The lefties must be outraged and will be pouring out their vitriol in social media. But for the ordinary Australian it is a victory for real human rights.

I came to Australia 27 years ago, not only for better economic prospects for my children but also for their freedom of speech and basic human rights. It has been a paradise compared with countries such as Pakistan.

But in recent times, with the Labor government and the Greens, I had become disillusioned about where our beautiful country was heading. Now my hope and dream is restored and I pray that our country will have absolute freedom of speech as our banner to the rest of the world.

Nalini Gayer, Westmead, NSW

AS the only non-minority group recipient of a favourable racial discrimination tribunal decision in the history of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, in the case Bell versus ATSIC, I welcome the appointment of Tim Wilson.

In 1990-95, I experienced the operational philosophy of this organisation in a case that could have been resolved in a week with a handshake apology for racially vilifying remarks in the workplace.

I hope Wilson's appointment will help provide a balance in the commission that was reflected in my case.

John Bell, Heidelberg Heights, Vic

WHILE I agree with Merv Bendle when he extends his best wishes to Tim Wilson on his appointment to that renegade agency, the Human Rights Commission, a more fundamental issue arises (Letters, 19/12).

That is, does a nation with a strong and enviable common law tradition need such quasi-judicial bodies? If we can't trust independent courts with well-honed rules of procedure and evidence together with democratically elected parliaments to protect our freedoms, not least free speech, then no committee of "experts" will save us from catastrophe. Governments, since such bodies exist at state as well as federal level (with a particularly expensive and farcical ACT model), could do worse than to scrap these and any similar busybody bureaucracies. Cost cutting has to begin somewhere.

John Kidd, Auchenflower, Qld

THE appointment of Tim Wilson, star of the Institute of Public Affairs, to the Human Rights Commission, a body he wants abolished, has predictably displeased some and pleased others. It would be fair to describe these groups broadly as the Left and the Right, or more neutrally as Wilson's critics and backers respectively.

However, Christian Kerr ("Wilson's backers speak out against Left's human-rights hypocrisy", 19/12) hedges his bets, pitting Wilson's backers, who prefer some rights over others because they love freedom, against the Left, who prefer some rights over others because they are hypocritical.

This is expanded in your editorial ("The Left goes missing in defence of free speech", 19/12), even linking hypocrisy with the wearing of beards.

If you are on the opposite side of a debate from the Left, chances are you are of the Right. If you are uncomfortable with that label, it is advisable not to apply its opposite to your opponents. If not, wear it with the same pride with which your enemies supposedly wear their facial hair.

John O'Hagan, Preston, Vic

THE Human Rights Commission supposedly monitors compliance by Australia with its international obligations. Australia does not have to comply with so-called international obligations touted by the UN. Australia should reassert its commitment to free speech.

Anyone with an understanding of the historical struggle for democracy knows that free speech trumps everything. Tim Wilson knows this.

John Chambers, Brisbane, Qld