Dear sir or madam:
Consider the following definiton of "civil rights", offered by Wikipedia: "Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law. Civil rights are distinguished from 'human rights' or 'natural rights'; civil rights are rights that persons do have, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars think that people should have." I believe this to be patently false, because
a) If civil rights were rights that people "do have" in the sense of enjoying them in practice, then they wouldn't need to have Civil Rights Movements to get the government to let them enjoy their legally guaranteed civil rights.
b) Natural rights are, by definition, rights that people have by nature, i.e. before scholars start thinking about stuff, thus it is false to say that they "are rights that many scholars think that people should have." The same is arguably true of human rights, as well.