Why we should talk about the anti-rights movement in relation to democracies?
Anti-rights groups continue to systematically assault civic space and civil society. Their tactics, ranging from spreading false and misleading information to strategic lobbying, have the potential to polarise public opinion, erode trust in democratic processes, and promote extremism. We see the anti-rights movement creating parallel organisations that appear legitimate, and claim democratic authority through populist mobilisation.
Activists, organisation, businesses or institutions defending and representing human rights, specifically of historically marginalized and vulnerable communities, are frequently targeted by anti-rights attacks involving harmful narratives and the spreading of falsified information. For example, Anti-rights narratives range from the peddling of a false notion of African Values by people who are not African to attacking NGO finances, casting NGOs as foreign-funded agents with an agenda to manipulate. Haley also refers to a wider ecosystem of “knowledge politics” as attacks on knowledge institutes, undermining what knowledge is legitimate, valued and in line with the ‘right’ norms. This becomes visible in disinformation campaigns that circulate around transgender people and attacks on the academic field of gender studies. There are links between the dismantling of diversity, inclusion and equity in universities and the shifts in governments, where you see anti-rights actors at the highest levels of political power.
“Anti rights is much more than a backlash or a rollback, if we don’t recognise that we are ignoring the work that they are doing to roll forward a future where we have a democracy without equality and human rights.”
Haley McEwen, Gothenburg University
Anti-rights groups are not trying to take us back to the nineteen fifties but are trying to take us into a new future where inequality and hierarchy between racial groups, genders, and sexual orientations are normalised as the basis of society. We need to identify, name and challenge the forms of power that are seeking to attack our human rights and democracy.
How disinformation tactics are taking place
Attacks on democracies, and those defending it, by the anti-rights movement are not uncommon, it is a global phenomenon with similar patterns of coordinated, very well implemented campaigns, continues Giovanna Fleck (RNW Media). Oftentimes mis- & disinformation campaigns are based on sharing inaccurate information to create the idea of fearmongering between different groups. Furthermore, it is important to understand the difference between disinformation and misinformation. The key difference between both is intent and the intent to cause harm. Disinformation is shared with the intent to do harm, whereas misinformation comprises pieces of content that can cause harm but not with that intent. A harmful pattern is where disinformation becomes organic misinformation.
Using platforms and environments that quickly circulate pieces of content and using the algorithms of these platforms, anti-rights groups continue to be successful in amplifying a harmful discourse in detriment of factual and public interest. We are navigating complex information systems.
“The internet definitely didn’t invent misogyny, racism, and transphobia. But it did invent ways that got monetized. And that’s a huge part of how those discourses continue to be amplified.” – Giovana Fleck, RNW Media
On top of this, anti-rights tactics are often incoherent due to the sophisticated ways they weaponize human rights. For example, human rights defenders are accused of stripping the right to freedom of expression, but this is only in reference to the right to be fascist, homophobic, xenophobic and racist. And this gets to the minds of people, their everyday lives and political choices. Using narratives to dehumanize groups makes it easier to attack people. We see this in India, in Gaza and many other contexts.
A sophisticated look at anti-rights organising
Combatting disinformation campaigns by anti-rights groups requires understanding the sophisticated ways in which they weaponize human rights, shares Ines Pousadela, Senior research specialist at CIVICUS. The terminology we use may lead to misunderstandings. Calling the groups anti-rights is more an activist than an academic label. It is problematic because it projects a simplistic view on ‘defenders’ versus ‘opposers’ of rights. Feminist movements made a more accurate choiceby referring to anti-gender rather than anti-rights movements , but anti-rights movements encompass a wider array of groups, themes and agendas than anti-gender groups.
In their report “Action against the anti-rights wave” CIVICUS examined how anti-rights groups are organising, operating and having an impact, and how civil society is and could be responding to reclaim human rights. While the report was published six years ago and the situation has changed, Ines highlights that the movements still operate by combining legitimate rights concerns with fabricated evidence.
Ines also emphasizes that we cannot assume that people drawn to so-called anti-rights movements are driven by ‘bad faith’ or ‘cynical manipulation’, rather, we need to examine their genuine motivation. They don’t necessarily see themselves as anti rights, they make rights claims, they speak of parental rights, religious freedom, the rights of the unborn. Anti-rights movements draw their support by leveraging existing tensions, using a populist template that exploits economic anxiety, for example by connecting immigration to competition.
“To respond effectively, civil society organizations must move beyond asserting moral superiority and engage strategically with both the rights claims these movements advance and the underlying concerns that draw people to them.” – Ines Pousadella, Civicus
Combatting disinformation campaigns
How well prepared are we to counter anti-rights narratives and how much is it prioritized? Based on the participants of this session, there is still a lot room for growth. The panelists brought in various strategies for a collective response to anti-rights narratives, disinformation and misinformation campaigns.
-
- Exchange of counter strategies: Exchange tactical knowledge about successful response. We need to coordinate advocacy efforts through international and regional bodies, such as the Human Rights Council and Commission on the Status of Women Rights (CSW). Anti rights groups are also spreading their propaganda in these spaces, so it is important to be strategic about how to reclaim these global and international platforms.
- Information sharing: Talking from a time where civic society sees their resources shrink drastically, pulling resources and information materials is key. At the same time, be very careful on how we use our resources and how we share the information.
- Exposure: Never stop exposing the anti rights groups, to delegitimize their mis- & disinformation tactics we need to be accurate, smart and precise. The court case of Rutgers against Civitas Christiana is a leading example, securing a legal victory against an ultra-conservative group notorious for fuelling online hate and spreading disinformation.
- Prioritise locally rooted narratives: Support local organisations to develop their own arguments within local and cultural traditions. This shifts power and prevents accusation of NGO and international influencing.
- Disabling the globalization of anti-right agendas: What can be done to stop anti-rights groups in spreading harmful narratives? While not having ready answers, Haley McEwen suggested that this is worth reflecting on.
- Adaptivity: Solutions are not permanent and need to be constructed with society, as explained by the case of far-right resistance and elections in Brasil, by Giovanna Fleck.
- Value the work of journalists: reporters, investigative journalists and community journalist fact-checking and making sure voices are heard and validated.
What role does international solidarity play in resisting the anti rights movement?
This is key and ironically anti-rights groups themselves are heavily reliant on international networks and funding. While anti-rights groups are now having the trademark of using international campaigns, “they’ve got it from us (…) we need to reclaim the space”, says Ines. However, we need to be careful not to play into the accusations of foreign agents influencing domestic traditions and values. And again this is by double standards, as “they [f.e. traditional value institutions] get tons of money from very wealthy US based groups and individuals, but they attack civic groups for receiving international funds and support.”
International solidarity must prioritise the development of locally rooted narratives. Narratives that don’t necessarily rely very heavily on international human rights language and NGO language. Because that doesn’t reside with people. We need to support as international partners, local organisations to develop their arguments for rights within local and cultural traditions. – Ines Pousadella, Civicus
About the Partos LNOB Brown Bag sessions
This Brown Bag lunch session is the 7th of a series organised by the Partos Leave No One Behind Community of Practice (LNOB) with inspiring presentations on intersectionality and Leave No One Behind in practice. Digest fresh from the shelf, or yet to be tested, best practices, tools, and approaches that aim to put rights holders in the driving seat and reduce discrimination.
Missed the previous session on the anti-rights movement? Find the summary here.