A/72/287 countries include vague terminology and definitions related to terrorism. Charges related to the incitement of terrorism increasingly refer to general terms such as “glorification” and “public provocation”. 43 One Western European country even removed the requirement that incitement to terrorism pose an actual risk of a terrorism-related offence being committed. 44 In Europe, such vague legal definitions are often the result of right-wing populist initiatives fuelling fears of Muslim radicalization. 35. The Special Rapporteur notes that overly broad legislation creates legal uncertainty, leaves room for disproportionate and discriminatory application of counter-terrorism laws and sometimes results in the violation of fundamental human rights. Far-reaching and ambiguous definitions of terrorism and violent extremism have enabled many countries to criminalize the legitimate exercise of fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. 45 In one North American country, Muslim charities feel particularly targeted by investigations, raids and asset seizures, creating the false impression of their involvement in terrorist financing. 46 In one European country, the so-called “apology of terrorism” offence has been used to charge hundreds of people, in particular Muslims, for posting comments on social media, even though these comments do not incite violence. 47 36. Similarly, vaguely worded legislation has enabled public authorities in one Western European country to assume disproportionate powers with respect to counter-terrorism. A state of emergency has been enacted in order to address “public disaster” or a “serious threat to public order”. In this context, political leaders and local government officials have been granted vast powers to impose a range of administrative measures, such as searches and house arrests, against individuals perceived as a threat. These measures are problematic in terms of access to justice and due process rights, as prior judicial authorization is not required and judicial oversight is generally limited. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that the application of such measures is often disproportionate. Instead of being grounded in evidence, administrative measures often target Muslims and persons of North-African descent. 48 37. The Special Rapporteur further expresses concern that, in some countries, overly broad counter-terrorism legislation has a negative and discriminatory impact on the human rights of indigenous peoples, including their economic, social and cultural rights. In one Latin American country, the use of vague counter -terrorism legislation has led to abuse and stigmatization of an indi genous population asserting their rights to self-determination and to their ancestral lands. Their activism and land protests continue to be characterized as terrorism, both in the media and the political discourse. The vague nature of domestic counter -terrorism legislation has allowed for its disproportionate application against members of the indigenous community. This has not only had a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of various human rights, but has also contributed to targeted violence and excessiv e force against the community by law enforcement officials. 49 __________________ 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 10/23 Bibi van Ginkel, “Incitement to terrorism: a matter of pre vention or repression?”, ICCT research paper, August 2011. See https://perma.cc/A7CV-98JA. See, for example, A/70/371; A/HRC/31/65, paras. 43-47; A/61/267; A/HRC/7/14, paras. 47-53; A/HRC/35/28/Add.1, paras. 6-28. A/HRC/35/28/Add.2, para. 67 (a). Amnesty International, “EU: Orwellian counter-terrorism laws stripping rights under guise of defending them”, 17 January 2017. See https://perma.cc/BP5Z-QEVR; https://perma.cc/5R9F-JHNV. See CERD/C/CHL/CO/19-21; A/HRC/25/59/Add.2. 17-13397