A/HRC/28/81 112. The representative of Morocco stated that anti-discrimination policies often failed to materialize at two levels, in EU Member States and in the European Union Commission and he inquired about whether there were issues of political will or differences across Member States. The delegate added that the Rabat Plan of Action could be a blueprint for OHCHR action in the area of incitement to racial, national and religious hatred and asked whether the FRA incorporated the Plan in its work. 113. The EU stated that the FRA produces reliable and comparable data, helping the EU institutions and Member States at the national and regional level and its work is transparent and publicly available. It was noted that racism is a global issue, affecting every society and country everywhere in the world, and urged other regions to share similar experiences with regard to data collection. 114. The United States of America highlighted the fact that there is no need for new standards, rather better implementation of existing standards was required. With reference to LGBT issues, the delegate also requested information about how the FRA decided which specific grounds would be covered in their survey and data collection work, and whether it was on the basis of European Union law or regulation. 115. The delegate of Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, stated that religious intolerance in many parts of the world was increasing and emphasized that ICERD does not have a definition of xenophobia, which created several loopholes in the existing standards. 116. The delegate of Algeria asked whether the FRA interacted with the European Commission “European barometer work” and whether racial discrimination is considered in those surveys. The delegate inquired how the European Charter was implemented on the ground, and whether the FRA analysed the implications of case law related to xenophobia and hate crime. Adding that preventative approaches, such as human rights education and good practices are useful, there are, nonetheless, certain limits which require legal and policy measures and that legal issues are part of a preventative approach. It was added that when victims are forced to take their cases to the European Court of Human Rights, there is likely a lack of protection. 117. In reply, the presenter noted that concerted and continuous efforts are required, particularly in the area of education, as that is where young people learn how to live in multicultural societies. He said that moving from a homogeneous to a multi-ethnic society will take some time. He stated that the manifestation of Islamophobia varied, depending on the Member State, and that there could be different reasons why Muslims would be treated differently. The fact that victims could not distinguish between ethnic or religious discrimination shows that they are intertwined. He noted that it is important to empower victims to seek redress and improve the way police handle hate crimes. He added that definitions could be discussed at length; however, it was important to see what people experienced on the ground. In his view, there is sufficient case law that provides definitions. 118. The delegate of Morocco highlighted the fact that perhaps victims were unable to distinguish the exact grounds for the discrimination they faced because they faced multiple forms of discrimination. He noted that surveys might not be the appropriate approach to collect data about racial discrimination. He emphasized the need for victim-centred approaches, as the victim of the discrimination might not be in a position to reply adequately to the survey and that the understanding of a question, and hence the responses, could change from one survey respondent to another. 119. The delegate of the Republic of South Africa pointed out that it had not been stated that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are necessarily attributed to one particular region, and noted that the persistence of xenophobia is a rejection of multiculturalism. 44