Reminds me of Pastor Martin Niemöller;
"First the Nazis came…
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me —
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
It means, "My daddy's rich and I can make up my own rules."
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety":Benjamin Franklin
until every single citizen in this world is free from oppression, forced slavery, racism, discrimination, hate, prejudice, and kept from freely being able to express themselves or practice their religious beliefs without fear, all men, women, and children are not free, but prisoners to a world that cannot see all as one, but one as separate from the next.
An historic example of moral consideration actually a factor of politics.
This was the last sentence of the third paragraph of JFK's 1963 speech about Civil Rights.
Here's the URL to JFK's entire speech:
That is true. In an ideal world, both rights would be upheld. But it's impossible knowing that at some point, their spheres of practice will overlap. One would have to give way.