[This is an invited guest post from Sanne van Oosten, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Oxford—ES]
Donald Trump once again shifted the attention back to himself after weeks of 'Kamalamania.' While it might seem tempting to dismiss this as a silly burst of attention-seeking behaviour, promoting animal rights, particularly for pets, is actually a typical feature of far-right nationalism (of course not limited to it). This tactic is used to claim the moral high ground over supposedly 'backward' immigrants. Here I explain how far-right parties and politicians promote nationalist ideas whilst maintaining a veneer of civility—because, after all, 'truly civil' people take good care of their pets. I call this phenomenon Animeauxnationalism: the instrumental use of animal rights in order to discredit cultural others.
Backlund and Jungar (2022) examine how animal advocacy is incorporated into the ideological framework of radical right parties, dating back to the nineties, focusing on the Sweden Democrats (hereafter: SD). The SD claims that immigrants are more likely to be cruel to animals, tying animal mistreatment to their anti-immigration stance. They argue that respect for animals reflects cultural and racial differences, citing practices like halal slaughter as examples of cruelty (p. 9). The SD's animal advocacy is paternalistic, asserting that animals should be protected not because they are equal to humans, but because they depend on humans (p. 10). This approach sets them apart from egalitarian animal rights movements, who are more likely to claim that animals should be free from dependency on us. Rather, the radical right asserts that dependency on humans is the basis of our human obligation to take good care of them, in an effort to create a more distinct boundary between cultures in which it is normal to keep pets (‘ours’) and cultures in which it is not (‘others’). In the Netherlands, we see this echoed by Geert Wilder’s regular posts of pictures with him and his pets online, as well as an item the Dutch children’s news in which they interviewed Geert Wilders while he is cuddling with kittens. ‘We’ have pets, ‘they’ do not. They only see animals as food.
Similarly, radical right parties have framed themselves as protectors of women’s rights in the last decades, particularly in opposition to Muslim immigrants, whose cultures are depicted as inherently misogynistic (Backlund & Jungar, 2022, p. 3). This framing positions Western civilisation as progressive and feminist, in contrast to a supposed foreign illiberalism. The concept of femonationalism, coined by Farris (2017), examines how political actors instrumentalise gender equality to justify exclusionary practices in the context of immigration, but also to justify war. For example, Western intervention in Afghanistan post-9/11 was partly justified by the narrative of rescuing Muslim women from oppressive regimes (Farris, 2017). Veiling, genital mutilation, and sexual violence have been applied to this rhetoric, reinforcing anti-Muslim sentiments by equating Muslim cultures with sexism (Frey, 2020; Korteweg & Yurdakul, 2021; Yurdakul & Korteweg, 2021). The strategic use of gender equality to garner support for anti-immigrant policies blurs the line between supporting women’s rights and endorsing xenophobia (Rahbari, 2021).
Homonationalism, a term introduced by Puar (2013), highlights how LGBTQ+ rights are similarly weaponised to support exclusionary ideologies, particularly Islamophobia. Politicians in the Netherlands and France, such as Pim Fortuyn and Marine Le Pen, have leveraged the perceived homophobia of Muslim immigrants to contrast Western liberalism with foreign backwardness (Puar, 2013; Backlund & Jungar, 2022, p. 3). This narrative positions gay rights as a hallmark of ‘civilised’ Western societies while presenting Muslim-majority cultures as inherently homophobic. By invoking LGBTQ+ rights, homonationalist rhetoric reduces the stigma of opposing immigration and facilitates everyday discrimination against cultural newcomers, in a similar vein as is done with materialist rhetoric about immigrants “stealing” jobs, houses and social security (Creighton, 2023). In the Netherlands, this discourse gained prominence in the early 2000s following the legalisation of same-sex marriage, aligning progressive values with anti-Muslim sentiment (Mepschen & Duyvendak, 2012; Bracke, 2010). More recently, this narrative has expanded across Europe and North America as part of broader civilisationist discourses that juxtapose Western values of equality with non-Western intolerance (Turnbull-Dugarte & Lopez, 2023; van Oosten, 2022).
I coined the term Judeonationalism (van Oosten, 2024b), to refer to the instrumentalisation of antisemitism to discredit Muslims, mirroring other exclusionary strategies such as femonationalism and homonationalism. Political actors invoke antisemitic narratives to present themselves as defenders of Jews while simultaneously framing Muslims as antagonists. This strategy, particularly evident in discussions around the Israel-Palestine conflict, uses accusations of antisemitism to stifle debate and discredit Muslim voices (van Oosten, 2024a). While antisemitism is rising globally, especially in the wake of the 7 October attacks in Israel, its instrumentalisation often serves to obscure genuine concerns about Jewish safety and instead justify anti-Muslim prejudice. This tactic is further supported by research showing that, on average, Muslims in Western countries are more likely than Christians to hold antisemitic views, which fuels existing prejudices (van Oosten, 2024c). However, the question remains whether political leaders’ denunciations of antisemitism are genuine or a means to further Islamophobic agendas, a pattern seen in broader civilisationist rhetoric that pits Western tolerance against supposed non-Western intolerance.
What makes femo-, homo- and Judeonationalism so appealing? Chantal Mouffe's concept of the democratic paradox offers a lens for understanding the appeal of exclusionary ideologies such as femonationalism, homonationalism, and Judeonationalism. According to Mouffe (2000, 2005), liberal democracy is defined by an inherent tension between its liberal principles of universal equality and its democratic principles of defining a demos—an exclusive group that determines who belongs and who does not. This dynamic is central to the instrumentalisation of values like gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and opposition to antisemitism in order to justify the exclusion of certain groups, particularly Muslims.
Femonationalism and homonationalism exploit liberal values, using gender equality and gay rights as a litmus test for inclusion in the demos. By framing Muslims as inherently sexist, homophobic or antisemitic, political actors reinforce the notion that only those who adhere to liberal values can truly belong, thus excluding Muslims from the demos (Farris, 2017; Puar, 2013; van Oosten, 2024abc). This exclusionary use of equality to define the boundaries of the demos illustrates the conflictual nature of politics that Mouffe emphasises; the principle of equality is weaponised to enforce inequality. Values that are ostensibly inclusionary—such as gender equality, gay rights, and opposition to antisemitism—are selectively applied to justify exclusion. This focus aligns with Mouffe’s (2000) view of politics as a site of struggle, where the clash between inclusivity and exclusivity defines the boundaries of the political community. Understanding this dynamic is essential to uncovering how discrimination is legitimised through the instrumentalisation of progressive values.
What Trump is doing with animals is similar, yet different. Human rights, and animal rights, as part of Mouffe’s conception of liberal democracy, are still being used to exclude some from the demos. Indeed, animal rights are invoked to shape the boundaries of the demos, serving as a moral benchmark to distinguish between those who belong and those who do not. The instrumentalisation of animal rights parallels the way femonationalism, homonationalism, and Judeonationalism utilise equality and human rights to exclude Muslims, immigrants and cultural others. Enter: Animeauxnationanlism. Pointing towards maltreatment of animals, particularly pets paints a bright boundary between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ an inherent tenet of political conflict according to Mouffe. We, civilised Westerners, have pets, they do not. They, cultural others, only see animals as food. This isn’t the first time we see the plight of pets being used to discredit cultural others, and it will not be the last.
Comments