>
There's a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that could quite easily be applied as a baseline."Quite easily" is a stretch, that document is a well-intentioned mess. It omits rights that many take for granted, and the interpretation of many of them is highly subjective.
For instance, Article 10 gives everybody the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. But it doesn't recognize the right to a trial by a jury of your peers.
Article 12 forbids attacks on somebody's honor or character. Does this mean calling a politician a lying scumbag is a violation of that politicians human rights? And how does this square with Article 19, which states that everybody has a right to freedom of expression?
Article 16 states that men and women have a right to get married, but the phrasing could be interpreted to only protect heterosexual marriages. (Probably provided by Article 2, but that could be debated.)
Article 25 states that mothers and children are entitled to special care and assistance, but says nothing of fathers. This seems to violate Article 2.
Article 26 says that elementary education shall be compulsory, but also states that parents have the right to decide what kind of education their children receive. Does that mean that Germany banning homeschooling is a violation of the rights of parents? Or maybe homeschooling itself a violation of a child's right to compulsory education? Can a parent choose to send their child to the "school of hard-knocks working in a coal mine"? What if instead of a coal mine, it's an illiterate tribal lifestyle with a high child mortality rate? Is a government compelled or forbidden to force native children into schools, as Canada and other countries infamously did in the past?
Article 27 seems to suggest that copyright and patent protections are a human right, but doesn't establish any limitations to this right. Are patents expiring after ~20 years a violation of the human rights of inventors?
Article 29 gives an escape clause allowing a democratic government to limit any of these rights whenever doing so is in the interest of morality, public order, or general welfare of the democratic society. What the hell does any of that mean in practice?
Article 30 can be interpreted to contradict Article 19, forbidding people from criticizing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights if they do so with the intent of destroying any these supposed human rights. Does that mean protesting against copyright is a violation of human rights?