A right is not a gift

A right is not a gift

December 27, 2001

'Smatter Of Fact
By Katharhynn Heidelberg

We’ve all heard of inalienable rights, but apparently, the number of people who actually understand what "inalienable" means has drastically declined.

Inalienable, an adjective, is defined as "that may not be taken away or transferred." Note that "transfer" is defined as "to make over or convey to another."

An inalienable right, therefore, may not be taken away; even though it may be ignored, repressed or disavowed, it is still there. An inalienable right may not be made over or conveyed from one entity to another — logically speaking, both entities are already in possession of it.

This is why I get nervous when I hear mention made of the rights the Constitution "gives" us, or the "gift" of civil liberties that the government has bestowed upon our fortunate heads.

Today, the world is filled with repressive governments that refuse to acknowledge the rights their citizens hold by virtue of being human. Other governments recognize only some rights, or use their power to abuse freedom, rather than to protect it.

The U.S. government has historically upheld and defended our inalienable rights — through the blood, sweat and tears of ordinary men and women. I do not deny that those who have died to protect our rights are heroes. But, while they protected those rights, they did not give them to us.

The American colonies couldn’t get the government of the time to recognize their rights, and so, expelled it. These victors hated a wasted effort, and ultimately, the Constitution was created. This document, far from giving rights, defined and enshrined them on paper.

True, it does not say "these rights are inalienable" — but it doesn’t have to. Rights are rights, with or without the Consti-tution. Alex-ander Hamil-ton put it most eloquently: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

Even John Ashcroft, while attempting to justify plans that would give the FBI a broader range of spying powers over religious organizations, mentioned protecting, not rights "given," but "rights enshrined there (the Constitution)."

The distinction between rights and gifts can be regarded as a petty semantic quibble — but only for so long as a government chooses to acknowledge and defend the inalienable rights of its citizens. The Taliban did not do so in the case of Afghanistan, yet the Afghanis’ belief in these rights remained firm. Otherwise, they would have hardly resented their government’s systematic abuses in the first place.

Our federal government is a far cry from the Taliban, but only for as long as we remain eternally vigilant. Part of that vigilance is remembering the difference between a right and a gift.

Perhaps the current confusion on this point is because things like the PATRIOT Act, military tribunals and the proposed increased surveillance of religious and political groups haven’t hit home. It’s only (so far as we’ve been told) certain foreigners who are facing tribunals; it isn’t our cousin from, say, Montreal. It’s only suspected terrorists who might have their e-mail monitored, not our Uncle Joe, who simply doesn’t like the government and dares to be vocal about it. It’s distant mosques that might be subjected to an increasingly paranoid government’s "spy games," not our churches.

But it could be. The more inclined we are to view inalienable rights as gifts, graciously accorded us by governments or heroes, the more likely it becomes. A gift, after all, can be taken away. A right, while it can be ignored, trampled, ridiculed or manipulated, cannot. He who receives a gift is beholden to him who gave it. He who possesses rights (and that’s everyone) is beholden to none save Providence.