A/HRC/31/18 offences. The six elements are: the social and political context; the speaker (e.g. his or her status and influence); the intent of a speech act (as opposed to mere negligence); its content or form (e.g. style, degree of provocation); the extent of the speech act (e.g. its public nature and the size of its audience); and the likelihood and imminence of actually causing harm.18 58. The Rabat Plan of Action thus strictly upholds the criteria laid down in article 20 (2) of the Covenant. It calls upon States to bring their relevant legislation fully in line with articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Covenant when taking action against incitement. As the flipside of this approach, the Rabat Plan of Action reaffirms the role that non-restrictive measures of counter-incitement should play, thus corroborating the legitimacy of limitations as measures of last resort only. In this context, the Rabat Plan of Action explicitly underlines the close interrelatedness of freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression in any attempt to combat incitement to acts of hatred: It is often purported that freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief are in a tense relationship or even contradictory. In reality, they are mutually dependent and reinforcing. The freedom to exercise or not exercise one’s religion or belief cannot exist if the freedom of expression is not respected, as free public discourse depends on respect for the diversity of convictions which people may have. Likewise, freedom of expression is essential to creating an environment in which constructive discussion about religious matters could be held. 19 C. Problematic restrictions 1. Blasphemy laws 59. In its general comment No. 34, the Human Rights Committee stresses that “prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant” (para. 48). To exemplify this clarification, the Committee underlines that prohibitions cannot be permitted in order “to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrines and tenets of faith”. The Rabat Plan of Actions likewise criticizes blasphemy laws and finds it counterproductive at the national level as they may result in de facto censure of all interreligious and intrareligious dialogue, debate and criticism, most of which could be constructive, healthy and needed.20 60. As stated earlier, rights holders in the framework of human rights can only be human beings, as individuals and in community with others. This logic fully applies also to the right to freedom of religion or belief. While human beings — and indeed all of them — should receive recognition and legal protection in their freedom to believe and practise in the ways they see appropriate, blasphemy laws typically single out certain religions for special protection, thus not only encroaching on freedom of expression but also on freedom of religion or belief, in particular of members of religious minorities, converts, critics, atheists, agnostics, internal dissidents and others. Abundant experience in a number of countries demonstrates that blasphemy laws do not contribute to a climate of religious openness, tolerance, non-discrimination and respect. To the contrary, they often fuel stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination and incitement to violence. As noted in the 18 19 20 16 Ibid., para. 29. Ibid., para. 10. Ibid., para. 19.