A/HRC/40/65 IV. Parliaments facing current global challenges to human rights, democracy and the rule of law A. Discussions 28. The discussion on agenda item 3 was moderated by Sandrine Mörch, Member of the National Assembly of France. The panellists were Momodou Malcolm Jallow, Member of the Riksdag of Sweden; Kimberly Stanton, Democratic Staff, Senior Professional Staff at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, United States Congress; Jean Paul Briere, Member of the Congress of Guatemala; and Kenneth Okoth, Member of the National Assembly of Kenya. The discussions focused on the actions available to parliaments in the light of current global challenges to human rights, democracy and the rule of law, including those affecting democratic institutions and principles, such as undue restrictions on public freedoms, the use of hate speech, attacks against journalists and the rise of populism. The discussions also examined the challenges and opportunities posed by migration, and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 29. Mr. Jallow discussed the rise in the use of hate speech and the shrinking space for civil society. He shared his experience, as a parliamentarian of African descent, in regard to the many barriers he had faced in becoming, and remaining, a parliamentarian, including racist attacks and discriminatory attitudes. A victim of hate speech himself, Mr. Jallow described the repeated use of deeply offensive pictures that portrayed him as a slave. Mr. Jallow had taken the person responsible to court six times, which had resulted in jail sentences. Mr. Jallow discussed the different legal approaches to freedom of expression in relation to hate speech in Denmark and in Sweden. Referring to freedom of expression as the bedrock of democratic expression, Mr. Jallow emphasized that it did not include the right to use hate speech. He referred to divisive rhetoric used by legislators in, inter alia, the United States of America and Brazil. He expressed concern about the increase in hate crimes against migrants, attacks on members of marginalized communities, and the rise of neo-Nazis and fascists. Concerning counter-terrorism measures, he emphasized that governments were using the term “black identity extremists” to refer to people who were defending black people from, for example, police violence. That facilitated unfair arrests and demonized those who joined groups such as Black Lives Matter. He remarked that internationally recognized human rights standards must be upheld at all times. He observed that hate speech did not operate in a vacuum and the role of government policies in developing racist discourse needed to be understood. In the context of growing support for far-right political parties, he said that democratic values and access to information must be safeguarded. He concluded with a plea to parliamentarians to use respectful language and uphold the dignity and rights of all. He called for rules of procedure and independent monitoring to sanction parliamentarians who failed to do this. 30. Ms. Stanton provided an overview of the work of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which was led by two co-Chairs from the main political parties in the United States. She reflected on the rise of populism and noted the divisions that populists caused by valuing certain groups above others. Populists were concerned with the legitimacy of one group, those they invoked as “the people”, leading to devaluing the rights of “the other”. She stated that populism was a means of gaining and holding power that involved privileging some identities (national origin, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual identity, political affiliation) over others. This generated a dynamic in which people who did not share the privileged identities became vulnerable to human rights violations. Ms. Stanton considered what parliamentarians could do. She suggested that parliamentarians should bring a human rights and anti-discrimination lens into their analysis of policies and proposed legislation. If a law or institution persistently disadvantaged a particular group, their design needed to be revisited by the legislature. She encouraged parliamentarians to speak out when marginalized groups became targets and to push back by raising specific cases and defending the norms and values of democracy. She said that the language parliamentarians used should not deepen divisions, parliaments’ internal hiring practices should not discriminate against minority groups, and parliamentary rules of procedure 8