A/HRC/21/59 address the practical challenges of claiming these rights by creating an enabling environment for people in South Africa to challenge the status quo and by fostering a more inclusive nation-building project. She added that she had made no reference to the issue of complementary standards as it was to be considered by Committee participants in the coming days. 7. Several delegations took the floor to comment and ask questions about the presentation. Greece noted that it appeared that all phobias could be cured; however, xenophobia appeared to be exempt. He added that while the presentation focussed on containing the violent impact of xenophobia, the interventions suggested included awareness/raising and education and begged the question of whether a person was capable of reform. Ms. January-Bardill noted the power of ideology, acknowledging that a ―cure‖ for social ills was difficult. It was possible to change ideas and that in South Africa this was an on-going exercise; nevertheless, justice for victims was possible. 8. The European Union (EU) noted that the presentation seemed to adopt a narrow definition of xenophobia in respect of ―nationality‖ and ―citizenship‖. The delegate queried the emphasis on prevention and asked whether xenophobia was in fact a new or old phenomenon. 9. Senegal on behalf of the African Group stated that South Africa was attempting to criminalize the acts that flowed from xenophobia as distinct from others and asked Ms. January-Bardill how international interventions could affect those at the domestic level. 10. Ms. January-Bardill responded that definitions were difficult to crystallize and that perhaps the focus should be on what xenophobia was not rather that what it was. She continued that the more interesting question was why not what and that there was a need to continue working on these definitions. With regard to gaps, she mentioned that she hoped that CERD would one day look into the issue, adding that racism often changed in shape and form and that it was key to ―keep an eye‖ on the instruments to ensure that they still fit or whether there was a need to make room for phenomena. She noted a need to discuss issues of xenophobia in the future with her CERD colleagues. 11. Paraguay questioned whether in defining xenophobia identity or value was truly at the centre and cautioned about placing ―nationality‖ necessarily at the centre of the definition and analysis. 12. Ms. January-Bardill replied that it was true that laws often required amendment, but that it was premature to make such an assessment as it would be important to consider all the issues, including attitudinal factors. She encouraged an ―open-mindedness‖ by all on these complex issues. 13. At the 3rd meeting, on 11 April, Mr. Thornberry, a member of CERD, gave a presentation on ―Xenophobia – with particular reference to the International Conventional on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination‖ noting that the views expressed in his brief analytical paper were personal and not those of the Committee. 14. Mr. Thornberry noted that ICERD does not include the term xenophobia but nevertheless the terms ―xenophobia‖ and ―xenophobic‖ are used with regularity by the Committee. Mr. Thornberry pointed out that it was possible to discern wider and narrower meanings grouped under ―xenophobia‖. The wider meaning would follow that of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism in 1994 and amount to a generalized fear of ―the Other‖ the ―heterophobia‖ or fear of strangers. The narrower meaning related to foreigners, people from countries other than one‘s own. In CERD jargon, the second might be reduced to hatred of the ―non-citizen‖ or of ―aliens‖. On the other hand, ―noncitizenship‖, on the face of it, might seem to be an unlikely target for hatred. Mr. Thornberry stated that while in a conceptual sense the wide meaning may be more 25