Something being old and established does not make it inherently good - child marriage and children working is universal and established in many places across the world, this does not make it inherently a social good. A new idea, like the rights of children has usurped what has been human practice across many societies and civilisations for a long time. The idea that children should be protected is also brand new. It's not that your something has been established for a long time doesn't lack validity, it does - it just doesn't necessarily follow that it is a holistic social good.

The human rights issue also has nuance - because there are conflicting rights at play in pluralistic societies. The rights you might rely on, such as (19) 'freedom of expression' can also be applied to those who wish to express their right to (18) freedom of religion. Every person must be treated equally under the law (7) but parents who don't want their children to be educated with a liberal agenda might cite (12), the right to a private family life.

You may not wish to debate the human rights issues - but that only applies when you feel your human rights are violated and not exploring what other human rights are at play. For the centrist moderate that's a more complicated question. I go back to (29) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

So, whilst I agree with the liberal position you take, I cannot condone any position which refuses to acknowledge other people have the right to dissent and can appeal to the law to protect their rights. You cannot create a liberal and tolerant society with liberalism only applied to your own position. That's essentially just a liberal crusade and ignores the complexities of real life - as an example, where do you stand on the Isla Bryson issue? Is it not up for debate? Or should it be debated because there are competing rights at play? :o)