Cian Murphy: Human Rights in the Time of Trump – The Need for Political Love

17 November 2016 by


The election of Donald Trump as the next US President has shaken our faith in democracy and is a serious blow to the cause of human rights in the US and around the world. President-elect Trump’s campaign was a repudiation of the political and social progress made under his predecessor. It was an explicit threat to those who are vulnerable – whether because of their religion, race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, or physical abilities. Trump’s election, an ‘American tragedy’, comes at the end of a year in which the values that are said to underpin civic society in the US and Europe have come under significant threat.

When President-elect Trump’s inauguration takes place early next year he will seek to set the tone in the Western hemisphere, and across the globe, for the rest of this decade. It is clear, even before we address specific policies or world-views, that we will miss the grace and poise of President Obama. These are qualities that President-elect Trump revels to reject. We are unlikely to hear an affirmation of rights such as that President Obama made with the alliterative triad of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall.

What then, for human rights, in the time of Trump? Last week’s remarks from President Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton were reminiscent of those of Edward Kennedy over thirty years ago. Kennedy spoke to the Democratic Convention after an unsuccessful campaign. In closing he said that “for all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die”. At the core of this philosophy was the idea which lies at the heart of human rights: a commitment to the equality of esteem of human beings.

The commitment is under threat today. To those who are vulnerable in America – and around the world – this has been perhaps the darkest moment in a dark year. It is a year in which it is difficult, as Yeats wrote, to hold in a single thought reality and justice. The temptation is to fire off a hundred-and-forty-character riposte, to turn inwards, to close off. But such reflexes do not exercise our intellectual and emotional muscles – they cause them to atrophy. And such muscles are essential to the necessary response to the Trump presidency.

For, vital to the work of human rights in the next decade will be the cultivation of political emotions. In 2008 Barack Obama made hope the watchword of his presidential campaign. In 2016, it is fear and anger, even rage, that is to the fore. There has been the fear and anger of Trump supporters. In the face of twenty-first century uncertainty they have held culpable the political system itself – but also those who, under that political system, suffer the greatest disempowerment.

And now, in response, there is the fear and anger of those for whom four years under President Trump could be four years of the loss of hard-won rights, of the evisceration of public welfare, even of their incarceration, deportation, or execution. This fear and anger arises in a country wherein progressive Democratic candidates have won the popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections but have seen only one of four nominees win the office (albeit he did so twice). In a country whose leadership swings – from George W. Bush to Barack Obama and then to Donald Trump – the fear and anger of progressives is understandable and even necessary.

Such fear and anger does have its uses. It can drive both demonstrations and litigation. But it is unlikely to be enough. It stokes further fears and further anger. And it consumes the fearful and the angry. What the cause of human rights needs most of all in this moment is not just the furious energy of angry activism – but the ferocious power of political love. Political love, as Martha Nussbaum has written, was important to both Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King. It is also to be found, I venture, in the words of Harvey Milk and President Obama.

Political love, and its public expression in empathy and compassion, is what is necessary today. A call for empathy and compassion is not a call to accept abuse, bigotry, callousness, or discrimination. Any language or behaviour, and of course any policies, to such effect should be subject to vociferous opposition. The marches across America last week are such opposition. The ACLU’s bold website banner, See You In Court, is the promise of more. But the response to President-elect Trump’s dehumanisation of the vulnerable cannot only be in claims for the protection of human rights as a matter of law.

Because the fight for human rights is a good one not just because of what is fought for but because of why we fight – and how. It is vital to remember the commitment to equality of esteem that lies at the core of the ideal. It is a struggle to do so, a struggle that cannot be overcome in its entirety, but it is in the struggle itself that the victory lies. The struggle tempers our ferocity not with timidity but with a certainty that there is no ‘Us v Them’. Rather there are infinite varieties, as Milk put it, of ‘Uses’.

We need to embrace that certainty today. The twenty-first century has been, thus far, a century of uncertainty. The uncertainty has shocked national institutions and coincides with an erosion of international institutions. Those institutions, and their commitment to multi-lateralism, are necessary for the work of human rights. They are key forums for the response to the challenges we all face. They are spaces in which the ‘Uses’ can come together. And they are in trouble.

The solutions are not obvious or easy. And yet there is much we can all do. Human rights begin, as another New Yorker put it, in small places. They begin in homes and neighbourhoods, in schools and workplaces, in clubs and communities. This is where, Eleanor Roosevelt said, we can all act. She was right. The most resolute rejection of Trumpish divisiveness is a commitment to solidarity – a mentality of empathy and compassion – in short: a declaration of political love.

Cian C. Murphy is senior lecturer in public international law at Bristol Law School and tweets @cianmurf


  1. Casual Intruder says:

    “The election of Donald Trump as the next US President has shaken our faith in democracy”

    This is the forlorn cry of the liberal left elite who are not the least bit interested in democracy should it impinge on their world view and order of priorities.

    The people of the US voted and they chose Trump, which seems to have sent the liberal establishment, who garner their news from the BBC and Guardian, into some kind of hyperbolic hysteria.

    The UKHRB usually has some insightful pieces, but this I’m afraid is just emotional drivel.

  2. Some interesting perspectives in all of the above, but let’s not forget that Trump did not force anyone to vote for him, the electorate chose to vote for him instead of Hillary or any of the independents. There’s no need for this type of apprehension, Trump will be fine as a President and his record on human rights will not be any worse than previous Presidents or other G20 leaders.

  3. Barbara S says:

    this is only one small voice and not an attempt at any systemic insight. What saddens me here is the impression that barristers behind UHRB don’t ever seem to be far away from aiming for big successful business. (read: lucrative cases) to be credible. I long to be disproved.

    1. Fascinating to know why, with such a variety of posts expressing different opinions on different subjects, you feel able to infer this. That said, delighted you are reading us.

  4. unakroll says:

    Excellent article and will act on it. Una Kroll in England

  5. Miro says:

    I fully disagree with your comment. It is totally unbalanced and superficial. You should really check the statistics in terms of social and racial composition of voter attitude in these elections. It would be grotesque to argue that human rights would be championed and developed further by Hillary Clinton after well know disasters and crimes committed against civilians in more than 10 countries under the current administration. No need also to remind the readership of Albright’s statement that “500.000 child deaths in Iraq was a price worth paying”; she was forced to withdraw this monstrous statement but it can still be accessed on YouTube. The woman was Foreign Secretary under Hillary’s husband’s presidency. The president elect has indeed said many unacceptable things, but governing a country is very much different from campaigning. In terms of international peace and security he said he would pursue “cooperation rather than hostility and confrontation”. Anything wrong with this? The president elect has probably realised that the UN Security Council was more or less completely paralysed by constant disagreement and confrontation between the two major powers in the last 27 years and any change in that respect should at least be given a chance I would suggest.
    Finally, the bit that “the election of Donald Trump as the next US President shaken our faith in democracy and is a serious blow to the cause of human rights in the US and around the world” I also find puzzling; on what grounds would we question other peoples’ right to freely choose their president at a democratic elections?!

    1. Barbara S says:

      while I agree with some of the critical questions and the suggestions that it is at least naive to state a faith in Human Rights being shaken’, I don’t see how the election be described as democratic -?

  6. Good old Donald Trump ! He and Nigel Farage have both given the political establishment a hard kicking just where and when it was needed ! What a great performance from both !
    Critics should read what they actually say in context rather than draw rash conclusions in anticipation of what they may or may not do in the future .
    No coincidence that trump passed an hour with Farage before even considering arranging meetings in order to listen to the tired jargon spouted by most of the stale politicians who rule most of Europe and N.America today.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: