A/HRC/43/46 discriminatory impact on the absolute right to freedom of belief, a universal right and an intrinsic aspect of a person’s humanity, which allows everyone to practice their religion or belief, individually and in community with others, in private or in public. Legislation tightly regulating religious exercise, including measures placing burdensome or unattainable requirements on the registration of religious groups, measures criminalizing religious practices and rituals absent registration, measures limiting the possibility of importing religious literature or added sanctions for individuals convicted of “extremism”, such as bans on visiting places of worship, praying aloud, consuming religiously sanctioned food or sharing their faith with others, all directly impinge on the right to freedom of religion. They have a disproportionate impact on certain religious groups and individuals exercising their freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The Special Rapporteur recalls that that right exists independently of administrative approval.68 Limitations do not apply to belief per se and, under article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, they must be legally prescribed, be clearly necessary (i.e., as a last resort), pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate (i.e., minimal degree of interference) and non-discriminatory in intention and effect. 32. Many practices for preventing and countering violent extremism involve targeting particular people, communities and groups, giving rise to assumptions about their “suspect”, profiling, excluding and compounding structural discrimination and exclusion, including surveillance and harassment.69 The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned by the socalled “whole of society” approach, in which responsibilities to detect “signs of radicalization” fall upon various actors in society, including teachers, social workers, medical staff and other health-care professionals, prison staff, neighbours and family members, community leaders and members of faith-based groups.70 She views the securitization of care professions, including medical professions and social work, as impinging on the unique ethical obligations of professionals in those fields to those they serve. 71 In addition to creating an environment in which the threat of violent extremism is ubiquitous and pervasive, the negative impact cannot be overstated. Not only do those measures break the fragile trust that individuals and communities place in those professionals, whose primary duty is to protect and empower, but, without any reliable scientific understanding of the process that makes individuals turn to violent extremism, accurate identification is largely unattainable. Such policies lead to overselection and overreporting, largely on prohibited discriminatory grounds, having an impact on the rights to freedom of religion and expression and privacy. Furthermore, the lack of transparency about the use of the information generated and its often underregulated sharing across government entities lends credence to a perception that preventing and countering violent extremism is yet another tool of a State intelligence entity’s counter-terrorism efforts, rather than a genuine effort at building resistance to the threat of violent extremism. 33. The Special Rapporteur notes that working with recruiters who are responsible for convincing people to join extremist groups using faith-based reasons, rhetoric and critical thinking tools is an effective method to prevent extremism. 72 She agrees with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief however that it is not the Government’s role to look for the “true voices” of any religion or belief and that the contents of a religion or belief should be defined by the worshippers. 73 She recalls that the perception that a Government can authorize or control the way that individuals think or what they believe, through targeted 68 69 70 71 72 73 12 A/HRC/28/66/Add.1, paras. 19 and 26. A/73/362, paras. 19–21. See United Kingdom, guidance for specified authorities in England and Wales on the duty in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism (available at www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevent-duty-guidance); A/HRC/43/46/Add.1 and A/HRC/40/52/Add.4. Note the specific recommendations regarding medical and other professionals in A/HRC/40/52/Add.5. UNDP, “Report on Oslo II”. A/HRC/7/10/Add.3, para. 76.