A/HRC/55/47 11. Concrete hateful representations of the targeted community often portray their inferiority, exclusion and lack of belonging, not only in terms of their religion or belief, but also their nationality, citizenship, race, migration status, cultural values, language and other factors that may be constructed in relation to it.13 While they may deploy religious language and framing, the speakers themselves, including their political agendas, are often quite distanced from religious teachings, practice or institutions. Instead, religion is weaponized by the speakers as an identity marker against which the “other” is contrasted.14 Religion or belief serve as a pretext to legitimize the “disbelonging”, “civic ostracization” 15 and “foreignness”16 of the target from the privileged religious or belief, racial, ethnic or national order.17 12. Hatred based on religion or belief is therefore both purposefully instrumentalized and amalgamated with other forms of hatred in devious and engineered ways, making it difficult to disentangle the different forms of hatred against targeted communities. Because coded language serves as a proxy, expansive prohibitions of hate speech18 have proven to be quite ineffective as they cannot keep pace with evolving coded hate speech. B. Direct means and structural means 13. Hateful attitudes and the human rights violations they facilitate are generated through direct as well as cultural and structural means, key among which is the explicit, or thinly veiled, incitement to direct violence against targeted religious or belief minorities. 19 However, hateful attitudes can also be spread and perpetuated through expressions of disregard or disdain found in everyday political and social discourse, both formal and informal, which can lead to “distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference” 20 between persons holding different religions or beliefs. 14. Numerous examples cited in submissions received for the present report and mandate communications received in 2023 refer to direct threats, abuse and harassment (online and offline). Especially when made in public forums, such expressions can have direct and indirect psychological impacts on the broader targeted community 21 and serve to legitimize their acceptance by the majority population. Further examples of “hate speech” can include the propagation of conspiracy theories, myths and stereotypes; 22 the denial of the Holocaust 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 4 A/74/358, para. 14; A/HRC/46/30, paras. 13–14, 37, 41 and 54; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 35 (2013), para. 6. See also, inter alia, submissions from Spain, as well as from Australian Human Rights Commission; the Coalition for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development; Equality Myanmar; Federal Public Defender’s Office, Brazil; Geledés Instituto da Mulher Negra; Joint Initiative for Strategic Religious Action Partners, Indonesia; Memorial; Northern Justice Watch; Search for Common Ground; and World Jewish Congress. See https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009262125. See https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12829. See https://escholarship.org/uc/item/144826x7, p. 331. Concerning intersections of religion or belief-based discrimination with racialization and/or xenophobic marginalization, see submissions by Spain and Türkiye; see also communications sent to Brazil (BRA 2/2023), China (CHN 8/2023), Guatemala (GTM 8/2022 and Guyana (GUY 1/2023). Communications mentioned in the present report are available from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments. See https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract201711125, pp. 851–883. Submissions by the Armenian Bar Association; Christian Solidarity Worldwide; National Christian Evangelical Alliance Sri Lanka; and South Asia Collective. See also communications sent to India (IND 9/2023) and Pakistan (PAK 2/2023 and PAK 4/2023). Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, art. 2 (2). Submissions by the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Joint Initiative for Strategic Religious Action Partners, Indonesia. Submission by Sweden; see also submissions by Australian Human Rights Commission; Centre for Social Justice; Jubilee Campaign; National Christian Evangelical Alliance Sri Lanka; Open Doors International; South Asia Collective; and World Jewish Congress. See also communication sent to the Republic of Korea (KOR 5/2023). GE.23-25950