When a rule is not a rule

Now we're being told by a member of the cabinet, the most powerful body in our government, who has never been elected, that human rights are relative. Lord Falconer wants to enshrine the principle that one person's rights cannot be used to "trump" the public's right to safety. In other words, there's no such thing as a fundamental human right. If you (i.e. the government) can demonstrate you're protecting public safety, you can do what you like to any number of individuals.
As I pointed out in my previous entry, the U.S. has already agreed a law that allows governments to define what constitutes torture; we're now only a short step from this ourselves. Perhaps when the Lord Chancellor tells us our rights are as British as beer he means that they don't apply to Muslims?
Let's extend this a little further. Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? So, if I walk out onto a pedestrian crossing in front of a bus, should it stop? There are more people on the bus and their safety would be compromised by an emergency stop, even though I'm on a zebra crossing.
And does this apply just to safety? If the majority of a company's employees are male and the company is successful, why should it jeopardise its corporate culture by employing a woman?
The purpose of government is to benefit individuals in ways that they could not achieve as individuals: provide education, security, infrastructure that no single individual could implement. Constraining individual rights in the name of a common good is the complete antithesis of this principle.