Radical rights

Far-right politics is another term for radical rights. Radical rights are the stringent anti-socialist and conservative political stance in the United States (U.S.), but it is the nationalist and populist political movement in Europe. Most European and North American countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have seen a growth in extreme rights in recent years (U.K). The existence of human rights in society exists to protect people from the authority’s negligence and abuse. The bills of rights limit what the state can do while also imposing accountability for how it must operate. Though, in the modern era, there is a new breed of populists in the society who are converting the principles of protecting the rights of people, as they claim that they are the representatives of the majorities’ ideologies. The populists claim to be speaking on behalf of “the people” whom they assume that their rights form a critical part of the impediment to the conception will of the majority in the society and also regarded as an unnecessary hindrance to defending the nation from the apparent evils and threats. Instead of the populists accepting and protecting the rights of every person in the society without prejudice or discrimination, they purportedly declare to promote the interest of the majority. As the radical right rises in the Europe and North America, it poses severe threats to human rights.

Combating Terrorism Groups

Radical rights possess threats to freedom of association in the U.S. The freedom of association is the right that people has to gather in groups to pursue political action or interest of the majority. Smith Act restricts freedom of membership in the country, and it prohibits any form of political activities that promote the violent overthrow of the U.S regime. In the period between 1956 and 1971, the COINTELPRO program was designed by the FBI as an attempt to disrupt, expose, neutralize and discredit groups of people that were considered to be radical in the U.S. The actions made the governments receive criticism, especially from the civil right organizations. The agencies viewed the intrusion on the affairs of the groups that were being perceived to be radical by the government security agencies as acts that attempt to violate their freedom of association.

Maryland State Police was accused in 2008 of adding the names of the radical groups that were perceived to be allies of the Iraq War into the terrorist’s database. The police stated that they were suspecting that Iraq War aliases were infiltrating the meetings and rallies of the organization. Later, they confessed that no evidence linked the ”protest group” to any form of violent crimes that were being perpetrated by the Iraq terrorist groups. Therefore, the rise of radical rights of the security forces to prohibit groups of people especially in Muslims communities is posing threats to the rights of association.

However, there are the critics argues that there are instances where it is necessary to breach the freedom of associations that individuals enjoy to promote the security of the nation through investigations and to ban of the violent radical groups. For example, terror reports in the U.S Department of Security indicate that since declaration of the fight against terrorist activities after the 9/11, the security agencies such as the CIA has aborted several terror attempts by breaching the rights of association.

Migration Crisis

Populism includes the far-right and far-left beliefs. Populism is more than what supporters of a popular party believe as it involves the ideologies that the establishments are not supporting to the ordinary people and the need to be changed. The deep cynicism and resentments of the existing authorities are reflected in the populism. The cronyism and resentments can come from the multinationals corporations, large business, elected leaders, government officials, the arrogant and privileged wealthy individuals, scientific professionals and the intellectual elites.

In Europe, the populism embarked on blaming the immigrants on economic stagnation within the European Union members. The blaming led by political campaigns such as voting Brexit in Britain to stop the migration. In the entire European continent, the politicians and government officials have distanced themselves from the times of the perceived national ethnic division in their countries despite being responsible for the settlement of the immigrants and further advocated that they are there to stay. These European leaders have also stated severally on most international occasions such as the organization summits that the integrations of the immigrants in the society have been productive despite being undermined by the populism hostility. Therefore, the attempts of stopping migration into the European countries are undermining the rights of humans to seek refuge in territories that they deemed to be secure as outlined in the international bills of rights.

Further, the United Nation (UN) treaties on the protection of human rights state that no government is indebted to accept immigrants that knock its nation’s doors, but people seeking an asylum must be provided a fair hearing and if their claims are genuine, they can be accepted into the country as refugees. The international law also states that people should not be taken back to their countries where they are perceived to be tortured or persecuted forcefully. Moreover, immigrants have developed family ties or spend many years in a country should enjoy legal status of being in the state. Individual immigrants should not also be arbitrary detent and incise of deportation; the right legal procures must be followed. However, with the rise of the far-right in Europe there is a threats of violation of migrants’ rights by advocating for their return to their home countries.

In contrast to the appeals of the populists, the rights of the immigrants living lawfully in country’s territory should be upheld throughout, the same with the original people. The immigrants should also be protected from any form of discriminations, and they are entitled to policies protection and fairness within the justice system regardless of their legal status.

However, the radical rights has been used by the European politicians to develop hostile ideologies towards violations of the immigrant’s rights. The Hostility has been designed mostly against Muslims communities who fled from their home countries as refugees. The politicians have been are spreading propaganda that these communities want to replicate the suppression of the gays and lesbians, and women as they do in their home countries. Further, they have suggested that the application of bills of rights should be selective towards the immigrants, which in essence, it undermines the universality of the rights which should be enjoyed by the Muslims as well.

The appropriate response to the repressive ideologies against the immigrants should be rejected as they are the reason behind the fleeing of most immigrants from their home countries and all the society members should to respect the rights of other individuals regardless of circumstances. However, the opponents of the rise of radical rights possess challenges to the preservation of the human rights argues that the rights of one segment of the population should be rejected especially the Muslims for the rights of the indigenous communities to be protected.

Donald Trump’s Divisive Rhetoric

During the U.S presidential campaigns, politics of intolerance was vividly illustrated by the Donald Trump’s campaigns strategies. Sometimes Trump would explicitly use codes and indirections to communicate with many discontented Americans who are frustrated with the issues regarding an increased multicultural society and the economic stagnation. The reckless utterance would sometimes rupture the fundamentals values of dignity and equality of certain communities in the country. The politician who is the current U.S president would criticize refugees and judges with ancestry from Mexico, stereotyped migrants and mock disable journalists. The utterance can be considered to be against the rights of the individual to be protected from any form of discrimination.

Further, he dismissed multiple of sexual assault allegations against him and vowed to dismantle the rights of women to control their fertility. The comments from Trump can be taken as a suggestion of violating the rights of women against any form of sexual harassment. Dismantling the control of women over their fertility is against the laws that permit women to have rights over their bodies.

The rhetoric from Trump was accompanied with practical emptiness. His campaigns platform was largely built on world economy and striking trade deals with other countries that would bring huge benefit to the Americans. However, he falsely accused the undocumented immigrants as people who are to be blamed for the disappearance of the American jobs. In reality, the threatening of mass deportation of the migrants from the U.S territory would be less significant to revive the lost jobs from the manufacturing industries. Those were false accusations against the migrants.

Blaming undocumented migrants of the economic stagnation yet there is a continuous rise in job growth in the U.S is unfair as it violates their rights of being respected in the American Society. Further, the number of these migrants have not changed significantly in the recent years, and they are always willing and able to perform jobs that many U.S citizens disregard.

The plans of combating terrorism threats in the U.S using the Muslima by then the candidate Trump was compromised. The plans become counterproductive when the candidate demonized Muslim communities living in the U.S whose cooperation’s was critical for the fight against terrorism threats and Islamic radicalization of American youths. Demonizing the Muslim communities threaten the right of people who belong to Islamic regions from being respected in the society.

Further, Trump portrayed refugees to be security threats to the country despite being subjected thorough vetting process before being able to tour, learn or do business activities in the U.S. Moreover. Trump demonstrated the unwillingness to limit the overbroad security measures such as mass surveillance which has enormously invaded the privacy of people. He insisted on mass surveillance which has proven to be less effective as compared to the target surveillance that is under strict supervision from the judiciary. Therefore, the security measures such as the mass surveillance possess threats to the rights of privacy.

Trump also hinted the reintroduction of the torture in the interrogation processes in the criminal investigation agencies in the country during his campaigns. Various forms of torture that were being alluded by Trump such as waterboarding was introduced by the former president George W. Bush who termed them as ” enhanced interrogation technique,” which was meant to force the terrorist recruiters to provide insights regarding their violent operations. However, after winning the elections, Trump realized the ineffectiveness of torture after a wide consolations with the stakeholders who offer insufficient support because he concurrently declared the willingness to introduce torture if that is what the U.S citizens are seeking. His critics argued that Presumably Trump would be the privileged of that desire to reintroduce torture while ignoring bills of human rights and other treaties and that proscribe infliction of pain and brutality irrespective of the situation.

Russia Sanctions

The populist –fuelled passions is evident in Russia regime in Europe. There is a tendency of the strongman rule which inflicts dangers into the country’s society. For example, the critics of Putin have always argued that he has been responsible for the dwindling of the Russian economy. He and his associates have been presiding over massive corruption deals in the government and abroad. There are also failures to have an effective nation’s economic policies in place such as diversifications of the economic products where they can reduce overreliance on the oil production, which has price- decline vulnerabilities.

The fearful of that popular dissatisfaction has been evident on the streets of Moscow, and other major cities across the country as more civil rights societies are frequently protesting in an attempt to bring the government into accountability and transparency from the onset of 2011. The fear of the protest spreading has made Putin to sought vicious mechanisms of dealing with the protesters by introducing draconian laws and regulations which undermines the human rights such as the freedom of assembly and freedom expression. He further used his cronies to establish new unprecedented sanctions against the online dissention and also develop mechanisms of ensuring those civil societies groups that are against the injustices and lack of the accountability of the government are crippled by all means.

Further, the autocracy of the Putin has been encouraged by Kremlin, the person who also strengthens the deteriorating approval ratings of Russia. The support was aided by the mobilizing public nationalism in backing the occupation of Russia in Crimea, which caused the decline of the economy further after generated sanctions from the European Union (E.U). The act denied the citizens of Russia an opportunity to live a good life as stated in the bills of rights in that country, where each person deserve to live a decent life. However, some political analysts are supporting the move of the Russian authorities to occupy Crimea. The analysts are stating that it would bring an immense benefit to the country and Crimea as well.

Moreover, Putin has been allegedly accused by the other western countries such as the U.S and the U.K for supporting Assad to slaughter civilians in the Syria using Russian military forces. Support the kills of the civilians in Syria is a violation of the rights to life that should be mandatory for every person. Despite that the sanctions that were put on Russia was lifted, the critics have argued that the issue has been considered to be a political and their country is being secluded.

The skilled government propagandists in Russia such as Kremlin has been advocating for the need to counter the ”baseless” allegations from the western nations to weaken the superiority of their county. The aim of spreading those propagandas has been one of the attempts by the Russian regime to justify the increased economic crisis in the country. Nevertheless, as the deterioration of the country’s economy goes further, the Russian apologists are finding it difficult to continue selling the same message to the citizens who are feeling more oppressed by the performances of the state regime.

Conclusion

Human rights are in a serious threat from the rising radical right in North America and Europe. The strategy of the U.S targeting Muslim associations as potential terror groups and populism directing blames on the migrants for the failures of the economy possess threats to the right for respect and protection against false accusations in the society. Further, the irresponsible utterances of Donald Trump during the U.S presidential campaigns has a potential of eroding the fundamental rights that certain group of people in the American society. Moreover, the Russian regime is risking the rights of its people by indulging in illegal deals such as unlawful occupancy of Crimea which attracted sanctions from the U.N. Therefore, the increasing radical rights in both Europe and North America regions is potential for violation of human rights.

Bibliography

Mendelson, Sarah E., and Theodore P. Gerber. ”Us and them: Anti-American views of the Putin generation.“ Washington Quarterly 31, no. 2 (2008): 131-150.

Bannan, Natasha Lycia Ora. ”Building on 80 Years of Radical Lawyering in the Age of Trump.“ Nat’l Law. Guild Rev. 73 (2016): 189.

Rambe, Halimatun Husna. ”EXPERIENTIAL FUNCTION IN DONALD TRUMP’S SPEECH ABOUT RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM.“ PhD diss., UNIMED, 2017.

Kochenov, Dimitry. ”EU Citizenship and Withdrawals from the Union: How Inevitable Is the Radical Downgrading of Rights?“ Browser Download This Paper (2016).

Mudde, Cas. ”Three decades of populist radical right parties in Western Europe: So what?“ European Journal of Political Research 52, no. 1 (2013): 1-19.

Liang, Christina Schori, ed. Europe for the Europeans: The foreign and security policy of the populist radical right. Routledge, 2016.

Koopmans, Ruud, Ines Michalowski, and Stine Waibel. ”Citizenship rights for immigrants: National political processes and cross-national convergence in Western Europe, 1980–2008.” American Journal of Sociology 117, no. 4 (2012): 1202-1245.

Basok, Tanya. “Counter-hegemonic human rights discourses and migrant rights activism in the US and Canada.” International journal of comparative sociology 50, no. 2 (2009): 183-205.

Bhabha, Jacqueline. “Arendt’s Children: Do Today’s Migrant Children have a right to have rights?” Human Rights Quarterly 31, no. 2 (2009): 410-451.