A/HRC/32/50 65. Across much of Europe, political statements that may previously have been deemed hate speech or beyond the realm of acceptability have now become part of mainstream political discourse expressing overtly hostile views towards migrants and multiculturalism more generally.77 The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance has reported that, within the scope of its country monitoring, it has recorded expressions of hate speech and the use of offensive language and stereotypes and derogatory comments made on the streets, in schools and in shops, as well as actual calls for the use of violence against vulnerable groups. The use of inappropriate language and discourse in many parliaments and by State officials has been found to contribute to a public discourse that is increasingly offensive and intolerant. Furthermore, attempts by public figures to justify and/or trivialize the existence of prejudice and intolerance towards certain groups have contributed to perpetuating and increasing hostility towards vulnerable individuals. 78 Anti-migration rhetoric has garnered increasing public support, as evidenced by electoral results across much of the region. 66. This negative attitude towards migrants has often been justified on the basis of accusations that immigrants are generally overrepresented among criminal organizations, and because they are also usually portrayed as a threat to the welfare state due to the rising cost of social subsidies.79 For example, Afrophobia in Europe has been explained by making reference to multiple causes, including perceptions of Africans as unwanted economic migrants. As a result, people of African origin are discriminated against on the basis of their migration status but are also discriminated against in countries where they have lived for many decades. They live with disproportionate frequency in socially deprived residential areas, are more often stopped and searched by the police and have less favourable health-care outcomes than white populations. 80 67. As in other regions, a security approach to migration policies predominates. While this need not be xenophobic in and of itself, it has translated into high levels of harassment and discrimination at borders, on the streets, and within public institutions including schools and other State services.81 IV. Conclusion and recommendations 68. In conclusion, given the ambiguity surrounding the notion of xenophobia, there is a need for a more robust research agenda that seeks to consider the sources of xenophobia and the effectiveness of the strategies in place to counter xenophobia, taking into consideration intersectionality, scale, and the multitude of actors involved in creating conflict or mutual respect. Across regions, State institutions responsible for promoting, protecting and fulfilling the rights of the victimized groups are either failing due to complicity or lack of capacity, or due to the complexity in characterizing discriminatory practices. At times, there is overt denial that xenophobia exists within a given society, or else it has become normalized in public discourse and justified by making reference to national values, such as freedom of speech, or to security needs. 77 78 79 80 81 Tijtske Akkerman, “Comparing radical right parties in government: immigration and integration policies in nine countries (1996-2010)”, West European Politics, vol. 35, No. 3 (2012), pp. 511-529. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, general policy recommendation No. 15, para. 24. Ibid. See the 2014 annual report on the activities of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, paras. 17 and 18. Jef Huysmans, “The European Union and the securitization of migration”, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 38, No. 5 (2000), pp. 757-777. 19