A confused society

Subject: A confused society

There are very important differences in the make up of the society, immediately after the Second World War and the one we now see reflected by the nations representatives in parliament debating the issue of whether President Trump should be given a State Visit
The parliamentarians after the war were mostly men, men there through privilege or because they represented the nascent Labour Party through municipal and trade union representation. There were few if any women, there were no black or Asian people, there were no openly gay people. The debates were largely bound up in national economic issues and ways to provide better working and living conditions in society as a whole.
Today we are such a mixed bag with an enormous spectrum of interests. We are vocally adamant over the issues of gender, of sexual preference, racial considerations, political  correctness and so much more.

The schisms in 1950 were defined by work and the opportunities that work brought. Today it is more like a examination of social prejudice.

Of course in a fragmented society, much amplified by the interests of both multicultural and the complex gender influence, the excitement and vehemence on display is both encouraging and sad.
The issue of whether Trump should be given the red carpet is lost in the prejudice of each group and the need to make a political grandstanding statement regarding the rights of women or wrongs towards a religious group. Economics and the perilous state of our trade when we leave the EU was sidelined by their indignation that the man had groped a woman (the women were much more explicit than the men dared to be), that he had indiscriminately (their words) banned Muslims from certain countries, entering the USA.
Today we have a man and a woman taking their wish to apply for a Civil Partnership as an alternative to Marriage, to the Appeal Court where they have just learnt that their wish has not been granted, re-enforcing the fact that you have to be of the "same sex" to create a legal union in this way.
Yet another divergence from a 1950 societies concept of what is right and what is wrong. That concept of what is 'wrong', growing up in a society where the divisions were clear has become terribly muddied by the extra concept or "rights". My 'rights' trump your 'rights' has meant that everything is up in the air and there is no common surety.
In a world where everyone has an equal opportunity to propagate their own concept of how they see the world was fine as an individual stance but with the advent of the internet, you can easily find followers to raise awareness of your own special proclivity. These days groups are sprouting up each day like cultures in a Petri dish, some virulent some benign but each adding to the confusion which makes up our society these days.
Of course the bottom line, the catch all phrase is, "we are all human beings" and whether, from outward appearance, we seem diametrically opposites, deep down we are only flesh and blood and of the same species. All the differences are cultural. 

Of course whilst this is true and the human body is pretty much matched in all of us, surely it is the mind that determines us.   It is the mind which calculates 'what the flesh is heir to' it is the mind which defines us. 

So, whilst we are all human beings with "rights" these rights mean different things in different cultures.
Is there therefore such a thing as a "universal right" or are we simply  flotsam and jetsam caught up in the ongoing turbulence.