Republican traitors hope to use perverse modern interpretations of "human rights" to legally challenge the oath of allegiance MPs must take to the Queen. This is a good example of why I am weary of the contemporary obsession with constantly expanding "human rights" (which for some reason rarely seem to protect those humans who dissent from fashionable opinion). People today are entirely too preoccupied with their "rights," a word that has been so frequently and disastrously abused since the 18th century that it has lost any useful meaning and ought to be abandoned in serious political discourse. Instead of endlessly bleating about their "rights," people should be more concerned about their duties--like, in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms, their duty to their Sovereign.
Again, in countries where the republicans have had their way, would "human rights" allow public officials to formally swear allegiance to the head of the deposed royal family? I don't think so. For leftist "human rights" advocates, those who agree with them apparently have "rights"--like reaping the benefits of political office without acknowledging that office's legal foundation--that would never be extended to those who do not.