Freedom of Movement: "Free to choose whether to migrate or to stay"

The website of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development of the Holy See has published an indication of the theme for the 2023 World Day of Migrants and Refugees:

The 109th World Day of Migrants and Refugees will be celebrated on Sunday, 24 September 2023. The Holy Father has chosen as the title for his traditional Message, “Free to choose whether to migrate or to stay”, with the intention of fostering renewed reflection on a right that has not yet been codified at the international level: the right not to have to migrate or, in other words, the right to be able to remain in one’s own land.

The fact that many persons are forced to migrate demands a careful consideration of the causes of contemporary migration. The right to remain is older, more deeply rooted and broader than the right to migrate. It includes the possibility of sharing in the common good, the right to live in dignity and to have access to sustainable development. All of these rights should be effectively guaranteed in the nations of origin through a real exercise of shared responsibility on the part of the international community.

 The theme is more fully developed in a paper of the Dicastery from December 2022 entitled The "right" not to have to emigrate. In encouraging local Churches to work with the authorities of their countries and regions in order to alleviate the inequalities that might drive peoples to migrate, this paper notes that the decision to emigrate is not always one that is made with freedom:

While violence, conflict, and climate change contribute most significantly to involuntary migration, economic development is also a major factor. Some regions of the world are more privileged than others, and within each society, access to the common good – work, health, education, welfare – is not always guaranteed. In the absence of opportunities for personal and family fulfillment, migration sometimes emerges as the only truly possible choice.

 There are two points here that I find of interest. The first is that the inability to take a proper part in the economic and social life of a country provides a driver in favour of migration that is just as legitimate as is persecution, a driver that represents a constrained choice rather than a free choice. The right to freedom of movement within one's own country, and the right to leave from and return to that country, enshrined in Article 13 of the UN Universal Declaration, has in part an intention of enabling such migration.

The second point is that, though the intention of the theme chosen for the 2023 World Day of Migrants and Refugees is to focus on creating awareness of what needs to be done so that people have a genuinely free choice with regard to staying in their own country, it also recognises a right to choose to migrate, and a desire that the exercise of such a choice may be made with freedom rather than constraint.

The implication of this for Governments is that they should be willing to commit resources to the integral development of people in less developed nations; and where they are not able to do this, to make provision for the consequent migration.

Freedom and the Common Good

As the governments of the United Kingdom begin to put in place measures in an attempt to limit the increasing number of COVID-19 cases due to the Omicron variant, a narrative from the right of the political spectrum speaks of these measures as a reprehensible denial of our freedom, to be opposed at all costs.

But that is to see the question of freedom only in the negative term of "freedom from ..", rather than in its positive term of "freedom to ...". In this positive conception, the proper end of the exercise of human freedom is that which is true and good, that is, our own good and the good of our neighbour. This is expressed in n.365 of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

365. Why does everyone have a right to exercise freedom?
The right to the exercise of freedom belongs to everyone because it is inseparable from his or her dignity as a human person. Therefore this right must always be respected, especially in moral and religious matters, and it must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and a just public order.

That reference to "the limits of the common good" defines the purpose towards which the exercise of human freedom in society is directed, and recognises a qualification to any idea that freedom means freedom to do whatever one likes in the exercise of rights, regardless of the interests of our neighbour.

A similar qualification to the exercise of human rights and freedoms exists in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where Article 29 n.2 reads as follows, the term "the general welfare in a democratic society" expressing the idea of a common good:

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 a narrative which seeks to oppose the establishment of measures in law intended to limit the adverse effects of COVID-19 variants in society only on the grounds of their being infringements of human freedom is a partial perspective, neglecting the recognition in major human rights instruments of the limitation to that freedom that can be applied in the interests of the common good. And as a partial perspective, pursued alone, it becomes an ideology of freedom rather than an advocacy of true freedom.

[One might want to argue that the proposed measures are not actually required by the common good... but that is to then enter into a debate about the (scientific) evidence, and that is a rather different position to adopt.]

OnlyFans - a frustrated exercise in ethical commerce and a dishonest use of language

 On the 20th August 2021, the subscription only website OnlyFans accounced that it would ban users from posting sexually explicit photographs and videos on its site from October. The BBC report is here: OnlyFans to ban sexually explicit content. On the same day, the BBC news website was reporting an investigation that criticised OnlyFans for its approach to moderating and closing accounts that show illegal content, and which also expressed some concerns about content being posted on the site. That report is here: OnlyFans - how it handles illegal sex videos - BBC investigation.

According to the BBC investigation:

On Thursday evening, Only Fans said it would ban sexually explicit content on the site from October. The announcement comes after BBC News approached the company for its response to the leaked documents, and concerns about its handling of accounts posting illegal content.

OnlyFans said it would still allow creators to post nude photos and videos if they were in line with its terms of service, which are to be updated.

The site has more than 120 million subscribers, who pay a monthly fee and tips to "creators" for videos, photos and the ability to send personal messages to them. OnlyFans takes 20% of all payments.

OnlyFans said that the change was being made after pressure from banking partners, again according to the BBC reporting. This in itself represents an interesting development - commercial partners being sufficiently interested to not allow their payment services to be used in the production and communication of sexually explicit material, for which OnlyFans provides a well known platform. In recent times, such threats of commercial pressure have been used by lobbyists wishing to discourage the provision of services to those who support causes that would generally be identified as "conservative" or at least less than "progressive". Its application to the field of sexually explicit content represents a new development.

However, yesterday (25th August) the BBC reported that OnlyFans has announced a supension of its change, in effect allowing the publication of sexually explicit content to continue after 1st October: OnlyFans suspends policy change after backlash.

OnlyFans wrote on twitter that it would "continue to provide a home for all creators".

"Thank you to everyone for making your voices heard," said the company.

"We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned 1 October policy change.

"OnlyFans stands for inclusion and we will continue to provide a home for all creators."

And in an email to its content creators, it said: "The proposed 1 October 2021 changes are no longer required, due to banking partners' assurances that OnlyFans can support all genres of creators. "OnlyFans is committed to providing a sage [sic - presumably intended to be "safe"] and dependable platform for all creators and their fans."

One OnlyFans creator, from London, welcomed the announcement but said those who had already found new homes for their content may still not return.

"So it is short-term good news for sex workers reliant on the platform - and I would like to see this as the start of increased support, celebration and championing of sex-worker rights by OnlyFans," he told BBC News. 

 At least in part, the "backlash" appears to have come from OnlyFans "creators" (essentially those who produce and post sexually explicit content on the site), one of whom I recall hearing interviewed on the BBC's Today programme a few days ago. If I recall correctly, this lady identified as a "sex worker" who had been using OnlyFans to publish subscription based content during the COVID-19 pandemic, and argued that, if she had to return to live working rather than being able to continue online working, she would feel significantly at risk because of the uncertainty inherent in meeting live clients.

OnlyFans capitulation in the face of publicity and what appears to be potential economic losses if makers of sexually explicit content move to other platforms is disappointing. It would also be interesting to know the extent to which OnlyFans "banking partners" also succumbed to pressure.

But the most stunning aspect of the debacle, for me, is the adoption towards makers of sexually explicit material of the language of "diversity" and "inclusion". 

In the first instance: should we be more honest in our use of language, and recognise that what is  now referred to in morally neutral language as "sexually explicit content" is in fact what would previously have been termed rather more honestly as "pornography"?

Should we not also be more hesitant in accepting the use of the term "sex worker", and recognise that the larger part of the work covered by that term could be more honestly termed "prostitution"? This is particularly the case as the aura of legitimacy implied in the term "sex worker" does not capture the significant risk of exploitation and harm that exists in such work.

But the most worrying misuse of language is the development according to which the categories of "diversity" and "inclusion" are applied by OnlyFans to their "creators", that is, to the makers of "sexually explicit" / "pornographic" content which is posted on their site. The implications if such  a use of these categories became widespread in society are mind boggling - think about work place, or even school and college, equalities policies which might be forced to include the accessing of such content as an equalities strand to be supported and promoted.

It is interesting to put the argument for "increased support, celebration and championing of sex-worker rights" alongside the text of Article 29 (2) of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and ask whether we really do want our society to abandon the idea that the law should be able to act in favour of "morality ... and the general welfare in a democratic society":

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.

UPDATE: CARE have reacted to OnlyFans U-turn: 'Shameful OnlyFans u-turn is corporate greed trumping corporate responsibility'. CARE's comment focusses on the risk that "creators" may be being coerced into making content, and is very usefully read alongside my observations above.

“It’s clear what happened here. OnlyFans realised curbing sexually explicit content would affect its profits. Financial backers who initially raised concerns about content on the site and pressured the company towards a ban have either changed their minds or been replaced by others willing to turn a blind eye to concerns. This is a classic case of corporate greed trumping corporate responsibility. It is a shameful.”

Amoris Laetitia: "a right to natural death"

In my most recent post, I commented on nn.80-82 of Amoris Laetitia. This post looks at the next paragraph, n.83.

It is difficult to imagine a stronger assertion of the teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion and euthanasia than that contained in n.83 of Amoris Laetitia. On both points, Pope Francis' words address the subjects in relation to the context of today:

So great is the value of a human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother's womb, that no alleged right to one's own body can justify a decision to terminate that life, which is an end in itself and which can never be considered the "property" of another human being. The family protects human life in all its stages, including its last. Consequently, "those who work in healthcare facilities are reminded of the moral duty  of conscientious objection. Similarly, the Church not only feels the urgency to assert the right to a natural death, without aggressive treatment and euthanasia", but likewise "firmly rejects the death penalty".

For some, it has been the reference to the death penalty that has prompted comment. But I am finding more interesting the language of a "right to natural death". The term is cited in a quotation from the Relatio Finalis of the 2015 Synod, n.64, which, in its turn, includes a reference to the Catechism of he Catholic Church "cf CCC, 2258", the paragraph which opens the Catechism's treatment of the fifth commandment:

God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning to until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.

I am not aware of the term being used previously in the teaching of the Catholic Church (correction, please, via a comment if I have got that wrong), and nor does it occur in the major international human rights instruments (the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights).

The paragraphs of the Catechism which immediately address the question of euthanasia are nn.2276 - 2279. The intention of the expression "a right to a natural death", as used by Pope Francis, is to articulate in a positive perspective the prohibition of n.2277:

Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

And Pope Francis' qualifications - "without aggressive treatment and euthanasia" - equally have a fuller expression in nn.2277 - 2279 of the Catechism, which should be seen as part of how he intends the term to be understood.

However, the term does need to be understood and used carefully. In a clinical context, there is a risk that a direction to "allow natural death" (AND) may in practice be read as a (positively worded) alternative to a direction to "do not resuscitate" (DNR); and, certainly in the UK context, where they are legally seen as a form of treatment and not of ordinary care, it is likely to involve the withdrawal of assisted nutrition and hydration. So, in public discussion, to simply use the term "a right to natural death" without a further specification of your meaning might be unwise.

But, in the context of political, professional and social pressures in favour of euthanasia, the notion that there is an inalienable right (ie a right that cannot be taken away from each and every person) NOT to be subject to euthanasia offers an interesting counter argument to those whose seeking of a legal permission of "assisted dying"/euthanasia threatens to put everyone at risk of pressure to accept euthanasia at the end of their own lives.

Equalising "equality"?

 In introducing the recent Westminster Hall debate on LGBT conversion therapy, conversion therapy was defined by the member of parliament leading the debate in the following way:

First, we must ask ourselves what conversion therapy is and why it needs to be banned. According to a May 2020 report by the UN Office for Human Rights, and indeed according to a definition from the Government Equalities Office, so-called conversion therapy is an umbrella term used to describe interventions of a wide-ranging nature, all of which have in common the belief that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity can and should be changed. These so-called therapies can manifest in many forms, from pseudo-psychological treatments and aversion therapies to practices that are religiously based, such as purification or fasting. At the most extreme, there has been evidence that this practice can also involve physical and sexual violence, including so-called corrective rape.

 What is interesting in this definition is that it refers to "orientation" and "identity"; it leaves out any reference to the question of how behaviours that follow from orientation and identity might be considered. Is it a definition that assumes that an orientation and identity are of necessity only experienced in intimate sexual activities that align with that orientation and identity, and that an orientation or identity only exist when they are experienced in such sexual activities? 

The question matters, and it matters because it touches on the right of communities such as the Catholic Church to propose their teaching on marriage and human sexuality (cf Article 18 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cf Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights). That teaching is that the sexual act is ordered only between the male and female person, engaged in a married relationship, and in a manner open to the gift of new life. It is a teaching about a sexual behaviour; it is a teaching that has both a moral character based in human reason and a theological character in terms of the analogy of the wedded relationship of man and woman to the relationship of Christ and the Church.

Circumstances can clearly be envisaged where the way and situation in which the proposal of this teaching takes place might constitute an abuse of the freedom of the individual to whom it is proposed; but, equally, and probably more commonly in mainstream churches, circumstances can also be envisaged where it is proposed in a respectful and considered way that is totally fair to the freedom of the individual. And leaving aside the cases of individuals, the Catholic Church will propose this teaching generally to wider society as a whole.

But would this proposal of a teaching that is focussed on sexual behaviours fall foul of legislation banning conversion therapies that is framed exclusively in terms of "orientation" and "identity", and mistakenly assumes a congruence of "orientation" and "identity" with corresponding intimate sexual behaviours? Would the proposal of such a teaching be seen in law as a form of conversion therapy?

Perhaps it is considerations such as this that are prompting considerable caution on the part of Kemi Badenoch, the Minister for Equalities, and the present government in the UK. As she said towards the end of the recent parliamentary debate:

The Government have been clear that we do not intend to stop those who wish to seek spiritual counselling as they explore their sexual orientation, but there will be cases when a line is crossed, where someone is actively seeking to change another’s sexual orientation—an innate aspect of their personal identity—via coercion under the guise of spiritual support. The Government will exercise great care when considering what does and does not constitute conversion therapy, and how to intervene. ....
We continue to work to ensure that the actions we take are proportionate and effective, and will set out our next steps soon. We have heard a range of views and voices, and it is imperative that we continue a constructive dialogue to ensure that we get our proposals right.

LGBTQI+: Human rights or ideological colonisation?

 When contemporary reflection looks back to the times of European colonisation of different countries around the world, it holds up a critical light to the transfer of customs and practices from those European countries to the peoples of the countries which came under their governance. Instead it now advocates a cooperation with and regard and encouragement of the local cultures, rather than the overruling of them by developed nations that make an assumption of their superiority.

And so President Biden's commitment to LGBTQI issues in his remarks during a visit to the State Department raises an interesting question:

And to further repair our moral leadership, I’m also issuing a presidential memo to agencies to reinvigorate our leadership on the LGBTQI issues and do it internationally.  You know, we’ll ensure diplomacy and foreign assistance are working to promote the rights of those individuals, included by combatting criminalization and protecting LGBTQ refugees and asylum-seekers.

 There is a nuance present in the presidential memorandum itself that has been lost in President Biden's remarks. Where the memorandum largely refers to steps to advance the human rights of LGBTQI people, and does not refer to LGBTQI rights as if they are a distinctive set of rights, President Biden refers to "leadership on the LGBTQI issues". This is what the memorandum sets out as the aim of its specific provisions:

It shall be the policy of the United States to pursue an end to violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics, and to lead by the power of our example in the cause of advancing the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons around the world.

 The rights articulated by, for example, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are universal and they are inalienable. People who identify as LGBTQI are therefore fully entitled to each and every one of those rights - and the rights that refer to security of the person, standing before the law, respect for honour and reputation, employment, participation in the life of the nation are the specification of the "end to violence and discrimination" to which the memorandum refers.

The universal and inalienable nature of these rights means that it is legitimate that the United States seek to promote them in so far as they apply to LGBTQI persons in the course of their relations with other countries. 

But is this really what is intended by President Biden, or has he indicated another agenda in his reference to "leadership on the LGBTQI issues"? Does the language of human rights hide an intention to promote to other nations an ideology according to which LGBTQI lifestyles and behaviours are to be societally accepted as being morally equivalent to married behaviours between a man and a woman (and any resistance to this societal acceptance to be seen as discrimination)? Particularly if the acceptance of such an ideology by a foreign state is the condition for receipt of US aid, are we not dealing with a colonisation, an attempt to transfer an ideology from the provider nation to the receiver nation without regard to the cultural values of that receiver nation?

Is President Biden's policy a policy in favour of human rights or is it, in reality, a policy in favour of a new colonisation, this time a colonisation of an ideological nature?

The Holy See and the United Nations: Pope Francis video message to the General Assembly September 2020

 On 25th September 2020, a meeting of the UN General Assembly took place to  mark the 75th anniversary of the founding of the UN. It was largely an on-line event as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the travel restrictions associated with it. Pope Francis poke to the Assembly by way of  a  video message. A report of Pope Francis address can be found at the Vatican News website: Pope to UN: Rethink the future of our common home (though the headline can give a misleading impression of the content of the address). A text in English can be found at the website of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the UN: Address of His Holiness, Pope Francis, to the United Nations General Assembly (2020).

It is certainly worth a careful read of the complete text. Whilst the speech is given in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Pope Francis reflects, in the range of his different subjects, the same underlying concerns that we saw in Pope John Paul II's address to the General Assembly, namely a commitment to the human rights expressed in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the dignity of the human person. We can see Pope Francis' specific remarks on, for example, social and economic questions such as unemployment, as an application of these principles to particular situations. Indeed, it is interesting to read Pope Francis' address alongside the Universal Declaration in order to recognise the implicit references as well as the explicit references. As with Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis' address assumes the Declaration of Human Rights as a key basis for the engagement of the Holy See with the United Nations.

In the context of the response to COVID-19, Pope Francis draws attention to one of the less well known articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, which includes a right to health care:

The pandemic has highlighted the urgent need to promote public health and to make every person’s right to basic medical care a reality.[3]  For this reason, I renew my appeal to political leaders and the private sector to spare no effort to ensure access to Covid-19 vaccines and to the essential technologies needed to care for the sick.  If anyone should be given preference, let it be the poorest, the most vulnerable, those who so often experience discrimination because they have neither power nor economic resources.

An implicit reference to Article 23 can be seen in Pope Francis' remarks on unemployment:

There is an urgent need to find new forms of work truly capable of fulfilling our human potential and affirming our dignity.  In order to ensure dignified employment, there must be a change in the prevailing economic paradigm, which seeks only to expand companies’ profits.  Offering jobs to more people should be one of the main objectives of every business, one of the criteria for the success of productive activity.  Technological progress is valuable and necessary, provided that it serves to make people’s work more dignified and safe, less burdensome and stressful.

There are implicit references to Article 3 (the right to life) and Article 26 (the right to education) in this passage:

Millions of children are presently unable to return to school.  In many parts of the world, this situation risks leading to an increase in child labour, exploitation, abuse and malnutrition.  Sad to say, some countries and international institutions are also promoting abortion as one of the so-called “essential services” provided in the humanitarian response to the pandemic.  It is troubling to see how simple and convenient it has become for some to deny the existence of a human life as a solution to problems that can and must be solved for both the mother and her unborn child. 

The reference here to Article 16 is explicit, and we can clearly see Pope Francis' understanding of the family as being founded in the relationship of a woman and a man:

The first teachers of every child are his or her mother and father, the family, which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes as the “natural and fundamental group unit of society”.[15]  All too often, the family is the victim of forms of ideological colonialism that weaken it and end up producing in many of its members, especially the most vulnerable, the young and the elderly, a feeling of being orphaned and lacking roots.  The breakdown of the family is reflected in the social fragmentation that hinders our efforts to confront common enemies. 

In concluding his address, Pope Francis indirectly takes to task the Security Council of the United Nations for its failure to act in some circumstances of recent years (the situation in Syria, for example, where vetoes by permanent members of the Security Council have hindered initiatives):

In addition, our strife-ridden world needs the United Nations to become an ever more effective international workshop for peace.  This means that the members of the Security Council, especially the Permanent Members, must act with greater unity and determination.  In this regard, the recent adoption of a global cease-fire during the present crisis is a very noble step, one that demands good will on the part of all for its continued implementation.  Here I would also reiterate the importance of relaxing international sanctions that make it difficult for states to provide adequate support for their citizens....

The pandemic has shown us that we cannot live without one another, or worse still, pitted against one another.  The United Nations was established to bring nations together, to be a bridge between peoples.  Let us make good use of this institution in order to transform the challenge that lies before us into an opportunity to build together, once more, the future we all desire.

The Holy See and the United Nations: Pope John Paul II addresses the General Assembly in 1979

 Pope John Paul II addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations in October 1979, at the invitation of the organisation's Secretary-General. A full text of his address is at the Vatican website: here. Audio of his address is at the United Nations audiovisual library, in two parts: part 1 and part 2. The language of delivery was English; the spoken form was shortened, but the full original text was published for the members of the United Nations. The observations below are based on the text as published at the Vatican website.

After expressing the historic confidence and support of the Holy See for the work of the United Nations, Pope John Paul II asserts that it is the religious and moral character of the mission of the Church that is the foundation of this confidence:

This confidence and conviction on the part of the Apostolic See is the result, as I have said, not of merely political reasons but of the religious and moral character of the mission of the Roman Catholic Church. As a universal community embracing faithful belonging to almost all countries and continents, nations, peoples, races, languages and cultures, the Church is deeply interested in the existence and activity of the Organization whose very name tells us that it unites and associates nations and States. It unites and associates: it does not divide and oppose. It seeks out the ways for understanding and peaceful collaboration, and endeavours with the means at its disposal and the methods in its power to exclude war, division and mutual destruction within the great family of humanity today.

 There are two key points that can be identified in the body of Pope John Paul's address. The first is what the Pope sees as the absolutely foundational standing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the mission of the United Nations, where, in his words, it is "placed as the basic inspiration and cornerstone of the United Nations Organisation":

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights—with its train of many declarations and conventions on highly important aspects of human rights, in favour of children, of women, of equality between races, and especially the two international covenants on economic, social and cultural rights and on civil and political rights—must remain the basic value in the United Nations Organization with which the consciences of its members must be confronted and from which they must draw continual inspiration.

Pope John Paul takes this Declaration as the reference point for all his remarks, including when he takes up the theme of Paul VI in advocating for peace in the world and in his discussion of some specific contemporary situations.

The second point is the insistence that the specific rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration are all directed towards the dignity of the human person. Referring to the Declaration, Pope John Paul says:

The governments and States of the world have understood that, if they are not to attack and destroy each other, they must unite. The real way, the fundamental way to this is through each human being, through the definition and recognition of and respect for the inalienable rights of individuals and of the communities of peoples....

These rights concern the satisfaction of man's essential needs, the exercise of his freedoms, and his relationship with others; but always and everywhere they concern man, they concern man's full human dimension.

A large section of the Pope's address looks at threats to rights that refer to the material dimensions of the human person and then to threats that refer to the spiritual dimension of the person. 

If then we are looking for principles that seek to define why the Holy See maintains an interest  in the work of the United Nations Organisation, Pope John Paul offers two: a foundational role for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the orientation of the rights contained in that Declaration towards both the material and spiritual dignity of the human person.

[As an incidental comment: the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enjoins on member states of the United Nations to promote the rights contained in the Declaration and "by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance". Legal provisions, therefore, are intended to protect human rights, and not to in some way confer such rights, rights which already exist from the dignity of every human person. In a time characterised by the language of "equalities" rather than of "human rights", where legal provisions are perceived as conferring new rights, Pope John Paul's anchoring of the engagement of the Holy See with the United Nations in the foundational role of the Universal Declaration is of significance.]

Sex Education and the European Convention on Human Rights: is Damian Hinds right?

According to the BBC report:

In an oral statement to the Commons on Thursday, Mr Hinds said: "We've previously committed to parents having a right to withdraw their children from the sex education part of RSE [relationships and sex education], but not from relationships education, in either primary or secondary school.

"A right for parents to withdraw their child up to 18 years of age is no longer compatible with English case law nor with the European Convention on Human Rights."

But is it true to suggest that the European Convention on Human Rights disallows withdrawal by parents of their children from sex education in the years immediately leading up to age 18?

The consultation document about which Damian Hinds was speaking can be found at the Department for Education website: here. It represents a draft of statutory guidance to which, if it is implemented, schools will have "have regard". The relevant sections can be found on page 12 and following.  My emphasis added in the extract below:

36. The role of parents in the development of their children’s understanding about relationships is vital. Parents are the first educators of their children. They have the most significant influence in enabling their children to grow and mature and to form healthy relationships.

And the relevant article of the Protocol to the European Convention on Human  Rights, which forms a full part of the Convention, with my emphasis added (cf Article 26 n.3 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights):

Article 2: right to education  

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

Damian Hinds' consultation document at n.36 represents a clear and blatant derogation from the provision of the Convention to which it has reference.

This derogation is further followed by the suggestion of a good practice which expects headteachers to, in effect, make every effort to dissuade a parent from exercising a right to withdrawal. Given the likely power imbalance in the conversation between a head teacher and an individual parent, the use of the terminology of "discuss" or "discussion" may not accurately reflect the provision of the Convention that the State respect the right of parents with regard to the education of their children.

41. Parents have the right to request that their child be withdrawn from some or all of sex education delivered as part of statutory RSE. Before granting any such request it would be good practice for the head teacher to discuss the request with the parent and, as appropriate, with the child to ensure that their wishes are understood and to clarify the nature and purpose of the curriculum.

42. Good practice is also likely to include the head teacher discussing with the parent the benefits of receiving this important education and any detrimental effects that withdrawal might have on the child. This could include any social and emotional effects of being excluded, as well as the likelihood of the child hearing their peers’ version of what was said in the classes, rather than what was directly said by the teacher (although the detrimental effects may be mitigated if the parent proposes to deliver sex education to their child at home instead).  

43. Once those discussions have taken place, except in exceptional circumstances, the school should respect the parents’ request to withdraw the child, up to and until three terms before the child turns 16. After that point, if the child wishes to receive sex education rather than be withdrawn, the school should make arrangements to provide the child with sex education during one of those terms.

So is Damian Hinds telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with regard to his proposals and the European Convention on Human Rights?

One tires of the language of .....

...."abortion rights". Neither UK law nor any international human rights instrument in any way recognise access to abortion as being a "right". UK law protects from prosecution when an abortion is carried out meeting certain conditions .... it does not recognise a "right" to an abortion. And it is, of course, arguable as to whether or not an abortion genuinely constitutes health care.

So those who are mis-representing the DUP as holding an "extremist stance" on abortion are utterly wrong on two counts - their mis-representation of the DUP and their attempt to speak of "abortion rights".

It is perfectly reasonable to hold a view that abortion - in the meaning of a directly intended choice to bring to an end the life of a child in the womb - should not be lawful. And it is perfectly reasonable to make use of the political process to support that end. As a candidate for the ProLife Alliance in the 1997 General Election I did precisely that.

Indeed, I would argue that the vilification of those who oppose legalised abortion is a significant breach of their right to their good name - a right promoted by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Trumpled underfoot ....

Whilst Catholics might have welcomed the presence of the new Vice President of the United States at the annual March for Life, and the commitment to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who oppose the practice of abortion (Aside: remember that Presidents who have been supportive of legalised abortion have done an analogous thing in appointing justices who would support their own stance on abortion, so there isn't anything unprecedented in President Trump's actions in this regard or with regard to abortion funding), Catholics should find it much harder to support his provisions with regard to refugees in the latest executive orders.

Those provisions put the United States in direct and immediate breach of its obligations under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 14.(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The United States is also a party to the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, by way of being a party to its 1967 Protocol, which indicates practical steps in the implementation of Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The obligations under this Convention are summarised at the Wikipedia page . It is quite clear under the Convention that any decision not to accept the refugee status of an asylum seeker should be an individual decision and not a generalised one applied to whole groups or categories. It is also clear that particular measures should not be based on the nationality or country of origin of a refugee. The executive orders, which deny entry to the United States for refugees from particular countries, clearly prevent those refugees from exercising a right that is theirs under international legal provision.

The ethical principle underpinning both the Universal Declaration and the Convention is that of respect for the dignity, and therefore the rights, of persons precisely as persons and without regard to any other circumstance that may accrue to persons in particular situations. Poor Donald seems to be somewhat inconsistent here - defending the dignity of the unborn (cf Article 3 of the Universal Declaration) but treating with disdain the dignity of the refugee.

The justification on the grounds of national security is as blatantly false as is poor Donald's claim of electoral fraud. We shouldn't buy it. That the United Kingdom will soon welcome poor Donald on a state visit is embarrassing to say the least. But Catholics will be caught in a dilemma - we might want to protest his steps with regard to refugees, but will find ourselves alongside those who also want to protest his steps with regard to abortion.

Is there a right to offend?

There is a certain fashion for saying, in its negative expression, that we have no right to be protected from others giving offence to us; or, in the corresponding positive expression, there is a right of one person to act or speak in a manner that gives offence to another. I heard it again the other day, expressed by a BBC radio interviewer.

Now there is certainly a prudential judgement to be made as to whether or not the giving of offence should be proscribed by law, and thereby attract a criminal or civil sanction before the law. This arises because the law would find it difficult to distinguish between legitimate difference of opinion and an offence of giving offence, however the latter might be defined. So the law, at least in this country, does not proscribe offensive language used towards another and, instead, remains silent on the matter.

But does the absence of legal proscription thereby confer its opposite - that is, does it confer a right to carry out the action that it does not proscribe? Many would believe that it does. A reading of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights would, in my view, suggest otherwise.

Its preamble argues from the "recognition of the inherent dignity .... of all members of the human family", while Article 1 argues that all persons "should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Article 12 reads: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Article 12 has a particular bearing on Articles 18 and 19, which propose the freedom of religious belief and the freedom of belief and expression. Neither of these freedoms can be effectively exercised if people are subject to abusive behaviour or language in their regard; that is, if through attacks on the honour and reputation of their religious or political community, people are subject to mediated attacks on their individual honour and reputation.

Now the content of one person's religion or belief might be such that it is offensive to the religion or belief of another (which is the difficulty that the law faces in proscribing offensive language and behaviour). The expression of difference of opinion in this respect might give rise to offence in a very qualified manner as regards the content of what is expressed. But the recognition of the dignity of the person in the other, and regard for his or her honour and reputation, certainly constrains the manner of the expression of difference. And in this sense, I think the UN Declaration should suggest to us that, no, there is not an unqualified right to be offensive towards others.

Whilst the proscription of the law might extend only to hate crime based on certain protected characteristics, and not to offensiveness itself, there remains the obligation, articulated in human rights instruments, for citizens to maintain the dignity of others, and to respect their honour and reputation. The lack of legal proscription makes the responsibility of the citizen in this regard all the more important.

Same sex marriage is not a human right - UPDATED

According to the BBC News reporting:

The US Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is a legal right across the United States.

But it is interesting to note that the European Court has ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights does not impose on countries adhering to the Convention an obligation to legalise same sex marriage - see here, paragraphs 60-64. And by a strong implication, since the European Convention is in some respect derivative from it, this suggests that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights likewise does not articulate any right of same sex couples to marry as being a human right.

Article 16 (1) of the UN Declaration, therefore, should be seen as articulating only a right of a man and a woman to marry:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

As with all the human rights expressed in the UN Declaration this is a right that is universal (it applies equally to all men and women), and it is inalienable (that is, in the context of this post, it is neither conveyed by the positive law of a country and nor can it be taken away by that law).

According to the preamble to the  UN Declaration:

.... human rights should be protected by the rule of law ....

In other words, it is not the proper task of the law to convey human rights that do not in fact exist. It is rather the task of the law to protect and allow the exercise of rights that arise from the very nature of the human person, that is, rights that are universal and inalienable. A system of law that attempts to create a human right has overstepped its competence.

So, as we read the news of the US Supreme Court decision, I think we should be careful to recognise, first of all, what the decision has and has not done. And then we should also resist the suggestion that the decision is one that makes the United States a more equal or fairer place - in so far as the decision does not protect a recognised human right it can only be seen as being neutral in this regard.

UPDATE 1: Neil Addison analyses the dissenting judgements of the US Supreme Court here - and, interestingly, the dissenting judges appear to be raising a question about the Court's action from the point of view of the nature of law, but in a rather different way than I suggest above. There is a further post by Neil Addison here.

UPDATE 2: The President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States has issued a statement, the full text of which can be found here. The opening paragraph of the statement reads:

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage

A brief thought on Charlie

Some Catholic comment has argued that, from a Catholic point of view, "on n'est pas Charlie": see here, for an example.

In quite a thoughtful way, and responding to much the same evidence base as those who have argued that they are not Charlie,  Humblepiety answered the question Je suis Charlie? in the affirmative.

This post at First Things also gives some insight into how the French themselves have reacted to the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo: My Life with Charlie Hebdo. It is also interesting to read the message to the Catholics of Paris published today by Archbishop Vingt-Trois, published here at La Croix.

At one level, the discussion can be held at the level of the legislation in force in a country. Charlie Hebdo 's cartoons are, by all accounts, quite offensive to those who practice the Catholic faith in France as much as some of them have been to Muslims. But a country where the language of religious offense has been enshrined in positive law is Pakistan .... where the blasphemy law does in effect lead to very significant religious persecution of both Muslims and those who live out other religious beliefs.

In the more secular countries of the developed world, the language is that of discrimination and protected characteristics, with actions that disadvantage someone who manifests a protected characteristic being the subject of civil or criminal sanction. There is also a category of legal provision with regard to harassment and the giving of offence. The risk with this situation is that reasonable manifestation of an opinion differing from the prevailing social consensus can be construed as harassment or offence thereby particularly restricting freedom of religious expression in (relatively speaking) secularised societies.

My own thoughts on the question have focussed on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of the Declaration reads:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The presumption of much of the discussion about Charlie Hebdo has been that the material it publishes falls under this provision of freedom of expression, understood as conveying a right to say and publish pretty much anything that one wishes - regardless. I am not sure that the specification of the right contained in the last clause of Article 19 does in fact convey such a right.

Article 12 of the Declaration reads, with italics added to indicate the element of the Article relevant to the present discussion:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

In the light of Article 18's assertion of the right to freedom of belief and practice for both individuals and communities, I would suggest that attacks upon the honour and reputation of a religious community would equate to attacks upon the honour and reputation of the individuals who are members of that community and so fall under the provision of Article 12. [This is reinforced by recalling that the immediate historical context of the UN Declaration was the events of the Second World War and the Nazi persecution of Jews and other minority communities.] Understood in this way, Article 12 provides a boundary within which the freedom of expression asserted in Article 19 should be exercised. Catholic commentators are, in effect, suggesting that the material published by Charlie Hebdo goes beyond this boundary in attacking the honour and reputation of members of religious communities.

The significance of considering the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that the rights enshrined there arise from the nature of the human person; they are, in the words of the preamble to the Declaration, "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family". The positive law of a country does not convey those rights; rather, it should protect them. In addition, the language of the Declaration is not that of a particular religious community that, when projected into positive law, undermines the freedom of others; and neither is it the language of a secularised liberalism that risks undermining genuine freedom of expression of information and ideas.

Certainly those who were killed in the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo were subject to a breach of Article 3 of the UN Declaration, which asserts the right of everyone to life, liberty and security of the person. Those who carried out the attack committed a quite heinous crime against the human persons of their victims.

But, though a certain allowance has to be made for the particular genre of journalism that comes under the heading of "satirical journalism" and that, of its nature, gives rise to some degree of offense when you are yourself its particular target (cf the reaction of Eve-Alice Roustang linked above), one can debate whether or not Charlie Hebdo is an authentic representative of the freedom of expression as articulated in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Oui, on est Charlie (cf Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme Article 3), mais - peut-etre oui, peut-etre non - en meme temps, peut etre on n'est pas Charlie (cf Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme Article 12).

Thoughts on a day of action

Gay activists are today marking an international "day of action" which, if I have understood news reports correctly, intends to put pressure on those enterprises sponsoring the Winter Olympics to make explicit statements of opposition to Russian laws with regard to the supplying of information about LGBT lifestyles.

1. I do think that Christian leaders in Russia and internationally would do well to be heard condemning physical and verbal violence against those activists on the side of LGBT lifestyles, violence that appears from media reports to be at a significant level. This condemnation does not imply any withdrawal on their part from traditional Christian teaching on human sexuality; it is on the other hand a legitimate witness to the dignity of human persons whose beliefs on this matter are different from their own. It represents a principle of non-discrimination at the heart of action on behalf of the human person - in the word used by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are "inalienable", that is, they belong to each and every human person without exception.

2. It is also worth taking cognisance of Article 16, especially sub-section (3), of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recognising that the sense of this article applies to marriage as a union between a man and a woman:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Whatever one might make of the motivations of the Russian politicians and the circumstances under which they enacted their law which is the subject of todays protest, that law can be seen as a provision to protect marriage and family life as envisaged by sub-section 3.

One might put it against Article 19's assertion of a right of exchange of information; but there is provision within the UN Declaration at Article 29 for limitations of rights in order to meet the requirements of "the general welfare in a democratic society", which might well be seen as applicable in this case:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

3.  Following the example of Auntie Joanna, this appears an appropriate time to post the text of the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (scroll down from this link to find the relevant paragraphs) on this question:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴⁰ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴¹ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

What is "state education"?

My own trade union has begun a discussion with its membership aimed at arriving at a kind of "manifesto for education". If I have understood the intent of this conversation correctly, it is intended to support the union's work in responding to the rampaging policies of the present Coalition Government and to provide a strong document that can be used to challenge the major political parties as they move towards the next General Election in May 2015.

I took part in a seminar earlier today that was part of this conversation. Two things struck me about the seminar. The way in which the question was set for us precluded any discussion of the aims of education (though that might have been more explicitly addressed in other discussion groups). And religion was not mentioned as a factor to be included in a consideration of education.

The context of much of the discussion was the policy of the present Coalition Government in promoting Academies, Free Schools, Studio Schools etc - that is, a range of different types of schools funded from central government through funding agreements and run by bodies that are "private" in the sense that they are not bodies of central or local government. The headline of the teacher unions' campaigning against this policy is that of "defending state education".

But the question I asked was: what exactly does the union mean when it uses that term "state education" in the articulation of its policy against Academies, Free Schools etc.? Does "state funding" define a state ownership of the educational enterprise, in which case the funding defines the enterprise as a state enterprise? Or, which would be more in line with Catholic teaching, does the state funding enable parents, and the schools who are their collaborators in the provision of education for their children, to fulfil their responsibilities (subsidiarity and all that)? In this latter case, the ownership of the educational enterprise rests more at a level of civil society, shared between the parents/legal guardians. And, of course, there is rather less of a problem in principle with funding mechanisms that allow state funds to support private bodies - ie civil society - in the provision of this education. [There might well still be other grounds for opposing government policy in this area, but the in principle "no to privatisation" does not quite work, because on this model the state does not have ownership of the enterprise anyway.] And when I suggested ever so gently that learning and coming to know what was true was a part of the purpose of education ... I felt I was a rather lonely voice.

The absence of consideration of the part to be played by religion or religious communities in the provision of education prompted me to go back to the UN UNiversal Declaration of Human Rights, which contains clear provision with regard to the rights of parents/legal guardians with respect to the education of their children. Article 26 reads as follows:

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.  

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.  

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

The principle underlying state funding of an education service is that it enables a UN member state to fulfil its obligations under paragraphs (1) and (3) of this article, paragraph (3) additionally requiring a degree of plurality in the types of educational provision that are funded. Paragraph (2) provides a basis for a state to require certain standards of the education that is provided using its funding.

These provisions are further supported in a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention against Discrimination in Education from 1960. What is interesting here are the provisions of Article 2, which clearly recognise a place for considerations of religion in an educational system.

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term `discrimination' includes any distinction, exclusion, limitation or preference which, being based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic condition or birth, has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing equality of treatment in education and in particular:

(a) Of depriving any person or group of persons of access to education of any type or at any level;

(b) Of limiting any person or group of persons to education of an inferior standard;

(c) Subject to the provisions of Article 2 of this Convention, of establishing or maintaining separate educational systems or institutions for persons or groups of persons; or

(d) Of inflicting on any person or group of persons conditions which are in-compatible with the dignity of man.

2. For the purposes of this Convention, the term `education' refers to all types and levels of education, and includes access to education, the standard and quality of education, and the conditions under which it is given.

Article 2

When permitted in a State, the following situations shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination, within the meaning of Article 1 of this Convention:

(a) The establishment or maintenance of separate educational systems or in-stitutions for pupils of the two sexes, if these systems or institutions offer equivalent access to education, provide a teaching staff with qualifications of the same standard as well as school premises and equipment of the same quality, and afford the opportunity to take the same or equivalent courses of study;

(b) The establishment or maintenance, for religious or linguistic reasons, of separate educational systems or institutions offering an education which is in keeping with the wishes of the pupil's parents or legal guardians, if participation in such systems or attendance at such institutions is optional and if the education provided conforms to such standards as may be laid down or approved by the competent authorities, in particular for education of the same level ;

(c) The establishment or maintenance of private educational institutions, if the object of the institutions is not to secure the exclusion of any group but to provide educational facilities in addition to those provided by the public authorities, if the institutions are conducted in accordance with that object, and if the education provided conforms with such standards as may be laid down or approved by the competent authorities, in particular for education of the same level.

Article 3

In order to eliminate and prevent discrimination within the meaning of this Convention, the States Parties thereto undertake:

(a) To abrogate any statutory provisions and any administrative instructions and to discontinue any administrative practices which involve discrimination in education;

(b) To ensure, by legislation where necessary, that there is no discrimination in the admission of pupils to educational institutions;

(c) Not to allow any differences of treatment by the public authorities between nationals, except on the basis of merit or need, in the matter of school fees and the grant of scholarships or other forms of assistance to pupils and necessary permits and facilities for the pursuit of studies in foreign countries ;

(d) Not to allow, in any form of assistance granted by the public authorities to educational institutions, any restrictions or preference based solely on the ground that pupils belong to a particular group;

(e) To give foreign nationals resident within their territory the same access to education as that given to their own nationals.

Article 4

The States Parties to this Convention undertake furthermore to formulate, develop and apply a national policy which, by methods appropriate to the circumstances and to national usage, will tend to promote equality of opportunity and of treatment in the matter of education and in particular:

(a) To make primary education free and compulsory; make secondary education in its different forms generally available and accessible to all; make higher education equally accessible to all on the basis of individual capacity; assure compliance by all with the obligation to attend school prescribed by law;

(b) To ensure that the standards of education are equivalent in all public educational institutions of the same level, and that the conditions relating to the quality of the education provided are also equivalent;

(c) To encourage and intensify by appropriate methods the education of persons who have not received any primary education or who have not completed the entire primary education course and the continuation of their education on the basis of individual capacity;

(d) To provide training for the teaching profession without discrimination.

What interests me, or perhaps, more accurately, concerns me in the context of the discussion that has been initiated in my own trade union is a failure to look back to documents such as these from the United Nations that can provide a principled basis informing that discussion.

If ....

The rights expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are, according to its preamble, to be considered applicable to everyone and they are to be considered as "inalienable". This latter descriptor means that the rights enshrined in the Declaration are not to be taken away from anyone for any reason. Political opinion is explicitly referred to as one of the distinctions that do not allow for derogation from the rights expressed in the Declaration (cf Article 2).

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

It seems to me that, rather than being a question of freedom of expression (cf Article 19), the debate about the playing of a certain song by the BBC is a question relating to Article 12. That is, it is  question about attacking the honour and reputation of an individual. The question facing the BBC is not one of restricting or not restricting freedom of expression, but one of whether or not they wish to make themselves party to a breach of Article 12. Freedom of expression can be adequately achieved by observations of political difference from Mrs Thatcher.

However, both during her own political career and since, it has been socially/culturally acceptable to attack her reputation. Now, if, instead of being Mrs Thatcher, the person being subjected to such attack were ..[substitute here your own particular favoured figure] .. or if that person today, say, were to be well known in the LGBT community, then outrage might follow. Why not for Mrs Thatcher?

The right at stake is universal and inalienable - so Mrs T is entitled to it as much as anyone else.