>>>SNIP
>>>
>>>>Maybe this will answer your question. To me 'fundamental' rights are rights that generally aren't decided by politicians. The right to life and dignity, the right to be treated as a human being regardless of colour, race, religion, etc, the right to your own thoughts and ideas.
>>>>
>>>>Stuff written in constitutions and bills of right are hardly fundamental. If they can be changed at the whim of politicians, I don't see how they can be deemed 'fundamental'.
>>>
>>>Those 'rights' were never guaranteed and often not allowed most citizens throughout history until governments run by the people guaranteed them such as in our constitution and Bill of Rights.
>>
>>The constitution and bill of rights had been in effect for many decades while human beings were living in slavery and being lynched. Even in the mid 20th century, some women couldn't vote. discrimination is still rampant. There are no guarantees.
>>
>>The fact that somebody abrogates your rights, doesn't mean that those rights simply don't exist. If your forefathers had not thought of those things as fundamental 'rights', then why did they bother with the constitution and bill of rights? Writing something down doesn't necessarily make it more true than it was before it was written down. Writing them down enacts them in law, but it doesn't create them.
>
>There are no laws/rights etc. outside of laws, i.e. writing/enforcement create them; or you believe in Supreme Being?

We disagree again. It's got nothing to do with a supereme being. I agree there are no laws without writing them down and enforcing them, but rights? Well, I feel differently about 'rights'. If there were no such things as fundamental rights to which we, as human beings, are entitled, nobody would bother writing them down. After all, there'd be nothing to write down.