A/HRC/31/18 making use of freedom of expression, including media freedom, to promote equality and non-discrimination in society. According to principle 6, “all mass media should, as a moral and social responsibility, take steps to: ensure that their workforces are diverse and representative of society as a whole; address as far as possible issues of common concern to all groups in society; seek a multiplicity of sources and voices within different communities, rather than representing communities as a monolithic blocs; adhere to high standards of information provision that meet recognized professional and ethical standards”. Principle 5.3, for its part, proposes a public policy framework that, inter alia, ensures “that disadvantaged and excluded groups have equitable access to media resources, including training opportunities”. Obviously, the insistence placed by the Camden Principles on ensuring pluralistic representation within the media, as part of their moral and social responsibility, includes religious and belief-related pluralism. Public condemnations of incitement to acts of religious hatred 50. An inclusive culture of public discourse presupposes public rejection of speech-acts or other symbolic acts by which certain individuals or groups are de facto ex-communicated from any meaningful communication. Examples include extreme forms of essentialism, which effectively de-individualize certain individuals, or the equation of human beings with animals, which even aim at excommunicating them from the human family in general. Quite often, such rhetorical excommunication of human beings paves the way to real acts of hatred, such as discrimination, hostility or violence. 51. Incitement to acts of hatred can never be condoned and requires quick and clear communicative interventions.16 While a broad range of different stakeholders — civil society organizations, the media, religious communities and others — should participate in communicative counter-activities, the public condemnation of incitement also falls within the responsibility of the Government. Lack of government commitment in this regard or delayed and lukewarm reactions can easily be perceived as tacit complicity by government agencies with acts of incitement, or even as encouragement to commit violent crimes. By contrast, when the Government publicly sends quick and clear messages that any attacks against certain individual or groups will be perceived as attacks on society as a whole, this may function as a deterrent to potential perpetrators. 52. It is well known that entrepreneurs of hatred like to stage themselves as the political avant-garde, typically pretending to act in the name of a “silent majority”. As long as the majority of people within a society actually remain silent, this cynical game can continue unabated. It is all the more important that public rejections of violence and incitement to violence find a broad echo in society and that many people actively join in such rejections. The Special Rapporteur was repeatedly impressed to see public demonstrations in which numerous people — ordinary citizens, representatives of civil society organizations, religious leaders and others — took the streets to visibly express their abhorrence of any advocacy of hatred in the name of religion(s). Such activities can have an enormous impact on the climate in a society by sending a clear message to potential perpetrators, while at the same time mobilizing broad support for targeted minorities. 53. In cases where violent acts have actually occurred, credible public expressions of solidarity for the targeted groups are crucial alongside other measures. Members of targeted groups should be able to experience sympathy and feel that they are not alone in their mourning. Whereas lack of public solidarity may make members of minority groups feel helpless and encourage the radical forces within them to resort to violence in response to 16 14 camden-principles-on-freedom-of-expression-and-equality.pdf. See A/HRC/28/66.