A/HRC/34/56 29. Diverse fundamentalists often work together tactically at the international level to thwart advances in human rights protection, in particular regarding women’s human rights or those of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. 11 Different manifestations of fundamentalism and extremism, such as Christian and Muslim fundamentalists or Hungarian and Russian ultranationalists (who are seemingly political opponents), often reinforce each other through “reciprocal radicalization”.12 They often use similar rhetoric and have similar world views; their violence reportedly spikes around the same times and they use each other’s actions to justify their own and gain support.13 30. Hence, the human rights struggle against each manifestation of fundamentalism or extremism, rather than being in competition or in tension with the struggle against other manifestations, is complementary. One form of fundamentalism or extremism is not a justification for another. Each is a reinforcing reminder of the global humanist crisis that lies before us. We must break out of this vicious circle that will leave youth globally facing a political landscape offering only a bleak choice of competing extremisms. 31. There is no clash of civilizations. Increasingly, however, there is a clash within each civilization between those who champion human equality and universal human rights and those who do not, sometimes due to fundamentalist or extremist ideology. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned at the normalization of fundamentalist and extremist ideology and rhetoric in many political, cultural and media contexts, in particular through its increasing embrace by mainstream political parties and candidates. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recently denounced the “banalization of bigotry”.14 Human rights norms, including cultural rights, should be used to constantly remind us of the unacceptability of these proliferating denials of human dignity. 32. There is a spectrum of fundamentalism and extremism. In some places, these forces are civil society actors operating within the framework of strong States and functioning democracies. They may not use or advocate violence, or do so only sporadically. Elsewhere, these movements are ascendant and State structures are relatively weaker. In the worst-case scenario, fundamentalist or extremist non-State actors use violence systematically, rising even to the level of genocide, in weak conflict or post-conflict States. They control territory and are able to impose the most extreme violations of human rights, what has been termed “hyper-extremism”. 15 In still other places, the fundamentalist and extremist actors are formally in power and have the structures of the State at their disposal in pursuing their agenda. Civil society opponents of fundamentalism and extremism may find themselves surrounded by non-State fundamentalists or extremists on the one hand and repressive Governments on the other, both of which seek to constrain the very action needed to defend human rights. Governments may then begin to impose aspects of the fundamentalist agenda so as to maintain political power. Sometimes State and non-State actors collude in this regard. 33. Each situation poses a distinct level of threats to cultural rights. Yet, over time, one situation unchecked can give rise to another that is even worse. Preventive action is necessary across the spectrum. Both the basic obligation of States to respect human rights, 11 12 13 14 15 8 See, e.g., Michelle Goldberg, The Means of Reproduction: Sex, power and the future of the world (London, Penguin, 2010). See Julia Ebner, “How far right and Islamist extremists amplify each other’s rhetoric”, TEDx Vienna Talk, October 2016. See Ahmad Sultan and Omar Fahmy, “Militant Islamist groups believe Trump’s rhetoric will help recruitment”, CBC News, 14 November 2016. See www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=54862#. See Aid to the Church in Need, “Religious Freedom in the World Report 2016”.