In fact, I wanted to say that such concepts in laws that direct how other laws are made need be necessarily broad. If you think of it: freedom, dignity, citizenship, and so on, are not to be interpreted in absolute terms according to some official definition. The motivation for the law is fundamental, and concepts get narrowed down in laws of lower rank until the point at which they cannot be listed case by case, then interpretation by the judicial system enters into account, e.g., is the insult "f*g idiot" within the protected freedom of speech?