A/HRC/28/64 incompatible, the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the prohibition of incitement to hatred are “mutually supportive”, as the public debate of ideas as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue can prevent hate and intolerance.14 54. In order to develop consistent and effective legislation and measures to prohibit and penalize incitement to hatred, hate speech should not be confused with other types of inflammatory, hateful or offensive speech. As experts have stated,15 the intended or actual effects of speech can be a useful indicator to distinguish incitement to hatred from other categories of hate speech: in the case of incitement to hatred, the speaker seeks to provoke reactions on the part of the audience, specifically to influence the audience to share the views expressed or implied in the speech and to respond against the victim groups with hostility, discrimination or violence. 55. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers uses a broader approach: “the term “hate speech” shall be understood as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti‐Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.”16 56. Lack of clear definitions of the content and elements of the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to hatred, in legal systems, may lead to misapplication of the law, including the use of anti-hate speech legislation to persecute and suppress critical or dissenting voices.17 For example, so-called “blasphemy laws” may result in the censure of inter- and intra-religious dialogue, debate and criticism; many of those laws are also applied in a discriminatory manner, as they offer different levels of protection to different religious beliefs.18 As highlighted by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, “the risk that legal provisions prohibiting hate speech are interpreted loosely and applied selectively by the authorities underlines the importance of having unambiguous language and of devising effective safeguards against abuses of the law”.19 57. A series of consultations involving OHCHR, civil society and academics were held to provide a clearer definition of the key terms contained in article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of which resulted in “The Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality”.20 Principle 12 states as follows: (a) the terms “hatred” and “hostility” refer to intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity and detestation towards the target group; (b) “advocacy” must be understood as requiring an intention to promote hatred publicly towards the target group; (c) “incitement” 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 See A/67/357. See, for example, www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/Others2011/ SBenesch.doc. Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R 97 (20) of the Committee of Ministers, appendix (see note 12 above). See A/67/357. Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred, section 19 (see note 11 above). Joint submission by special procedures to Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) 2011 Expert workshop on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred for Europe, held in Vienna, 9 and 10 February 2011. Available from www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/Vienna/CRP3Joint_SRSubmission for_Vienna.pdf. See www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/the-camden-principles-on-freedom-of-expressionand-equality.pdf.