A/HRC/34/56 and of association defines fundamentalism expansively to include any movements — not simply religious ones — that advocate strict and literal adherence to a set of basic beliefs or principles. “Fundamentalism is not simply about terrorism, extremism or even religion. It is, at bottom, a mindset based on intolerance of difference” (see A/HRC/32/36, para. 90). 5. Cultural fundamentalists often seek to erase the culture of others and the syncretic nature of culture and religion and stamp out cultural diversity. 4 Such efforts represent the misuse of what is claimed to be culture against cultural rights. 6. Fundamentalisms have emerged out of all of the world’s major religious traditions, including Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism, and others. Given the religious claims of their proponents, they are especially difficult and dangerous to contest. In each case, they represent a minority phenomenon distinct from the broader religious tradition itself, although drawing selectively from it. No religion is inherently fundamentalist nor should fundamentalist views be imputed to all adherents of any religion. 7. Opposition to fundamentalism is not akin to an anti-religion stance. Both religious believers who do not conform to fundamentalist dogma, including clergy, and non-religious people have often been targets of fundamentalist movements. Both have played important roles in the human rights struggle against fundamentalism. 8. Fundamentalist groups often seek to impose a politicized version of religion alien to local populations, aiming at eradication of lived local cultural and religious practice. They may cross borders physically and virtually and recruit, fundraise, train and act in many different countries simultaneously. A transnational response beyond the frame of a single State alone is essential. 9. The Special Rapporteur employs the term “extremism” alongside “fundamentalism” because it plays a significant role in United Nations debates and includes movements not drawing from religion. However, the question of definition should always be carefully considered and applied in accordance with relevant international human rights norms. The concept is relational and assumes a scale, with such views situated at the farthest end thereof. 10. Extremism is a broader and more fluid concept than fundamentalism but also more vague and liable to abuse. Hence, the term “fundamentalism” should be used instead, where appropriate, reserving the term “extremism” for more limited circumstances outside its parameters. Fundamentalism is a form of extremism and any meaningful effort to combat extremism must include a focus on fundamentalism. 11. Both the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism have been critical of broad and vague definitions of extremism or violent extremism in national legislation that fail to limit the discretion of executive authorities. This has direct consequences for freedom of expression and other human rights and has been misused to justify imprisonment of journalists and civil society activists, whose work bears no connection to extremism. 12. The Special Rapporteur is gravely concerned about the misuse of the concepts of extremism and violent extremism to repress activities undertaken in accordance with international human rights standards, which undercuts the much-needed fight against actual 4 4 terrain”, p. 1. “Gender and Fundamentalisms: proceedings of the Gender Institute: Gender, Culture and Fundamentalisms in Africa”, Fatou Sow, ed. (CODESRIA 2015).