Two factors motivated this piece :
i) I’m sitting here listening to Susan Ryan ramble on about Human Rights , and
ii) OLO has looking a bit tame lately …this should awake a few people from their Easter slumbers and, be fitting too, since some will be beying “crucify him!” ( including the ”how dare you compare yourself to Christ” mob)

It used to be said that nationalism was the last refuge of the scoundrel, surely, in this century, human rights has overtaken nationalism as the scoundrels preferred refuge.

Susan Ryan trots out the array of human rights martyrs… including…Cornelia Rau! Not a word about how such persons , might, just , have contributed to their plight by their behaviour –no, it’s purely and simply a case of big brother violating rights .

Then, she cites the illegal immigrants held in detention – they arrive here after have flouted every immigration norm – but unless they’re granted full access to services on arrival – we’re in violation of their human rights and, god knows how many UN covenants. ( thinking on a par with going to a crowded market place in Java or Calcutta and shouting ‘free board and lodging!’)

Human rights advocates have hit on a sure fire tactic, most people only remember the headlines & opening paragraph, they don’t read the fine print – so, if you repeat something often enough it will be filed away in folk memory as fact.
(as an aside: have you noticed prominent persons of labour extraction are most adroit at this – that should have Belly jumping!)

The starting point for human rights arguments is a concern to protect the rights of individuals , but it doesn’t take long before it’s clear that important decisions are to be assigned to an "enlightened" few. In this Radio National broadcast, one advocate proposed that they (the HR patricians) should implement the changes first and let the (plebeian) electorate consider the package when they’re "better educated on the issue"!

WHAT’S THE CONSENSUS ON OLO, DOES AUSTRALIA NEED A HUMAN RIGHTS WIDGET ?

So humans having a basic right to life is bad?. Move to Zimbabwe dude.

...and what's the difference between a 'refugee' and an 'illegal immigrant', according to you?.

I think we need codified CIVIL rights, based on reasonable human and political rights, but am totally against any UN sponsored "Human Rights" type garbage, it's too vague and lawyer-ridden, not to mention downright impossible to implement.
It should only apply to Australian citizens, we need a separate code for others of whatever ilk, legal and otherwise.

The right not to be offended.
The homosexual right to "procreate".
A woman's right to commit infanticide on a 35 week old foetus.
These are just some of the faux human rights which are nevertheless championed by "progressives".
Most of these "rights" are so patently wrong that they haven't a chance of being codified by the democratic process.
Or as the AHRC President Catherine Branson laments: “we cannot always trust our Parliament to pay sufficient regard to the protection of the human rights of every one in Australia”.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/media/media_releases/op_ed/20081210_preventing.html
This is where the Australian Human Rights Commission and a proposed Charter of Rights come in.
They are designed to bypass the will of the ignorant masses so that the enlightened elite can create their dystopian state.
People like Branson and sundry judicial and quasi-judicial activists don't trust our democratically elected parliament but arrogantly expect us to trust them, a bunch of unrepresentative, unelected bureaucrats who know better than the people.
They represent the antithesis of democracy and are essentially totalitarian.

KMB, I agree with some of your post, though we differ to some degree.
I feel it's right to say we can't trust our pollies to ensure our rights, that's a given in my book, they're too willing to compromise, and have no limits to what, IMO.
I also agree that the "progressives" are in reality a "lunatic fringe", and dangerous if acted upon, however, listen we must, that's democracy, and winnow out the gems from the dross.
It's all a contentious area, and will take much discourse/discord to achieve, but the need is real.

Human rights?

Human rights - the last refuge of the righteous, just and honest.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, .....

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life,

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination