Human Rights for All, or Only for Some?

From 5 to 15 October 2026, Warsaw became a meeting place for governments, human rights institutions, civil society organisations and activists from across the OSCE region. The Warsaw Human Dimension Conference, organised by the Swiss OSCE Chairpersonship with the support of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), brought together more than 1,800 participants to examine the implementation of human rights commitments and the state of democracy and the rule of law.

For those of us working to combat racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia, the conference provided an important opportunity to bring the experiences of Muslim communities and other minorities to the attention of policymakers.

The team of EMISCO, the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion and our partner NGOs in Europe participated with a clear objective: to contribute constructively to the protection of human rights while drawing attention to a growing concern about anti-Muslim hatred and discrimination in Europe and the wider Western world.

On 8 October, EMISCO organised a side event addressing the fight against racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia through stronger accountability and the protection of human rights. We also contributed to the plenary discussion on tolerance and non-discrimination.

Our message was straightforward. Europe is facing a troubling contradiction between its longstanding commitments to equality and the growing political acceptance of rhetoric and policies that risk stigmatising minorities, particularly Muslims.

Our efforts were appreciated. Yet an important question remained. Although civil society representatives raised concerns about Islamophobia during preparatory discussions and plenary sessions, we felt that some state representatives from Western countries did not give the issue the attention it deserved.

This is an observation from our experience at the conference, not a claim that every Western government or representative ignored the problem. Nevertheless, it raises a legitimate question: if the protection of human rights is universal, why does the recognition of particular forms of hatred sometimes appear uneven?

To understand the significance of this question, we must first understand the institutions involved, the commitments they are supposed to uphold and the responsibilities of governments towards the people they represent.

What Are the OSCE and ODIHR?

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) brings together 57 participating States across North America, Europe and Asia. Its origins lie in the Cold War dialogue that culminated in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act.

The OSCE recognises that lasting peace and security depend not only on military stability and diplomatic relations but also on democratic institutions, the rule of law, respect for human rights and the protection of fundamental freedoms.

This is an important principle. A society cannot be considered secure simply because its borders are protected or its economy is prosperous. When sections of its population experience discrimination, exclusion or hostility because of their religion, ethnicity or background, the resulting alienation can weaken social cohesion and public confidence in democratic institutions.

ODIHR supports OSCE participating States in implementing their commitments concerning democracy, human rights, elections, tolerance and non-discrimination.

Its work includes election observation, assistance with democratic and legal reforms, education, training, the monitoring of hate crimes and support for governments and civil society organisations.

The distinction between the two institutions matters. The OSCE provides the framework of cooperation and political commitments among participating States. ODIHR offers expertise, practical assistance and opportunities to examine whether those commitments are being implemented.

Neither institution replaces national governments or domestic courts. Governments remain responsible for protecting the rights of people within their jurisdiction. But the OSCE framework provides an important international forum in which civil society can question governments about their performance.

For minority-rights organisations, this opportunity is essential. Discrimination should not become invisible simply because it occurs within national borders or because addressing it is politically inconvenient.

Why Does the Annual Warsaw Human Dimension Conference Matter?

The Warsaw Human Dimension Conference is not simply another diplomatic gathering. Its purpose is to examine whether the principles endorsed by OSCE participating States are reflected in their laws, policies and practices.

The OSCE’s Human Dimension Implementation Meeting began in 1992 as an annual two-week gathering. The Warsaw Human Dimension Conference was introduced in 2022 as a distinct format. Both belong to the OSCE’s wider human-dimension work.

The conference provides a space for governments, national human rights institutions, international organisations and civil society to discuss implementation, identify shortcomings and propose improvements.

Its importance rests on three principles.

First, commitments must be examined in practice. Governments have undertaken political commitments concerning human rights, minority protection, freedom of religion or belief and non-discrimination. These commitments must mean more than declarations.

Second, civil society must be able to speak openly. Non-governmental organisations frequently work directly with people affected by racism, religious intolerance and exclusion. They bring evidence, testimony, research and recommendations that might otherwise receive insufficient attention.

Third, governments must be prepared to hear uncomfortable questions. Dialogue is meaningful only when participants are willing to engage with concerns that challenge existing policies or political assumptions.

The conference cannot compel governments to adopt every recommendation, nor can it itself deliver binding legal judgments. Its value lies in the space it creates for scrutiny, dialogue and follow-up.

The question, therefore, is not whether civil society has been permitted to speak. It is whether governments listen seriously, respond constructively and translate their commitments into action.

This brings us to Islamophobia.

Civil Society’s Warning: Islamophobia Is a Human Rights Issue

Across Europe, Muslim communities and organisations have raised concerns about discrimination, hostility towards religious expression, hate speech, hate crimes and exclusion from public life.

These concerns should not be dismissed as merely religious sensitivities or disagreements about cultural values. They are questions of equal citizenship, human dignity and the protection of fundamental rights.

ODIHR itself recognises intolerance against Muslims as a significant concern. Its work includes supporting governments in addressing anti-Muslim hatred, improving responses to hate crimes and developing educational approaches to prejudice and discrimination.

The OSCE participating States have also made commitments to combat intolerance against Muslims and have rejected the association of any religion or culture with terrorism.

The problem, therefore, is not an absence of institutional recognition. It is whether that recognition translates into sufficiently consistent political attention and practical implementation.

At the Warsaw conference, civil society representatives raised concerns about Islamophobia and the treatment of Muslim communities. EMISCO’s contribution sought to underline that anti-Muslim hatred must be addressed as part of the wider human rights agenda, rather than as a secondary issue to be discussed only when political circumstances permit.

The experiences of minorities cannot be measured solely by the language of government strategies. We must also examine whether people can practise their religion, express their identities, participate in public life and seek protection against discrimination without being treated as outsiders. A human rights framework must take these experiences seriously.

Two Europes, One Day: Warsaw and Brussels

On 8 October 2026, while EMISCO was raising concerns about racism, Islamophobia and discrimination in Warsaw, the European Parliament adopted a resolution entitled The Need for an EU Strategy to Counter Islamist Entryism and the Influence of the Muslim Brotherhood Network.

The European Parliament’s official legislative record confirms that the resolution was adopted on that date, following a plenary debate on 7 October. The vote and adopted text are recorded under procedure 2026/2868(RSP).

The coincidence of these events prompted EMISCO to issue a press release entitled Two Europes, One Day: Defending Human Rights in Warsaw While Undermining Them in Brussels.

The juxtaposition deserves serious political scrutiny.

Let us be clear: combating terrorism, violent extremism and unlawful political interference is a legitimate responsibility of democratic institutions. Governments and parliaments have a duty to protect people from violence and defend democratic institutions against genuine threats.

However, legitimate security objectives must be pursued through verifiable evidence, individual responsibility, proportionality and respect for fundamental rights.

The distinction between investigating specific conduct and fostering suspicion towards a wider religious community is crucial.

The term Islamist entryism refers to alleged attempts by Islamist actors to influence institutions from within. Such allegations must be assessed on their evidence and merits. The existence of a political or religious concern does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing by any particular organisation or individual.

Nor should Muslim civil society organisations be presumed suspect because they represent Muslim interests, advocate for religious freedom or participate in democratic debate.

The danger arises when political narratives blur the distinction between violent extremism, unlawful activity, peaceful religious expression and legitimate civil society participation.

When that distinction becomes unclear, suspicion can extend beyond individuals whose conduct warrants investigation to people whose only connection is their religion or community.

EMISCO’s concern is not that European institutions should abandon efforts to address extremism. It is that these efforts must not weaken the rights they are supposed to protect.

The participation of mainstream political groups alongside far-right representatives in supporting the resolution also raises questions about the political normalisation of increasingly restrictive narratives concerning Muslim communities. The significance of this development should be assessed through the text of the resolution, the positions of its supporters and its potential consequences, rather than by assuming that every supporter shares the same motives.

The central question remains: how can European institutions defend human rights internationally while ensuring that security policies at home do not undermine freedom of religion, association and expression?

Is There a Political Asymmetry in the Fight Against Hatred?

One of the most sensitive questions raised by our experience in Warsaw concerns the relative attention given to different forms of intolerance.

Antisemitism rightly receives serious attention from European institutions and governments. The history of antisemitism, culminating in the Holocaust, demonstrates the catastrophic consequences of allowing hatred, conspiracy theories and dehumanisation to become embedded in public life.

The fight against antisemitism must remain a fundamental responsibility of European democracies.

But the same commitment to human dignity requires serious action against Islamophobia, anti-Roma racism, anti-Black racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination.

These forms of hatred have distinct histories and manifestations. They should not be treated as interchangeable, nor should the experiences of one community be used to diminish those of another.

The principle, however, must be consistent: no individual should be subjected to discrimination or denied protection because of their religious or ethnic identity.

When governments devote sustained political attention and institutional resources to one form of intolerance but appear less responsive to another, they risk creating a hierarchy of suffering in which some communities feel that their rights are more readily recognised than those of others.

Establishing whether such an asymmetry exists requires evidence. Relevant indicators include the resources allocated to prevention, the quality of official reporting, responses to hate crimes, the implementation of recommendations, public statements by political leaders and the treatment of affected communities.

Our observations in Warsaw cannot, on their own, establish a systematic pattern across all participating States. They do, however, justify asking whether anti-Muslim hatred receives the sustained political attention that existing commitments demand.

This is a question governments should welcome as part of democratic accountability, rather than treat as an attack on their legitimacy.

What Can ODIHR Do to Raise Awareness Among Participating States?

ODIHR already has tools and programmes addressing intolerance against Muslims, antisemitism and other forms of hatred. The challenge is to ensure that these commitments are implemented with consistency and visibility.

EMISCO believes that ODIHR can help participating States move from general recognition of Islamophobia towards more systematic action.

First, make anti-Muslim hatred a regular and visible part of political dialogue. ODIHR should continue to ensure that Islamophobia is addressed in plenary discussions, expert meetings, training programmes and follow-up activities, rather than appearing only in occasional sessions.

Second, strengthen data collection and reporting. Governments should be encouraged to collect reliable, appropriately disaggregated data on anti-Muslim hate crimes and incidents, while respecting privacy and established data-protection standards. ODIHR can help improve reporting methodologies, support civil society monitoring and address the under-reporting of incidents.

Third, examine discriminatory political discourse. Political speech can influence public attitudes and institutional practices. ODIHR should encourage research, education and dialogue on how stereotyping and collective blame can contribute to hostility against minorities. Such work must respect freedom of expression and distinguish protected political debate from conduct that violates applicable law.

Fourth, promote equal standards of accountability. ODIHR should encourage governments to assess antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of intolerance through a consistent human rights framework, while recognising the specific characteristics and protection needs of each affected community.

Fifth, strengthen cooperation with Muslim civil society. Organisations representing affected communities should be treated as partners in identifying problems, developing educational programmes and improving responses to hate crimes. Their independence and legitimate participation in public debate must be respected.

Finally, establish meaningful follow-up. Where participating States receive recommendations concerning anti-Muslim discrimination, ODIHR should encourage transparent reporting on implementation, identify good practices and facilitate exchanges between governments and civil society.

These proposals do not require a new hierarchy of rights or a competition between communities. They require the more consistent implementation of commitments that participating States have already accepted.

EMISCO’s Side Event: From Principles to Accountability

The choice of theme was deliberate. The existence of legislation, strategies and international commitments does not automatically guarantee protection in everyday life.

Accountability begins with recognising a problem, but it cannot end there. It requires effective investigation where appropriate, accessible complaint mechanisms, protection for victims and witnesses, institutional transparency and remedies when rights have been violated.

It also requires political responsibility. When public figures make statements that stigmatise entire communities, they should be challenged through reasoned public debate and, where relevant, established legal and ethical standards.

This does not mean that every offensive statement is unlawful or that criticism of religion must be prohibited. Freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy. The task is to distinguish robust debate from unlawful threats, incitement or discrimination under the applicable legal framework.

The same principles apply to state institutions. Security measures must be grounded in evidence and subject to appropriate oversight. Allegations against individuals or organisations should be assessed individually, with due process and an opportunity to challenge adverse decisions.

Our side event sought to reinforce a simple proposition: human rights are meaningful only when institutions are prepared to protect them consistently, including when the people affected are politically unpopular or subject to public suspicion.

The Consequences for Muslim Communities

The debate about Islamophobia is not simply a disagreement between political parties or competing ideological positions. It affects the everyday lives of people.

A Muslim woman who encounters hostility because she wears a headscarf, a young person who is treated as suspect because of a Muslim name, or an organisation that must repeatedly defend its legitimacy because it represents Muslim communities may experience the cumulative effects of exclusion.

Such experiences can affect access to employment, education, housing and public services. They can also discourage people from reporting hate crimes, participating in politics or trusting public institutions.

The consequences extend beyond the individuals directly affected. When people believe that the authorities will not take their concerns seriously, confidence in the fairness of the state can erode.

Young people are particularly vulnerable to the message that they may be formally equal citizens but are not fully accepted as members of society.

This is not an argument that every difficulty experienced by a Muslim individual is necessarily caused by Islamophobia. Individual cases require careful examination. It is an argument that recurring patterns of discrimination must be investigated seriously and addressed through evidence-based policy.

European democracies should want Muslim citizens to participate confidently in public life, not feel that they must continually prove their loyalty or justify their presence.

EMISCO and its partner organisations have an important role in ensuring that the fight against Islamophobia is linked to the broader struggle against antisemitism and all forms of racism.

The starting point should be solidarity without equivalence: recognising the distinct experiences of different communities while defending the same fundamental rights.

Jewish and Muslim communities have both faced prejudice, hostility and attacks. Their histories are not identical, and their concerns should not be reduced to a single narrative. Yet both have a legitimate interest in societies where people can practise their faith, maintain their identities and participate in public life without fear.

EMISCO can help build practical cooperation through joint initiatives with Jewish organisations, minority-rights groups, humanist organisations, academics and other civil society partners.

Such cooperation could include joint monitoring of hate incidents, educational programmes, exchanges between communities, advocacy for improved victim support and common recommendations to governments.

The objective should not be to create a political alliance against another group. It should be to defend universal standards that protect everyone.

The message must be unmistakable: standing against antisemitism does not require silence about Islamophobia, just as challenging Islamophobia must never be used to excuse antisemitism.

Human rights lose their meaning when solidarity is reserved for those with whom we identify most closely.

When Human Rights Advocacy Meets Hostility Online

EMISCO’s press release about Warsaw and Brussels also attracted negative reactions on social media. For those working to defend minorities and promote social cohesion, such responses can be frustrating and disheartening.

Yet public criticism is not, in itself, evidence of prejudice. Democratic debate includes disagreement, scrutiny and challenges to an organisation’s arguments. A human rights organisation must be willing to engage with substantive criticism of its own work.

The important distinction is between criticism that addresses the substance of a statement and reactions that rely on stereotypes, personal attacks, dehumanisation or threats.

EMISCO would continue to respond to the former with evidence and reasoned argument. Where the latter occurs, it would document serious incidents, use appropriate reporting channels and avoid allowing abusive exchanges to dominate its public agenda.

EMISCO’s argument is not that European institutions should ignore genuine security threats, nor that every measure directed at a particular organisation is necessarily discriminatory. Its position is that restrictions and allegations must be supported by evidence, assessed individually and consistent with fundamental rights.

Where critics raise legitimate concerns, responding constructively can strengthen credibility. Where reactions are abusive, restraint and consistency can demonstrate that EMISCO is guided by principles rather than provocation.

EMISCO does not judge the success of its work by the absence of disagreement. Nor does it allow hostility to silence legitimate advocacy.

The proper measure is whether our interventions are accurate, principled, evidence-based and effective in advancing the rights of those, we represent.

What EMISCO and Its Partners would Do Next?

The Warsaw conference would be a starting point for further engagement, not an isolated event.

EMISCO and its partners would develop a practical programme of action built around five priorities.

First, prepare a concise policy paper documenting concerns about anti-Muslim discrimination and identifying specific recommendations for ODIHR and participating States.

Second, build a coalition of civil society organisations working on antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, xenophobia and minority rights. Joint statements and shared initiatives would focus on common standards, practical protection and accountability.

Third, establish a structured mechanism for collecting evidence of anti-Muslim hate crimes and discrimination, working with affected communities and relevant monitoring bodies. Any reporting would use transparent methods and distinguish verified incidents from allegations.

Fourth, engage directly with national delegations, parliamentarians, equality bodies and human rights institutions. Specific requests and evidence are more likely to produce results than general expressions of concern alone.

Fifth, communicate consistently with the public. EMISCO would explain its positions clearly, publish supporting evidence where available, correct factual errors and respond to criticism without abandoning its commitment to respectful dialogue.

These steps would help translate the organisation’s message into sustained advocacy and measurable objectives.

Human Rights Cannot Be Selective

The Warsaw Human Dimension Conference brought together people committed, in different ways, to the protection of human rights and democratic values. It provided a forum for dialogue and an opportunity to examine the implementation of commitments made by participating States.

EMISCO used that opportunity to raise concerns about racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia and the growing normalisation of discriminatory political rhetoric. Our experience also prompted questions about whether anti-Muslim hatred receives the political attention it deserves.

These questions should not be interpreted as a rejection of Europe’s democratic institutions. They are an appeal to those institutions to live up to their own principles.

The European Parliament has a legitimate responsibility to examine security threats. Governments have a duty to protect their populations. But these responsibilities must be exercised within the framework of fundamental rights, individual accountability and the rule of law.

Similarly, the OSCE and ODIHR must continue to provide space for civil society to challenge discrimination, including when doing so creates political discomfort.

Europe’s commitment to combating antisemitism must remain firm. Its commitment to combating Islamophobia must be equally serious. The struggle against one form of hatred cannot be used to obscure another, and no community should be required to compete for recognition of its suffering.

The test of a democratic society is not whether it protects the rights of those who are popular or politically influential. It is whether it protects those rights consistently, including when the people concerned are subject to suspicion, hostility or exclusion.

The lesson of Warsaw should therefore be clear. Human rights cannot depend on religious identity, political convenience or the popularity of those seeking protection.

Human rights cannot be selective. Equality cannot be conditional. And freedom of religion cannot become a privilege granted only to those who escape political suspicion.

EMISCO will continue to advocate for these principles through dialogue, evidence, cooperation and the peaceful exercise of democratic rights.

Europe’s credibility will ultimately be measured not by the declarations adopted in Warsaw, Strasbourg or Brussels, but by whether its institutions protect the dignity and fundamental freedoms of everyone who lives within its borders.