Klevius acknowledgemen: The basis here is the concept Negative Rights. However, due to the focus of a contemporary discourse the word "human" has been included.
The individual is the basis for democracy. However, democracy is collective. Therefore the rights of the individual is the "constitution" on which democracy is based. This constitution is called (negative) Human Rights, i.e. the negative obligation to abstain from interfering with
the individual.
If you still have trouble understanding this, then compare it with traffic rules which are all about the individual, and with no reference to "community",
"collective", "group", "religion" etc. And the reason is self-evident, i.e. that every individual should have the same right to proceed within the limitations
the flow of traffic itself may actuate. And there are no "obligations", "duties" or restrictions dependent on sex.
There are no Human Rights if you designate different humans with different "rights"
Remember to read Definition of Religion and Origin of Vikings (with an important reference to Great Zimbabwe) after having read this! Only then, when you have realized that that the unspeakable but undeniable historical & ideological connection between islam & enslavement (islamic Sharia finance during more than a Millennia) has to be spoken, you can throw away the Koran - or continue to be a racist/sexist bigot hypocrite.
The Negative Human Rights constitute what makes islam impossible in an Enlightened world where women are theoretically equal to men. Islamic theory is the very opposite, namely that women ought to be different & sex segregated. As you might understand, although theory doesn't practise, theory does invite practice. Moreover, a theory based on segregation will never let you drop segregation unless you drop the theory!
Negative Human Rights Definition
Note that negative human rights apply regardless of race, sex, age, strength, wealth, health etc!
Human rights are axiomatic rights ascribed to defined human rights possessors. This conceptualization does not recognize sub-human rights such as e.g. children’s rights (implying state interventionism) or women’s rights (implying sex segregation) because that would alter the very foundation of the concept human rights possessor (also see Klevius definition of feminism). Human rights stay in opposition (or as a complement if you like) to democracy. In fact, negative human rights are to be seen as the last resort for the very individual that was created by democracy. The basic negative (and positive) right of democracy is the right to vote. Without that right no democracy. So what makes democracy possible is something (the individual created by his/her right to vote) out of reach for democracy itself. You, not the democratic system, decide how/if to vote. But although democracy is just happy with this single concession that created the individual voting unit, you are not. You, the individual created by democracy, need more space of freedom. You are an invention that has to be protected, not only against your inventor, but also against every potential intruder with totalitarian aims. Negative human rights hence constitute what should not be accessible for democracy, but also what might be accessible for anti-democratic/totalitarian ideologies. The invention of “positive” human rights (so called "Stalin rights", sometimes even deliberately confused with obligations) is, in fact, pure abuse of negative human rights, i.e. a political (or perhaps political/religious) intrusion into the realm of “negative” basic human rights. The state, seen as a democratic representation, or whatever system of ruling, hence should be excluded from dealing with negative human rights issues other than administratively and as protector of (P. KLevius 1996).
The minimum need of conformism for a society to work constitutes the maximum level of Negative Human Rights, i.e. its very definition, and hence also definies fascism as the progressive intrusion above the minimum need of conformism.
Intellectual copyright for everything above belongs to Klevius. If you like it you like Klevius, if you hate it you either cheat yourself or simply grasp your pencil & make an even more intelligent comment/objection to it. However, due to Klevius probably much better understanding of the relevant theoretical background of sex segregation, feminism, psychoanalysis* etc, start by reading From Klevius without love & due relevant links!
Origin of Vikings
* Psychoanalysis is West's "islam" - see e.g. From Freud to bin Laden, & Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline!