'Rights' come in all shapes and sizes, ancient and modern, from civil to gay, to trans, including “my” right” and many more. Most are genuine searches to remedy a grievance, others relatively trivial, and like beauty, often lie in the eyes of the beholder.
Where do our "rights" come from is an important question? What are they? Do they come as graciously bestowed gifts from governments irrespective of any political colour, or from international organisations such as the UN Human Rights Commission or any other unelected body?
These basic questions have engaged the minds of philosophers, theorists and law makers from earliest times up to the present. It is a huge subject with all sorts of implications for individual lives, large or small nations and communities. We can only touch on a few aspects of this perennial subject of interest, and I don't pretend to be an expert!
Discussions about 'rights' down the ages can be compared to a vast river flowing through human history, sometimes placid and serene disturbing nothing, other times like a raging torrent uprooting all traditional and once accepted concepts in its path, with myriads of minor streams and tributaries, and swamps, all to be faced and negotiated.
Frequently we hear today in multiple contexts to justify a belief or course of action the familiar phrase - 'It's my right', often uttered unconscious of precedent, or of definition, but only a mere assertion.
How do we even begin to define "rights" let alone any distinction between competing claims of say, the perceived right of the individual as opposed to that of a government power, or that same individual or small protest group against powerful corporate commercial interests? How is it that human beings have any rights?
Who, if any, have assumed rights over God given natural resources such as land, water, forests, air etc.? Huge and largely unanswered questions continue to arise in these areas, both theoretical and practical as to who owns the rights concerned. Who is qualified to make decisions is not always clear.
What about property rights? It was to Scripture that appeal was made on this question by Christian thinkers and the Bible takes private property rights for granted, condemning infringements such as theft or fraud. Augustine concluded that possession of private property was a human right
RIGHTS: SOME EXAMPLES FROM HISTORY.
The concept of rights has a long history as men sought to explore their own self-consciousness, identity, and duties in relation to authorities and both Plato and Aristotle wrestled with the associated ideas of freedom and justice.
In England the issue of the common man's rights, as opposed to that of a claim to the divine right of the king, came to a dramatic head with the confrontation between English barons and King John, which found expression in the famed Magna Carta and Common Law in 1215.
But long before that it, was the English Christian King Alfred The Great, through his famous Law Code based on the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments, who sought to establish biblical moral principles which we would now call 'rights', that came to be established as the Common Law and was later confirmed by the Magna Carta.
It is probably right to say that it was this milestone of Magna Carta and Common Law which gave rise to the idea of the supremacy of law and certain basic freedoms for the ordinary citizen and came to be recognised and known as 'the rule of law', always to be a bulwark against arbitrary tyrannical governments in Britain.
One of its most important clauses (39) has a familiar distinctive and contemporary ring, given the rise of many political prisoners incarcerated by this administration in the UK for nothing more than legitimate protest or expressing a view on social media. These victims appear have no rights at all, let alone that of free speech.
The clause reads: “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor shall we go or send against him, save by the lawful judgement of his peers and/or by the law of the land”.
Another clause: 'The English church shall be free’ and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired'. Here then were two examples of basic human rights to be entrenched permanently into law. Even today these remain as existing law and are therefore well-established rights in the UK, notwithstanding unlawful current government policies of repression.
Neither of these give the present government, police, or courts licence to harass Christian Bible preachers in the public square, a long held legal right, so fulfilling the Christian ‘Great Commission' to teach and preach the Word of God.
Throughout English history there is a long line of constitutional reformers and thinkers all of whom sought in different ways to define, refine and seek public approval for their theories and to establish them as settled principles through their essays, tracts and books.
We think of William Blackstone and his famed Commentaries on the Constitution, or jurist Edward Coke, the poet John Milton's 'Areopagitica' (on Freedom of the press), philosopher Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan); J.S. Mill’s Essay on Liberty), John Locke (of Civil Government) among others.
Further advance came with the classic work by Thomas Paine, an English philosopher, who in 1791 wrote his 'Rights of Man' a formal exploratory treatise on the subject. He was of a reactionary turn of mind as he fully supported the French Revolution and wrote some 31 articles positing the view that political revolution is permitted when a government does not safeguard the natural rights of people. Sound familiar?
If Paine's work popularised the concept of ‘rights', then the earlier advent of the American Revolution and Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence of 1776 had already paved the way for a radically new understanding of rights as being the guarantor of freedom. Space forbids any consideration of the massive advance in human rights afforded by this Declaration and particularly the famous First Amendment clause:
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”.
Sufficient only to note two points here. First, that this was squarely based upon the foundation of English Common Law and Bill of Rights of 1689. Second, as one contemporary writer has noted – 'These rights existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution. This is no minor point. The Constitution does not give rights to the citizens – it merely pledges to secure them and not interfere with them.'
RIGHTS: WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?
To return to our question. Many modern commentators appear to tip-toe around this all-important issue, avoiding the further question, namely, whether these are of human origin, bestowed by governments and international organisations such as the UN, the WEF among others, or whether human rights stem ultimately from God. Put another way – surely there must be a power or authority higher than that of men and governments, higher than mere human reasoning which must provide answers?
The difference lies between two incompatible and mutually exclusive positions. Either a secular and largely commonplace world view, or that of a Christian one. The former was expressed in an interesting recent discussion between Ben Rubin of UK Column New and Will Keyte on constitutional matters:
I have great respect for Will's knowledge on our Constitution, but dissent from his view that our rights come from “nature” or the “natural order”, or from such nebulous concepts as the “laws and dynamics of the universe”. Interestingly and by way of departure from such a view, both Thomas Paine, who was a Deist but not a Christian, and later Christian thinkers on the subject, agree that our rights are God given in origin: Paine stated:
“If we proceed on, we shall at last come out right; we shall come to the time when man came from the hand of his Maker. What was he then? Man. Man was his high and only title, and a higher cannot be given him”.
(The Rights of Man).
John Stott, Christian teacher and pastor put the Christian position well:
“The tragedy is that 'human rights' have not always meant equal rights'.
The conflict of rights regularly envisaged in the Bible, however, takes a rather different form. Its emphasis is that no powerful individual may impose his will on the community, and that no community may violate the rights of an individual or a minority. The weak and vulnerable were carefully protected by the Mosaic law. Far from exploiting them, God's people were to be the voice of the voiceless and the champion of the powerless, including their enemies” (Issues facing Christians Today)
If we dismiss all such discussion as merely theoretical, we should think again, if only for one reason. Namely, that the 'rights' issue never goes away and keeps recurring in any number of public debates to do with basic ideas about freedom in just about every generation and universally.
RIGHTS: – SOME CONTEMPORARY ISSUES.
For example, there is the issue of the hugely contentious weekly influx of unwanted mass uncontrolled migration into the UK when the Ministry of Justice (sic) recently confirmed an increase in legal aid for immigrants contesting their right to remain in the UK.
Incidentally, we may ask how long before that 'right' is established via an arbitrary decision by government, with the next move to grant these permanent residence via an amnesty? Does not the indigenous population have the prior right to decide the outcome on this?
Again, the government is considering forcing the entire UK population on to a mandatory digital ID scheme called 'BritCard' and similarly to introduce digital centralised banking for all. Do they have the right to impose this if the electorate refuse their consent?
What about geo-engineering of the skies? Does a government have a right to experimentally pollute the skies above our native land without permission from an electorate and a clear mandate?
Does a Christian, or indeed anybody else, have a God given right for freedom of movement in his/her own country? For such to publicly or privately pray in or near an abortion clinic. Does the government have a right to pry into a person's private thoughts or prayers and criminalise these? Clearly not!
Does our government, or any other, have a right to monitor private conversations whether via social media or other platforms in order to censor free speech and expression in any form as is current practice?
Or to go a step further to engage in the surveillance of its citizens?
Does the unelected and largely unaccountable body such as the World Health Organisation have a right to declare mandatory vaccinations for any pandemic real or imagined? The arrogant claims made by the WHO are a direct attack upon the inalienable right of personal bodily autonomy.
RIGHTS – A CHRISTIAN POSITION.
Christian apologist and writer Frank Turek makes the point that 'atheists are caught in a dilemma in reference to rights. If God does not exist then objective moral rights don't exist either, including all those that atheists support (such as gay rights, same sex marriage, trans-gender ideology and abortion). But those rights don't include cutting up babies in the womb, same-sex marriage and other invented absolutes contrary to every major religion and the “self-evident” natural law'. . . . . But who says these are rights? they are not much more than your subjective preferences. 'You don't have to appeal to God to write laws, but you do have to appeal to God if you want to ground them in anything other than human opinion. Otherwise, your “rights” are mere preferences that can be voted out of existence at the ballot box, or at the whim of an active judge or dictator'
(Stealing From God)
God alone is Creator and Lawgiver (James 4:12). Therefore, no human government can create true rights; it can only recognise or violate what God has decreed. It is for this reason that the great U.S.A Declaration of Independence rightly refers to “inalienable rights” - i.e. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The insertion into the Declaration of the inalienable concept was no accident but deliberate to convey the idea that rights must be independent of government interference, manipulation, or removal. Thus, one definition:
'The concept of inalienable rights is central to legal and philosophical discussions, emphasising certain rights inherent to human beings that cannot be surrendered or transferred. These rights are deemed essential for ensuring individual dignity and freedom' and. . . . .inalienable rights stand apart from other protected rights due their inherent non-transferable nature, and. . . . .Judicial enforcement of these rights is a critical mechanism for their protection' ( see - legalclarity.org January 2025)
The reference to our rights being non-transferable is important because governments constantly seek to effect a reversal of this principle, which is why we have a tranche of so called “hate speech” laws, and a 'Human Rights Act'. By such legislation governments are in effect transferring our inalienable rights to those of the State. But as one Christian writer responds:
'Briefly, morality is about right and wrong, and all laws declare in a legal sense one behaviour right and the opposite behaviour wrong. So the question is not whether we can legislate morality, but “Whose morality will we legislate”?
Directly applicable to these concepts is an interesting article by jurist and historian Robert Tombs (Daily Telegraph 14th July 2025), significantly entitled: 'Britain used to torture people for thought crimes. Now mob rule is taking us back in time'. Tombs writes with his characteristic clarity of thought and perception of the principles in view here, and this is highly recommended to readers. He closes: 'An indispensable first step must surely be to protect freedom of speech so that error and falsehood can at least be contested without risking dismissal or ostracism. England should be a country where “what is not forbidden is protected”
To summarise: 'All human rights are at base the right to be human and so to enjoy the dignity of having uniquely to be created in God's image.' A true understanding of rights cannot be divorced therefore from belief in God the Giver of all.
In conclusion we can list these once familiar rights as, first and foremost, the right to life itself and the basis of all others. Then the right to freedom of speech; of religion; of conscience; freedom of movement; and freedom of association. These are all essential elements of our historic Common Law.
Where these rights are commonplace and well established, as generally they once were, then peace, freedom and prosperity naturally follow. Where they are denied or removed by corrupt governments then tyranny is inevitable as we are now finding out.