A/HRC/21/59 compelling and closer to ordinary usage, addressing xenophobia in the narrow sense might resonate better with legal definitions in ICERD and the practice of CERD. He also added that it might be possible to distinguish xenophobia from ethnocentrism, or other identitydefending strategies or attitudes. 15. With regard to ICERD, Mr. Thornberry recalled that xenophobia does not expressly figure in its text, which is also the case for the term ―racism‖. The notion of ‗hatred‘ appeared in the Convention as hate propaganda and ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, as did discrimination, incitement, and – more positively - the promotion of interethnic toleration to combat hatred. The emphasis in the Convention was on discriminatory actions and hate speech. He pointed out that the grounds of discrimination have been applied in practice to minorities of many kinds: indigenous peoples, caste groups, descent groups including Afro-descendants, non-citizens, as well as those caught in the ‗intersection‘ between ethnic identity and other identities – notably gender and religion. Regarding non-citizens – targets of xenophobia whether a wide or a narrow definition was employed - the provisions of article 1(2) may be recalled whereby the Convention ‗shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.‘ In his view, the Committee has not allowed the ostensibly restrictive provisions of article 1(2) to deflect its work on the protection of non-citizens. The Committee adopted the extensive General Recommendation 30 in 2004 which provides that 1(2) "must be construed so as to avoid undermining the basic prohibition of discrimination", and "should not be interpreted to detract in any way from the rights and freedoms enunciated in particular in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and the Covenants. Further, paragraph 11 of the Recommendation requests that steps be taken by States parties "to address xenophobic attitudes and behaviour towards noncitizens, in particular hate speech and racial violence, and to promote a better understanding of the principle of non-discrimination in respect of non-citizens.‖ 16. In his concluding remarks, Mr. Thornberry noted that while xenophobia was not referred to in the text of ICERD, this has not prevented CERD from addressing it by name. CERD had also addressed other phobias such as Islamophobia. He said that xenophobia may figure as an element underlying racial discrimination and may lead to it and pointed out that general anti-foreigner sentiments may not attract an obligation under ICERD. 17. He pointed out that the Committee‘s practice recognised a wide view of xenophobia implicating a range of groups, though the paradigm case of non-citizens – or, de minimis, persons of foreign origin or ‗―visible minorities‖ - appeared to attract the most frequent references. The Convention was primarily concerned with manifestations of hatred and not simply emotions and sentiments. ―Xenophobia‖ might be too general to target a particular race, colour, etc.; if it did not, it would not be caught by the Convention. 18. Mr Thornberry informed the participants that the CERD would have a thematic discussion on racist hate speech at its August 2012 session which would consider article 4, but also the elements in ICERD as a whole that were capable of addressing xenophobia. 19. The European Union also highlighted the dilemma between adopting a wide versus a narrow definition of xenophobia and pointed out the need to make a clear distinction between feelings of fear or rejection versus speech and expression, and welcomed the August CERD discussion. The delegate asked whether acts of xenophobia could be reprimanded on other grounds of discrimination and about the occurrence and references to xenophobic ―hate‖ speech and acts in State reports submitted to the CERD. 20. Brazil also referred to the notion of broad versus narrow definition of xenophobia and asked Mr. Thornberry whether an international definition of xenophobia was necessary, asking if so, what would be the benefit to victims. 26