A/HRC/25/58 religious or belief convictions, in particular as regards religious minorities or people with dissenting views. In this context, the Rabat Plan of Action provides: “At the national level, blasphemy laws are counter-productive, since they may result in de facto censure of all inter-religious or belief and intra-religious or belief dialogue, debate and criticism, most of which could be constructive, healthy and needed. In addition, many blasphemy laws afford different levels of protection to different religions and have often proved to be applied in a discriminatory manner.”25 The Rabat Plan of Action therefore recommends that “States that have blasphemy laws should repeal them, as such laws have a stifling impact on the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief, and healthy dialogue and debate about religion.”26 The Special Rapporteur would like to confirm that, according to his experiences, blasphemy laws typically have intimidating effects on members of religious minorities as well as on critics or dissenters. 60. The Rabat Plan of Action certainly contributes to an understanding of article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in full appreciation of the significance of freedom of expression and other freedoms. This implies that restrictive legal measures can play a necessary, but only limited, role in preventing or reacting to incidents of incitement. As a consequence, States and other stakeholders should develop more holistic policies that include non-restrictive and non-prohibitive activities: “To tackle the root causes of intolerance, a much broader set of policy measures is necessary, for example in the areas of intercultural dialogue — reciprocal knowledge and interaction —, education on pluralism and diversity, and policies empowering minorities and indigenous people to exercise their right to freedom of expression.”27 61 Indeed, one of the most remarkable messages contained in the Rabat Plan of Action is that what we require above all in order to prevent and respond to incidents of incitement to hatred are policies which promote a creative and productive use of freedom of expression. For instance, in order to challenge advocates of religious hatred in their claims to speak in the name of “the silent majority”, it is important that the majority does not remain silent. Civil society activities which visibly and audibly reject advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence can have very practical effects in discouraging such advocacy, while at the same time showing solidarity and support for their targets. In any such activities, the gender dimension warrants special attention, as women frequently suffer from complex and intersectional stigmatization which renders them particularly vulnerable to hate propaganda and concomitant manifestations of contempt. 62. The Rabat Plan of Action specifically calls upon political and religious leaders to speak out firmly and promptly against intolerance, discriminatory stereotyping and instances of hate speech.28 They should also refrain from using messages of intolerance or expressions which may incite to religious violence and lead to manifestations of collective religious hatred. Religious leaders can play a critical role in societies at risk of large-scale violence, by spreading positive messages of acceptance, reconciliation, peace and respect for diversity.29 63. Other measures recommended in the Rabat Plan of Action include voluntary ethical guidelines for media reporting and self-regulatory supervision, support for community media, facilitation of a non-discriminatory participation of religious minorities within 25 26 27 28 29 Ibid., para. 19. Ibid., para. 25. Ibid., para. 37. Ibid., para. 36. Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/HRC/13/40), para. 60. 17