A/HRC/33/29 open to interpretation and may easily be abused. 37 In particular, they risk encompassing manifestations or acts that are lawful under international human rights law. 21. In some jurisdictions, counter-extremism legislation has reportedly been used to unduly restrict human rights, such as freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and religion or the right to privacy.38 The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has repeatedly expressed concern that overly broad or vague definitions of extremism may be applied arbitrarily and misused to control religious communities or even criminalize legitimate manifestations of religion or belief. 39 Similarly, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has expressed concern that Governments have used vague and broad definitions of “terrorism” to punish those who do not conform to traditional gender roles and to suppress social movements that seek gender equality in the protection of human rights.40 22. The interchangeable use of the terms “violent extremism” and “terrorism”, as well as the lack of a clear delineation of the boundaries between them, may also be problematic. 41 The Secretary-General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism notes that “violent extremism encompasses a wider category of manifestations” than terrorism but warns against the risk of conflating the two terms. Indeed, without clear definitions, initiatives aimed at preventing or countering violent extremism may be, and at times have been, used to justify an overly broad application of counter-terrorism measures to target acts that would not meet the criteria for acts of terrorism or terrorism-related conduct.42 23. Although preventing and countering violent extremism is frequently described as the use of non-coercive means to dissuade individuals from resorting to violence in the furtherance of political, social or ideological goals,43 a number of measures adopted in that regard at the national level risk interfering with human rights. Under the umbrella of preventing and countering violent extremism, States have, among other things, placed individuals under surveillance, removed or blocked online content, restricted freedom of movement and liberty of persons, banned access to education, and temporarily removed minors from their families. Oftentimes, no assessment has taken place on the gendered impact of such measures, including those which seem gender neutral but result in discriminatory treatment because of the underlying gender dynamics. 24. Measures to prevent and counter violent extremism are legal only if they are fully in conformity with international law, in particular international human rights law. Therefore, while security and intelligence services should be provided with adequate tools to enable them to protect societies from violence, it is particularly important to ensure that there are 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 A/HRC/28/28 and A/HRC/31/65. See, for example, the joint allegation letters and urgent appeals sent by special procedure mandate holders in A/HRC/31/79, p. 57 (RUS 3/2015); A/HRC/29/50, p. 52 (MDA 1/2015); and A/HRC/25/74, p. 50 (UZB 2/2013). See A/HRC/28/66/Add.1, para 49; A/HRC/22/51, para. 53; A/HRC/16/53/Add.1, para. 100; and E/CN.4/2005/61/Add.1, para. 152. See A/64/211 and Corr.1, para. 27. Minerva Nasser-Eddine and others, “Countering violent extremism (CVE) literature review” (Department of Defense of Australia, Counter Terrorism and Security Technology Centre, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, March 2011). See A/70/674, para. 4. Humera Khan, “Why countering extremism fails”, Foreign Affairs (18 February 2015); and Bryan Price, “A view from the CT foxhole: an interview with Tom Wheelock” (Combating Terrorism Center, 30 April 2015), available from https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/a-view-from-the-ct-foxholean-interview-with-tom-wheelock. 9