There were a few criticisms of this document out on the net that alleged that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights represented "Western Values". I would say that it represents more of a 1950's Leftist world view. Aristotle and the other philosophers would likely say that it represents the natural course of degeneration that inevitably afflicts the democratic psyche. So let's continue:
Article 11 is the usual, "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial". Yes, I like this, but it is really only applicable to a society which is driven by a moral code so that disputed penal offences are relatively rare. The second part deals with retroactive laws, which certainly can prove a gotcha for the innocent. Yet it also opens the door for all kinds of criminal behavior for which no specific law has yet been conceived, because the harm wasn't anticipated.
Article 12 deals with privacy and defamation.
Article 13 is about the right to move around within a country and across its borders. This would seem to make prisons and parole laws a violation of human rights.
Article 14 is about political asylum. The gotcha here is what constitutes "political".
Article 15 is the right to a nationality. The Devil is in the details here.
Article 16 specified a particular modern notion of marriage. I am not against the notion, but I have some issue with imposing a particular cultural value on the entire world. We should also note that many countries have signed this document that have no intention of abiding by this provision.
Article 17 requires property rights.
Article 18 and 19 are about freedom of belief and freedom to change beliefs. This is another point where most agree in theory but no one does in practice.
Article 20 is about peaceful assembly and lack of coercion. This isn't even accepted in Western countries where coercion to join unions is the norm and don't even think about peaceful assembly in front of an abortion death camp.
Article 21 is breathtaking (1) and (3) require democracy. (2) requires equality of access to public services, which I guess means that all public services are to be available everywhere, all the time. And what is the range of "public services"?
Article 22 specifies a right to "social security". Then there are "economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality". That probably means government supplied hallucinogens.
Article 23 is about labor laws. (1) is the right to work, along with "protection against unemployment". Of course the government can't guarantee any of this, but who says we can't be generous in dishing out rights? (2) is the right to equal pay for equal work. So who makes sure that a Columbian hitman gets the same pay as a Mafia hitman for equal kills? This is another one where unionists routinely trample the concept. Abuses of all sorts occur after this so that only God could sort this out. (3) Requires a comfy wage supplemented by social programs. Basically it declares that the welfare nanny state is a fundamental human right. (4) Is about the right of unionists to fulfill there mandate as the SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion (SPECTRE).
Article 24 roughly requires the European work week and holiday schedule.
Article 25 is a formal guarantee of the welfare state.
Article 26 guarantees a "right to education". The gotcha here is "it shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, ...". The intent here seems good - to keep from stirring up grudges - yet at the same time it is largely useless as leftists are not in the least restrained from stirring up hate while educators have a mandate to engage in every form of academic malpractice in the name of understanding and tolerance. (3) "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children". But only if you are rich.
Article 27 is another naive declaration regarding culture, arts and science.
Article 28 declares that we have a right to have these rights. But do we have a right to have a right to have these rights? They needed to better define the infinite recursion.
Article 29 states that we have the right to have responsibilities, but rights trump responsibilities. There is no limitation permissible to human nature, except what is specifically determined by law, with the caveat that only certain kinds of laws are deemed permissible.
Article 30 states that there is no right to disagree with the rights of this document. This technically means that this post is a violation of the document that I am reviewing.