A/HRC/23/34 insulting “religious feelings” or inciting “religious hatred”. Artistic activities or artworks concerned include those quoting sacred texts, using religious symbols or figures, questioning religion or the sacred, proposing an unorthodox or non-mainstream interpretation of symbols and texts, adopting a conduct deemed not to follow religious precepts, addressing abuse of power by religious leaders or their linkage with political parties or criticizing religious extremism. 20 48. The Special Rapporteur recalls that “prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with [ICCPR], except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.”21 Blasphemy laws have a stifling impact on the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief and impede a healthy dialogue and debate about religion. 22 49. In some cases, cultural institutions and artists have abstained from presenting “controversial works” under high pressure from communities, including threats of violence and violence itself, and “policy makers and arts administrators have come broadly to accept the argument that it is morally unacceptable to cause offence to other cultures.”23 It must be recalled that, within any collective identity, there will always be differences and debates over meanings, definitions and concepts.24 To understand who speaks for which culture or community, and ensure that predominance is not accorded to one voice over the other, most often out of prejudice, are particular challenges. The fear that some communities may protest should not be sufficient to lead to the conclusion that some artworks should not be displayed or performed; a certain level of contest and dispute is often inherent to contemporary art. 50. Issues relating to gender, sexuality and sexual orientation, in relation to religion and morals, continue to be highly debated in connection with artistic expressions and creations. Artworks that are concerned range from those addressing the issue of love and romance, or representing or exposing nudity, to those resorting to pornography or certain forms of pornography. References to, or descriptions of, homosexual relationships in literature, music and visual arts are criminalized in several countries, or face particular censorship in some others. The Special Rapporteur notes with concern that the motivation of protecting children from certain content may be used to and lead to prohibited access for adults.25 She further stresses that according to some information, “despite widely publicized claims that adverse effects [of sexual or violent content on children] have been proven, the studies are ambiguous, disparate and modest in their results”.26 Arts education, together with education that teaches children how to interpret and critique media and entertainment messages, may be a far better and more effective solution than censorship. 51. The protection of corporate interests may also play an important role in art restrictions. Underlying motivations include the desire to silence criticism from artists of 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 For example, TUN 2/2012 in A/HRC/22/67; RUS 2/2012 in A/HRC/21/49. CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 49. Rabat document, para. 19. Kenan Malik, “Arts for who’s sake”, in Index on Censorship, Beyond belief, theatre, freedom of expression and public order – a case study, p. 3-6. A/67/287, para. 10. Svetlana Mintcheva, “Protection of politics? The use and abuse of children”, in Censoring culture, Contemporary threats to free expression, The New Press, 2006, p. 167-172; Agnès Tricoire, op. cit., p. 53; Submission from Japan Actors Union and Japan Arts Council. Marjorie Heins, “Media effects”, in Censoring Culture, p. 179. 11