These are dark times for those who care about human rights. Such people are members of the global elites so reviled by today's populist politicians. They believe in international norms and standards that contradict the current rage against the global. And they see something inherently good about the interdependence of peoples—a view that runs counter to the growing public sentiment for exclusive nationalism. Last week, the High-Level Working Group on the Health and Human Rights of Women, Children, and Adolescents convened for the first time in Geneva, under the leadership of Tarja Halonen (former President of Finland) and Hina Jilani (a distinguished lawyer and human rights activist from Pakistan, and a member of the Elders). For the past decade, the path of progress for women and children has been broadly positive. Their mortality has fallen. Coverage with essential life-saving medicines has increased. And Ban Ki-moon's signature Every Woman Every Child initiative garnered considerable political support (and billions of dollars in new money). Advocates entered the era of sustainable development full of hope that the application of human rights principles, laws, and instruments to the health needs of women, children, and adolescents could be their next transformational step. And then the political winds began to chill. Brexit and Britain's cruel new culture of xenophobia and isolationism. Trump and the renewed global gag, refugee and Muslim ban, and aggressive America-first diplomacy. Le Pen and her party's history of racism and fascism. Rights for women, children, and adolescents are especially vulnerable in this new era. The family takes priority. Women and children exist to serve the family, and the family is typically defined by men. And yet, “The family”, Jilani noted, “has become the biggest locus of violence”. The High-Level Working Group, established in 2016 at a moment of expectation, found itself meeting at a time of crisis, even chaos. The human rights community faces a stark choice. Should it fight as ruthlessly as its opponents and be uncompromising in its advocacy? Or should it recognise that the coming years are going to be arid times and modify its language to accommodate a new reality? The case for accommodation was strongly made. Instead of provoking opponents, the human rights community should focus on safeguarding its achievements. It should strive to keep its nervous partners on side. It should not turn potential friends away by demanding the unattainable. It should be “smart”. It shouldn't antagonise. It shouldn't please itself. It had to be tactical. Others took a different view. They emphasised the urgent importance of drawing attention to the lived experiences of women, children, and young people, of underlining the epidemic of violence against women, of highlighting the seriousness of assaults on the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women (including safe abortion), and of refusing to accept a watered down minimum set of rights. They called for naming and shaming nations that failed to live up to their commitments. They sought a “rallying call” from the Working Group, one that demanded the “thought leadership of the world” to resist and respond to prevailing trends. Those who take human rights seriously now find themselves engaged in a war. As Flavia Bustreo, the Assistant Director-General of WHO, stated, we are living in a “different moment”, “entering a world that has seen dramatic changes.” It is a war against a political turn that has put the enemies of human rights into positions of great power. Kate Gilmore, the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, explained how she faces a persistent “campaign of resistance” from countries that organise, galvanise, and obstruct efforts to strengthen the protection and promotion of human rights. The “intimacy of the toxicity” towards individuals—by which she meant the personalisation of attacks by member states—was a “machine” to undermine human rights. Her conclusion was that the health and human rights community had to get over its shock at recent events and start to “resist the tide of hate”. She reminded her audience that change can be sudden, “it can be vulgar and it can be very, very severe”. The conclusion of the meeting seemed to be that now was a moment when human rights activists had to take risks to defend their values, or else those values were little short of meaningless. President Halonen put it succinctly—“Why are some issues dangerous?”, she asked. “Because they are important.” The war has begun.