A/HRC/34/50 high threshold because, as a matter of fundamental principle, limitation of speech must remain an exception. It proposes a six-element test that should support judicial processes in assessing whether concrete acts actually amount to “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and are serious enough to be considered criminal offences: the social and political context; the speaker (such as his or her status and influence); the intent of a speech act (as opposed to mere negligence); its content or form (such as style and degree of provocation); the extent of the speech act (for example, its public nature and the size of its audience); and the likelihood and imminence of actually causing harm. The Rabat Plan of Action calls upon States to bring their relevant legislation fully into line with articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Covenant when taking action against incitement. 58. Over the years, the holders of the mandate on the right to freedom of religion or belief have shown sustained concern over the impact of violence in the name of religion, as well as overly broad policies and practices by States that target newer religions or dissidents. They have proposed numerous strategies to deal with the issue of violent extremism, including promoting interreligious communication and calling for more consistent and objective reporting by the media (see A/55/280, A/HRC/13/40 and A/HRC/28/66). Recent programmes on preventing or countering violent extremism have highlighted the importance of the engagement of young people. The Special Rapporteur is keen to examine the impact of such measures on youth and children (see A/HRC/33/29, paras. 42-48). V. Conclusions, proposed methods of work and recommendations 59. It is evident from the foregoing overview that, in addition to addressing traditional restrictions on the right to adopt, hold, change and manifest religion or belief, three issue areas are likely to occupy the majority of the mandate’s time in the immediate future. The first two are the politicization and the securitization of freedom of religion or belief, as noted above; the third is the impact of these two phenomena on persons and groups in vulnerable situations. 60. The politicization of the right to freedom of religion or belief often aggravate existing tensions in civil society and between these actors and the State, thereby increasing the risk of intolerance and incitement to violence and discrimination. The implementation of the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and the Fez process, together with investments in religious freedom literacy, can all contribute to addressing these challenges. At the same time, there is a need to undertake a more systematic study of the incidents, patterns, correlations and causes of intolerance and incitement to violence and discrimination to identify triggers and to help in the design of policies to operationalize respect and protection for the right to freedom of religion or belief. 61. The rise in violent extremism in the name of religion has necessitated a range of preventive policies from States around the world; there is a need both to understand and to address their impact on the right to freedom of religion or belief. It is important to identify ways to reconcile the pursuit for greater security against violent extremism with protecting human rights, and also the ways in which greater respect for freedom of religion or belief can actually help to prevent violent extremism. Conceptual and case studies in this regard can help both to clarify the real issues at stake and to identify pathways to the realization of security and the protection of human rights. 18