A/72/365 repeal them because such laws have a stifling impact on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief, not to mention the ability to engage in healthy dialogue and debate about religion. 10 29. Legislation on religious offences is thus often used to facilitate the persecution of members of religious minority groups, dissenters, atheists and non -theists. In many States, individuals whose beliefs constitute dissent from religious doctrine or beliefs held by the State have been subjected to criminal sanctions, including life imprisonment or capital punishment, under the auspices of “fighting religious intolerance” or “upholding social harmony”. Adherents of minority faiths deemed “heretical” by governments or State-backed religious establishments, such as Ahmadis, atheists, Baha’is and various Christian groups, such as the Copts, as well as secular thinkers, remain particularly vulnerable to allegations of blasphemy and apostasy in various parts of the world, including the Middle East, North Africa and South and South-East Asia. 30. Blasphemy allegations are also used by State and non-State actors to disrupt the political status quo and to foment instability by violent extremists who may have an interest in imposing more restrictive interpretations of religion in their societies at the expense of fundamental freedoms. Non-State actors often rely on blasphemy allegations to provoke and mobilize crowds that descend on towns, burn places of worship, loot homes and kill and injure citizens. The Special Rapporteur has issued a number of communications expressing concern in situations where States, on the basis of religious hatred, failed to protect or actively participated in the targeting of individuals engaged in the peaceful exercise of their fundamental rights, including freedom of expression or belief. 31. Human reactions and emotions that were once limited to one’s immediate geographic vicinity can in the digital age reach millions in seconds. Since 2012, accusations of online blasphemy have risen, and new patterns of threats and violence have emerged. 11 Individuals using the Internet to disseminate views considered blasphemous are increasingly facing arrest and prosecution. The arrests are often capricious, creating an atmosphere of fear in which Internet users are unsure of the boundaries within which their rights can be exercised. Most alarmingly, online speech, usually expressed through social media sites, can also lead to offline mob violence targeting the alleged “blasphemer”. C. Religious intolerance by non-State actors 32. In many cases, limits on freedom of religion or belief — and denials of that freedom — stem not from any governmental action but from pressure within the society in which they occur. Such pressure is usually exercised through subtle methods, such as exclusion from social life or other forms of social ostracism. A number of incidents of religious intolerance, including discrimination and violence, have occurred in the name of religion or belief, “either with the aim of imposing upon the vanquished the faith of the victor or as a pretext for extending economic or political domination” (E/CN.4/Sub.2/200/Rev.1). This includes acts committed by armed and/or terrorist groups, vigilante mobs, business corporations, civil society __________________ 10 11 10/24 See A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix, para. 25; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “The Beirut Declaration and its 18 commitments on faith for rights” (Geneva, 2017); and United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect , “Plan of action of religious leaders and actors to prevent incitement to violence that could lead to atrocity crimes”, July 2017. See Joelle Fiss, “Anti-blasphemy offensives in the digital age: when hardliners take over”, Analysis Paper, No. 25 (Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution, September 2016). 17-14822