- Anyone who believes they can initiate force against another independent from the law.
- Anyone who doesn't believe in innocent until proven guilty and due process.
- Anyone who would change the law to allow rights for some while denying rights for others.
Now as ever, rights are implicit in the nature of being a human being. They are a recognition of what every person needs in order to thrive. They must be universal (equally applicable to all) or they are something other than "rights".
The most fundamental of rights is the idea that you have the right to live for your own sake (Life), to act without permission so long as you do not violate the same rights of others (Liberty), and that the fruit of your labor belongs to you to decide what will become of it (Property).
The government is not the source of rights. Those are created by nature. Government can, however, recognize rights and act to protect them (or violate them).
Laws are not rights. Laws can be aligned with an idea of rights but whereas rights are global/universal laws are local/contextual implementation details. When laws are out of alignment with rights, generally someone is being persecuted. Remember, not a word of the Declaration of Independence required revision to be consistent with abolishing slavery.
"Innocent until proven guilty" and "Due process" are principles which seek to align law with rights to life, liberty, and property and provide an objective framework of when an initiator of force has done harm sufficient to warrant curtailment of liberty or retaliatory force.
We should be very careful to not give moral cover to the enemies of white nationalists for the mere fact of their opposition to something odious. Yes, white nationalists ought to be opposed, but we should also want to oppose anyone who, by their actions, demonstrate that they do not believe in universal invidividual rights, due process, and objective innocent until proven guilty.