Fundamental rights are silly to think of as absolutes that exist anywhere. A right corresponds to a time and a place simply for stability.
The political power of a society is only concerned about maintaining power and stability. If those establishments are threatened or compromised only then would the government actually act in concern to the public, for the public is where the potential of the power lies. This is just my view of it so correct me if I am wrong:detective:.
There would only be universal rights if everybody had equal say in the rights distributed to everybody. The government are the ones who establish moral equities and rights.
Rights are not like morals because they really don't act in concern to morality, just the public's view of what is justified for themselves. Rights do have moral attributes though for the time and the place.
However, morals change, they have to as technology changes. Slavery was acceptable back then but today our society is beyond that. In terms of virtue I suppose people back then were ok with having a theocracy, it was moral as long as the state religion appeared as a positive influence. It suited the expansionism trend of the medieval times or whatever period, period of feudalism.
Now today with immigration and the fact that borders do not drastically change there are many religions which must be accounted for if you want the supposed virtue of immigration (under the assumption that it would be moral to fulfill the virtue). So Canada has the 'cultural mosiac', accepting all religions, I think.
Also, with Islam, and the Koran, it was acceptable that woman were treated poorly as opposed to males. Obviously, here today rights are more equal in this respect.
So with morals
there is a time
and a place
that they can correspond to, no absoluteness about them, which would be insane (ex. relating to an absolute period in time, Bible).
they are just there for balance of the hierarchy of the society, again no absoluteness about them.
As for undeniable basic rights
, I suppose anything that is ethical and can't be influenced or excluded from technology and other non-stagnant 'innovatives' (for lack of thinking up a better word:brickwall:) should be basic rights for humanity; but unless the public works to gain them nothing could really be already provided for us, we must "contravene" to quote Jazzman.