A/HRC/55/47 associated with speaker 1’s purported characteristics. In such cases, tracing back the responsibility to the original speaker 1 is tenuous and may be misleading. It can be observed that the “original speech act” is often resuscitated time and again, with the passage of time and in different locations around the world. This increasingly tenuous link to an “original speech act of speaker 1” should not obfuscate the chain of responsibility or the observation of the purposeful resuscitation of the incident by other speakers (identified as speakers 2, 3, 4 etc.). Each of those subsequent acts should be assessed separately under the six-part threshold test. The responsibility cannot simply be shifted to the jurisdiction of original speaker 1, with subsequent speakers or their State authorities being absolved of any responsibility. Rather, the subsequent speakers (speakers 2, 3, 4 etc.), when acting in bad faith in order to instrumentalize and foment hatred and revenge, need to be recognized as “malicious intermediaries”.52 Furthermore, the role of State authorities, anywhere along the chain of transmission, in manipulating such speech as an opportunity for gaining popularity and power (and the obligations upon them to the contrary) cannot and should not be overlooked. C. Bringing freedom of religion or belief to bear on hate speech 29. It should be recalled that the rights holder under the Covenant is an individual or group of persons, meaning “everyone”, “all persons” or “persons belonging to” religious or belief minorities whose human rights are protected under articles 18 through 22, 26 and 27 of the Covenant. Discrimination and incitement to religious hatred can relate to theistic, non-theistic, atheistic or any other believers, as well as to individuals not professing a belief.53 All States should ensure the ongoing enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief without coercion, in all circumstances and for everyone. This includes the right to examine, explore, exchange and access opportunities to explore matters of religion or belief and to allow for change of religion or belief without coercion.54 30. The right to examine, explore, exchange and access opportunities to explore matters of religion or belief and to allow change of religion or belief without coercion requires support of freedom of the “realm of conscience” for all and thus implicates anti-blasphemy laws. Such laws run counter to freedom of religion or belief “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”. Such laws also result in discrimination and worse, since they do not offer equal protection to all “thought, conscience and religion” and have led to “numerous examples of persecution of religious minorities or dissenters, but also of atheists and non-theists, as a result of legislation on what constitutes religious offences or overzealous application of laws containing neutral language”.55 D. Holy books, including the Holy Qur’an 31. In its general comment No. 34 (2011), the Human Rights Committee alludes to content relating to holy books and religious or belief symbols in addressing “displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system” and “criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith”.56 Several procedural and substantive points arise in this regard, which need integrated consideration. 32. Procedurally, the Human Rights Committee stresses that content-based considerations cannot bypass the demands of legality, nor can they suspend consideration of the whole 52 53 54 55 56 GE.23-25950 See https://doi.org/10.1163/18710328-12341291. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993), para. 2; and A/HRC/40/58, annex I, para. 10, and annex II, commitment II. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights unconditionally protects freedom of thought and conscience or the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice (article 18) as well as the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference (article19 (1)); see also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993), para. 3, and general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 9. A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix, para. 19; see also A/72/365, paras. 26–31. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 48. 9