A/HRC/31/18 themselves under the auspices of religious diversity or might prefer not to “come out” with their personal religious or non-religious orientations. Here again, the diversity of formats of interreligious communication can play a productive role and should systematically be taken into account. A culture of public discourse 45. Intolerance, stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination and incitement against persons based on their religion or belief do not only affect members of religious communities, but also have an impact on society as a whole. Communicative counterstrategies cannot therefore be limited to various formats of interreligious dialogue. What is also needed is the development of frank public discourse, facilitated by free and independent broadcast, print and online media, a broad range of civil society organizations and other stakeholders. The best antidote to intolerant propaganda is a culture of critical public discourse with broad participation. Governments have the responsibility to create a safe and enabling environment in law and practice for media practitioners and civil society activists, based on respect for everyone’s freedom of expression and all other human rights. 46. For instance, when it comes to combating negative stereotyping, the counter-strategy cannot consist in “image campaigns” aimed at replacing negative pictures by positive pictures. In the long run, such image campaigns will merely reinforce suspicion in sceptical parts of society. Instead, what is needed is overcoming the root causes of stereotyping in general, including through nuanced debates and reporting. The purpose should be to solidify or restore experience-based common sense in society at large, including concerning issues of religious diversity. 47. Coexistence among people of different religious orientations is not always easy and can produce tensions, which should be articulated publicly. When sharing experiences — including negative experiences — in public debates, such experiences and concomitant feelings at least can be exposed to public counter-narratives, which may help to prevent them from hardening into fixed prejudices and negative stereotypes. By contrast, lack of public debate typically provides fertile ground for spreading spiteful rumours against certain communities and their members. When told merely in hermetic circles or closed chatrooms and remaining unchecked by any counter-narratives or counter-evidence, negative rumours may easily lead to collective prejudices. They can even escalate into paranoid conspiracy projections and concomitant incitement to violence. 14 48. An important purpose of public debates is overcoming all forms of essentialism in the area of religion and belief. Essentialism basically denies or marginalizes internal diversity, thus assuming that the followers of a certain religion all think and behave alike. This typically results in a de-individualization of the individual or a de-personalization of the person, who seems to disappear behind an ascribed homogeneous collective mentality. It is all the more important to recapture the truth that religions and beliefs, as lived social phenomena, always consist of human beings with most different biographies, characters, inclinations, interests, positions and assessments. Beside face-to-face communication, public discussions play a crucial role in this endeavour and should be based on respect for freedom of expression. A fair representation of members of different religious communities in the media, including in particular minorities, is an indispensable part of such a strategy. 49. In this context, the Special Rapporteur would like to recommend the Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality. 15 The Camden Principles advocate 14 15 See A/HRC/25/58. See Article 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression, “The Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality” (April 2009), available at www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/the- 13