A/HRC/31/18 whether, when and how to communicate, seek or impart information or speak out on certain issues. The right to withdraw or to remain reserved is the indispensable flipside of the right to engage in all aspects of free communication. This also applies to persons who belong to a group, such as members of religious or belief minorities. 36. In that context, it may be useful to recall that freedom of religion or belief includes the right not to have one’s religious or belief orientation involuntarily exposed, for instance in passports, identification or other official documents. Likewise, freedom of opinion and expression entitles individuals to protection of their political or other opinions against unwanted exposure.12 Such protection functions as a practical safeguard against discrimination, while at the same time contributing to overcome “religious profiling” and its stigmatizing effects, as required by Human Rights Council resolution 16/18. Policies of using communicative interaction with a view to combating intolerance, stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination and incitement against individuals based on their religion or belief should therefore always accommodate the interest in non-exposure, which some individuals or groups of individuals may have. 37. To facilitate communication while at the same time accommodating the possible interest in non-exposure presupposes a broad variety of different communicative formats. For instance, while some communicative settings may operate on the express understanding that participants represent different faith communities, there should also be formats which allow people to communicate about religious intolerance and related problems without “outing” themselves in their personal religious or belief orientation. The different formats should mutually complement each other, thus facilitating a culture of open and frank communication with broad voluntary participation. 3. Relevant types of communicative action (examples) 38. As the word limit of the present report does not allow a detailed analysis of the multiple forms of communicative action needed to combat intolerance, stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, violence and incitement thereto, the Special Rapporteur would like to make a few non-exhaustive typological observations. Interreligious communication 39. Human Rights Council resolution 16/18 repeatedly underlines the role of interfaith and intercultural dialogue for combating intolerance based on religion or belief. Such dialogue can assume different forms, which all have specific advantages and limitations. While some interreligious projects chiefly fulfil symbolic functions, others may serve practical purposes, including interreligious charity work. Whereas in some projects the main intention may be for persons belonging to different groups to regularly encounter each other face to face, other projects may aim at the systematic clarification of thematic issues of common concern. While some activities are carried out explicitly under the auspices of religious and denominational differences, other types of communication cut across the entire spectrum of religious diversity without highlighting or even mentioning the participants’ religious backgrounds. 40. In his country visits, the Special Rapporteur observed different formats of interreligious dialogue and the variety of purposes pursued thereby. For instance, during his visit to Lebanon, he participated in a big interreligious ceremony, in which representatives of different Christian and Muslim communities symbolically reassured each other of their 12 The Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression highlighted that unwanted exposure may serve as a deterrent to expression, thereby undermining the right and the ability to express opinions or beliefs (see A/HRC/29/32). 11