Somehow I don't feel entirely comfortable with it, for said human rights reasons. Of course, having a child molested makes me even a lot more uncomfortable, so maybe it's a lesser of two evils situation?
Mr Tusk's refusal "to call such individuals – such creatures – human beings" doesn't sound too good either. It's a little more complicated than that and reminds me of calling Hitler a monster, instead of looking at what humans are capable of doing. As hard as it is, people have to stop thinking about such situations from the vigilante point of view of parents, keep a sober and clear head and think it through.

It's mostly this, that sounds a bit off:
"Supporters are reminding those against the move that the effects of chemical castration are not permanent, nor are they a guarantee that a paedophile will not re-offend."
What's the point then? It may lower the risk, okay, but doesn't eliminate it. If this law gets through, one will have to see how it goes in the next few years. Maybe it checks out successfully.

This is the first time I read about the British model, where offenders have to agree to get treated. That I can get behind entirely.