"unable to achieve progress by campaigning directly for their objectives, they have chosen to misrepresent the purposes of and manufacture unfounded fears..."

Just who is the author referring to? She claims ACL, but, ironically, this portrays the selective minority groups that want to force public and legislative acceptance of their lifestyle choices upon the majority.

Some stuff should be public policy and other stuff should be left to the bedroom (nightclub etc etc)

A national Human Rights Act should be enacted to protect a broad range of rights recognised at international law, including the right to equality and the right to equal protection of the law without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; and the right of a child to be protected from all forms of discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation of the child’s parents, legal guardians or family members.
Importantly the Act should require Parliament to consider how laws impact on human rights, require the Government to respect human rights in policy development, and provide effective remedies when rights have been violated.
Workplace discrimination against lesbians and gay men remains significant, which results in many modifying their behaviour in particular environments.
Discrimination against lesbian and gay students and teachers also remains a significant problem. It can result in students changing schools, performing below their academic ability, and potentially developing mental health problems including depression.
Children of same-sex families continue to suffer legal and social discrimination. This is evidenced by NSW adoption laws that prohibit adoption by same-sex couples, thereby denying children the same entitlements and protections other children enjoy.
Currently there is no comprehensive federal anti-discrimination legislation which covers discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Yep bring on a Human Rights Bill. Every Gay Teacher/Scoutmaster/Religious Minister/ Childrens Councillor will scream discrimination if they are not allowed to mollest children in their care. Every Gun Nut will scream discrimination if they can't shoot anywhere or anything they want, even people. (see America)

In other posts I have seen people wanting to do all sorts of things to pedophiles. A Human Rights Bill means YOU won't be allowed to protest if one is places next door to you or your school. Think about that. If you demonstrate against him you are breaking the Human Rights Law. Da Dahh. So you will be a Hypocrite.

What about the right to have free uncensored internet? K Rudd is a hypocryt.

My,my,how public opinion changes within 12 months. Ms Ryan urges the Prime Minister to introduce human rights legislation this year citing "a range of public opinion surveys available publicly (which) suggest there is no danger of a significant electoral backlash against a moderate, well presented, properly targeted, human rights law reflecting the needs and wishes of Australians in 2010 and beyond."
Unfortunately she provides no references to these surveys so I can only rely on the survey conducted as part of the Brennan Inquiry which elicited the "wishes" of Australians in 2009.
Here is an extract from the Brennan Enquiry report:
"Of the five specific ways that human rights could be improved that were included in the survey, support for all of them was over 50%, and in some cases as high as 90%.
However, support (and preference) was highest for those options which did not involve any additional definition of rights or protection. Parliament and Government paying attention to human rights when developing or making laws were the most supported; ahead of increased education; then a non-binding statement of human rights issued by the Federal Parliament; and then a specific human rights law, which was the least preferred of these options."
A human rights law then was the least preferred (57%cf 90%) of all options to improve human rights within Australia, presented to the random sample of over 1200 respondents.
So why would a politically savvy person like Prime Minister Rudd get involved in an exercise promoting human rights legislation, legislation which the overwhelming majority of Australian rate as the lowest option for improving human rights in Australia?

The comments in response to Ms Ryan’s article seem to be heralding the same old anti-charter lines. Greedy lawyers. Unelected power-hungry judges. Australians happy with the rights they have.

One reader wishes that our leaders would just cater to the demands of the mainstream and shelve any laws that might benefit minority groups. Australia’s cherished “democracy” isn’t just about making the majority happy; it’s about representing the whole of society; majority and minorities alike. Yes, Jayb, that includes the “minority weirdo groups” and the “gay lobby and anti-abortion lobby” and the “free drugs lobby, free guns for everyone” and the “mentally challenged”. The fact that Australia has ratified international human rights conventions like the ICCPR and ICESCR doesn’t mean those international obligations have been fully implemented domestically. This is evident from the ongoing coverage of human rights abuses against women and children, asylum seekers and indigenous Australians.

For eight months, the National Human Rights Consultation Committee engaged with the Australian public; Australians, mind you, not just picked out from those minority weirdo groups but from all over the country, from urban and rural regions, from trades and professional occupations, from different faiths and political backgrounds. The majority of that wide spread of people thought that specific groups were still in need of further protection of their rights.

The human rights act would help to fulfil Australia’s international obligations and provide better protection of those minority rights we feel we need to reinforce. The unelected judiciary will continue in the role that they hold now; judges of whether laws are compatible. No fear, Parliament will always have the last word