Home

Search

Browse

About IPO

Staff

Links

Guest Column                   

Rights vs. 'rights' By THOMAS N. HINES

As of late, our Republic seems engulfed with controversies over the violation of various constituencies' "rights." The "rights" of women and the "rights" of men. The "rights" of children and the handicapped. The "rights" of animals, criminals, plants and gays. The self-proclaimed leaders of these groups scream for their "rights," each louder than the last (or is that simply the cacophony of their collective voices; the same groups supporting each other's causes?). Soon we will have demands for special "rights" for those few discriminated against by their ineligibility to any special interest group.

In today's politically correct climate, it seems that it is no longer acceptable to create an atmosphere of equality. Each and every special interest group desires — demands — an advantage over everyone else. This advantage is expected regardless of its fairness to others — especially if the "others" are the majority of Americans. It is also expected without any regard for its basis in constitutional law; the law of our land; the very document which guarantees the true Rights of the individual (including the individuals in each and every special interest group). According to University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein, "Too many people claim rights in which they demand others do something for them."

An ironic twist to this new activism is the way in which these groups trample on the constitutional Rights of their detractors, especially the right of free speech. Not a day goes by that those who decry special privilege are shouted down, branded as emotional "bigots," "racists," Nazis," "homophobes," etc.

In an interesting contrast, note the numerous and disturbing instances where environmental and animal "rights" activists have placed the "rights" of plants and animals over the Rights of human beings. Tree spiking and bombings by Earth First members. Stolen lab animals involved in testing possible cures for life-threatening human diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Most disturbingly, due to its potential threat to "civilians" uninvolved in these conflicts, are the recent firebombs planted in five downtown Chicago department stores by ALF, the radical Animal Liberation Front. Criminal and immoral activity propagated in the name of a misguided concept of elevating the "rights" of flora and fauna while devaluing the true Rights of people.

What has happened to the individual's Right, under the guidelines of constitutional law, to select without special interest condemnation, the personal choices which affect their daily lives? Witness the onslaught against those objecting to special laws for gays in Colorado or those putting their livelihoods above the unreasonable demands of environmentalists in the Pacific Northwest.

Make no mistake. I'm writing not about women, gays, health care, or any other sub-issue, but rather the much more critical issue of Rights vs. "rights." Each of us, as individuals, have the same Rights and responsibilities, but we should in no way be accorded special privilege, either as individuals or as groups. As stated so succinctly by the respected former White House aide William Crystal during a recent television interview, "Groups don't have Rights. Only individuals have Rights."

It's time we stop thinking of "rights" as something we can demand from our government, ever-changing at the whims and policies of those currently in power. The Declaration of Independence, the progenitor of the U.S. Constitution, makes that the true Rights of individuals are "unalienable" and are "endowed by (our) Creator" (not by government).

With our constitutions in place for the nation and this state, the dilution of the true Rights they guarantee to us as individuals must cease. Contends Professor Epstein, "You can't run a world that says that if a group is dissatisfied they are entitled to certain things. The world is filled with shortfalls."

The U.S. Constitution was specifically written to protect the individual against the vagaries of group emotion. Our Founding Fathers chose a Republic as our form of government for that very reason. The special interests need to realize that if "rights" can be transformed into Rights without the benefit of constitutional amendment, then they can just as easily be taken away again!

My guidepost for the opinions expressed here are firm roots as a Constitutionalist — one who believes, despite their flaws, that the U.S. and state constitutions should be honored as inviolate unless and until they are properly and legally amended. I say to the special interests, "Go for it! If you want legal change, amend the Constitution, but don't ignore it."

In the final analysis, the agenda of these groups is seldom about the "rights" of their supposed constituencies, but a much older and more base motive, the aggrandizement and perpetuation of their so-called leadership's power and influence.

Thomas N. Hines is a Schaumburg based entrepreneur. He is the founder, president and CEO of SeNet Corporation, a high-tech security information services and products company. Mr. Hines has long been active in local, state and national community affairs and public policy activities.

April 1994/Illinois Issues/11