CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011 manifest their religion cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith. 6.7 The United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Organization of American States have indicated that no one should be penalized for the dissemination of hate speech unless it has been shown that they did so with the intention of inciting discrimination, hostility or violence. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe considers that acts that intentionally and severely disturb public order and call for public violence by reference to religious matters should be prohibited, as far as necessary in a democratic society, in accordance with article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights). In order to be restricted, it is not sufficient that expressions merely disturb public order; they must also call for public violence. 6.8 Defining which acts fall within article 20 remains difficult. No clear line can be drawn between criticism, even if deemed offensive, and incitement to violence, hostility or discrimination. Nor is there a universally accepted definition of hate speech. Each set of facts is particular and can only be assessed and adjudicated according to the specific circumstances and context. That was the difficult task performed by the court. The authors are incorrect in assuming that Mr. Wilders’ statements are covered by article 20 almost by definition. That must be decided by a court for each specific statement. Any other approach would infringe a defendant’s right to a fair trial. 6.9 The legislative history of section 137d of the Criminal Code shows that the intention was to criminalize incitement to hatred or discrimination against persons, not religions. Criticism of the most deeply held convictions of the adherent of a religion, of the faith itself and of the institutions and organizations based thereon is acceptable. Freedom of expression played a role in the decision to keep such criticism beyond the reach of section 137d, since criticism of religion or belief must be allowed as much scope as possible, even where that criticism touches the most deeply held convictions of the believers and the institutions or organizations based on the religion or belief. Criticism is a criminal offence, however, if it is unequivocally directed at persons themselves and not simply at their opinions, convictions and behaviours. An insulting attack on a belief does not automatically constitute an attack on those who adhere to that belief; under the law an insulting description of a belief is only insulting to persons if it involves drawing conclusions about those persons. That distinction applies only with respect to the grounds of religion or belief, not race or ethnic origin. The legislative history establishes that in interpreting the term “incitement to”, the legislator sought a connection with the offence defined in section 131 of the Criminal Code, namely inflammatory behaviour that incites the commission of criminal offences or acts of violence. 6.10 Section 137d of the Criminal Code was drafted in compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The discrimination element in section 137d is based on the definition of the term in section 90, which reads as follws: “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the field of politics or economics, in social or cultural matters or any other area of social life”. Discrimination is a specifically defined behaviour. In contrast to incitement to hatred (an extreme emotion), incitement to discrimination does not require an intensifying element. 6.11 The judgment cannot be described as a departure from existing domestic case law. Cases establish that prosecutions on the basis of discrimination require a case-by-case assessment of the particular statements as well as their context. Cases often result in convictions but also often result in acquittals. In its judgment, the court held that it would “assess the various statements in terms of their wording as such, their connections with the rest of the interview or article of which they are a part, the other statements made by the 10