A/72/365 that “since not all types of inflammatory, hateful or offensive speech amount to incitement, the two should not be conflated” (see A/67/357, para. 49). 50. That being said, intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization — particularly when advocated by those with a bully pulpit and a cheering crowd — all contribute to an environment rife with violations of manifold rights, including free dom of religion or belief. Yet not all speech leads to violence. Indeed, policing language and resorting to criminal sanctions does little to eliminate intolerant attitudes. States should, therefore, consider the whole range of possible responses, between criminal sanctions on one end of the spectrum and, on the other, the promotion of more speech, including civil penalties and non-legal policy measures that will bring about deep societal changes that challenge stereotyping and stigmatization. 51. Bearing this in mind, the United Nations has adopted several tools for promoting the right to freedom of religion or belief by way of combating various forms of intolerance perpetrated against persons on the basis of their religion or belief. This includes Human Rights Council resolution 16/18 and its implementation mechanism, the Istanbul Process, and the Rabat Plan of Action. Those tools provide a common platform from which Member States may address domestic concerns and common challenges related to religious and other forms of intolerance despite diverse geographic, legal and political contexts, and offer more concrete means for translating into domestic practice protections offered by articles 18 to 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (see, e.g., Human Rights Council resolution 34/22, para. 14). B. Resolution 16/18 and the Istanbul Process 52. The question of just how much protection should be afforded to the right to freedom of expression remains a divisive issue for stakeholders working to combat the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred constituting incitement to hostility, discrimination or violence. In its resolution 16/18, the Human Rights Council bridges the ideological divisions surrounding the question of how to effectively address intolerance based on religion or belief while ensuring that the actions of State and non-State actors do not impede the right to freedom of opinion or expression. The Special Rapporteur joins the chorus of stakeholders in calling upon Member States to avoid relitigating concepts that inspire and inform the content and spirit of the resolution. To ensure that their intergovernmental efforts remain relevant and to keep the hard-won agreement alive, Member States should collectively focus on the next step of their commitment: how to implement resolution 16/18. 53. Taken together, measures offered by the resolution constitute an action plan that encourage the creation of intra-State mechanisms that emphasize implementation through predominantly positive State measures. Duty bearers are committed to speaking out against manifestations of intolerance and to providing local authorities, who are on the front lines in promoting and protecting rights, with the expertise, capacity and resources needed to effectively address incidents of intolerance based on religion or belief. This includes facilitating the training of State officials in effective strategies for outreach, identifying and addressing potential areas of tension between members of differe nt religious communities and assisting with conflict prevention and mediation. The plan also articulates the role that change agents (i.e. faith leaders, media outlets, civil society and educators) must play in combating intolerance based on religion or be lief. 54. The Istanbul Process, which is intended to be supplemented by regular reporting through OHCHR, contributes to the implementation of resolution 16/18 by 17-14822 15/24