be correct, India concluded.

SHAFQAT KHAN, (Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), said the Organization of the Islamic Conference attached immense importance to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, which was one of the core issues shaping the contemporary human rights discourse. Extremist political parties and related groups posed a major challenge to a range of fundamental human rights and freedoms, and the majority of victims in this regard were immigrants, with a large number Muslims. The Organization of the Islamic Conference supported the recommendation by the Special Rapporteur for States to be more vigilant vis-à-vis extremist political parties and groups and to adopt and strictly enforce a wide range of legislative as well as other complimentary measures to deal with this phenomenon. The Organization of the Islamic Conference requested that the Special Rapporteur explain the rationale behind categorising the cases of defamation of religion, and in particular Islamophobia, into five broad categories. The Special Rapporteur should further guide the Council on the necessary steps that should be taken to prevent discriminatory measures against individuals, in particular measures that were taken on the pretext of security. While healthy criticism led to constructive debates, defamation and insults invited hatred and led to disharmony and discrimination. The Organization of the Islamic Conference supported the recommendation that governments should address early-warning signs through a wide range of measures to create a peaceful society.

DICKY KOMAR (Indonesia), said that the Special Rapporteur’s report outlined acts of racism and the government of Indonesia highlighted the fact that it had established laws to combat such acts. Moreover, defamation of religion and the rising trend of Islamophobia remained of great concern for the government of Indonesia. Racial discrimination was often the result of poverty and poor access to and quality of education. Education and awareness-raising were therefore important objectives in the promotion of racial tolerance. As a multicultural nation, Indonesia was a firm believer in multi-faith and multi-ethnic dialogue, which was important in promoting a climate of acceptance and tolerance within a society.

FRANK ISOH (Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group), said it welcomed the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and his preliminary report on the human rights challenges posed by extremist political parties and groups. The existence of groups, parties and movements based on racial superiority, intolerance and discrimination posed a constant threat to human rights and principles of non-discrimination and democracy, right to life and to security of persons. It was regrettable that in the 21st century such groups would resort to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to achieve their political aims. The Group fully welcomed the recommendations put forward by the Special Rapporteur and called on states to be more vigilant and put in place measures to deal with this trend. The Group welcomed the report of the Working Group on People of African Descent and their visit to the United States and welcomed their recommendations which, when implemented, would ameliorate the challenges faced by the people of African descent, particularly in the area of unemployment, lower income levels, access to higher levels of education and quality health care.

MAHMOUD AFIFI, (Egypt), said Egypt shared the concerns stated in the report of the Special Rapporteur, especially when he noted that no region of the world was immune to the phenomenon, and there was a capacity of dissolved extremist political parties, movements and groups to return under other names and status, and therefore continue to propagate their agenda based on hatred. Egypt wished to commend the work of the Special Rapporteur in making useful recommendations, specifically his call to adopt a more robust enforcement of legislative measures, as well as other complementary measures, including holding public figures accountable for bigoted words or statements that encouraged discrimination and violence and created a climate of fear for vulnerable groups. Egypt also supported his recommendation to States to take action against racially-motivated violence. The Special Rapporteur should elaborate more on how States should work to adapt their legislative and institutional frameworks to deny these extremist parties and groups the tools which they currently misused to violate basic human rights, especially extremist political parties which benefited from their legal status in obtaining social ground and momentum for their ideas and actions. Although the Special Rapporteur was mandated to evaluate in particular the ongoing serious implications of Islamophobia, this issue wasn't dealt with in a clear and sufficient manner allowing the Council to evaluate the full aspects of this phenomenon. He should have recognized in his report that defamation or denigration of religions, in all of its forms, represented a source of restriction on the freedom of opinion and expression.

HUSSAIN AL-ZUHHAIRY (Iraq), said that for a number of years, the United Nations had been debating racism and xenophobia, particularly with regard to Islam. Every time the question was addressed on how to combat racism, certain countries used freedom of expression as a justification to allow racist views to be heard. Nearly a quarter of the world’s population was Muslim and Iraq expressed concerns that Muslims were being unfairly targeted and unjust connections were being made between terrorism and Islam. Iraq concluded by saying that the Council should adopt a very clear and firm resolution condemning Islamophobia and anti-Islamic expression.

MOHAMMAD REZA GHAEBI (Iran), said Iran attached great importance to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, which it believed was one of the core issues determining the contemporary human rights discourse. With regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur, Iran said that the Special Rapporteur had been requested to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the ongoing serious implications of Islamophobia. Unfortunately, the recent report was not completely relevant to the key aim of reporting and it seemed that he had deviated from the main goal of the resolution. Iran expressed its concern over the approach taken by the Special Rapporteur in addressing irrelevant issues in the report, particularly in raising two irrelevant and unacceptable cases against Iran. Iran concurred with the Special Rapporteur that extremist political parties and related groups posed a major challenge to a range of fundamental human rights and freedoms, but Iran regretted that the Special Rapporteur had not take into consideration a number of recent actions in some western countries by extremist political parties which resulted in incitement to discrimination against Islam and Muslims for political reasons.

ROBERTO FLORES BERMUDEZ, (Honduras), said the Durban Declaration gave a path to follow to give equal opportunities in all fields, and the benefits would be extended to immigrants who in many cases experienced the most extreme cases of defencelessness. Honduras was party to the International Labour Organization Convention 169 on indigenous and tribal peoples, and to a number of other Conventions. The Government condemned all forms of racial discrimination, and the Government was establishing a body for the protection of the rights of indigenous and Afro-descendants, contributing to strengthening its position against all forms of discrimination. The report of the Special Rapporteur was approved, and it was necessary for all members of society to promote tolerance, democratic principles and human rights. There was no overnight solution to this, but education was a decisive tool for instilling democratic principles, tolerance and respect in persons at an early age.

VAHEH GEVORGYAN (Armenia) said Armenia commended the tireless efforts of Mr. Muigai and shared the view that extremist political parties were greatly responsible for igniting old and new manifestations of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance throughout the world. It must however, be recognised that those organizations were not operating in a vacuum and that their performance was greatly influenced by official State policies. That was to say that States bore the primary obligation to ensure fundamental freedoms and that the failure of States to protect citizens from violence may be a complicity and defined as a State’s liability. The recent monumental judgement of the European Court of Human Rights was a good case in point. In that regard, Armenia wished to know the Special Rapporteur’s opinion about whether and in which ways human rights mechanisms and bodies, both at the global and regional level, could assist States in combating extremist political agendas and organizations. Armenia shared the view of the Special Rapporteur that it was necessary to assess if the ban or restrictions of religious symbols ran counter to the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief, the freedom of expression, and the principle of non-discrimination, among other things. In the view of Armenia these criteria could provide universal guidance to tackle this issue in every cultural framework without applying double standards to believers of universally recognised religions.

KHALID MOHAMMAD KARAKUTLY, (Saudi Arabia), said restrictions in constructions of mosques and minarets or banning the wearing the veil were discriminatory measures. The existence of many extremist political parties in many countries was condemned and measures should be taken to eradicate these parties as well as the structural problems that were at the origin of their existence. The media played a fundamental role in the spread of extremist ideas.

MERZY BAVRSKI, (Poland), said States were faced with a difficult dilemma when countering intolerant, discriminatory or xenophobic rhetoric and activities. The way in which States responded to challenges posed by extremism constituted a credible litmus test of their attachment to the core democratic principles and human rights. Democratic systems, by providing space for the free flow of ideas, should respect the right of all people to present proposals for change and to voice critical ideas, including those deemed as radical. At the same time, democratic, pluralistic societies were best placed to effectively prevent racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. States in their actions must ensure that all individuals and groups of individuals fully enjoyed their right to freedom of expression and allow all political parties, movements and groups to exist and enjoy their right to freedom of assembly and association. States should arrange for a regular examination of the progress in dealing with cases related to racial discrimination and related offences by law enforcement bodies, and the public authorities should identify reasons behind cases which had been discontinued. The response against racist offences should not always be affected through criminal law, but sometimes remedied within administrative, civil, labour or ethical proceedings.

ARNOLD DE FINE SKIBSTED (Denmark) said both reports of the Special Rapporteur were timely contributions to the ongoing debate on religious intolerance and extremist ideological movements. Denmark was of the view that the report on the manifestation of defamation of religions clearly illustrated that intolerance against individuals, based on their religion or belief, was a global phenomenon that continued to require the international community’s attention. Denmark therefore fully agreed with the Special Rapporteur that States must find the most effective ways to protect individuals from advocacy and violence by others. Based on the report’s findings, could the Special Rapporteur elaborate on which approaches seemed most effective in addressing these challenges? The Special Rapporteur was to be commended for unambiguously encouraging States to move away from the notion of defamation of religions towards the concept of advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Denmark fully supported this recommendation and believed that focusing the debate on the full implementation of existing human rights conventions was the right way forward. In closing, Denmark emphasised that the concept of defamation of religion did not belong in a human rights discourse.

FRANKLIN RODRIGUES HOYER (Brazil), said Brazil condemned any form of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including those based on religion and belief. The increasing instances of manifestations of religious intolerance and negative stereotyping of individuals based on their ethnic origin demanded the constant attention of this Council. Brazil agreed on the necessity of tackling the root causes of the manifestations of religious intolerance through broader sets of policy measures. Brazil supported the approach of the Special Rapporteur to this sensitive issue and Brazil found his current report balanced and constructive and it contained views shared by Brazil. Placing the debate under the notion of defamation of religions had proved to be unfruitful and had diverted the debate from the real problems that needed to be addressed, Brazil said. Convinced that political platforms based on racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia should be condemned, Brazil had introduced in 2000 a resolution on the incompatibility between democracy and racism. Brazil commended the Special Rapporteur for the way he addressed this critical issue in his report and agreed on the necessity of tackling the root causes of this phenomenon with a much broader set of policy measures.

MARK J. CASSAYRE, (United States of America), said racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance were serious challenges facing the international community and these important issues deserved continuing attention and action. The United States condemned all actions that wilfully sought to exploit tensions or perpetuate intolerance, bigotry and fear based on race, ethnicity or religion. Proactive measures to combat intolerance such as the enforcement of discrimination and hate crimes laws, education, interfaith dialogue, and Governmental condemnation of intolerance were much more potent and appropriate antidotes to intolerance than banning offensive speech. The United States regretted that the Special Rapporteur did not offer a necessary context in his report on Islamophobia regarding the actions taken by the State concerned or other relevant stakeholders in response to the serious incidents cited. Without noting the context and the efforts made by many States to address the incidents referenced in his report, the latter risked contributing to the notion that these issues occurred unabated and that Governments were generally unresponsive. The United States appreciated the work of the Special Rapporteur and wished to express strong support for his conclusion that addressing the root causes of intolerance required a much broader set of policy measures, including increased education, awareness-raising and interreligious and intercultural dialogue. States must foster a peaceful society where the freedoms of religion and expression could be fully exercised by all individuals.

NING BO (China) said China had listened with interest to the presentation of the reports of both the Special Rapporteur and the Working Group on People of African Descent and would like to commend their efforts. The Special Rapporteur had rightly pointed out that racism constituted a huge challenge to non-discrimination and the right to freedom of speech, among other rights. China was of the view that the issue needed to be tackled by the whole of mankind working together and China would like to see greater activism to implement a zero tolerance policy both nationally and internationally. In this connection, China condemned the incident which had occurred in certain countries where individuals had threatened to burn the Koran. China was firmly against linking terrorism with any specific group.

JUAN HOLGUIN (Ecuador), said Ecuador welcomed the report by the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the introduction to the report by the Working Group on People of African descent. Both reports contributed valuable elements that contributed to the debate in the Council. One year ago Ecuador had received the visit of the Working Group and following the recommendations then received, Ecuador had adopted measures to eliminate systematic forms of racial discrimination. The Secretariat for People’s Social Movement and Public Participation, a body in charge of implementing policies in this sector, held training workshops for armed forces on human rights, implemented affirmative actions in over 50 municipalities and added concrete elements to the core curriculum.

MOHAMED SIAD DOUALEH, (Djibouti), said the report of the Special Rapporteur was troubling with regard to the light that it cast on the threats weighing on human rights and democracy posed by political parties, movements and extremist groups, neo-Nazis, and skinheads, and the conclusions drawn from this contemporary racist approach. Political platforms based on racism were alarming, as they explained the emergence of new forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The analysis in the report showed that racism was at the same time a threat to democracy directly as well as indirectly, as it undermined political ground rules. The flagrant violations of the right to security of persons and of life must be punished by the adoption of dissuasive measures and punitive measures, as it led to a negative atmosphere undermining life in society. The dilemma in this regard facing democratic societies was highlighted in the report. Everything must be done to ensure that extremism and racism were not seen as banal, and the international community must condemn acts of violence based on religious belief. The recommendations of the Special Rapporteur were supported, and there should be the widest possible dissemination of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action which was a vital tool to combat the nefarious effects of racism and discrimination.

ROMAN KASHAEV (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation attached great significance to the activities of the Special Rapporteur as well as those of the Working Group on People of African Descent and thanked the experts for the reports submitted. The Russian Federation particularly welcomed the report by Mr. Muigai on the unacceptability of certain practices that promoted racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance. These challenges were topical, the Russian Federation said, but pointed out that the Special Rapporteur had not discussed important topics such as worshipping of the Nazi movement, and it hoped this and other problems would be duly reflected in future reports to the Council. The Russian Federation would like to see this type of research continued and was prepared to provide all the necessary support to the Special Rapporteur.

VEBJORN HEINES (Norway), said Norway agreed with the point of departure taken by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, that there was a reason for serious concern with regard to acts of violence and discrimination against individuals based on religious intolerance. Norway particularly appreciated the observations and recommendations with regard to religious symbols and said that the concrete recommendations in paragraph 87 of the report should be kept in mind when assessing the legality of restrictions. Legislative measures were necessary, but never enough to tackle the complex challenges described in the report. States must be creative in the development of positive measures to prevent and combat acts of violence and acts of discrimination targeting individuals which were based on religious intolerance. It was easy to seize the extremes, Norway said, but most people shied away from the extremes and sought solutions in the middle ground. In conclusion, Norway asked the Special Rapporteur about his advice on how the Human Rights Council could contribute to a more effective dialogue on those issues, a dialogue that seized the middle ground and not the extremes.

SITI HAJJAR ADNIN, (Malaysia), said Malaysia took due note of the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur in both his reports, and was in general agreement with his assessments on the challenges posed by the rise of extremist political parties, movements and groups. Malaysia was fully cognisant of the need for the State to maintain the utmost vigilance on society's tendencies to promote either explicitly or implicitly the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination and xenophobia, as well as acts of violence or incitement. Tensions would inevitably surface as the State struggled to balance the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of expression, and society's larger interest in preservation of peace and harmony among the diverse communities. In this context, Malaysia had found that the rigorous application of law and the facilitation of access to judicial remedies went a long way to defray tension. Malaysia was concerned with the Special Rapporteur's observation that the rise of Islamophobia was gaining legitimacy, particularly within political circles and in the sphere of public opinion in certain parts of the world. Defamation of religion was an act which unacceptably derogated the right to freedom of religion or belief, and was inextricably linked to intolerance, xenophobia, and incitement to racial and religious hatred.

LIVSHA ZAHIR (Maldives) said the Maldives welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s report which dealt with one of the most important contemporary challenges: the scourge of Islamophobia and other forms of religious intolerance. As a Muslim country, the Maldives were saddened by the rising tide of Islamophobia around the world which was based on a thoroughly misguided understanding of the true nature of Islam. The Maldives could see a clear difference between State-sanctioned Islamophobia and those anti-Muslim activities attributable to marginal segments of the population. However, there was a clear responsibility on the part of each State represented in this room to disavow and confront intolerance, stereotyping, profiling, incitement, and hatred. States should work within and across civilizations to promote a culture of dialogue, tolerance and understanding. The Maldives also took note of concerns expressed in the report regarding the Maldives’ Constitution, particularly its provisions on citizenship. These provisions were not designed to discriminate against religions other than Islam or to incite intolerance. Rather, they reflected a historical and societal reality in the Maldives, a country that had a 100 per cent Muslim population, where religious and national identify were closely interrelated, and where Islam played a crucial role in national unity.

MARIAME SY (Senegal), said that by highlighting the threat that extremist parties and groups posed to human rights, the Special Rapporteur underlined the urgent need to address this issue. The discourse fuelling racism was a reflection of a lack of knowledge of others, and insufficient understanding of the heritage of mankind, said Senegal. That was why it was important for states to incorporate human rights education in school curricula to eradicate this phenomenon. Regarding the report presented by the Working Group on People of African descent, Senegal noted that despite the many strides forward, segregation of people of African descent still existed in many walks of life in the United States. Senegal hoped that the United States would soon take decisive measures to address this discrimination in accordance with their well known commitment to democracy and human rights.

NAJIB TLEBA, (Libya), said all States of the world had undertaken, under the Charter, to promote, strengthen and encourage human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without cultural or religious discrimination. Flying in the face of the United Nations and contradicting public opinion, racist attitudes and goals continued to be widespread, with an increase of hatred in the world. Incitement to hatred and religious hatred and the distortion of religious beliefs had also occurred. Libya wished to reaffirm that it was important to put an end to hatred and incitement to hatred against religions, in particular attacks on places of worship. The principle of non-discrimination was a fundamental principle, enshrined in all international Conventions, and forming the base of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Special Rapporteur should present in his next report the ways and means of attacking these phenomena and what measures States could take to combat these.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said Switzerland thanked the Special Rapporteur for having maintained a rights-based approach. Switzerland also shared the concerns voiced on the two topics of the agenda. Everywhere in the world, the emerging diversity resulting from globalisation gave rise to identity-based tensions that could be exploited. Switzerland was opposed to explicitly recognizing the concept of “defamation of religions” as relevant to human rights. It was also of the view that it was dangerous to consider this concept as a contemporary form of racism. International law had sufficient norms to combat racial and religious hatred at the international level. It was the implementation of this that needed to be improved. In Switzerland, prohibitions of all forms of discrimination and provisions for the freedom of religion were enshrined in the Constitution. Since the vote the Special Rapporteur had referred to, the Government had stepped up dialogue with Muslim communities so as to enhance understanding, and four roundtables had been organized. Switzerland believed that diversity of views was part and parcel of every democracy and the tools of democracy made it possible to discuss even the most controversial subjects. Did the Special Rapporteur think, as did Switzerland, that in an upcoming report it would be necessary to take stock of the national measures taken in the context of the implementation of article 20 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

REBECCA SAGAR (United Kingdom), said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism referred to two criminal incidents in the United Kingdom. Since the Special Rapporteur had not passed those cases onto the United Kingdom for information on the response of the government and the legal system to these cases, the speaker said that the United Kingdom wanted to take the opportunity to do so now. The abuses described in the Special Rapporteur’s report were both crimes in the United Kingdom and action had been taken to deal with those instances in accordance with the United Kingdom legal system. The case detailed in paragraph 9 had been recorded and investigated as an Islamophobic Hate Crime by the Metropolitan Police Service, while the case detailed in paragraph 33 had been recorded and investigated as a religious hate crime by the Greater Manchester Police. The United Kingdom trusted that the robust responses to both those incidents by the British authorities were a clear demonstration of the United Kingdom’s commitment to tackling all forms of hate crimes and to responding to the pernicious effects such incidents had on the wider community. Incidents such as those were rare in the United Kingdom. In recent years the British Government had strengthened both the legal framework against discrimination on the grounds of race or religion and criminal penalties for offences such as incitement to racial hatred. The United Kingdom would be pleased to offer the Special Rapporteur any information he liked on the United Kingdom’s position on such issues in the future. It was appropriate for the Special Rapporteur and the Human Rights Council to consider closely State responses in line with the proper focus of this Council on human rights violations and the State obligation to promote and protect human rights in that regard.

VIJAVAT ISARABHAKDI, (Thailand), said Thailand was convinced of the need for the international community to make concerted efforts to address the increasing challenges of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in a balanced and objective manner. Thailand was a country which attached great importance to freedom of expression, but believed that it must come with responsibility. Thailand therefore deemed it imperative for governments across the world to systematically raise awareness and incorporate the importance of cultural and religious tolerance into education. Freedom of expression must be promoted as it was a critical element of human rights, but it could not be justified if it perpetuated hatred, fear, and insecurity in the world. The right of people to profess a religion, to observe religious precepts and exercise a form of worship in accordance with individual beliefs was guaranteed and protected by the Thai Constitution. Thailand also wished to reaffirm its pledge to foster and support international efforts on interfaith and intercultural dialogue to increase understanding, tolerance and reconciliation among faiths and cultures across the world.

HABIB MIKAYILLI (Azerbaijan) said Azerbaijan took note of the remarks of the Special Rapporteur on racism, according to which intolerant mentalities within a society may lead to violations of human rights if they remained unaddressed. Such a mentality could also create a culture of impunity and should therefore be taken seriously. Azerbaijan noted with concern that armed conflicts and foreign occupation made religious sites and shrines vulnerable to attacks and destructions. This issue required the international community’s constant attention. Azerbaijan also shared the opinion expressed by Ms. Jahangir that governments should address early warning signs concerning intolerance against specific ethnic and religious groups through a set of measures. Prevention was key to creating an atmosphere of religious tolerance and preventing all kinds of intolerance. Azerbaijan believed that inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue could contribute to the peaceful coexistence of different groups as well as to stability, peace and social cohesion.

BOUALEM CHEBIHI (Algeria), said Algeria shared concerns expressed by the Special Rapporteur on racism regarding the reappearance of incidents of racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia. The victims of religious hatred continued to suffer on a daily basis and sometimes in silence and isolation. The real danger was in lumping together Islam and terrorism, Algeria said. Algeria recalled that appropriate solutions to dealing with racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance were in the development of contemporary standards, but whenever this question was raised, developing countries would raise an objection. This only resulted in creating a two-speed human rights system, Algeria concluded.

HABIB SAVANE (African Union), said that it attached great importance to combating racial discrimination. Intolerance based on religious belief was the cause of several conflicts in Africa and other parts of the world. Regional mechanisms needed to be put in place to protect cultural diversity and condemn religious intolerance in all its forms. There was an obligation of all States to conduct inquiries and punish perpetrators for any acts of religious discrimination. Unfortunately, many countries had not yet fulfilled their obligations in this regard. The Commission of the African Union expressed its concern on the use of racial profiling. In conclusion, the Commission called on all States to promote an atmosphere of mutual acceptance and peaceful coexistence.

CARINA MARTENSSON (Sweden) said Mr. Muigai was to be congratulated for bringing clarity to the conceptually and legally flawed resolution on “Combating defamation of religions”. The Special Rapporteur’s report addressed a number of serious incidents and showed that such acts were not restricted to a particular region. Regrettably, they occurred even in Sweden, and these acts were not limited to followers of a particular religion, showing that all governments must remain vigilant. It was therefore pertinent that Mr. Muigai’s report reminded everyone that States must exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against persons belonging to religious minorities, and that failure to do so may constitute a human rights violation. Sweden fully agreed that stereotyping did not contribute to the creation of an environment conducive to constructive and peaceful dialogue among different communities, but that, nonetheless, peaceful expressions of opinions and ideas should always be tolerated. The Special Rapporteur had also reminded everyone that intolerant mentalities by themselves did not constitute human rights violations, but should be seen as early warning signs to be addressed by governments through a wide range of measures. It was the hope of Sweden that the Council in the near future would be able to leave the conceptual debate behind and concentrate on promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief.

NAHIDA SOBHAN (Bangladesh), thanked the Special Rapporteur on racism for his report and said it was surprised that it had cited a case in Bangladesh in which it was mentioned that the ministry would allow women who wish to wear a head veil to do so. Bangladesh was surprised that this was cited as a case of religious hatred and did not understand why providing a choice became an issue of religious hatred. Furthermore, Bangladesh questioned the listing of cases which lacked facts and evidence. The exercise of the freedom of expression carried with it a responsibility and incitement to hatred should be prohibited by law. Therefore the recommendations made in the report were relevant, Bangladesh said. However, some of the elements of the resolutions were missing from the report, particularly the status of States that expressed reservations on Article 4 of the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.

EVAN P. GARCIA (Philippines), said that the reports presented today called the attention of the international community to some alarming trends. Acts of violence and discrimination, or incitement thereto, against individuals on the basis of their race, religion or belief were on the rise. Attacks against religious sites and the negative stereotyping of religions and their followers were also becoming more widespread. The Philippines believed that freedom of religion was a fundamental human right that should be protected and promoted in all parts of the world. In a global, deeply interconnected world, understanding and respecting other religions and faiths, creeds and customs, was essential to the promotion of peace, security, development and other human rights. Finally, in the current international climate of rising tensions, the Philippines said that there was an urgent need for renewed commitment to interfaith and inter-religious dialogue and suggested that the Special Rapporteur study and provide good practices in this regard to the Council.

SHIRANE DAISUKE, of International Movement against all forms of Discrimination and Racism, said the growing trends of discrimination, discriminatory acts and incitement thereto were of great concern. The situation became even more alarming when derogatory statements were made by public figures that attracted the attention of large audiences and had greater influence on the public debate, hence being able to encourage discrimination and creating a climate of fear. In this context, the International Movement against all forms of Discrimination and Racism was particularly concerned by the situation of Roma people in France where careless public pronouncements had incorrectly ascribed “crimes” to them. Labelling the Roma as a “security risk” stigmatised the entire Roma and Sinti community and followed the common practice of extremist racist political parties in other European countries. A discriminatory approach initiated by the Head of a State was particularly irresponsible as it made extreme right-wing positions acceptable to the general public and could lead to right-wing violence. The International Movement against all forms of Discrimination and Racism urged the French Government to stop its counterproductive policies. Rather, it should seek lasting solutions in full respect of the dignity and rights of all people.

JOELLE FISS, of Human Rights First, said the Special Rapporteur had provided a good framework whereby States could better measure their commitment and success in confronting each addressed form of discrimination. The hatred, anger and violence expressed against many religions as well as ethnic, national and other minorities was alarming, and the rise of anti-Muslim bias, hate crimes, and intolerance must be taken very seriously. However, restricting speech was not the answer to fighting bigotry and hatred. What was needed was more public condemnation of hate crimes, effective policies of inclusion, equality and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. The debate surrounding the “Burn a Koran Day” in the United States had provided an excellent example of how non-legislative measures successfully confronted and counteracted incitement and violence. The hateful rhetoric of an isolated extremist was drowned out by the voices of everyday citizens and scores of leaders from across the spectrum. Human Rights First called on all to follow the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur and ensure that existing international norms to fight hatred were better implemented at international, national and local levels.

BANDOIN OLYMBE, of Ligue internationale contre le Racisme et l'antisémitisme (LICRA), said that the term Islamophobia meant a dangerous comparison between believers and those who could not accept religious dogma. This combat should not been confused with direct protection of religion. It was ridiculous to institutionalize the idea that criticising a religion was an act of racism. This political will was seen in the United Nations language through the emergence of concepts such as defamation of religions, which was ardently defended by some countries whose human rights records were not brilliant. If human rights were universal, racism was too. Successful resolutions on religious defamation were adopted by the Council, thus undermining freedom of expression.

LAILA MATAR, of Cairo Institute of Human Rights, noted with concern the documented instances of attacks or incitement to hatred and violence in every region. Extremist parties frequently incited hatred, claiming they were the only legitimate holders of national identity. In countries such as Bahrain or Yemen, such practice had moved into legal practice of the state itself. Many countries adopted a state-sponsored official interpretation of Islam in both law and practice and then proceeded to carry out systematic and widespread discrimination against all other religious followers. It was unfortunate that the Organization of the Islamic Conference often failed to deal with widespread state sponsored discrimination against Muslims and other religious followers carried out by its own Member States. The failure to do so encouraged such discrimination and contributed to many of the resultant human rights violations and social unrest within the Arab region.

Concluding Remarks

Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in his concluding remarks, said that he appreciated today’s dialogue and confirmed that he would do everything in his power to take on board the comments made by members of the Council, particularly with regard to the methodology of the report. The Special Rapporteur said that there was growing bigotry and intolerance around the world on the issue of religious freedom. He felt that the Council was very much alive to that issue and he mentioned that the Council has also appointed a Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

With respect to Islamophobia, the “Burn a Koran day” was a very fresh reminder that the problem was still very present. The Special Rapporteur noted that the notion of defamation of religion was a sociological concept. He emphasized that while they should all be worried about religious intolerance, the armoury to fight those acts was to be found in the international human rights law. A lasting solution to combating religious intolerance was to strengthen the legal process and rule of law. The Special Rapporteur recognized that freedom of religion was a fundamental human right and that all individuals should have a legal environment in which they could defend themselves. He noted that freedom of expression was an equally fundamental freedom and that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provided the tools to reconcile freedom of religion and freedom of expression. He re-emphasized that States ultimately had the responsibility to take domestic measures to protect freedom of religion or belief. Responding to a point raised during the interactive dialogue, the Special Rapporteur also expressed his deep concern about the situation of the Roma people in France, a topic which he believed deserved the attention and energy of the Council.

MIRJANA NAJCEVSKA, Chairperson of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, among other things thanked the government of the United States for its invitation and the comprehensive and informal meetings that had been held. On another note, Ms. Najcevska hoped that the conclusions of the report would be used for further improving the situation of African descendants in the United States. Ms. Najcevska once again underlined that the baggage of the past was insufficiently recognised regarding people of African Descent in spite of its possible influence on today’s structure. Ms. Najcevska also invited all States to actively participate in the events that would take place next year.

General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance

MARIAM AFTAB (Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), said despite the progress in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, there continued to be persistence in those acts, as well as the emergence of new ones that had been well documented by States, non-governmental organization and United Nations mechanisms. The exercise of the freedom of expression was fundamental to the exercise of the freedom of religion, but must be exercised with attention. The emergence of new forms of racism threatened the fabric of societies. Many measures failed to recognise the root causes of the problem. The Conference had been constantly highlighting the need to include appropriate legal measures in constitutions and had been cautioning this Council that Muslims had been demonised. Remedy lied in the closer interaction between followers of different religions, but States had a role to play too, particularly in filling the judicial vacuum in dealing with the issue of religious intolerance. The Organization of the Islamic Conference looked forward to the series of expert workshops being organised by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred.

FRANK ISOH (Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group), said that one of the odious evils of our day was racism, the belief or practice that viewed certain racial groups as inferior. The African Group were convinced that the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination and the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action remained the basis and fundamental legal framework for the effective elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The African Group also believed that it was the responsibility of States to adopt effective measures to combat criminal acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. It was also of great concern that there had been a diminishing of civil liberties and an intensification of racial profiling in recent times. Finally, the African Group wished to remind the Council that the concept of non-discrimination was at the heart of human rights and promoting non-discrimination was one of the purposes of the United Nations, as stated in Article 1 of the UN Charter.

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union), said the European Union strongly condemned all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance. Work to combat racism and xenophobia remained a global challenge that needed a multilateral response, but with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, States had an effective and relevant international instrument to tackle this challenge. Nevertheless, too many States had not yet signed, ratified or implemented that instrument and the European Union invited those States to embark on this endeavour. The Member States of the European Union had in recent years worked to adopt two texts offering a solid legal framework to fight racism and xenophobia: the directive on racial equality, adopted in 2000, and the framework decision on the fight against racism and xenophobia, adopted in 2008. The European Union had complemented these legal provisions with targeted policies, funds and plans to raise awareness among citizens on the dangers relating to racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance. In fact, the European Union was not spared from these phenomena that required the continued and particular attention of the international community. The European Union would therefore be happy to explain the instruments it had developed in the context of the two Working Groups that followed-up the Durban Conference and would meet shortly.

MONA ELBAHTIMY (Egypt, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), said the Movement condemned all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including the platforms and activities related thereto, which constituted serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. There was an urgent need to address with greater resolve and political will this issue, in all spheres of life and in all parts of the world, including in areas living under foreign occupation. Respect for human rights and the promotion of understanding and tolerance by governments were central to the promotion and protection of human rights. The Non-Aligned Movement expressed its serious concern at the resurgence of manifestations of contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in various parts of the world. In this context, one of the most common contemporary forms was denigration of religions wrongly justified on the ground of the right to freedom of expression. No right was absolute and the exercise of all rights carried with it special duties and responsibilities. The Non-Aligned Movement was looking forward to the series of expert workshops to be organised by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to attain better understanding of the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national policies in the different regions of the world with regard to the concept of the incitement to hatred. Those workshops would offer guidance on how to address hatred in increasingly multicultural societies and would help the international community in assessing and identifying the existing gaps.

RANIA RIFAI (Syria on behalf of the Arab Group), said that the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the outcome document of the Durban Review should be the main tools for addressing the issue of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The Arab Group suggested that member States work together to set up an international agency to deal with these sensitive and important issues. The world had thought that by eliminating the racist regime in South Africa, it could end the era of racism and intolerance. However, the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the Syrian Golan were a testament that this phenomenon persisted today. Moreover, those who prepared cartoons on the holy prophet and called for a “Burn a Koran Day” only further created hate and racism between cultures. There was a need to enhance the dialogue between faiths and to show respect for divine figures and books. Syria concluded by saying that the Council should adopt resolutions that explicitly condemned all forms of religious defamation.

IBRAHIM ALDREDI, (Libya), said racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia were a threat to international peace and security, and therefore it was the duty of the Human Rights Council and the duty of the international community to eradicate racist policies. Promoting human rights and eliminating all forms of racial discrimination could only be achieved by putting an end to policies that championed racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, and eliminating their roots. African people were those who had suffered the most from racism, and should be compensated by the colonisers and offered an apology for the colonial period of world history. The Palestinian people were suffering from various forms of discrimination, suffering oppression and discrimination from the racist oppressor who perpetrated crimes against humanity. The international community had failed so far to put an end to these racist actions by taking a deterring action. The international community should enforce respect by Israel of international resolutions and take a real stand with the long-suffering Palestinian people in order to end all forms of discrimination from which they suffered.

ROMAN KASHAEV (Russian Federation), said that Russian Federation was consistently in favour of the promotion and protection of human rights without any form of discrimination. Despite the efforts of the international community, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance were far from being eradicated. In recent times, dangerous trends related to supremacy were integrated in platforms of some political parties. The mechanism of the United Nations to combat racism must be reinforced and the culture of tolerance must be promoted. The question of racism was coming to the forefront of the United Nations and the Russian Federation highly appreciated the fact that the Durban Conference took place. This year the international community would be commemorating the anniversary of the great victory over Nazism and the trial of war criminals in Nuremberg. However, there was a revival of Nazism to achieve political goals. Russian Federation was concerned about attempts to modify history and said that the silence about this could not be justified by the argument of European solidarity. Russian Federation stressed that the benchmark of the commitment of States to human rights and democracy was seen in the real behaviour and not in stated intentions.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba) said the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, continued to be a milestone in the fight for equality of rights among all human beings. Nevertheless, the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action were yet to be fully implemented. Unfortunately, races, ethnic groups, nations and entire communities continued to be discriminated against and the scourge of new manifestations of racism and racial discrimination were a source of concern. There was a continuation of the creation of political parties and associations using racist, xenophobic and anti-immigrant platforms and minorities such as Gipsies continued to be humiliated. The anti-terrorist laws drawn up in some countries provided ample room for State arbitrariness on the basis of racist and xenophobic stereotypes. Criteria such as skin colour, physical appearance, nationality, ethnic origin or religion were being used when enforcing such laws. Also, Western Powers were still lacking the political will to implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, as well as the final document of the Durban Review Conference. Cuba, for its part, continued to support the work of the Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards and called upon all States to constructively join this work.

OSMAN TAT, (United States of America), said the United States appreciated the Council's sustained focus on combating discrimination and intolerance, and was actively committed to continuing down the path to a world free from injustice, and it continued to make progress in this area. Hate crimes victimised not just individuals, but entire communities. Perpetrators of hate crimes sought to deny the humanity that everyone shared, regardless of race, colour, religion or sexual orientation. The passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Protection Act of 2008 gave the Justice Department of the United States and state and local law enforcement important tools and the increased capacity that they needed to deter and prosecute these acts of violence. The United States recognized that providing education, training and technical assistance to various federal law enforcement agencies on the use of race in law enforcement was a critical component in preventing and addressing racial profiling, and had instituted such programmes in the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. The United States remained committed to working with the Human Rights Council to combat racism, and hoped that United Nations Member States would work together effectively and constructively to address racism and racial discrimination and move toward the goal of the full realization of human rights for all.

KHALID FAHAD AL-HAJRI (Qatar), said Qatar welcomed the report presented by the Special Rapporteur on racism and said the world had witnessed numerous incidents related to Muslims, and Qatar was deeply concerned about the acts of violence against individuals based on their faith or belief. The political climate in some countries fed Islamophobia and led to further discrimination against Muslims. As the Special Rapporteur stressed earlier, statements of some extremists groups posed a real challenge to the upholding of human rights; instead of dealing with them, some political parties encouraged them and picked up their ideas to use during elections. Qatar encouraged all States to deal with acts of violence against individuals on the basis of religious hatred and prosecute those responsible.

FAHD ABDULLAH F. ALEISA (Saudi Arabia) said over 50 years after the adoption of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination individuals and groups suffered from the violation of their rights and were subjected to various forms of racial discrimination. Manifestations of racism and racial discrimination as well as attacks against some religions were still a bitter reality and in this regard it was appropriate to refer to the plight of the Palestinians. One of the manifestations of concern was the defamation of religions and the dissemination of hatred against certain categories of society. This led to an escalation of Islamophobia and resulted in provocations against Muslims, such as the attacks against the Prophet or calls to burn the Koran. All States must therefore take a clear stand against the root causes of racism and work on increasing tolerance between nations. Saudi Arabia was keen on disseminating a culture of tolerance and had held seminars locally, regionally, and internationally with an aim to fostering dialogue and the media had been involved in disseminating a culture of tolerance. States must deal with the root causes of racial discrimination and racism, Saudi Arabia said, and underscored that freedom of expression should not be used to incite hatred against certain categories of society.

SOFIA MATHIEU, (Guatemala), said with regard to contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the State of Guatemala appreciated the brilliant work of the Special Rapporteur, who had provided a valuable opportunity for States to tackle, in cooperation with all stakeholders, the manifestations of these phenomena that were still present in society, although completely inconsistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Any and all efforts to eliminate extremist and racist practices were valuable. Guatemala aspired to live in a peaceful, inclusive, and harmonious society. Guatemala maintained policies for the eradication of xenophobia, and worked to fulfil the Geneva 1951 Protocol. The principle of non-discrimination was one of the most important in the field of human rights, and Guatemala appealed to Member States to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in all forms.

ELA GORKEM-GOKÇE (Turkey), said that the fight against racism was of international concern. It was appropriate to mention that the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action had made real progress in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The Special Rapporteur stressed the importance of exhibiting tolerance for others, and numerous measures had been taken in Turkey to protect these fundamental freedoms, through education and training. Turkey said that a number of significant legislative reforms had been undertaken domestically to better combat racial intolerance. Finally, Turkey also noted the importance of establishing awareness-raising campaigns in different countries, with involvement from the media and non-governmental organizations, in order to help safeguard the religious rights of individuals, especially minority and immigrant groups.

MESBAH ANSARI (Iran) said the international community had made efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, by taking a wide range of normative and standard-setting measures to eradicate these evil phenomena. In spite of this, new forms and attitudes of racism and xenophobia were being witnessed on a daily basis. The increasing trend of Islamophobia, the defamation of Islam, and the unfounded connection between Muslims and terrorism were deeply alarming. It was regrettable that those inhuman phenomena were wrongly justified under the pretext of freedom of expression. Iran pointed out that recently an American pastor had taken the stance of burning copies of the Koran on 11 September. While that plan had been suspended following widespread condemnation, other extremist groups had torn and burnt copies of the holy Muslim book. They had adopted an outrageous path of hatred towards Islam and Muslims by insulting the Holy Koran. Iran called upon all Member States to take serious steps to combat all contemporary forms of racism. It particularly urged those countries hosting Muslim communities to combat new trends of Islamophobia and discriminatory trends towards Muslims that could cause negative consequences in Western countries.

WALID ABU-HAYA, (Israel), said the year 2009 saw an international uprising of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments that were unparalleled in their viciousness, and the whole world watched while Israel, as a Jewish State, and its supporters, were portrayed as a symbol of evil and the prime source of the world's troubles. Veiled anti-Semitism, often in the guise of anti-Zionism, must be unmasked. With absolute disregard for the Charter of the United Nations, a head of State repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel with impunity. Such invective and racism as had been heard from the leaders of some nations must never be taken for ordinary political discourse. There also existed the well-coordinated and well-planned onslaught against Israel, Zionism and Jews, which was run by radical groups. The year 2010 marked the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II, and the liberation of Auschwitz, the greatest tragedy in the history of humanity. Israel expressed profound indignation over the attempts to deny the Holocaust perpetrated against European Jewry, the genocide which was finally halted by the Allied forces and the Red Army. Attempts to deny the Holocaust were a direct insult to the memory of all the victims of World War II and of all those who fought against fascism. It was the duty of all nations to emphasise that the Holocaust was an unprecedented tragedy of human suffering, and to draw lessons for future generations.

MALEK ALWAZZAN (Kuwait), said that it supported the view of the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and shared his concern about the resurgence of religious stereotypes. This phenomenon was on the rise vis-à-vis Muslims and there was a spread in the propaganda that linked terrorism with Islam. In this context, untiring efforts had been taken by Kuwait to achieve moderation and tolerance. As such, a dialogue amongst civilizations should be encouraged in an effort to promote lasting peace and respect for religions around the world. The issue of Islamophobia and hatred against Muslims needed to be addressed by the Council. Kuwait concluded by calling for measures to be taken to protect holy sites in Jerusalem and other religious sites currently under Israeli occupation.

SILVANO M. TOMASI (Holy See), said religion had gained greater visibility in the public arena in recent years. A widespread anti-religious attitude, however, favoured some manifestations linked to discrimination and prejudice, as documented by the Special Rapporteur. This raised complex questions of human rights. However, freedom of thought and expression, when exercised within the limits of accuracy, fairness and order, could be considered a gain of civilization to be protected as a common political and juridical patrimony, not only as a prerogative of a particular social context or cultural tradition. To deny this right would mortify one of the deepest aspirations of humans and a factor of progress for all civilizations. New forms of dialogue and education should be found to identify and promote shared values and universal principles, consistent with the dignity and social nature of humans, and directed to the common good and building a society where there was space for people’s rights and freedoms. The Holy See agreed with the recommendation of the Special Rapporteur that the debate must be anchored in the relevant existing international legal framework thus ensuring a peaceful future for all.

HABIB MIKAYILLI, (Azerbaijan), said Azerbaijan expressed its deep concern at the increasing acts of religious intolerance and violence around the world, especially Islamophobia. Negative stereotyping of all religions violated the fundamental human rights of individuals. The Special Rapporteur, in his report presented to the current session, pointed out that acts of violence or discrimination targeting Muslim individuals remained a serious issue and therefore needed to be addressed with greater resolve by States. Dialogue could not solve all existing challenges alone, and therefore States in parallel should take legal and policy measures to combat racial discrimination and violence. Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence should be prohibited by law. There was a need to develop a legally-binding instrument to prevent intolerance, discrimination, and the instigation of hatred against any group or followers of any religion.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that France had claimed that there was no Roma problem. And yet, French authorities had sent Roma groups had back to their countries of origin in a collective fashion. The Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples remained concerned about the unfair treatment of Roma, particularly with respect to their rights to education and adequate housing. Racism was not merely fought by establishing national laws or adopting international conventions in this regard. Finally, the speaker said that he hoped that the French government’s announcement that it would establish a national plan of action against racism was not simply a diversionary tactic.

SABINE LEGRAND, of Fraternite Notre Dame, said that in certain countries in Europe, ethnic minority groups were being branded as the malaise of society and the cause of current economic problems. The need for a scapegoat was an old European habit. Jews were persecuted in this way and today it was the Gypsies, who were the victims of the same form of unfair targeting and humiliation.

ALTAF HUSSAIN WANI, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, in a joint statement with World Muslim Congress, said one of the fundamental bedrocks of human rights was that all human beings were born free and equal in dignity and with rights. Discrimination and persecution on the grounds of race and ethnicity were clear violations of this principle and yet racial and ethnic discrimination continued to be a major human rights problem in the world. After 64 years of independence, India had failed to prevent caste discrimination and members of each caste were expected to fulfil specific duties to secure elevation to a higher caste through rebirth. Violence against Dalits, formerly called untouchables, continued, and according to reports every year 10,000 cases of violence against them were being recorded, ranging from attacks to rapes to killings.
MARYAM SAFARI, of Charitable Institute for Protecting Social Victims, rejected all acts and attempts of distortion to associate Islam with terrorism. Undoubtedly, such stereotyping led to discrimination and posed grave challenges to global and regional peace, security and stability. Given the heinous threat of burning the Koran, the desecration of the Koran or any sacred religious books, or the clear manifestation of hate speech, it was incumbent on the international community to exert its utmost efforts to prevent incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims and to take effective measures to combat the defamation of religion. The Charitable Institute for Protecting Social Victims emphasised the need for the United Nations to develop a legally binding institutional instrument to promote respect for all religions and cultural values and prevent intolerance against any group of followers of any religion.

KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said former Secretary-General Kofi Annan had stated that whenever there was ethnic conflict and strife, all should be alert to the possibility of genocide. The international community had a heavy duty with regard to armed conflicts against racist regimes when they had reached or were reaching genocidal levels. Acknowledging that the Sri Lankan Security forces were responsible for war rimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Tamil civilian population, and recognising that the panel of the Sri Lankan government was grossly inadequate to address the atrocities, there should be an international tribunal otherwise the Tamil peoples' efforts for remedy would be marginalised. The Special Rapporteur should pay more attention to this and other serious ethnic conflicts and propose remedies and effective actions in conformity with humanitarian and human rights law.

HELMUT PRANTNER, of Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, said everyone was entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could be fully realised. Governments had three levels of obligation: to respect a right meant to refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of the right; to protect the right meant enacting laws that created mechanisms to prevent violation of the right by State authorities or by non-State actors; and to fulfil the right meant to take active steps to put in place institutions and procedures. What was needed was the diligent promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in a planned political process with competent independent institutions for implementation.

ROY BROWN, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, said that in response to the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, Mauritania claimed that traditional forms of slavery no longer existed in its country. However, merely redefining slavery as “traditional practices” did nothing to alleviate the plight of those who were utterly deprived of human rights. As with the equally intractable problem of the untouchables in India, one reason why slavery persisted was because it was given religious justification. Finally, the International Humanist and Ethical Union said that all factors sustaining the practice of slavery had to be understood and addressed if it was ever to be eliminated.

ORETTA BANDETTINI DI POGGIO, of France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, denounced ongoing racial discrimination against the Mapuche community. On several occasions, the Chilean Government had been asked to revise its anti-terrorist law, which unfairly targeted Mapuche communities. This law was in total contradiction with international laws on terrorism. The unlawful targeting of Mapuche community members explained why 32 Mapuche political prisoners had undertaken a hunger strike on 12 July 2010, some of which were now urgently hospitalised for related cardiac problems.

SAGAR ZENDE, of Liberation, said that the oppression of the 168 million Dalits was one of the most repelling, but enduring realities in India today. To be a Dalit today meant living a subhuman, degraded and insecure life. Constitutionally the notion of untouchability and discrimination against the Dalits was prohibited, but it had not had the desired effects. It was well documented that Dalits endured segregation; they were forced to work in degrading conditions and were routinely abused at the hand of the police and upper-caste community which enjoyed the State’s protection. It had been documented that Dalits comprised the majority of agricultural, bonded and child labourers in India. Even though Dalits received wide spread attention from human rights organizations, their misery continued. The Human Rights Council had a greater responsibility towards oppressed minorities like the Dalits.

DINO DEAN GRACIOUS DYMPEP, of Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA), said it wished to draw the attention of the Human Rights Council to the persistent and deteriorating human rights situation of the indigenous people in north east India. It was documented that 86 per cent of indigenous people faced racial discrimination in various forms, such as sexual abuses, rape, physical attacks, economic exploitation and other abuses of human rights. North east India was fragmented into several self-contained communities and societies with their own distinctive cultural and traditional backgrounds. The United Nations had condemned India’s caste system and termed it worse than racism. Ignoring the situation in north east India would only lead to deeper alienation of indigenous people which would be most detrimental for a better integration of India.

MARYAM SAFARI, of Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, said although the question of religious symbols was a delicate one, restrictions on the freedom of thought and religion were a flagrant violation of the letter and spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Women's rights, and in particular the principle of equality between men and women, and the individual's freedom to wear or not to wear religious symbols, ought to be taken into account when debating the matter. Particular attention should be given to the phenomenon of Islamophobia. The bans or restrictions on the construction, use or display of religious symbols raised several issues in terms of fundamental normative human rights.

LEON SALTIEL, of United Nations Watch, said a year and a half ago the international community met in Geneva for the Durban Review Conference to review progress and to adopt new measures to fight the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Unfortunately, these practices continued unchecked, and some of the most egregious situations were, paradoxically, taking place in the countries that organised the Durban Review Conference. It was time to end impunity for all countries that committed racism, whether or not they held power on United Nations bodies.

LAILA MATAR, of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, said that the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies was deeply concerned by the rising instances of discrimination and incitement to hatred in all regions of the world. The Cairo Institute was also deeply concerned about the various ways in which the concept of defamation of religions was used in the Arab region, not to protect religious freedoms but to protect the official interpretation of a given sect of Islam over the non-official ones, and to discredit other religions. Legislation that criminalized defamation of religion amounted to blasphemy laws that were being used as a means to harass and suppress bloggers, journalists, writers and activists in countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Yemen, Jordan, Sudan and Morocco. Victims of these laws faced sanctions ranging from stiff prison sentences to constant threats and harassment by extremists and fundamentalists.

DAVID LITTMAN, of Association for World Education, said that it felt obliged to repeat that it was unacceptable and intolerable that Hitler’s Mein Kampf was still widely available in Damascus. This and other anti-Zionist books were part of a larger anti-Jewish movement and reflected the new and growing trend of Arab anti-Semitism. In conclusion, the Association for World Education called on the Human Rights Council to address the dangers of anti-Semitism or else it faced being discredited.

JAYESHKUMAR, of International Club for Peace Research, said that the international community was going through the phase where respect for human rights and the right to religion were being seriously challenged by forces which had little respect for international humanitarian law, human rights and global commitments of all States parties and this was a global concern. The International Club for Peace Research strongly condemned acts of violence and discrimination against individuals and communities on the basis of faith or religion, attacks on places of worship and negative stereotyping. It noted with appreciation the legal reforms and policy measures taken by various States parties including India to combat discrimination based on caste, and urged the global community to support and strengthen those.

NISAR UI HAQ, of European Union of Public Relations, said that caste-based discrimination was a historical and ongoing form of discrimination in different regions of the world. India’s efforts to deal with such discrimination for the last six decades with legislation and provisions of positive discrimination in the constitution had shown some positive results and needed to be recognised. The present time was the time for positive discrimination policies in India to examine whether the advantages of the policies were actually reaching the poor and needy. It had become obvious that there were relatively advantaged groups even amongst the Dalits and at the other end of the spectrum there were Dalit and other castes that were extremely poor and heavily discriminated against. For the disadvantaged groups to achieve more they would have to build stronger movements that served the interests of their groups as a whole.

EMMANUELLE DANGE, of International Institute for Peace, said the international community fought the evil of apartheid united, and was victorious, but while the world succeeded in eliminating apartheid from South Africa, a new form of apartheid and xenophobia had taken root and the practice of discrimination on the basis of the colour of the skin and place of origin was alive and kicking in the most developed countries of the world. The war against terrorism was actually creating more fissures in global society and more anger among those deliberately, and often without cause, being discriminated against. Terrorism had to be eliminated, but the hiccup that had been created by the war on terrorism threatened to give fresh encouragement to bigots on all sides. No one could help fight this better than the very societies which gave birth to the terrorists.

GAJJALA PRAVEEN, of Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, said the ethos of discrimination based on race, colour and creed was evident in the policies followed by many developed countries. Human rights activists had always believed that racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia could best be fought by peoples and not Governments. Nation States had however to encourage the creation of environments where education and enlightenment went hand in hand and where the universality of mankind and the equality of all peoples was inculcated. Perhaps the time had come for the global human rights community to focus its energies on the discriminatory attitudes and practices now being increasingly adopted in the free world in the same manner as the successful battle that was fought against apartheid.

DAVID LITTMAN, of World Union for Progressive Judaism, said he wished to refer to one of the greatest examples of racial discrimination and hatred: the 1840 Damascus Blood Libel against Jews which had spread Judeophic hatred for a long time and until today. The cover of a recent book on the Jews of Damascus gave bloody details of this blood libel. The solemn appeal was to the Vatican who had earlier spoken about new forms of education to promote tolerance: the Vatican should pull down that blade.

BIRO DIAWARA, of Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l'homme, deplored the emergence of political parties, movements, and extremist groups that often exploited the general discontentment and transferred the responsibility for insecurity and socio-economic problems to vulnerable categories of persons by suggesting populist solutions. In this context, Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme encouraged States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to create the conditions enabling the implementation of this instrument. The organization also underlined the fundamental role played by civil society in the promotion of tolerance, mutual understanding, democratic principles, and human rights.

MARIANA ERZINGER, of International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, said it was alarmed at the current upsurge of racist policies in many European countries, in particular the increasing Islamophobia and Afrophobia which found its expression not only in the rise of extremist movements and parties, but also in practices and actions of Governments and States. The two reports presented to the Council today by the Special Rapporteur on racism and by the Chair of the Working Group on people of African descent were a testimony to the need for the United Nations to escalate their efforts to combat racism. The International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations said it believed that the United Nations observances in 2011 of the International Year for People of African descent and the tenth anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action would give a real opportunity for synergy in the global combat against racism and for better understanding the historical roots of racism and discrimination.

GENEVIEVE JOURDAN, of Association of World Citizens, said that in a few days international meetings in Geneva would be dealing with cultural memory but it could also be negative memories of Europe, by dealing with repercussions against minorities, including the Roma. Additional legislation could bring back demons and could step down elementary human rights. This problem was not only a problem in Europe and the Association of World Citizens was grateful to the Special Rapporteur for bringing that evidence to the Council. The vitality of the Working Group of People of African Descent was to be commended and the Working Group needed to continue working, for the guarantee of human dignity.

MINI SHARMA, of Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization, said the international community in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the Durban Review Conference committed to curb all forms of racism and racial discrimination. Present-day racism in its worst form was manifested in the Palestine region as the philosophy of Zionism was based on racism. Today it claimed to be the only democratic State in the region, but its practices did not meet its claims, and this was openly revealed in the peace process with the Palestinians. Israel had worked to develop a complex system of discrimination, and had attached this to its judicial system in a way comparable to the racist South African regime.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record