A/HRC/2/6 page 18 contribution to the fight against racism, discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance.64 77. Often, public service broadcasters are specifically required to give voice to minorities, an appropriate obligation given that, as public bodies, they should represent the whole population. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for example, is required, among other things, to “reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada”.65 78. Finally, resolution 2005/40 of the Commission on Human Rights on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief : • To take all necessary steps and appropriate action to combat hatred, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance; • To promote and encourage understanding, tolerance and respect in all matters relating to freedom of religion or belief; and • To make appropriate efforts to encourage those engaged in teaching to cultivate respect for all religions or beliefs, thereby promoting mutual understanding and tolerance. VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 79. The international human rights architecture is anchored on fundamental imperatives of equality and non-discrimination. Intolerance in general, and xenophobia and incitement to racial and religious hatred and violence in particular, imperil this very foundation of international human rights. It is therefore both appropriate and timely that the Human Rights Council should focus attention on the issue at this time of increased global tensions and sensitivities. 80. There is clearly consensus on the broad outlines of the law relating to incitement and advocacy of racial and religious hatred and violence. The provisions of the international human rights instruments, particularly ICCPR and ICERD, as well as the three regional instruments, provide a good basis on which the legal and policy responses to the problem of intolerance more generally, and the incitement of hatred and violence in particular, can be constructed. 81. The implementation of this body of law is challenging, however, because many of the essential details remain undefined. These include lack of clarity on key concepts such as incitement, hatred and hate speech. Clearly, this is one area where attention might be focused to try to elaborate a sufficiently precise legal regime to provide guidance to States in developing national responses. Issues surrounding the freedom of expression raise a particular concern in this regard. 82. It appears that some national jurisprudence is far richer than the international on the many dimensions of the law and policy on incitement. Courts in many countries have developed very detailed jurisprudence on a number of the key issues and built a large body of cases from which to draw principles and rules of interpretation. The situation is not even, however, and there are many other countries where the law in this area is still fairly rudimentary. The international system could learn much from the relevant national experiences.