That's meaningless. 'Rights' are a legal concept. They exist in law, nowhere else. You cannot just assert that they 'exist'. Where do they exist? Where are

That's meaningless. 'Rights' are a legal concept. They exist in law, nowhere else. You cannot just assert that they 'exist'. Where do they exist? Where are they enumerated? Who decides what is and isn't a 'right'? If I say I have a right, is that determinative? Is it based on what people thought in the 18th century, or what we think today? Much of what we think today is influenced by how people have interpreted those documents, so basing it on people's views today means it's essentially circular. People assert they have all sorts of rights all the time. Most of them conflict with other rights that other people assert exist, and even other rights that they themselves assert exist. What do we do about this? I actually think 'rights' legislation is pretty stupid. It's a lot easier to write an Act that says 'Every one has the right to a free, public and comprehensive secular education' than it is to write an Act that provides a free, public and comprehensive secular education system. The latter requires sorting out what all of those things actually mean in practice. What level of education do you provide for free? What level of choice do people have about their children's education, vs the view that as a society we should protect children from the 'bad' decisions of their parents? That also means protecting them from their parents' good decisions. Are we okay with that? What does it mean for education to be secular. Are they allowed to learn about religion? Are they allowed to close the school at lunchtime and teach religion in the afternoon, unofficially, as often happens? Concrete systems are much more important and much more effective than any abstract statement of 'rights'.