A/HRC/40/58 of religious actors, human rights experts and defenders and civil society organizations in order to prevent incitement to violence that could lead to atrocity crimes.5 The “Faith for Rights” framework, launched in March 2017 under the auspices of OHCHR with the engagement of faith actors and international human rights experts, draws from insights gleaned under the Rabat Plan of Action into the positive role that faith actors can play in responding to incitement to violence. The aim of the Faith for Rights framework is to mobilize faith-based resources to promote the human rights framework, in particular by recognizing the interdependence of the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion or belief. 6 The Beirut Declaration on Faith for Rights and its 18 commitments promote the resolve not to oppress critical voices and views on matters of religion or belief, however wrong or offensive they may be perceived, in the name of the “sanctity” of the subject matter (see annexes I and II). Echoing the Rabat Plan of Action, the 18 commitments also contain a call upon States that still have anti-blasphemy or anti-apostasy laws in force to repeal them, stressing that such laws stifle the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief, as well as a healthy dialogue and debate about religious issues. 21. In recognition of the importance of long-term measures, the 18 commitments include a further undertaking to refine the curriculums, teaching materials and textbooks wherever some religious interpretations, or the way they are presented, may give rise to the perception of condoning violence or discrimination. The 18 commitments also include a pledge to defend academic freedom and the freedom of expression in accordance with international human rights law, in particular for academics who study religion, which promotes the notion that religious belief can be subjected to new challenges and can be a source for facilitating free and creative thinking. 22. These initiatives underscore the growing consensus in the international human rights community that anti-blasphemy laws run counter to the promotion of human rights for all persons (A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix, para. 19). As such, the international normative standard is clear: States may not impose punishment for insults, criticism or giving offence to religious ideas, icons or places, nor can laws be used to protect the feelings of religious communities. In that spirit, several countries, including Norway, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and, most recently, Denmark, Malta, Ireland and Canada have repealed anti-blasphemy laws. It is important to note, however, that antiblasphemy laws remain in force in many countries, and that Governments throughout the world are resorting to laws to protect people’s feelings or indeed religious doctrine, or are attempting to legislate civility. 23. IV. Restrictions on the freedom of expression and their impact on the freedom of religion or belief While the international community is reaching a consensus on the undesirability of anti-blasphemy laws, individual societies in many parts of the world are not. Nearly 47 per cent of countries and territories in the world have laws or policies that penalize blasphemy, apostasy, or the defamation of religions.7 Those countries continue to debate whether it is legitimate to impose legal restrictions on speech that offends religious sensibilities, or to prohibit the expression of views that negatively stereotype a group or community by implying that the values and actions of that community as a whole can be defined by the acts of terrorism and other illegal or anti-social actions committed by some of its members. 24. Individuals or States may advocate for restrictions on blasphemy based on the perception that free expression may cause an affront to the “sacred”, and thus an affront to 25. 5 6 7 6 See www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/advising-and-mobilizing.shtml. See www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/FaithForRights.aspx. Joelle Fiss, “Anti-blasphemy offensives in the digital age: when hardliners take over”, Analysis Paper, No. 25 (Washington D.C., Brookings Institute, 2016).