CERD/C/67/D/30/2003 Page 14 legislation has not addressed the authors’ main concern, namely the failure of the law to proscribe all relevant categories of misconduct under the Convention; thus the authors remain potential victims. 9.3 In respect of the ‘due regard’ clause in article 4, the authors maintain that penalizing all four categories of misconduct is clearly compatible with any international principle of freedom of speech. For them, the Committee must undertake its own interpretation of the impugned statements, rather than defer to the interpretation adopted by the Norwegian Supreme Court. 18 In characterizing the speech, the authors note that Hess was well known as Hitler’s Deputy and confidant, instrumental in the development of the Nuremberg laws. They maintain that, as the minority of the Supreme Court found, anyone with a basic knowledge of Hitler and National Socialism would have understood Mr. Sjolie’s speech as an acceptance and approval of mass violence against Jews in the Nazi era. 9.4 The authors refer to jurisprudence of the ECHR and the Human Rights Committee, both of which have accorded racist and hate speech little protection under the freedom of speech provisions of their respective conventions.19 According to the authors, the role of the due regard clause is to protect the role of the media in imparting information about issues of public importance, provided the objective is not advocacy of racial hatred. It is submitted that the State party offers a much broader level of protection to hate speech than standards established in international case law. The authors further state that the Supreme Court decision in the Sjolie case is already having a significant effect as a precedent, despite the entry into force of the new legislation. They provide a decision by the Oslo police dated 31 May 2005 not to prosecute the leader of a Neo Nazi organization, in relation to statements made to the effect that Jews had killed millions of ‘his people’, that Jews should be ‘cleansed’, and were ‘not human beings’ but ‘parasites’. The police dropped the case with explicit reference to the Sjolie case. 9.5 The authors further submit that invoking freedom of speech for racist and discriminating purposes amounts to an abuse of the right of submission. They reiterate that the balance between freedom of speech and protection from hate speech following the Sjolie decision is such that persons are afforded protection only against the most distinctive and offensive remarks, entailing severe violations of a group’s dignity. 9.6 Finally, the authors note that Norway does not prohibit racist organizations and that the Supreme Court in the Sjolie case built on the view that such a ban would be unacceptable, contrary to the Committee’s General Recommendation 15, paragraph 6. Consideration of the merits 10.1 Acting under article 14, paragraph 7(a), of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Committee has considered the information submitted by the petitioners and the State party. 18 References are made to decisions of the ECHR: Lehideux and Isorni v France, 23.09.1998, app 24662/94, para 50-53; and Jersild v Denmark, 23.09.1994, app 15890/89, para 35. 19 Particular mention is made of Jersild v Denmark, concerning racist comments by the ‘Greenjackets’ against Africans and foreigners, held not to be protected by freedom of speech; and J.R.T and W.G. v Canada, Communication No 104/1981, Views adopted 6 April 1983..