A/HRC/35/41 terrorism and far-reaching laws have enabled those countries to criminalize the exercise of fundamental liberties, peaceful political or social opposition and other legitimate acts. 44 71. The implementation of such overly broad counter-terrorism policies has led to abuse and stigmatization of an ethnic minority in Latin America, where antiterrorism legislation has been applied against an indigenous population seeking to reclaim its ancestral lands and right of self-determination.45 The ongoing characterization of this indigenous population as terrorists, both in the media and in political discourse, is a significant obstacle to its realizing its rights to its ancestral territory and of self-determination and has led to targeted violence and excessive force against that community by law enforcement.46 D. Surveillance of racial minorities and groups perceived as foreign 72. Overly broad legislation has, in many countries, allowed policing practices which target racial and ethnic minority communities. The constant surveillance experienced by many minority and migrant communities has a chilling effect on freedom of expression and undermines interpersonal and familial relationships, as well as religious practice. 73. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that, in one North American country, the police force in a major city uses dragnet surveillance of the city’s Muslim community to observe services at mosques and film the entrances to mosques and produces daily reports on Muslim individuals.47 That surveillance has never produced any actionable intelligence and the matter has been brought before the court. 48 74. In one East Asian country, where 90 per cent of Muslims are foreign born, 49 an extensive surveillance programme targeting Muslims has had a disproportionate impact on migrants.50 An investigation showed that police were creating résumé-like data on Muslim individuals and had surveilled 72,000 individuals from Muslim-majority countries in order to collect their personal information. A high court later found those privacy violations to be legal because they were “necessary and inevitable” to guard against terrorism.51 75. The Special Rapporteur noted a similar trend throughout Western Europe. For example, the 2015 Surveillance Law in one Western European country empowers the Prime Minister to authorize the use of surveillance measures, such as capturing mobile phone calls and black boxes from Internet service providers, for the purpose of protecting foreign policy interests, without any prior judicial authorization. 52 More recently, with the goal of preventing terrorism, that same country extended surveillance to individuals suspected of “association” with someone who may constitute a threat. 53 E. International, regional and national norms prohibiting racism and xenophobia, especially in the context of countering terrorism 76. The Special Rapporteur draws attention to the various international, regional and national legal and normative frameworks that have been adopted to curb racism and xenophobia while countering terrorism. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 See www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/afriqueantiterr483eng2007.pdf. Chile, Law No. 18314 of 16 May 1984. See A/HRC/25/59/Add.2. See www.aclu.org/other/factsheet-nypd-muslim-surveillance-program?redirect=factsheet-nypdmuslim-surveillance-program. See http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/11/19/bratton-muslim-monitoring/. See www.aljazeera.com/focus/hajj/2009/11/2009111011825150196.html. See https://perma.cc/8BSB-V7DL. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 15