In its Annual Report for 2025, ECRI warns that racist and LGBTI-phobic hate speech is increasingly trivialised across Europe. In this interview, ECRI Chair Bertil Cottier explains why this matters for many people in our democratic societies and what can be done to address it.

In its Annual Report covering the year 2025, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), the Council of Europe’s independent human rights body specialised in monitoring action against racism, intolerance and related discrimination, focuses on one of the most pressing challenges facing democratic societies in Europe: preventing and combating hate speech. Drawing on its country monitoring work, ECRI warns that racist, anti-LGBTI and other forms of hate speech are increasingly being trivialised in political and other public discourse, including online. The report also points to available standards, tools and promising practices that can help member states act more effectively, while respecting freedom of expression, strengthening trust in public institutions, and promoting equal participation in democracy. In this interview, Bertil Cottier discusses the main trends observed by ECRI since early 2025, the risks posed by hate speech in public life and online spaces, and the steps governments, political leaders, online platforms and civil society actors can take to prevent and counter racist and other forms of hate speech.

1. What is the main message of ECRI’s new annual report?

Our key message, as the Council of Europe’s independent anti-racism body, is simple and urgent: racist and other forms of hate speech are being “trivialised” across the continent. This should raise the alarm for us all. We are seeing growing levels of hate speech, both online and offline. Hate speech causes serious harm to people of concern to us, be they Roma and Travellers, foreign citizens or nationals with a migration background, people of African descent, Muslims, Jews or LGBTI persons. This calls for immediate action.

2. When ECRI says hate speech is being “trivialised” in Europe, what has changed, and why does it matter now?

What we are now seeing is indeed a worrying tendency to get used to hate speech in public spaces or wrongly treat it as a form of “free speech” or the free expression of an “opinion” that should not be censored. But here is the thing. If incitement to racial hatred, for instance, is trivialised, it will no longer be taken seriously or identified as a crime, it will foster a climate of impunity and initiate a painful erosion of the very foundations of our democratic societies. This matters also because hate speech does not stay in words: it can fuel violence against persons and institutions and make various groups of people feel unsafe, lose trust in public institutions, and eventually withdraw from civic participation. The good news is that our governments are not powerless: there is stronger guidance and there are more tools than ever before, including Council of Europe standards on combating hate speech and hate crime adopted by and for member states. These should be used.

3. Which environments are most contributing to the trivialisation of racist and other forms of hate speech?

What our country monitoring shows in the recent period is that the trivialisation of hate speech is happening across several environments at once, notably in online spaces, where hate speech spreads quickly and widely, in broadcast and print media, which can be much more polarised than before, and the political sphere, especially during election periods, where inflammatory and divisive narratives can be used by certain politicians for political gains.

4. ECRI’s annual report links hate speech to democratic participation - what does that look like in real life for people most targeted by racist and other forms of hate speech?

In real life, this means people affiliated to communities at risk of hate may start to feel unsafe and simply decide to refrain from participating in the functioning of democracy. That is why ECRI stresses that hate speech is not only a problem for those directly targeted. It is also a problem for democracy itself because it undermines inclusion, trust and participation in the democratic life.

5. You said there are more “data and tools” now - what is missing?

Our member states have indeed more data, standards and tools available to them to counter hate speech than, let’s say, 10 years ago. What is often missing is actual implementation, in particular through better reporting systems and closer coordination. In other words, the challenge is no longer only about knowing what to do, but how to do it consistently and effectively.

6. ECRI points to the danger of hate speech in politics - especially around elections - or sometimes through disinformation campaigns. What should political leaders and parties do differently?

Election campaigns are high-risk periods when it comes to hate speech and can amplify harmful political rhetorics. When politicians rely on negative stereotyping, generalisation, misinformation or even disinformation, they take the risk of trivialising hateful narratives in public life and deepening the marginalisation of groups of people already exposed to hate. We have also observed disinformation campaigns originating from abroad and aiming at spreading hate speech. To counter this, a practical starting point is the development of stronger self-regulation by political parties, combined with political leadership that openly rejects hate speech and promotes counter-speech.  With this in mind, we have encouraged political parties to sign up to the Charter of European political parties for a non-racist and inclusive society, as endorsed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Because democratic debate must never come at the expense of the dignity and inclusion of some.
 

7. The report mentions disinformation campaigns misusing or distorting data. What should political leaders do when disinformation spreads?

Political and other leaders should first refrain from doing anything that would amplify disinformation. They should also strongly challenge false or distorted narratives quickly, and should categorically refuse to build political advantage on the stigmatisation of particular groups of people. Our annual report makes it clear that political disinformation campaigns often rely on the misuse of data, generalisation and distortion. Political leadership matters because it can either legitimise those narratives or help counter them.

8. Have you also seen examples of political leadership in countering hate speech?

Yes, we did come across examples of political leadership and this is an important point we wanted to make in our annual report. We have observed in some countries that political leaders and other politicians have spoken out against hateful rhetoric and promoted counter-speech initiatives. Those examples matter because they show that political leadership can set the tone of responsibility and inclusion. In our view, such attitudes should be recognised, valued and encouraged.

9. Online hate spreads fast – often helped by anonymous accounts and bots – and the ECRI annual report refers to the possibility of using AI tools to counter this. What does an effective response look like without undermining the right to freedom of expression?

Let’s face it. Online hateful content is for all member states a major operational challenge. It spreads very quickly through platforms and messaging services.  Anonymity and bots can both accelerate dissemination and make law enforcement harder. An effective response should therefore be a shared, concerted response: public authorities, online platforms and civil society need to cooperate proactively and effectively. In particular, there is a need for better reporting channels, clearer rules for handling hate speech reports, and credible “trusted flagger” models so that serious cases reach the right actors promptly.

On AI tools, their use is promising but it is still limited. They can indeed help detect and manage hateful content. But only if they are combined with strong human oversight, transparency and safeguards. More broadly, the aim should be to take rights‑based action consistent with Council of Europe standards on combating hate speech.

10. You refer to “trusted flaggers” - what are the minimum safeguards to ensure they are independent and accountable?

In our view, hate speech reporting mechanisms must be effective and there must be clear rules for the processing of reports about hate speech incidents. This is something we make clear in our annual report. So, at a minimum, any system involving trusted flaggers needs to be transparent, properly structured, and linked to public authorities, internet intermediaries and other relevant actors in a way that builds confidence and accountability. The key point for us is that these mechanisms must be reliable and governed by clear rules.

11.Where should the line sit between online platform self‑regulation and regulation, in your view?

Online platforms have a key role to play in countering hate speech, through powerful self-regulation and cooperation with the relevant authorities and civil society organisations. So, the answer is not state regulation or platform self-regulation alone. There should be a balanced approach that combines regulation, co-regulation and self-regulation while fully respecting freedom of expression.

12. With AI moderation, what does “strong human oversight” mean in practice?

For us, strong human oversight means that AI should not be seen as an automatic fix. The message is that technology may support detection and moderation, but responsibility and judgement cannot simply be outsourced to machines.

13. ECRI also published a dozen of country reports since January 2025 and launched a new monitoring cycle last year focused on action against hate speech and hate crime, and equality and inclusion in education and healthcare. In your view, what are the most urgent gaps governments should address, and how will ECRI follow up on progress?

First, there has been progress at legislative level, but we still see persisting gaps in national legal frameworks: hate speech remains largely unsanctioned where legislation is not comprehensive. For instance, we regularly underlined in country reports that action against hate speech cannot rely on criminal law alone. It also needs effective civil and administrative law provisions, clear definitions, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions and effective legal remedies for victims. Second, we frequently see implementation gaps around reporting and public trust in relevant institutions: a significant share of hate speech appears to go unreported, often linked to low trust in the police by the very same groups of people that are at higher risk of being targeted by hate speech. Some countries have responded with specialised police officers and prosecutors, targeted police training on hate speech and hate crime as well as closer engagement of police services with affected communities. We will be looking at progress through our regular country monitoring in the months and years to come. This includes our so-called interim follow-up procedure, under which we will review the implementation of two priority recommendations 18 months after the publication of a given country report. In the current circumstances, quite a few priority recommendations may be about preventing and combating hate speech, including of a criminal nature.

This interview underlines ECRI’s central message: combating hate speech is not only a question of protecting individuals and communities directly targeted by racism, antisemitism, anti-Muslim hatred, xenophobia, anti-LGBTI hatred and other forms of intolerance. It is also essential to safeguarding trust in public institutions, democratic participation for all and conditions for equality and inclusion across Europe. As ECRI continues its seventh monitoring cycle, its work will remain focused on translating standards into effective action, including through stronger legal frameworks, better reporting mechanisms, cooperation with civil society and sustained follow-up to country-specific recommendations.