Understanding rights and freedoms
by Giuseppe Gori

     Conservatives at times accuse “social conservatives” of being “socialist” and advocating more government, based on the fact that we would introduce laws restricting abortion, pornography, poedophilia, homosexual marriage, euthanasia and other immoral behaviours. Their misunderstanding of our intentions is based on a false concept of rights and freedoms.

     For example, is it the role of government to pass a law restricting or forbidding abortion? Some people would call such a law “an interference of the Church in the affairs of the state”, but they are wrong.  The protection of human life is an essential role of government. As supporting evidence, current Libertarianism, which is thought to be on the far “right” of the political spectrum, advocates a very limited role of government, but includes the defense of life within that basic role.
Even the founder of libertarian thought, Frederic Bastiat, more than 150 years ago wrote: “Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.”

     The requirement of government to defend the most defenseless human beings, the unborn, the weak and the old, is part and parcel of an essential government and not an additional law introduced by a government subordinate to the demands of the Church. Any good government would agree with us on protecting the above three fundamental human rights.

     As the FCP principles affirm, every other human right derives from the above three.  Thus the same argument can be used to explain laws against immoral behaviours that are dangerous to people’s lives (such as drug use and trafficking, driving while intoxicated, promiscuous sexual behaviour, poedophelia, euthanasia, or even severe environmental pollution), laws protecting people from attacks to their integrity and freedom (such as restrictions against personal attacks or harassment, against child pornography or hard porn on public media, against racial or religious attacks, etc.) and laws protecting people’s property (such as laws against stealing, usury, against excessive taxation, requiring public accountability, etc.).

What freedom is

     All of the above can be summarized by saying that we must accept some restrictions on our freedoms for the purpose of defending our very basic freedom. Freedom cannot exist absolutely (unless you are the last man on Earth) without being limited in some circumstances by the freedom of others.  We agree with Christianity defining freedom as the “freedom to pursue virtue”, which is a limited and not an absolute concept of freedom. 

     For example, when the media publishes items offensive to one religion or another in the name of “freedom of expression”, the above concept would call them to a higher standard: To exercise responsibility by promoting the truth and improving human relations. St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that not all that is lawful is advantageous or constructive (i.e. you do not do something just because it is within the law), and that no man should give offense to other people of different races or religion.

     Humanist governments and judges, on the other hand, believe in the supremacy of human law (determined at best by majority opinion) and elevate to a “right”, any form of behaviour that people claim for self gratification, without realizing that such behaviours almost always hurt the perpetrators themselves and hurt others as well.

What a right is

     A right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. Fundamental human rights are “inalienable” and intrinsic in natural law.  For example, the right to freedom of movement, is a right we all can enjoy at the same time. My right to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to travel requires absolutely nothing from others and in no way diminishes anybody else’s rights.

     However, if we claimed, for example, a “right to subsidized or free travel” independently from whether a person can pay, this would impose an obligation on other taxpayers who, through the tax system, must be denied their right to what they own (their earnings).  In other words, when government privileges one person based on a false understanding of what they call “a right”, it takes away a right from others. The test for a human right is whether it adversely affects anyone, and if it does, then it cannot be a human right.

     Human rights and freedoms apply to individuals, not to groups. Anything that two or more people want to do together, can be regulated by natural law, human law, or by mutual agreement, but it is not a human right. For example, there is no right for two or more people to get married, but an individual has the freedom to get married⁽¹⁾. Being recognized as a married person or a married couple, is instead a privilege.

What a privilege is

     A privilege distinguishes someone in virtue of his/her/their acquired status, age, color, religion, sex or other criteria. It seems to be the opposite of a human right (which we would call unjust discrimination) but it does not contravene human rights, because the intent is not to exclude, but to include, or entrust someone with duties. 
For example, the Governor General has the privilege of reading the Throne Speech, people sixteen year old and above may have the privilege of driving, black students have the privilege of being eligible for a black scholarship fund, Catholics have the privilege of being eligible to be ordained as priests, young women have the privilege of joining the girl guides and policeman have many privileges above ordinary people.
People misuse the words “right” when they mean a “privilege”.  Privileges come with responsibilities. For example, marriage is a privilege, and it comes with many responsibilities towards the spouse and towards the children.

     On account of the wrong use of the word “right” for “privilege” (i.e. confusing privileges with fundamental human rights), we have seen abstruse court decisions, wrong government policies, shallow teachings in schools and unjustified demands from special interest groups.

     Governing is about leadership and wisdom, not political expediency and compromise. Once the leadership principles are clear, exceptional people will stand up to the challenge of representative democracy and champion the noblest virtues of the people, not their selfish interests.

_______

Note (1): This freedom comes with some restrictions: 1. This individual cannot be already married;  2. the other person must consent; 3. the other person must be of age; 4. the other person must be of the opposite sex, and 5. the other person cannot be a close relative, respectively to: 1. Avoid polygamy; 2. avoid sex slavery; 3. avoid poedophilia; 4. be able to procreate; 5 avoid incest and negative genetic consequences for the children.

...Top