A/HRC/34/30 defenders, political groups and civil society more broadly. 55 The Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association noted that the fight against terrorism had, in many instances, been used as a justification for the adoption of state of emergency regulations to void the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and to clamp down on those freedoms.56 38. The Human Rights Committee has emphasized that States parties should ensure that counter-terrorism measures are compatible with article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also emphasized that offences such as “encouragement of terrorism” and “extremist activity” as well as offences of “praising”, “glorifying”, or “justifying” terrorism, should be clearly defined to ensure that they do not lead to unnecessary or disproportionate interference with freedom of expression and that journalists should not be penalized for carrying out their legitimate activities.57 Article 20 of the Covenant states that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. One contribution to the present report suggested that States be reminded to put in place measures to implement the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, which provides guidance, through a six-part threshold test (taking into account the context, speaker, intent, content and form, extent of speech act and likelihood of incitement), on how to establish whether expressions should be considered as criminal offences. 58 39. Counter-terrorism measures taken by States must be coherent with international human rights standards relating to freedom of religion or belief, such as choice of clothing, which may be limited only in specific circumstances to protect public safety, public order, and public health or morals. In this context, one contribution to the present report 59 noted as a positive example the decision taken by the highest administrative court in France on 26 August 2016 to suspend the ban on supposedly inappropriate beachwear, which had been widely interpreted as targeting the burkini and other forms of dress worn by Muslim women. Such clothing bans do not improve the security situation, but rather fuel religious intolerance and stigmatization of Muslims, especially women, and may, as a result, actually undermine the efforts to counter terrorism and prevent violent extremism. 60 40. One contribution to the present report from an academic source noted that the practice of racial or religious profiling in some States had led to the perception of imaginary “crimes” shaped by racial or religious prejudice in expressions such as “driving while Black”, “flying while Arab” or “perambulating while Muslim”. The number of attacks against Muslims in Europe increased following the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015. One report on anti-Muslim hatred showed a 300 per cent rise in hate crime incidents in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the week following the Paris attacks, particularly affecting Muslim women and girls aged between 14 years and 45 years wearing hijabs. Many of those attacked indicated that no one had come to their assistance and that they felt victimized, embarrassed and alone following the incidents. 61 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 See A/HRC/7/14, para. 47. See A/HRC/20/27, para. 21. See the Committee’s general comment No. 34 (2011) on freedoms of opinion and expression, para. 46. See contribution from Child Rights International Network; and A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix, in particular, para. 29. See contribution from Libya. See OHCHR press briefing note on France of 30 August 2016, available at www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20430&LangID=E. See contribution from Child Rights International Network. 11