The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is unfortunately riddled with qualifications and exceptions. Article 29 is especially problematic:
> (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
So after layout out various high-minded (if occasionally contradictory) ideals, they immediately follow up by saying that these "rights", which are apparently not universal and thus not really rights at all, are subject to broadly-defined "limitations" which amount to a laundry-list of excuses states have used throughout history to justify denying people their fundamental rights: "morality, public order and the general welfare". Has there ever been any infringement of the rights of speech, assembly, movement, or property which wasn't justified (publically, at least) on the basis of one of those categories?
If you strike out Article 29 as well as the "attacks upon his honour and reputation" part of Article 12 (which is directly contrary to freedom of speech), the "arbitrary" qualifiers in Articles 14, 15, and 17 which render the surrounding statements meaningless, the frankly irrelevant opinion statement "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society" in Article 16, and Articles 22 through 27—in their entirety—then you would actually have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights worthy of the name. The authors started out reasonably well but failed to resist the impulse to throw in one contradictory article after another toward the end. You can see this reflected in the style of the text: the early articles are short and to the point, but as you read further down the document they get longer and more complicated, and start talking more about obligations and limitations than actual rights.
The US Constitution may not be perfect but at least it didn't fall into the trap of trying to carve out exceptions and limitations, pre-justifying the infringement of fundamental rights whenever the exercise of that right becomes inconvenient for the state, or enshrining an entitlement to a certain standard of living or to specific goods or services which can only be provided by infringing on the rights of others.
> (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
So after layout out various high-minded (if occasionally contradictory) ideals, they immediately follow up by saying that these "rights", which are apparently not universal and thus not really rights at all, are subject to broadly-defined "limitations" which amount to a laundry-list of excuses states have used throughout history to justify denying people their fundamental rights: "morality, public order and the general welfare". Has there ever been any infringement of the rights of speech, assembly, movement, or property which wasn't justified (publically, at least) on the basis of one of those categories?
If you strike out Article 29 as well as the "attacks upon his honour and reputation" part of Article 12 (which is directly contrary to freedom of speech), the "arbitrary" qualifiers in Articles 14, 15, and 17 which render the surrounding statements meaningless, the frankly irrelevant opinion statement "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society" in Article 16, and Articles 22 through 27—in their entirety—then you would actually have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights worthy of the name. The authors started out reasonably well but failed to resist the impulse to throw in one contradictory article after another toward the end. You can see this reflected in the style of the text: the early articles are short and to the point, but as you read further down the document they get longer and more complicated, and start talking more about obligations and limitations than actual rights.
The US Constitution may not be perfect but at least it didn't fall into the trap of trying to carve out exceptions and limitations, pre-justifying the infringement of fundamental rights whenever the exercise of that right becomes inconvenient for the state, or enshrining an entitlement to a certain standard of living or to specific goods or services which can only be provided by infringing on the rights of others.