Intersectionality and the Spectrum of Racist Hate Speech: Proposalsto the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial DiscriminationNazila GhaneaHuman Rights Quarterly, Volume 35, Number 4, November 2013, pp.935-954 (Article)Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/hrq.2013.0053For additional information about this article Access provided by University ofHull (28 Nov 2013 06:50 GMT)http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hrq/summary/v035/35.4.ghanea.htmlHUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY*Nazila Ghanea (Ph.D.) teaches International Human Rights Law at the University of Oxford and is a member of the OSCE Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Her publications include nine books, ve UN publications as well as a number of journal articles and reports; including: Are Religious Minorities Really Minorities?; Does God Believe in Human Rights?; and Human Rights, the UN and the Bahs in Iran. She is co-author in aforthcomingmonographentitledReligionorBelief,DiscriminationandEquality:Britain in Global Contexts. She has acted as a human rights consultant and expert for a number of governments, the UN, UNESCO, OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the EU. Her professional prole can be found at http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/prole/nazila.ghanea. Human Rights Quarterly 35 (2013) 935954 2013 by Johns Hopkins University PressIntersectionality and the Spectrum of Racist Hate Speech: Proposals to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial DiscriminationNazila Ghanea*ABSTRACTThe purpose of this article is to give attention to the concept of racist hate speech and particularly to the fact of its complexity and inseparability from awiderspectrumofhatred.Usingthemethodologyofintersectionality, this article encourages the CERD Committees continued but cautious en-gagement in relation to racist hate speech. This article is a lightly modied version of a paper the author was invited to present at the United Nations CommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscriminationsdayofthematic discussion on Racist Hate Speech, held during CERDs eighty-rst session on 28 August 2012 in Geneva.I.THE BACKDROP OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND INCITEMENT IN HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTSBefore turning our attention to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and racist hate speech, it is Vol. 35 936 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY1.ForafurtherdiscussionseeNazilaGhanea,FreedomofExpressionandAdvocacyof ReligiousHatredthatConstitutesIncitementtoDiscrimination,HostilityorViolence: Articles19and20oftheICCPR,ConferenceRoomPaper3,ExpertSeminaron The Links Between Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Freedom of Expression and Advocacy of Religious Hatred That Constitutes Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence, Geneva (23 Oct. 2008,), available athttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Articles19-20/2008Seminar/Pages/ExpertPapers.aspx [hereinafter Expert Seminar].2.International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted 16 Dec. 1966, G.A. Res. 2200(XXI),U.N.GAOR,21stSess.,art.19,U.N.Doc. A/6316(1966),999U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force 23 Mar. 1976) [hereinafter ICCPR]. Article 19 states:1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b)Fortheprotectionofnationalsecurityorofpublicorder(ordrepublic),orof public health or morals. 3.Id. art. 20 states:1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.4.Dominic McGoldrick & Thrse ODonnell, Hate-Speech Laws: Consistency with Na-tional and International Human Rights Law, 18 LEGAL STUD. 453, 454 (1998).5.GeneralCommentNo.34onArticle19,FreedomsofOpinionandExpression,U.N. GAOR,Hum.Rts.Comm.,adopted102dSess.,9,U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/GC/34(12 Sept. 2011). 6.Id. 21.worthwhile to situate hate speech more generally within other international instruments. We may rhetorically situate racist hate speech within Article 19 of the ICCPR, somewhere between Article 19 of the ICCPR regarding freedomofopinionandexpressionand Article20oftheICCPRregarding incitement. We will therefore give brief attention to this framework of freedom ofexpressionandtheprohibitionofincitementwithintheICCPR,1before turning to the question of hate speech itself.The texts of Articles 192 and 203 of the ICCPR bear testament to the fact thatalthoughfreedomofexpressionisoneofthemostwidelyaccepted rights,4 it is not an absolute right and there are prohibitions and limitations attached to it. The right to hold opinions without interference is an absolute right and permits no exception or restriction.5 It is only in their expression thatspecialdutiesandresponsibilities,andhencepossiblerestrictions, mayapply.6OneofthelegitimategroundsforrestrictionlistedinArticle 19(3) of the ICCPR is that of respect for the rights or reputations of others. 2013 Intersectionality and the Spectrum of Racist Hate Speech 9377.Id. 28.8.Id. 21.9.For a discussion of these provisions see id. 2136. 10.Eric Heinze, Viewpoint Absolutism and Hate Speech, 69 MOD. L. REV. 543, 544 (2006). 11.MANFRED NOWAK U.N. COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS: CCPR COMMENTARY 474 (2d ed. 2005).12.Nowak has observed that [i]t is most difcult to conceive of an advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that does not simultaneously incite discrimination. Id. at 475.13.Id. at 468.14.Kevin Boyle, Hate Speech, The United States Versus the Rest of the World?, 53 MAINE L. REV. 488, 489 (2001).As the Human Rights Committee has rightly observed, [t]he term others relatestootherpersonsindividuallyorasmembersofacommunity. Thus itmay,forinstance,refertoindividualmembersofacommunitydened by its religious faith or ethnicity.7 The note of caution is that in its applica-tion of these restrictions the state party may not put in jeopardy the right itself8andmustbecompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheICCPR.Further, and as outlined in Article 19(3), any restrictions must be provided by law and necessary for one of the following purposes:(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre pub-lic), or of public health or morals.9Article 20 of the ICCPR has been described as being among the stron-gestcondemnationsofhatespeech,10thoughstrictlyspeakingthearticle does not concern itself with hate speech in general but only with incitement. Reference in Article 20 to both propaganda for war as well as advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred is indicative of the gravity of hatred that it is concerned with. It also qualies its concern with hatred which is conditioned by that which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostil-ity or violence. Manfred Nowak has noted the lack of uniformity, the ex-traordinary vaguenessand hence risk of abuseof the term advocacy.11 However,advocacyofhatredconstitutingincitementtodiscrimination, hostility or violence is much more specic than discriminatory expressions ingeneral.12Readingthesethreelimbstogetherissignicantforuphold-ingthehighthresholditrequires,particularlyconsideringtheshadowof 20(1)spropagandaforwar. Thejuxtapositionofthesethreetermsisnot accidental, neither is its positioning after Article 20(1). The question of priority and relationship between Articles 19 and 20 can be discussed in the light of historical trends, the travaux prparatoires, and their objectives. Reasons offered by scholars to date include the response mandatedbythehorrorsofNationalSocialism,13thepre-warperiod,the Holocaust,andtheCold Wardanceandtheneed[bytheSovietUnion] to take an opposite position to the United States.14Vol. 35 938 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY15.NOWAK, supra note 11, at 475.16.See Article 19, Brieng Note on International and Comparative Defamation Standards (2004), available at http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/defamation-standards.pdf.17.IncitementisusedasshorthandforICCPR,supranote2,art.20(2):advocacyof national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostil-ity or violence shall be prohibited by law. This is a far more specic articulation than thegeneralreferencetohatespeech,denedbyoneauthorasspeechdesignedto promote hatred on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity or national origin. See Michael Rosenfeld,HateSpeechinConstitutionalJurisprudence:AComparativeAnalysis,24 CARDOZO L. REV. 1523 (2003). 18.General Comment No. 11 on Article 20, Prohibition of Propaganda for War and Inciting National, Racial or Religious Hatred, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 19th Sess., 1, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/11 (29 July 1983).19.Id. 1. 20.Id. 2.21.Id. 2.22.Robert Post, Religion and Freedom of Speech: Portraits of Muhammad, 14 CONSTELLATIONS, 72, 83 (2007).23.GeneralCommentNo.11,supranote18,2.SeealsoGeneralCommentNo.34, supra note 5, 50: Articles 19 and 20 are compatible with and complement each other. The acts that are addressed in article 20 are all subject to restriction pursuant to article 19, paragraph 3. As such, a limitation that is justied on the basis of article 20 must also comply with article 19, paragraph 3.Article20(2)doesnotrequireStatespartiestoprohibitadvocacyof hatredinprivatethatinstigatesnon-violentactsofracialorreligiousdis-crimination.15 It does, however, require them to prohibitthough not nec-essarily to criminalize16other incitement.17 Article 20 places an obligation onstatespartiestoadoptthenecessarylegislativemeasuresprohibiting the actions referred to therein.18 It prohibits these actions by showing that they have been either prohibited in law or show that appropriate efforts [are]intendedor[havebeen]madetoprohibitthem,19forexample,as violations of tort law. According to the Human Rights Committee, full and effective compliance withthisobligationrequiresalawmakingitclearthatpropagandaand advocacy as described therein are contrary to public policy and providing for an appropriate sanction in case of violation.20 This should apply to both private and public actors as states parties should themselves refrain from any such propaganda or advocacy.21 The threshold set for this requirement on the state for action, this positive obligationrather than permissionon the state to take action must necessarily be high. Robert Post states in relation to Article 20(2) that states must show that the harm of discrimination cannot be ameliorated by means other than the suppression of protected speech.22 For example, states need to show that the harm of discrimination cannot be ameliorated through the utilization of educational initiatives. Therefore, while prohibitedbylaw,awell-calibratedprocessofrespondingtohatespeech that incites discrimination needs to be carefully ascertained in order for the sanctions adopted at each stage to indeed be appropriate.232013 Intersectionality and the Spectrum of Racist Hate Speech 93924.This article has been critiqued by a number of authors including Partsch. See Karl Josef Partsch, Racial Speech and Human Rights: Article 4 of the Convention on the Elimina-tion of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in STRIKING A BALANCE: HATE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND NON-DISCRIMINATION 21, 2728 (Sandra Coliver ed., 1992). 25.See L.K. v. The Netherlands, CERD Comm No. 4/1991, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/42/D/4/1991, Annex IV, 6.6. See also Patrick Thornberry, Forms of Hate Speech and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), Expert Seminar, supra note 1.26.International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted 21 Dec. 1965, G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), U.N. GAOR, 20th Sess., art. 4, 660 U.N.T.S. 195 (entered into force 4 Jan. 1969), reprinted in 5 I.L.M. 352 (1966). [hereinafter ICERD]27.Susan Benesch, Consultant to UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, Con-tribution to OHCHR Initiative on Incitement to National, Racial, or Religious Hatred, UN II.FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND ICERDA.Freedom of Expression and Racist Superiority in the ICERD ConventionThe position of the ICCPR can be contrasted with Article 4 of ICERD.24 The CERD Committee has commented regarding Article 4 that it is incumbent upontheStatetoinvestigatewithduediligenceandexpeditionevery threat of racial violence, especially when they are made in public and by a group.25 Article 4 imposes a positive and immediate duty on states parties to condemn both propaganda and organizations based on ideas or theories26 of racial superiority, hatred, and discrimination by making it punishable by law and by prohibiting such organizations, whether public or private. B.Hate speechAs discussed, the language of the ICCPR was that of incitement rather than hate speech. There is a lot of confusion in the literature about the distinction betweenincitementandhatespeech.Someturntoanalyzingthespeech itself,sometotheassumedimpactonthevictim(s)oronhumandignity itself, and some to the impact on it has others. Susan Benesch simply dis-tinguishes between the terms of incitement and hate speech in terms not of the gravity of the speech but its effects. She states:Incitementinallofitsformsisoftenconfusedwithothertypesofinamma-tory,hateful,oroffensivespeech.Incitementcanbedistinguishedfromthese broader categories of speech, however, with reference to the intended or actual effects of speech. . . . When inammatory speech inspires one audience to harm another person or group, that is . . . successful incitement. . . . [M]any acts of hate speech that are aimed directly at the victim group do not have . . . [such] effects and therefore do not constitute incitement.27 Vol. 35 940 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLYOHCHR 2011 Expert Workshop on the Prohibition of Incitement to National, Racial or Religious Hatred, Vienna (Feb. 2011), available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Is-sues/Expression/ICCPR/Others2011/SBenesch.doc [hereinafter OHCHR Expert Workshop on Incitement].28.CERD also refers to hate speech in two other general recommendations, those on African descent and non-citizens. See General Comment No. 34, supra note 5, VII; General RecommendationXXXonDiscriminationAgainstNonCitizens,U.N.GAOR,Comm. on Elim. of Racial Discrim., 65th Sess., III, U.N. CERD/C/GC/30, (1 Oct. 2004)..29.General Recommendation XXIX on Article 1, Paragraph 1, of the Convention (Descent), U.N. GAOR, Comm. on Elim. of Racial Discrim., 61st Sess., U.N. CERD/C/GC/29 (11 Jan. 2002).30.Id. 18.31.Id. 20.32.Id. 19.33.DavidO.Brink,MillianPrinciples,FreedomofExpression,andHateSpeech,7LEGAL THEORY 119, 13839 (2001).Taking this as our point of departure, therefore, our concern is with speech that is aimed at the victim(s) and which has not had the effect of inspiring its audience to harm the victim(s) concerned. An example of the CERD Committees use of the term hate speech is in relation to descent-based communities (henceforth Descent).28 In its General Recommendation,29CERDinsistsonmeasuresbeingtakenagainstany dissemination of ideas of caste superiority and inferiority or which attempt to justify violence, hatred or discrimination against descent-based commu-nities30; and to raise awareness among media professionals of the nature and incidence of descent-based discrimination.31 The General Recommen-dation also insists on strict measures being taken against any incitement todiscriminationorviolenceagainstthecommunities,includingthrough the Internet.32 In the specic context of hate speech, therefore, CERD has recommended measures or strict measures to be taken against the jus-tication of violence, hatred or discrimination against specic communi-ties, and put emphasis on awareness raising among media professionals.CERDs day of thematic discussion on Racist Hate Speech, held on 28 August 2012 in Geneva and at which these comments were offered, should not focus on incitement. We are also not addressing the lower grade dis-criminatory speech or the higher grade incitement to terrorism or incite-ment to genocide. Discriminatory speech has been distinguished from hate speech by David O. Brink:There is much speech that is discriminatory but does not count as hate speech. It reects and encourages bias and harmful stereotyping, but it does not employ epithets in order to stigmatize and insult . . . vilify and wound. . . . [H]ate speech is worse than discriminatory speech . . . hate speechs use of traditional epithets orsymbolsofderisiontovilifyonthebasisofgroupmembershipexpresses contempt for its targets and seems more likely to cause emotional distress and to provoke visceral, rather than articulate, response.33 We may very simply depict these ve kinds of speech in the following way:2013 Intersectionality and the Spectrum of Racist Hate Speech 941Discriminatory speechHate speech(e.g. see CERD General Recommendation 29)Incitement to hatred(e.g. see Article 20, ICCPR)Incitement to terrorism(e.g. see incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts in Article 1(1) of Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005))Incitement to genocide(e.g. see direct and public incitement to commit genocide in Article 3(c) of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide )===> increased gravityC.The UN and RacismThe United Nations efforts in relation to racism were largely triggered by the concerns of the General Assembly over the Swastika epidemic in Europe of the late 1950s.34 This, in turn, led to the adoption of the ICERD Conven-tionin1965,whichenteredintoforcein1969.35 Thishistoricaltriggeris illustrative of the fact that at the outset, the hate with which the international community was concerned addressed race-based as well as other hatredsthat is racist as well as ethnic and religious hatred. Although the hatreds that triggered the emergence of CERD were broad and inclusive, the text of the ICERD narrowed this breadth, particularly through Article 1(1) of the ICERD Convention: race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.36 This list does not, however, exhaust the hatreds with which racism has come to be amalgamated over time; so can the CERD Committee legitimately deal with the evolution of racism in this broader sense?34.As Keane explains, Themovementtowardinternationallegislationagainstracialandreligiousdiscriminationbegan as a response to a growing number of anti-Semitic incidents that took place in the winter of 1959 and1960,knownastheswastikaepidemic.Developingcountriessupportedthecreationof international legislation against racial and religious discrimination. DavidKeane,AddressingtheAggravatedMeetingPointsofRaceandReligion,6MD. L. J. RACE, RELIGION, GENDER & CLASS 367, 371 (2006).35.ICERD, supra note 26, art. 1.36.Id., recognizes that the term racial discrimination shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying orimpairingtherecognition,enjoymentorexercise,onanequalfooting,ofhumanrightsand fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other eld of public life.Vol. 35 942 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY37.This was the name of the sub-theme of the CERD day of thematic discussion to which the author was invited to contribute.38.ElzbietaH.Oleksy,IntersectionalityattheCross-Roads,34 WOMENSSTUD.INTLFORUM 263, 269 (2011).39.See, e.g., Fourth World Conference on Women: Action for Equality, Development, and Peace, Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, U.N. GAOR, 32, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.177/20 (1995), which determines toIntensify efforts to ensure equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all womenandgirlswhofacemultiplebarrierstotheirempowermentandadvancementbecause ofsuchfactorsastheirrace,age,language,ethnicity,culture,religion,ordisability,orbecause they are indigenous people. See also United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), Ofce of the HighCommissionerforHumanRights(OHCHR),UnitedNationsDevelopmentFund for Women(UNIFEM),GenderandRacialDiscriminationReportoftheExpertGroup Meeting, 2124 Nov. 2000, Zagreb, Croatia, C, available at http://www.un.org/wom-enwatch/daw/csw/genrac/report.htm [hereinafter Zagreb Report].40.Zagreb Report, supra note 39, C. 41.Kimberle Crenshaw, Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence Against Women of Color, 43 STAN. L. REV. 1241, 1245 (1991).Evolution is a somewhat odd word to use to describe the negative phe-nomenonofracisthatespeech,asevolutiontendstobeusedtodescribe progress.37 Nevertheless, it also describes increased complexity. The phenom-enon of racism has certainly become more complex over time. Much of this increasedcomplexityconcernstheverytendencytowardsamalgamation, pulling towards its vortex additional targets of prejudice. The targets of rac-ism and racist hate speech are singled out by race, migrant status, ethnicity, religionorbelief,color,indigeneity,andothercharacteristics,sometimes describedundertheumbrellatermotherness.AsElzbietaOleksyhas argued, the lived experience of discrimination is often multidimensional:The thought underlying intersectionality has been a process and lived experience. . . . [I]ts real success will be measured in how it will benet the underprivileged. Will legislators listen to researchers and look into how different axes interlock in a single individual experience?38III.INTERSECTIONALITYInrecentyears,thetermintersectionalityhascomeintomoregeneral UNusage39todescribemultiple...discrimination[,]...compound discrimination,interlinkingformsofdiscrimination,multipleburdens,or doubleortriplediscrimination.40KimberleCrenshawintroducedtheterm intersectionality and dened it as the need to account for multiple grounds of identity when considering how the social world is constructed.41 She also went on to distinguish structural intersectionality (the actual experience of discrimination) from political intersectionality (the manner in which politics 2013 Intersectionality and the Spectrum of Racist Hate Speech 94342.Id. at 1245.43.Zagreb Report, supra note 39, C. 44.Keri A. Froc, Multidimensionality and the Matrix, Identifying Charter Violations in Cases of Complex Subordination, 25 CAN. J. L. & SOCY 21, 23 (2010). marginalizes such experience).42 Both have a bearing on our discussion of hate speech, rst by how intersectional hate speech is suffered and second, how individuals respond to hate speech. It is for this reason that a lengthy citation is provided to outline this relevance. A road intersection is used to depict intersectionality:The idea of intersectionality seeks to capture both the structural and dy-namic consequences of the interaction between two or more forms of discrimina-tion or systems of subordination. It specically addresses the manner in which racism,patriarchy,economicdisadvantagesandotherdiscriminatorysystems contribute to create layers of inequality that structures the relative positions of women and men, races and other groups. Moreover, it addresses the way that specic acts and policies create burdens that ow along these intersecting axes contributing actively to create a dynamic of disempowerment. Intersectional subordination may be described by the metaphor of a trafc intersection. In this metaphor, race, gender, class and other forms of discrimination orsubordinationaretheroadsthatstructurethesocial,economicorpolitical terrain. It is through these thoroughfares that dynamics of disempowerment travel. These thoroughfares are sometimes framed as distinctive and mutually exclusive avenues of power. For example, racism is frequently perceived as distinct from patriarchy, while patriarchy is, in turn, viewed as distinct from class oppression. In fact, the systems of discrimination or subordination often overlap and cross each other, creating complex intersections at which two, three or four of these avenuesmeet...[It]canbedangerouswhenthetrafcowssimultaneously frommanydirections.Injuriesaresometimescreatedwhentheimpactfrom one direction throws victims into the path of oncoming trafc, while on other occasions,injuriesoccurfromsimultaneouscollisions. Thesearethecontexts in which intersectional injuries occurwhen multiple disadvantages or condi-tions interact to create a distinct and compound dimension of disempowerment. Intersectionaldiscriminationwhichresultsinsubordinationcreatescon-sequencesforthoseaffectedinwayswhicharedifferentfromconsequences sufferedbythosewhoaresubjecttooneformofdiscriminationonly,beit basedonrace,genderorsomeotherformofdiscrimination,suchassexual orientation, age and class.43Since a discriminatory attitude serves as the basis of hatred, and since the intent of discrimination is the purpose of hate speech, intersectionality canalsobeconsideredhighlyrelevanttoracisthatespeech. Theoriesof multidimensionality, in fact, build on intersectionality but shift the focus on the more relevant question of the interaction of systems of oppression rather than on intersecting identity categories.44 However, since these theories of multidimensionality have not yet been fully taken up by UN fora, they will not be discussed further here in this article. Vol. 35 944 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY45.General Recommendation XXV on Gender Related Dimensions of Racial Discrimination, U.N. GAOR, Comm. on Elim. of Racial Discrim., 56th Sess., at 1, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/GC/25 (20 Mar. 2000).46.Id. at 2. Bracketed text added by author in order to illustrate the cross-cutting implica-tions of the general comment. 47.Id. 48.Id. at 4.IV.CERD AND INTERSECTIONALITYInordertorespondadequately,toensurethatthegravityofmultipledis-criminations are addressed, and to ensure that no targets of discrimination remainvulnerable,CERDhasgraduallydevelopedawideningambitof discriminations within its activities through intersectionality, examples being evident in its General Recommendations on Gender, Descent, and Roma. Already with the General Recommendation 25 on gender related dimen-sions of racial discrimination (Gender), the CERD Committee recognized how discrimination can affect victims in a different way, or to a different degree, inbothpublicandprivatelife45whentheyarevictimsofintersectional discrimination. The CERD Committee also recognized how [c]ertain forms of racial discrimination may be directed towards women [i.e. intersectional victims]specicallybecauseoftheirgender[i.e.intersectionality];46and itcommitteditselftointegrategenderperspectives[i.e.intersectional perspectives].47ItshouldbenotedthatwhatCERDisrecognizinghereis veryworthyofnote.CERDisrecognizingthatracialdiscriminationmay be targeted against particular victims due to their other status (i.e. not their race). Thatis,victimsofracialdiscriminationmayindeedhavebeentar-geted for racial discrimination due to their gender, religion, or indigeneity, and not due to their race. Nevertheless, they have been targeted for racial discrimination. This observation presumably holds true beyond the case of women and in relation to other intersectional victims too, and therefore has quite profound implications.Takingforwardthisinsightthatsomeformsofracialdiscrimination have a unique and specic impact on women [i.e. intersectional victims],48 wendthesameobservationsextendedbyCERDinitsGeneralRecom-mendations on Roma and Descent. The General Recommendation on Roma was adopted at the session subsequent to that which adopted the General Recommendation on Gender. The genius of these two General Recommen-dations is the holistic manner in which recognition is given to measures for protectionagainstdiscriminationinrelationtoracialviolence,theelds ofeducationandthemedia,theimprovementoflivingconditions,and concerningparticipationinpubliclife.Itspecicallyrecognizesintersec-tionality in insisting on all necessary measures in order to avoid any form 2013 Intersectionality and the Spectrum of Racist Hate Speech 94549.GeneralRecommendationXXVIIonDiscriminationAgainstRoma,adopted16Aug. 2000, U.N. GAOR, Comm. on the Elim. of Racial Discrim., 57th Sess., annex 5, 5, U.N.Doc. A/55/18(2000).SeealsoGeneralRecommendationNo.XXIX,supranote 29. 50.Id. 6.51.Id. 17, 22 (particularly the education of Roma girls).52.Id. 41.53.General Recommendation XXIX, supra note 29.54.Id. 1113.55.Id. 1.ofdiscriminationagainstimmigrantsorasylum-seekersofRomaorigin,49 its recognition of the situation of Roma women, who are often victims of doublediscrimination,50ingivingspecicattentiontothedisadvantaged position of Roma women and girls,51 and in recognizing the intersectionality of Roma and minority status.52 The General Recommendation on Descent53 dedicates a specic section tointersectionalityinrelationtowomen.54Italsodealsholisticallywitha rangeofissuesplaguingtheindignitiesstemmingfromdescent-baseddis-crimination, such as segregation, the dissemination of hate speech including through the mass media and the Internet, the administration of justice, civil and political rights, economic and social rights, and the right to education. It also takes an inclusive approach in outlining the relevance of the General Recommendation to those who suffer from discrimination, especially on the basis of caste and analogous sys-tems of inherited status, and whose existence may be recognized on the basis of various factors including some or all of the following: inability or restricted ability to alter inherited status; socially enforced restrictions on marriage outside the community; private and public segregation, including in housing and educa-tion, access to public spaces, places of worship and public sources of food and water; limitation of freedom to renounce inherited occupations or degrading or hazardous work; subjection to debt bondage; subjection to dehumanizing dis-courses referring to pollution or untouchability; and generalized lack of respect for their human dignity and equality.55 It is evident that analogous systems and the recognition of relevant fac-tors seek to include parallel discriminations where appropriate. The methodology of intersectionality, therefore, is a long-standing one in CERD Committee practice.V.CERD, INTERSECTIONALITY, AND THE CHALLENGEOF HATE SPEECHNira Yuval-Davis has perceptively observed thatconcrete experiences of oppression, being oppressed, for example, as a Black personisalwaysconstructedandintermeshedinothersocialdivisions(for Vol. 35 946 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY56.Nira Yuval-Davis,IntersectionalityandFeministPolitics,13EUR.J. WOMENSSTUD.193, 195 (2006).57.General Recommendation No. XXIX, supra note 29, 1.58.Froc, supra note 44, at 2425. 59.ICERD, supra note 26, art. 1.60.General Recommendation XXV, supra note 45, art. 2. example,gender,socialclass,disabilitystatus,sexuality,age,nationality,im-migrationstatus,geography,etc.).AnyattempttoessentializeBlacknessor womanhoodorworkingclassnessasspecicformsofconcreteoppres-sioninadditivewaysinevitablyconatesnarrativesofidentitypoliticswith descriptions of positionality as well as constructing identities within the terms of specic political projects. Such narratives often reect hegemonic discourses of identity politics that render invisible experiences of the more marginal members ofthatspecicsocialcategoryandconstructanhomogenizedrightwayto be its member.56Taking the path that CERD has already pursued with its holistic and intersec-tional approach in relation to discrimination encourages it to continue to do so in relation to racist hate speech too. This would allow CERD to respond to the evolution of racist hate speech in terms of its increased complexity. Intheemphasisondiscriminationonthebasisofcasteandanalogous systemsofinheritedstatus,57itcanbeseenthatCERDputsforwardan inclusive outlining of factors that can also be benecial in relation to hate speech. ThiscontinuityofCERDsintersectionalapproachintotheareaof hate speech is further encouraged by the impulse of not essentializing some singular forms of racist hate speech beyond others and rendering the Com-mittee neglectful of the complex kinds of hate speech that are evolving in the cynical effort to avoid censor. This approach enables the CERD Committee to respond to complex kinds of hate speech without needing to undertake theexerciseofdecipheringonlypureformsofracistspeech,anexercise that runs the risk of fragmenting and caricaturing the actual experiences of potential claimants.58 After all, the challenge posed by racist hate speech mongers today is that they are in receipt of sound legal advice as to how to circumvent the laws and persist with their hate mongering. Too narrow a xation on pure, race, colour,descent,ornationalorethnicorigin59hatespeech,wouldrender muchhatespeechbeyondthereachoftheCERDCommittee,including whatwemaycallcamouagedracisthatespeech.CERDsapproachto recognizing that other status can in fact be the magnet for racial discrimi-nation and serves to minimize such a restricted approach.60 Within the UN Human Rights system questions have arisen as to how fartheCERDCommitteeisauthorizedtodealwithhatespeechingen-eral, how this can remain within the intent of the ICERD Convention, and whether the Human Rights Committee is not, in fact, better placed to deal with this matter. 2013 Intersectionality and the Spectrum of Racist Hate Speech 94761.ICERD, supra note 26, art. 1(1) recognizes that The term racial discrimination shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying orimpairingtherecognition,enjoymentorexercise,onanequalfooting,ofhumanrightsand fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other eld of public life.62.Stephanie E. Berry, Bringing Muslim Minorities within the International Convention on theEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination:SquarePeginaRoundHole?, 11 HUM. RTS. L. REV. 427 (2011). This author would also concur with Berrys comment thatinlightofViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,art.31(1),U.N.Doc.A/CONF.39/27 (1969), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force 27 Jan. 1980), reprinted in 8I.L.M.679(1969)whichestablishesthatatreatyshallbeinterpretedingoodfaith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their contextandinthelightofitsobjectandpurpose,thenracialdiscrimination,even thoughinterpretedwidelyinid.art.1(1)oftheConventioncannotbeconsideredto includereligiousdiscriminationwithinitsordinarymeaning.Anexaminationof thepurposeofICERD,supranote26,corroboratestheviewthatreligiousgroupsare not included per se. As religion is only mentioned once in the text of ICERD, in id. art. 5(d)(vii),whichprohibitsracialdiscriminationandensuresequalitybeforethelawin respectoftherighttofreedomofthought,conscience,andreligion,thiswouldlead totheconclusionthatthepreventionofreligiousintolerancedoesnotfallwithinthe object and purpose of the Convention. Berry, supra, at 42728.63.GeneralRecommendationXXXIIonTheMeaningandScopeofSpecialMeasuresin the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, U.N. GAOR, Comm. on the Elim. of Racial Discrim., 75th Sess., 7, U.N. Doc CERD/C/GC/32 (24 Sept. 2009).It is at this juncture that some red lines need to be drawn. As already establishedinCERDpractice,theseredlinescallontheCERDCommit-tee to deal with all aspects of intersectional discrimination, but only when discrimination on the basis of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin also exists.61 For example, ICERD does not extend to religious groups perse.62 TheCERDCommitteeobservesinitsGeneralRecommendation on Special Measures:The principle of enjoyment of human rights on an equal footing is integral to the Conventions prohibition of discrimination on grounds of race, colour, descent, and national or ethnic origin. The grounds of discrimination are extended in practicebythenotionofintersectionalitywherebytheCommitteeaddresses situationsofdoubleormultiplediscriminationsuchasdiscriminationon grounds of gender or religionwhen discrimination on such a ground appears to exist in combination with a ground or grounds listed in article 1 of the Con-vention. Discrimination under the Convention includes purposive or intentional discriminationanddiscriminationineffect.Discriminationisconstitutednot simply by an unjustiable distinction, exclusion or restriction but also by an unjustiable preference.63Itissubmittedthatdiscriminationexistingincombinationwiththe groundslistedin Article1oftheConvention,infact,allowsforagreater exibility than has been exercised to date by the CERD Committee. In line with existing CERD practice, this would primarily be informed by the self Vol. 35 948 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY64.See,e.g.,GeneralCommentNo.34,supranote5,1;GeneralCommentNo.27, supra note 49, 3.65.See, e.g., Berrys claim that CERD has, thus far, insisted on the noting the targeting of anidentiableethnicgroupinitsintersectionalassessmentofclaims.Berry,supra note 62, at 450.66.Yuval-Davis, supra note 56, at 205. identication64oftheclaimant,whetherbytheirethnicity,religionand belief,race,orothergrounds. Theinsightsofintersectionalitywouldthen encourageattentiontobedrawntotheexperienceofeachofthevarious grounds (which, as stated, must co-exist along with racial discrimination) as well as the unique aspects of the overall experience. It would also allow for a wider range of claims to be entertained through the individual complaints procedure by the Committee than has been declared admissible to date.65 There is a warning that needs to be taken on board with regards to in-tersectionality and hate speech, whether by the CERD Committee, Human RightsCommittee,oranotherbody.Itisthattheresponsetohatespeech needs to be informed by the rights-content of the issue at hand. The existing CERD approach to hate speech is not a cookie cutter that can be applied toallintersectionalhatredsinanidenticalfashion.Hatredscannotbere-sponded to interchangeably as they may be of a different nature. They are not all simply reducible to the parameters of racism that CERD has engaged with thus far. As Yuval-Davis has noted:Thepointofintersectionalanalysisis...toanalysethedifferentialwaysin which different social divisions are concretely enmeshed and constructed by each other and how they relate to political and subjective constructions of identities.66The intersectional analysis in itself by no means implies that the same response should be utilized in response to all forms of discrimination. The verystrengthoftheintersectionalapproachisinitsabilitytobecontext specic. This context-specicity means that, for example, (i) the precise gravity,(ii) the historical background and institutional nature, and (iii) all the human rights of the alleged perpetrator(s) and victim(s) can all be taken on board. The questions of gravity and historical background have already been touched upon in commending the CERD approach in its GeneralRecommendationsonGender,DescentandRoma. Attentionwill therefore be focused on consideration of (iii) all the relevant rights pertaining to alleged perpetrator(s) and victim(s).Theresponsetohatredinfactanyactionwithintheeldofhuman rightscannot be negligent of the nature of the rights at hand. The Human Rights Committee recognizes this in its General Comment on Article 19. In 2013 Intersectionality and the Spectrum of Racist Hate Speech 94967.For a discussion of these provisions see General Comment No. 34, supra note 5, 4. 68.Id. 48. one part, the Committee hints at the differential role of freedom of opinion and expression in relation to a whole set of other rights. The freedoms of opinion and expression form a basis for the full enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights.67 In another, it specically spells this out in relation to some issues arising in the context of freedom of religion or belief.Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the speciccircumstancesenvisagedinarticle20,paragraph2,oftheCovenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, itwouldbeimpermissibleforanysuchlawstodiscriminateinfavourofor against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitionstobeusedtopreventorpunishcriticismofreligiousleadersor commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.68The language of rights is precisely, and often laboriously, formulated in relation to the subject at hand. A piece meal approach to removing such textsbeyondtheirintendedcontextcanleadtoperverseoutcomesand this is particularly so in relation to hate speech. One example of this may sufce.Simplytaking Article4ofCERDandsubstitutingreligionforrace would provide us with the following (ctional) text:States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based onideasortheoriesofsuperiorityofonereligionorgroupofpersonsofone colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote religious hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal DeclarationofHumanRightsandtherightsexpresslysetforthinarticle5of this Convention, inter alia: (a)Shalldeclareanoffencepunishablebylawalldisseminationofideas based on religious superiority or hatred, incitement to religious discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any religion or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to religious discrimination activities, including the nancing thereof; (b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite religious discrimina-tion, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law; (c)Shallnotpermitpublicauthoritiesorpublicinstitutions,nationalor local, to promote or incite religious discrimination.Vol. 35 950 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY69.OHCHRExpertWorkshopsIncitement,supranote27;seeJointsubmissionbyMr. HeinerBielefeldt,SpecialRapporteuronFreedomofReligionorBelief;Mr.FrankLa Rue,SpecialRapporteuronthePromotionandProtectionoftheRighttoFreedomof Opinion and Expression; Mr. Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance 1011 available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/Vienna/CRP3Joint_SRSub-mission_for_Vienna.pdf [hereinafter Joint Submission]. 70.See, e.g., Nazila Ghanea, Religious or Minority? Examining the Realization of Interna-tional Standards in Relation to Religious Minorities in the Middle East, 36 RELIGION, STATE &SOCY303(2008). Thisvigorousresponseismostlikelyassuredwhenthescourge of religious discrimination is opposed with a united front. For a discussion see Nazila Ghanea,PhobiasandIsms:RecognitionofDifferenceortheSlipperySlopeofPar-ticularisms?,inDOESGODBELIEVEINHUMANRIGHTS?:ESSAYSONRELIGIONANDHUMANRIGHTS 211 (Nazila Ghanea, Alan Stephens & Raphael Walden eds., 2007).Itisclearthatwithintheeldoffreedomofreligionorbeliefwecannot condemn a position on religious superiority per se or declare ideas based on religious superiority as punishable by law. This is a point that has also alreadybeenemphasizedbythreeSpecialRapporteursinaseminarona related matter:Whereas some have argued that defamation of religions could be equated to racism, we would like to caution against confusion between a racist statement and an act of defamation of religion. We fully concur with the afrmation in thepreambleoftheInternationalConventionontheEliminationof AllForms ofRacialDiscriminationthatanydoctrineofsuperioritybasedonracialdif-ferentiationisscienticallyfalse,morallycondemnable,sociallyunjustand dangerous.However,invokingadirectanalogybetweenconceptsofraceor ethnicity on the one hand and religion or belief on the other hand may lead to problematicconsequences.Religiousadherence,membershiporidentitycan be the result of personal choices the possibility of which constitutes an essential component of the human right to freedom of religion or belief. For this reason, freedomofreligionorbeliefalsocoverstherightstosearchformeaningby comparing different religions or belief systems, to exchange personal views on questions or religion or belief, and to exercise public criticism in such matters. Forthisreasonthecriteriafordeningreligioushatredmaydifferfromthose dening racial hatred. The difcult question of what precisely constitutes religious hatred,atanyrate,cannotbeansweredbysimplyapplyingdenitionsfound in the area of racial hatred.69Despite this, we can and should condemn religious hatred and discrimi-nation in any form with the same vigor70; we should undertake immediate andpositivemeasures,putfortheffortstoeradicatesuchdiscrimination, and declare punishable by law all acts of violence or incitement to violence against persons belonging to any religion or belief by individuals, organiza-tions, and public authorities and institutions. Quite simply, speech, interchange, opinion, vigorous debate, persuasion, the marketing of ideas, being challenged, and challenging others have crucial 2013 Intersectionality and the Spectrum of Racist Hate Speech 95171.StephanieFarrior,MoldingtheMatrix:TheHistoricalandTheoreticalFoundationsof International Law Concerning Hate Speech, 14 BERKELEY J. INTL L. 93 (1996). 72.Berry, supra note 62, at 447.73.Joint Submission, supra note 69, at 11. signicance for freedoms such as freedom of religion or belief. However, they donothaveexistentialsignicanceinrelationtoracialsuperiority,orthe allegation of superiority vis--vis persons with disabilities, those with migrant status, or persons of a different age or gender. Stephanie Farrior notes, [i]nternational law has declared that hate propaganda has no value71; whereas thorough discussion of values, beliefs and opinions, whether of the religious, political, scientic, or other kinds, holds enormous value. Such discussion and exchange underpins, facilitates, and gives meaning to a whole host of rights and should never be allowed to cynically be passed for hate speech by timid states for political ends. So while encouraging a continued emphasis on intersectionality by the CERDCommittee,thisneedstobepursuedwiththesamesensitivitythat CERD has already shown in relation to its intersectional tackling of Gender, Roma,andDescent. Afewexamplesinrelationtofreedomofreligionor belief illustrate the need for this sensitivity. These are presented with great reluctance, as only the detailed facts of a case allow any legitimate conclu-siontobedrawnbyanauthorizedandindependentjudicialbodyabout the gravity of the hatred at hand. For example, this author would question Stephanie Berrys view that one can legitimately come to the general con-clusion for a whole minority group in a particular region, regardless of the detailedfactsofaparticularcontext,thatdiscriminationagainstMuslims constitutesindirectdiscriminationunderICERD.72Itmayormaynotdo soandthereisntonedeterminationthatcanbemadeonthequestionin theabstract.TheauthoralsoconcurswiththeviewofthethreeSpecial Rapporteurs that:Where do we draw the line between criticismeven if deemed offensiveandhatespeech?Fromalegalperspective,eachsetoffactsisparticularand can only be assessed and adjudicated, whether by a judge or another impartial body, according to its own circumstances and taking into account the specic context. An independent judiciary and respect for the rules of due process are therefore essential preconditions when prohibiting certain forms of expression.73However, the illustrations are put forward with this proviso and merely in order to illustrate how speech underpins different rights in such different ways:Achatshowordocumentaryaboutreligiousprejudicethatvoices extremeobjectionstoparticularreligiouslawsisnotlikelytorise to the threshold of hate speech. This would likely be the case in a documentary highlighting racial prejudice too. Vol. 35 952 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY74.Foradiscussionoftherelevanceofahistoryofviolenceinourassessmentofhate speechsee:NazilaGhanea,MinoritiesandHatred:ProtectionsandImplications,17 INTL J. MINORITY & GROUP RTS. 423 (2010). See also BAH INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, INCITING HATRED, IRANS MEDIA CAMPAIGN TO DEMONIZE BAHS (2011), available at http://www.bic.org/sites/default/les/pdf/inciting-hatred-book.pdf. For background see NAZILA GHANEA, HUMAN RIGHTS, THE UN AND THE BAHS IN IRAN (2003).The supremacist claims of a New Religious Movement (NRM), how-evertheologicallyunpalatabletootherreligionsorbeliefs,would be unlikely to rise to the threshold of hate speech. The position may indeed prove different in relation to racial supremacist claims.Ridiculing the claims of a religious holy fgure would be unlikely to, in itself, rise to the threshold of hate speech. Burning the picture of a religious holy gure in an anti-Zionist public paradespearheaded bygovernmentauthorities,inthecontextofverydeep-seatedand government-orchestratedreligiouspersecutionandwherethereis impunityforthosewhocommitviolenceagainstthemembersof that religious minoritymay do so.74 Vilifying those that belong to a particular religion or belief at a uni-versity seminar, while bringing reasoned arguments as to the positions they hold and why those positions are considered to be unsustainable bythespeaker,wouldbeunlikelytorisetothethresholdofhate speech. Asimilarseminararguingfortheintellectual,spiritual,or other inferiority of those belonging to a particular race may.Attackingthesymbolsofareligionorbeliefcommunitywhilst verballyaccusingthemforalltheillsofaparticularcountry,ina context of deep seated institutional discrimination against members of that community where there is a high likelihood of violent attacks on them, may rise to the threshold of hate speech.InrelationtoCERDsArticle4,itisnotthesubstitutionofthewords raceandracismforotherformsofdiscriminationthatwillamounttoan intersectionalhumanrightsapproach,butisolatingthekeyanalogousor transferablefactors. Thekeytransferablefactorsof Article4wouldap-pear to be:Condemning propaganda that attempts to justify and promote hatred of any kind.Condemningorganizationsbasedonthepromotionofhatredand discrimination whilst giving close attention to the relevance of vigor-ous debate to the area concerned and to allayed human rights when doing so.The importance of states parties undertaking to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate incitement.2013 Intersectionality and the Spectrum of Racist Hate Speech 95375.ICERD, supra note 26, art. 5.76.Id. art. 1(1) recognizes that the term racial discrimination shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying orimpairingtherecognition,enjoymentorexercise,onanequalfooting,ofhumanrightsand fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other eld of public life.77.Crenshaw, supra note 41, at 1245.78.Jeannine Bell, Restraining the Heartless, Racist Speech and Minority Rights, 84 IND. L. J. 979 (2009), (quoting Alexander Tsesis).Not to permit, or encourage, public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite discrimination and hatred.In fact, what appears to be more transferable from the ICERD Conven-tion is not Article 4 but Article 5 of the Convention. This Article emphasizes the need to eliminate discrimination in all its forms and guarantee the rights ofeveryone,withoutdistinction,theenjoymentoftherightsto,interalia: equality before the law, equal treatment, security of person; civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights; freedom of movement and residence, nationality, the right to marriage and choice of spouse; the right to own property, to inherit; to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; toopinionandexpression,topeacefulassemblyandassociation,towork and form and join trade unions; to housing, health, education and training; to equal participation in cultural activities; and access to all public services.75The emphasis on the enjoyment of these rights highlights the importance of countering discrimination in all its forms across all UN mechanisms and notbytheCERDCommitteealone.Intheeldofdiscriminationandon the basis of religion or belief, for example, it also alerts us to the need for good faith cooperation with the UN Special Rapporteur on religion or belief, the realization of the objectives of the 1981 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, and the need to uphold Article 18, 27, and other provi-sions of the ICCPR. VI.CONCLUSIONIt has been suggested that the evolution of hate speech compels the CERD Committeetobuildonitsexistingrecordinrecognizinganintersectional approach in its work. This intersectional approach comes into play for the CERD Committee when discrimination on the basis of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin76 exists, but is overlaid or compounded by other discriminations as well. This intersectional approach contains a structural and political dimension, in recognizing the actual experience of discrimination and not marginalizing our response to it.77 Hate propagandists78 need to be taken seriously regardless of the exact human rights classication we can Vol. 35 954 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLYpigeon hole them into. However, they can only be identied as such with very careful attention to a whole host of other rights, not only the freedom of opinion and expression of both alleged perpetrators and victims, but also their right to life, their right to be presumed innocent before they are found guiltybyanindependentcourtoflaw,theirequalitybeforethelaw,and their minority rights and freedom of religion or belief where relevant; in fact, with all the rights upheld in Article 5 of CERD, and more.The serious human rights risks of assuming that the existing approach to race can serve as the basis for our response to hate speech in relation to a range of human rights matters have been illustrated. Acute attention should be given to the nature of the rights at hand, otherwise more rights will be violated within the very alleged effort to respond to violations. The subject specialism required to ensure human rights are not trampled on in the very processofrespondingtointersectionalhatespeechcompelsustorealize that CERD, alone, may not be best equipped to deal with such intersections inallscenarios.Infact,CERDmaywellwishtoutilizeexistingexpertise within the UN system to alert it to the risks entailed in dealing with different rights. Depending on the direction they take, the results of the Treaty Body Strengthening Process may facilitate such collaboration.