[edbob]

"Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration."

"Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief..."

"Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable..."

"Article 49. Marriage, the family, and mother and child are protected by the state..."

Just meaningless words on a page. To be completely fair, the text does imply that the above isn't worth a wooden nickel in practice:

"Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens."

The European Convention on Human Rights has a similar clause (which you quoted) that allows the state to eliminate one's rights "for the protection of health or morals". It seems that "human rights" are mainly there to make the state seem legitimate. They "protect" humans against the state for exactly as long as the state allows.

[sidlls]

Yes, article 51 that you quoted more or less makes any other article completely irrelevant. That's the whole point. In western countries there really isn't an equivalent to Article 51 in any meaningful sense. China's government is an oppressive dictatorship by design. It makes a big difference.