This might sound grim but one thing that I have learned over the years is that secular "human rights" do not really exist. The entire concept of human rights was borne primarily out of the trauma of WWII and a sense that legal protections for the weak needed to be enshrined to avoid another apocalypse. 

Yet the idea never really took hold globally. Or at least it did not supersede other ideas of how the world is best organized. The U.S. as the world's only superpower worked to weaken those few enforceable international law mechanisms that were built, out of belief that they would unacceptably constrain its power.

We can see that even countries that made human rights part of their brand do not take them seriously when they have other interests or beliefs at play. What really matters is power. 

This does not mean that there is no way to defend the weak. But the best way is to find means to help them level the balance of power, rather than appealing to abstract concepts in which few really believe.

Human rights and property rights were treated like the same thing by John Locke and later Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

They both posited a commons where owning space and a right to “be” followed a rationally derived order— and are often credited as early describers of a disembodied “marketplace” that regulates human morality— rather than loyalty to a deity or monarch.

“Human rights” partly emerged to describe people being excluded from the rational moral/property commons or marketplace for irrational reasons (race, gender, ethnicity, etc.)

Thus, human rights weren’t entirely imagined as “you have a right to not be arbitrarily enslaved” or “you have a right not to be murdered”— but “you have a right to be a rational participant transacting in the meritocratic moral and property marketplace.” Things that deny that right violate your human rights. 

That’s why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that unlimited political donations were a human right, just like not being murdered.