There can't ever be absolute rights in this context, because at some level, even the most widely accepted and well-regarded rights that we want to protect will inevitably come into conflict. For example, you can't have absolute free speech and protect people's privacy against malicious disclosures, even though as general principles we might agree with both ideals. A balance must be found, and navigating that middle ground is always hard when any decision you make will necessarily be flawed.

I think the problem with the current politics of fear is that it does seek to promote one absolute right -- the right to be safe from attack by bad people -- as more important than all the others. Of course, it is impossible to truly achieve that goal no matter what you sacrifice. But in the quest to do so, more balanced "greater good" philosophies developed over centuries of human civilisation, like preferring to die on your feet than live on your knees, or preferring to risk letting a guilty man go free rather than risk imprisoning an innocent one, or refusing to negotiate in the face of threats, can be cast aside all too easily. That's what is happening today.