By The European Times | Created at 2026-10-09 12:42:33 | Updated at 2026-10-09 14:05:18
1 hour ago
At the Warsaw Human Dimension Conference, three OSCE representatives examined the persistence of religious hatred, the political misuse of religion and the need to prevent discrimination before it turns into violence.
MEDIA-SOCIETY.COM // Warsaw | 9 October 2026 | Human Rights & Religious Freedom.
Governments across the OSCE region have made extensive commitments to combat religious intolerance. Yet Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities continue to face prejudice, hostility and, in some cases, violence. Closing the distance between those commitments and what happens in everyday life was a central concern at an ODIHR side event held in Warsaw on 8 October.
The discussion, organised during the 2026 Warsaw Human Dimension Conference, brought together the three Personal Representatives of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office whose mandates address antisemitism, discrimination against Muslims, and intolerance towards Christians and members of other religions.
Rabbi Andrew Baker, Ambassador Evren Dağdelen Akgün and Professor Wolfgang Palaver approached the issue from their respective areas of responsibility. Their interventions nevertheless revealed common concerns: political polarisation, the spread of prejudice online, the misuse of religious identity and the limited effectiveness of policies that focus on responding to hate crimes rather than preventing them.
The event was introduced by Pierre Baussand, Head of ODIHR’s Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Department, with Mikolaj Wrzecionkowski moderating the exchange with representatives of international organisations and civil society.
Beyond declarations and commitments
One of the most persistent questions was why established international standards have not delivered greater protection against religious hatred.
Ambassador Akgün described discrimination against Muslims as a problem extending well beyond physical violence. Alongside attacks on individuals and places of worship, she pointed to unequal treatment in employment, housing, education and public services.
She also raised concerns about the tendency to approach Muslim communities primarily through the language of security, terrorism or radicalisation. Such associations, she argued, can reinforce suspicion towards Muslims as a whole, regardless of their individual beliefs or circumstances.
Muslim women who are visibly identifiable through religious clothing may face particular hostility, while younger generations can experience exclusion that affects their sense of belonging.
Akgün’s wider argument concerned the difference between recognising discrimination and actually addressing it. Although international commitments and national legislation provide a substantial framework, implementation remains uneven. Political will, institutional capacity and public attitudes all influence whether those protections become effective.
The same difficulty emerged in discussions of antisemitism.
Rabbi Andrew Baker stressed that combating antisemitism requires sustained efforts to reduce the insecurity experienced by Jewish communities. The persistence of antisemitic attitudes over generations does not make effective action any less necessary.
He also drew attention to the relationship between victims and public authorities. Where people believe that reporting a hate crime will achieve little, or that their experience will not be taken seriously, incidents may never reach official statistics.
Better police training and stronger relationships with affected communities could therefore serve two purposes: improving responses to individual crimes while rebuilding the confidence needed for prevention.
Education remains equally important. Misconceptions about Judaism, Jewish history and the diversity of Jewish communities continue to provide fertile ground for prejudice, making educational initiatives an essential part of any long-term response.
Bosnia and Herzegovina offers lessons on religious cooperation
Professor Wolfgang Palaver brought a different perspective, drawing on the three representatives’ recent work in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
There, religious affiliation and national identity have historically been closely connected, with potentially serious consequences when political actors use those identities to reinforce divisions.
Palaver warned that religion can become a powerful instrument of exclusion when it is associated too closely with nationalism or the interests of a particular majority.
But Bosnia and Herzegovina also offers examples of cooperation across those divisions.
Its Interreligious Council brings together representatives of the Muslim, Serbian Orthodox, Catholic and Jewish communities. Palaver cited its work as a constructive example of how religious leaders can maintain dialogue despite difficult historical relationships and continuing political tensions.
Such cooperation need not remain confined to senior religious figures. Shared projects, educational programmes and regular contact between people of different backgrounds can help challenge stereotypes before they become entrenched.
For younger generations in particular, working together may achieve more than simply learning about one another from a distance.
Palaver also cautioned that religious leaders have responsibilities when politicians seek to use religion for their own purposes. Political instrumentalisation cannot be addressed solely by criticising governments; religious institutions must also consider how their own actions may contribute to it.
The role of social media and political rhetoric
The influence of online platforms featured prominently in the discussion.
Social media can amplify conspiracy theories, reinforce hostility towards minorities and give discriminatory narratives an audience far beyond their original sources.
The representatives acknowledged the difficulty of addressing harmful online behaviour while maintaining freedom of expression. The challenge is particularly acute when political rhetoric exploits fears relating to migration, cultural identity or international conflicts.
These concerns acquired a more immediate dimension during questions from civil society.
A representative of Georgia’s Tolerance and Diversity Institute described concerns about political interference in religious affairs and the use of religious identity in domestic political narratives. The intervention also raised allegations involving antisemitic conspiracy theories and pressure on Muslim organisations, urging greater international attention to developments in Georgia.
The discussion illustrated how religious intolerance can become intertwined with wider questions of democratic governance, political influence and the independence of religious communities.
Can international institutions act before violence occurs?
The exchange with the audience brought the question of prevention into sharper focus.
A representative of the Council of Europe pointed to ongoing cooperation with the OSCE’s Personal Representatives and asked how institutions could move beyond responding to incidents after they had already occurred.
The question was significant because much of the international response to religious hatred remains organised around identifying, documenting and condemning violations. Those activities are necessary, but they do not necessarily address the circumstances in which prejudice develops.
Alessandro Benedetti, representing the Bahá’í International Community to European institutions, approached the issue from another angle. Referring to educational guidance developed to address different forms of religious intolerance, he raised the possibility that international organisations sometimes treat related problems too separately.
There are good reasons to recognise the distinct characteristics of antisemitism, anti-Muslim hatred and anti-Christian intolerance. Their histories, manifestations and effects on communities are not interchangeable.
At the same time, education, cooperation between communities, institutional accountability and efforts to challenge prejudice can benefit from a more coordinated approach.
Baker acknowledged the need to strike precisely that balance: understanding what makes different forms of intolerance distinctive without overlooking opportunities for joint action.
Akgün, meanwhile, emphasised responsible political leadership and the importance of sustaining intercultural dialogue outside moments of crisis.
Governments and civil society often mobilise rapidly after an attack. The greater difficulty is maintaining that engagement once public attention moves elsewhere.
A challenge of implementation
The Warsaw meeting ended with more questions than the available time allowed the representatives to address.
That was perhaps unsurprising. The problems discussed are neither new nor easily resolved, and the OSCE has spent decades developing commitments and practical guidance in response to them.
What distinguished the discussion was its emphasis on what should happen between crises: improving trust in public institutions, supporting education, creating opportunities for communities to work together and ensuring that political leaders do not contribute to the very divisions they are expected to address.
For the three Personal Representatives, their different mandates offer both specialised knowledge and opportunities for cooperation.
The central challenge for participating States is less about producing another declaration against religious intolerance than demonstrating that the commitments already made can provide meaningful protection for the people who need it.
