Rights are GIVEN and not TAKEN.    Whenever RIGHTS are demanded, expected or quoted they are usually not deserved and are abused in the taking. Rights can be requested but ALWAYS with the understanding that those rights could be refused or not granted.

When you are driving and you are passing a STOP street on your left side you have the-right-of-way and nearly always take-it-for-granted that a car approaching on that road to the left will stop when they get to the STOP sign. Note that by taking-it-for-granted you are expecting your rights to be respected. However if the driver on your left does not grant you this right and does not STOP then you will be involved in an accident ( or wreck is the preferred term in America. ) As is the case in the majority of accidents this was the combination of two errors. Error 1 was that the other driver did not STOP at the stop sign BUT error 2 was the fact that driver one took their RIGHT for granted and expected it to be respected. If the other driver had NOT expected his right to be respected, had placed more attention on the driver approaching the STOP sign, had taken his foot off the accelerator and hovered it over the break and had done some calculations in his head which would have led him to take avoiding action THEN the accident would have been avoided.

What is the moral of this story? If driver one had not taken-his-rights-for-granted there would not have been an accident. In driving terms this is referred to as driving defensively (as we all SHOULD DO all the time ) but is also a real situation where RIGHTS have been expected. Rights are granted (or not granted as in the case of the other driver) and cannot be taken.

RIGHTS in regard to The CODE are most seriously abused when it comes to younger people. Teenagers quote their RIGHTS at every available opportunity as a means to satisfying their immediate GREED and/or lack of RESPONSIBILITY. This frightening aspect of youthful behavior was severely exacerbated by the works of Dr Zeus, who fortunately realized the error of his ways but rather too late, and the horribly misinterpreted Convention on the Rights of the Child by the United Nations which was created with the purpose of protecting children from abuse. Children do have their rights but they must be applied in terms of The CODE. This establishes a very clear boundary as to what RIGHTS should be granted to children and what RIGHTS they should hope-for but NOT take-for-granted. If what they are demanding is not showing RESPECT and/or not being RESPONSIBLE then that RIGHT does not exist.

This establishes that The CODE can be applied to any situation from both sides, in the case of a situation and/or by both parties, in the case of a personality clash.

The CODE, and RIGHTS in particular, has a very significant outcome when applied to litigation. Litigation has become one of the most stupid and illogical aspects of the Law. Mainly because it is so profitable to the lawyers and to the those plaintiffs who can create a situation of what-about-my-rights. If Judges applied The CODE to many of the litigation cases they would be thrown out of court. In fact based on The CODE many of the plaintiffs ( who are usually encouraged to litigate by lawyers who have been able to find “technical loopholes” or use semantics to twist LAWS to their advantage ) could be charged with public mischief if not perjury. Genuine litigation claims do exist but most of these genuine claims are thwarted by the application of MONEY to the legal system. Most of the inappropriate litigation cases are the ones that are successful and these would never get to court if they had to pass The CODE test.

I am sure that RIGHTS warrants a lot more discussion and will precipitate more comments that any other aspect of The CODE .

Looking forward to your opinion,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *