Recently on Google's homepage there is a quote attributed to the Olympic Charter:
The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.
Not to discount the importance of human rights (nor to suggest they didn't have good reason to post the quote), but it seems that just about everything goodish has been explicitly described as a human right. Now "practicing sport" is on the list.
My question is, on what grounds may a claim be rejected as a human right?
For example, if someone were to declare their right to scrub toilets with neon colored brushes, I'd think is was too silly to be considered a human right. But, how do you make the argument?
I'm sensing that this question is way too broad to be answerable. How can somebody identify the "chief arguments" for this particular case unless they were super expert in everything? (I'm new here, so I'm trying to figure out what makes a good question still.)
So, to narrow it a little: Is there a class of human rights which are are independent of human decisions? Or, in other words, are there intrinsic human rights?