A/74/358 members of the European Union, 78 and by the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States. 79 It is used by a number of civil society organizations that monitor antisemitism and was recognized by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in 2018. 80 54. The Special Rapporteur notes that critics of the working definition have expressed concern that it can be applied in ways that could effectively restrict legitimate political expression, including criticism of policies and practices being promoted by the Government of Israel that violate the rights of Palestinians. Such concerns are focused on three of the illustrative examples attached to the definition, namely, claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour; requiring of Israel a behaviour not demanded of other democratic States; comparing the government policy of Israel with that of the Nazis. The Special Rapporteur notes that the definition developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance does not designate them as examples of speech that are ipso facto antisemitic and further observes that a contextual assessment is required under the definition to determine whether they are antisemitic. Nevertheless, the potential chilling effects of the use of those examples by public bodies on speech that is critical of policies and practices of the Government of Israel must be taken seriously, as should the concern that criticism of Israel sometimes has been used to incite hatred towards Jews in general, including through expression that feeds on traditional antisemitic stereotypes of Jews. Therefore, the use of the definition, as a non-legal educational tool, could minimize such chilling effects and contribute usefully to efforts to combat antisemitism. When public bodies use the definition in any regulatory context, due diligence must be exercised to ensure that freedom of expression within the law is protected for all. The Special Rapporteur affirms that the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, general comment No. 34 (2011) of the Human Rights Committee on the freedoms of opinion and expression and general recommendation No. 35 (2013) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on combating racist hate speech provide relevant guidance in this regard. 55. The Special Rapporteur recalls that, as discussed below, international human rights instruments also stress the responsibility of public officials to r efrain from expressing religious, racial and other forms of intolerance, as well as a duty to condemn expression that, even if protected by law, nevertheless reflects antisemitic attitudes. As set out in the Rabat Plan of Action, “political and religious leaders should refrain from using messages of intolerance or expressions which may incite violence, hostility or discrimination; but they also have a crucial role to play in speaking out firmly and promptly against intolerance, discriminatory stereotyping a nd instances of hate speech” (A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix, para. 36). The Special Rapporteur considers that tools such as the working definition, when used as a non -legal tool that relies on a contextual assessment of when speech can be deemed antisemitic, would serve a valuable function by communicating to public officials and the public at large widely shared concerns about explicit and implicit forms that contemporary manifestations of antisemitism can take. __________________ 78 79 80 16/23 See www.timesofisrael.com/european-parliament-votes-to-adopt-working-definition-of-antisemitism/. See www.oas.org/en/about/speech_secretary_general.asp?sCodigo=19-0036. See www.un.org/press/en/2018/sgsm19252.doc.htm. 19-16257