Christianity and Human Rights

I cant resist a post on the lecture given at church by a (Christian) High Court Judge on the subject of Human Rights and Christianity. (email me for more). I should start by saying that he was an excellent speaker and put a strong case forward...

He argued that Human Rights and in particular the Human Rights Act were a dangerous humanist intervention into the legal system which created new 'foundational' laws contrary to the Christian Faith. He argued that they engendered a 'rights culture' which went against the message of the bible and contrasted with existing law by placing an emphasis on 'rights' rather than on 'duties'.

His premise was that Christians should seek to create a Christian framework of national laws - that is - that the secular world should be governed by laws based in Christianity. He based this on the ground that God gave His people laws in the old testament, these being laws which should govern all society because they were by their nature good.

I struggle a little with the idea that the Godless world should be governed by rules based on Christianity. Surely the motivation for abiding by a Christian code of morals is a love for and desire to be more like God. If that is so, is it right, is it indeed productive to seek to impose those values upon a society which rejects God?...

Also, I felt a little uncomfortable with his description of Human Rights as they stand currently in law. He suggested that they were not 'derived' rights in the way that tort and contract rights are. In my view they are derived (as opposed to 'fundamental') because

1. They were created and can be removed by Parliament
2. If they conflict with other laws all that Judges can do if they cannot interpret those laws compatibly with the Human Rights Convention is to issue a 'declaration of incompatibility' - which has no legal effect
3. They can be derogated from where the derogation is prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society and has a legitimate aim.

Thus I consider them little different from, say, negligence. I think I gathered from the judge afterwards that he thought negligence was biblically sound - if that is so surely the basis for his argument on human rights is undermined?

His Honour's second basis for distinguishing between Human Rights and, say, negligence was that Human Rights focused on 'rights' rather than 'duties'. In my submission whilst he is right to say the emphasis was on rights, and that the public was more conscious of the rights, rather than the duties; nonetheless duties exist -public authorities have duties corresponding to the 'rights' of the individual. Thus there is little difference between 'Human Rights' (which involve rights and duties) and, say, negligence (which involves rights and duties)....

Any thoughts?....