A/HRC/34/50/Add.1 been used for decades and contrary to the recommendations by United Nations human rights bodies. 55. Some interlocutors opined that abolishing the blasphemy provision could send the wrong signal and be perceived as an attempt to legitimize offensive depictions of Islam, thus possibly alienating the Muslim population, who generally feel targeted by many ugly manifestations of hatred. However, one may wonder whether the hate-speech provision (article 266 b of the Penal Code), which inter alia covers threatening, humiliating and degrading speech that targets people on the basis of their religion, would not suffice. Indeed, it seems that the Government cannot imagine any actual use of the blasphemy provision except in very narrow circumstances, for example, when a holy book or other highly symbolic item would be publicly burned, destroyed or other otherwise desecrated. 56. The reason for keeping the blasphemy provision seems understandable, as it intends to protect minorities who are currently under heavy pressure. However, it is not in line with international standards on freedom of expression and sits uneasily with the general policy adopted by European Union member States for all anti-blasphemy laws to be repealed. In this context, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to an action plan elaborated in October 2012 under the auspices of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Without denying the need for restrictive measures in extreme cases, the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence calls upon States to repeal blasphemy laws. At the same time, the Rabat Plan of Action emphasizes the primacy of non-restrictive measures to counter incitement to acts of hatred, for instance, through crossboundary communication, educational efforts, community outreach, fair representation of minorities in public media and solidarity actions in support of targeted individuals or communities. VIII. Issues of sexual orientation and gender identity 57. Denmark is in many ways at the forefront of promoting gender equality, not only with regard to men and women, but also concerning diverse expressions of sexuality broadly speaking. In 1989 legislation was introduced on registering same-sex partnerships, and Denmark legalized same-sex marriage in 2012. Beyond the legal sphere, respect for equality and tolerance towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex persons is reflected in the school curriculum. 58. In many countries, such developments meet with resistance by parts of society, often in the name of traditional religious family values. This has given rise to a widespread perception — or rather misperception — that freedom of religion or belief and policies of gender or sexuality emancipation do not fit together, even though they both belong within the human rights framework. Against such antagonistic views, the experience of Denmark provides an interesting and encouraging example that respect for freedom of religion or belief and promoting non-discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity or sexual orientation can go well together. 59. In 1989, one of the first people to register in a same-sex partnership was a gay pastor of the Folkekirke, which illustrates openness on the side of the Church and the parishioners. A new step was taken in 2012, when legislation was introduced to celebrate same-sex marriages in the Established Church. Although it caused some disturbance in parts of the Church, the new law found broad acceptance not only in the population at large, but also among church attendants and the Lutheran clergy. Those comparatively few pastors who do not wish to be personally involved with the celebration of same-sex marriages in the Church have never been compelled to do so. 15