Classical Music Lovers win Campaign Victory

It's always refreshing to see positive campaign outcomes at GoPetition. For a list of recent ones see http://www.gopetition.com/news.php and our success story listings.

In the case of the Roberta Invernizzi campaign, a new genre of fan can now be categorized: the "classical music activist". The campaign in question produced a positive outcome and involved a petition commenced by Roberta Triumphans. In short, the petition has been successful in achieving a notable CD release.

The petition requested that a record label release a CD with the Italian soprano Roberta Invernizzi consisting of the following arias:

1- Destin Avaro from Vivaldi´s La fida Ninfa
2- Se pieta di me non senti - From Handel´s Giulio Cesare
3- Gelosia, tu già rendi l'alma mia from Vivaldi´s Ottone in Villa
4- Ah crudel il pianto mio - From Handel´s Rinaldo
5- Scocca dardi - From Vivaldi´s Griselda
6- Io ti levo l'impero dell'armi - from Handel´s Partenope
7- Scoglio d'immota fronte from Handel´s Scipione
8- Combatta un gentil cor - from Vivaldi´s Tito Manlio
9- Credete al mio dolore - From Handel´s Alcina;
10- Son fra scogli e fra procelle - From Vivaldi´s Teuzzone;
11- Destero Dall'empia Dite - From Handel´s Amadigi;
12 -Vede orgogliosa l'onda - From Vivaldi´s Griselda.

Due in no small part to the campaign, a CD with Roberta Invernizzi singing some of the Vivaldi arias requested in the petition will be released in May 2012 by Glossa music.

According to the campaign organizer, "We consider this petition has fulfilled its purpose. Thanks to everyone who signed and supported this campaign, we also thank Glossa, and Ms. Invernizzi for making this dream come true."

"Thanks also to GoPetition. This site was very helpful for us to achieve our goal. After 3 years we fulfilled our purpose."

I look forward to listening to Invernizzi's (below) classical renditions in the near future.

Roberta_invernizzi_handel_cantatas

(Photo of Milanese soprano Roberta Invernizzi by: Bruna Ginammi)

Will the White House Petition Platform help Americans?

E-petitioners will be aware that the White House has launched an online initiative to allow Americans to petition online.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States protects the right of the people to "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." When the White House officially launched We the People, that constitutional right was be formally brought into the digital age. 

"When I ran for this office, I pledged to make government more open and accountable to its citizens," President Obama says at WhiteHouse.gov. "That's what the new We the People feature on WhiteHouse.gov is all about – giving Americans a direct line to the White House on the issues and concerns that matter most to them.”

White_house

While some political commentators will inevitably tie this initiative to the gearing up of the 2012 campaign, there is a big idea embedded in this launch, going back to the original compact between the American people and its government. Petitions have played an important role in the nation's history, from the Virginia Legislature to Quakers petitioning the colonial government and Continental Congress to abolish slavery. The White House will not be bound to make policy based upon e-petitions, but they have given the nation a powerful new official way to use the Internet as a platform for collective action, making their digital voices heard. Sites like GoPetition.com have been promoting the "digital voice" for the last ten years, but better late than never for the White House platform.

White House Director of Digital Strategy Macon Phillips announced e-petitions with a blog post at WhiteHouse.gov and a video where he explained how White House e-petitions would work. "With We the People, we're offering a new way to submit an online petition on a range of issues -- and get an official response," he wrote.

The initial basis for campaigning incorporated several key ideas:

  • Citizens to be able to create or sign e-petitions on a "range of issues".
  • If an e-petition gathers more than 5,000 signatures in 30 days, White House officials will review and answer it.
  • Initially, an e-petition will have a unique URL that only its creator knows. "It's up to that person to share it in their network to gather an initial amount of signatures -- initially 150 -- before it is searchable on WhiteHouse.gov," wrote Phillips. In this context, a "network" means online social networks, like Twitter or Facebook.

Despite that explanation, there are still many questions that remain in terms of how e-petitions will fit into a 21st century e-democracy. As Phillips recognized, the United States isn't the first to try this: the United Kingdom offers e-petitions, and according to Phillips, their work "was very helpful as we developed our own." The sticky e-widget there is that the UK dropped e-petitions in 2010 as the new prime minister came into office, due to negative publicity and other issues, before relaunching it again.

One key limitation of the White House site is that it only allows campaigns directed to the White House. State and local jurisdictions are not included. Moreover, the broader concept of private petitioning against businesses, corporations and persons in general, is beyond the scope of the site. In these circumstances, online sites like GoPetition.com offer a broader basis for petitioning and a much more flexible platform. So while the White House site may in fact help many Americans voice their concerns at a Federal level, other site like GoPetition offer more flexibility and options in relation to petitioning both non-federal government and private bodies.

John Pope

This article is adapted from one by Alexander Howard  at http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/commentary-got-a-problem-you-want-the-white-house-to-fix-e-petition-it--20110909

Kardashian petition raises key issues about the status of American popular culture

Los Angeles, USA: A Denver area woman has launched a petition drive in an effort to tell E! Entertainment to terminate the Kardashians' TV program. Cyndy Snider has posted a petition to GoPetition asking that E! find "other shows to air."

"Keeping Up with the Kardashians is just not viewing that we the public would like to see from your network," she states. "Enough is enough."

As of Friday morning the petition had more than 143,000 signatures and a Facebook page promoting it had reached more than 50,000 likes.

The petition drive specifically addresses Kim Kardashian, who has faced criticism after her recent 72-day marriage to basketball player Kris Humphries, and asks people to boycott her. It also suggests not buying any products she or the Kardashian Brands sell and not shopping at any retail store that uses her as a spokesperson or carries the products.

"Kim Kardashian has made a mockery of American culture, doing whatever it takes to extend her fifteen minutes of fame so that she can selfishly profit from her celebrity status," the petition states. It adds she "continues to bate the media into giving her more unjustified coverage and allowing her to cash in financially." Below, Kim Kardashian was in Sydney, Australia, to launch a new handbag line on Nov. 1, 2011. (Daily Telegraph / NewsCore)

Kim_kardashian

A statement by Snider posted by the Yahoo! TV blog stated that petition supporters "feel that these shows are mostly staged and place an emphasis on vanity, greed, promiscuity, vulgarity and over-the-top conspicuous consumption." CBS4 Denver reported that Snider, 41, started the petition in early November. She told CBS4 that she is against what the show portrays and does not consider its material appropriate. The CBS4 interview with Snider can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/user/GoPetition

"I'm not aware of anybody in my neighborhood that's going out and leaking their own sex tapes," she said. Snider told CBS4 that being a "Kim hater" has led to death threats against her.

While the show has its haters, the blog ZAP2it.com stated that "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" is one of E!'s highest-rated shows. The special "Kim's Fairytale Wedding: A Kardashian Event" drew 10.5 million viewers. Comment on ZAP2It's blog have been mixed with one person posting, "Boycott these no talent sharks!" Some suggested not stopping there but boycotting shows like "Jersey Shore" as well. Others said don't bother. "I'm sorry but I think this is stupid," one reader wrote. "If you don't want to watch the show don't watch it, if you don't want your kids to watch it, there's a thing called parental control. There are far more ridiculous things on TV …"

The extreme popularity of the anti-Kardashians' petition suggests a deeply divided America at a core cultural level. On the one hand, the pro camp illustrates a fascination with "real life" pulp fiction entertainment, while the anti-Kardashians' camp illustrates a deep backlash against an alleged degenerating, vain, shallow and valueless American popular culture.

John Pope

GoPetition

Sources: thanks to http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/entertainment/kardashian-boycott-asks-to-cancel-show-dpgoha-20111117-fc_15993955

A Review of Federal Guidelines for Parliamentary Petitions in Australia

The Lower House of Federal Parliament in Australia has released guidelines for petitioners. These guidelines provide important information and helpful tips on the petition process. Unfortunately, at this stage, the guidelines do not allow for e-petitions, but are limited to traditional paper petitions requiring physical signatures. A summary of the guidelines can be seen below.

The right of petitioning Parliament is a longestablished fundamental right of the citizen. It is the only direct means by which an individual or group can ask the Parliament to take action—all other processes entail communicating through a parliamentary representative (Member or Senator) or a parliamentary committee. 

What is a petition?

A petition is basically a request for action. The subject of a petition must be a matter on which the House has the power to act, that is, it must be a Federal (nationally controlled) rather than a State matter and one involving legislation or government administration. The ‘terms’ of a petition consist of the address, reasons for petitioning the House and a request for action by the House. For example, petitions may ask the House to introduce legislation, or to repeal or change existing legislation, or to take action for a certain purpose or for the benefit of particular people. Less commonly a petition from an individual citizen may seek the redress of a personal grievance, for example, the correction of an administrative error. 

New arrangements for petitions 

In the past, the Parliament was informed of the subject matter of each petition and the number of signatures. They were then forwarded to the relevant Minister but responses were unusual. At the commencement of the 42nd Parliament in 2008 the House of Representatives amended standing orders (the rules of the House) relating to the way petitions are dealt with. A Standing Committee on Petitions was established to ensure that all petitions presented to the House were considered and responded to appropriately. The role of the Petitions Committee is to receive and process petitions and to inquire into and report to the House on any matters relating to petitions and the petitions system. 

The principal petitioner In order to improve the House’s ability to respond to petitions, the rules for petitions require a principal petitioner (even where a group of people sponsor a petition). This person, who initiates, sponsors or organises a petition, must provide his or her original signature along with full contact details on the first page of the petition. This will enable the Petitions Committee to contact him or her regarding any response or follow-up to the petition. Contact details are for the use of the Petitions Committee and will not be published. It is not possible for a Member of the House of Representatives to be a principal petitioner or indeed to sign a petition. 

Drawing up a petition 

Care must be taken in the preparation of petitions as the House has certain rules about their form and content. These rules are designed to ensure the authenticity of petitions and to protect the intentions of petitioners. A recommended form of a petition to the House of Representatives is at the end of this Infosheet. 1963 petition from the Yirrkala people concerning land rights, on traditionally decorated bark 2 The standing orders do not impose any particular style of expression but certain other requirements must be met. Those involved in drawing up petitions should familiarise themselves with the rules before collecting signatures. (The terms of the petition may not be altered after the collection of signatures commences.) If in doubt, the principal petitioner should contact the Petitions Committee secretariat early in the process of developing a petition to ensure it conforms with standing orders and can be accepted by the House. This will avoid the possibility of the petition being ruled out of order and not being presented to the House. 

To be presented to the House, a petition must: 
 be addressed to the House of Representatives 
 refer to a matter on which the House has the power to act, that is, a Commonwealth legislative or administrative matter 
 state the reasons for petitioning the House 
 contain a request for action by the House How a petition should be prepared At present the House of Representatives does not accept petitions in electronic form. Petitions must be on paper. In addition: 
 the petition must show the terms (the facts or reasons for the petition and the specific action requested) at the top of the first page of the petition and the request must be at the top of every subsequent page 
 the terms must not contain any alterations and must not exceed 250 words (i.e. address, reasons and request together) 
 the language used must be moderate and the terms of the petition must not be illegal or promote illegal acts 
 if the petition is not in English it must be accompanied by a translation certified to be correct. The person certifying the translation must place his or her name and address on the translation 
 it must not have any letters, affidavits or other documents attached to it and any such attachments will be removed before presentation to the House 
 a petition from a corporation should be made under its common seal. Otherwise it will be received as the petition of the individuals who signed it

Rules about signatures

Every petition must contain the signature and address of the principal petitioner on the first page. Each signature on the petition must be made by the person signing in his or her own handwriting. A petitioner who is not able to sign may ask another person to sign on his or her behalf. Every signature must be written on a page bearing the request part of the terms of the petition. Signatures must not be copied, pasted, photocopied or transferred on to the petition. They must not be placed on a blank page or on the reverse of a sheet containing the terms of the petition. Getting a petition presented Petitions can be mailed to the Petitions Committee in the House of Representatives. Alternatively, petitioners may ask any Member, including a Minister, to present a petition in person. In both cases, the Committee checks that petitions are ‘in order’ (comply with the rules for petitions) before presentation. 

What happens in the House? 

Petitions are usually presented on Mondays by the Chair of the Petitions Committee. The Chair announces the subject of the petition and the number of signatories for each petition. If a Member wishes to present a petition in person, there are a number of opportunities for this, including the time for Members’ statements, adjournment debate and the grievance debate. Petitions presented to the House are received by the House and they become part of the records of the House. At the time of presentation no discussion of the subject matter of a petition takes place (other than the Member’s statement if it is presented personally). 

What happens after a petition has been presented? 

After a petition has been announced in the House the full terms of the petition (but not the signatures) are printed in the Hansard for that day. They are also published on the Petitions Committee’s website. The Committee may forward the terms of the petition to the Minister responsible for the administration of the matter raised in the petition. Responses to petitions are announced in the House, printed in Hansard and are published on the Committee’s website. The Petitions Committee may also decide to hold discussions with the principal petitioner and government officials on the subject of the petition, at its discretion. Some statistics In the 42nd Parliament an average of 115 unique petitions were presented each year. Since 1988, when the number of signatures was first recorded, the petition with the greatest number of signatures was one presented on 4 December 2000 concerning taxation and beer prices, with 792,985 signatures. In 1993 a petition concerning health care funding signed by more than 500 000 people was presented. Petitions received cover a wide range of issues including, for example, health care, education and the environment. 

Historical note 

In the United Kingdom the right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of grievances dates back to the reign of King Edward I in the 13th century. The origins of Parliament itself can be traced back to those meetings of the King’s Council which considered petitions. The terms ‘bill’ and ‘petition’ originally had the same meaning. Some of the earliest legislation was in fact in form no more than a petition which had been agreed to by the King. The present form of petitions developed in the late 17th century. The House of Commons passed the following resolutions in 1669: That it is an inherent right of every Commoner of England to prepare and present petitions to the House in case of grievance; and of the House of Commons to receive them. That it is the undoubted right and privilege of the House of Commons to adjudge and determine, touching the nature and matter of such Petitions, how far they are fit and unfit to be received. The effect of these resolutions was inherited by the Australian Parliament and the right of petitioning thus became the right of every Australian. 

In modern times the practice of petitioning Parliament does not have the same primary role as an initiator of legislation or other action by the Parliament as it did in early history. There are now other, and usually more effective, means of dealing with individual grievances—for example, by direct representation by a Member of Parliament, by the Commonwealth Ombudsman or by bodies like the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is hoped that the new arrangements for responding to petitions may result in them becoming an important means of community involvement in the work of the Parliament. For more information House of Representatives Practice, 5th edn. Department of the House of Representatives, Canberra, 2001. pp 611–620. www.aph.gov.au/house/work/petitions.htm. 

From the standpoint of GoPetition, we are concerned that the Federal Parliament is not dealing with the reality of the information age and current technologies. There are ways to ensure signature integrity by electronic means. Moreover, e-petitions provide a more convenient means of identifying support while facilitating broader reach. GoPetition also takes the view that petitions lodged with GoPetition may be downloaded and presented to the Lower House by a supporting Member as a miscellaneous document. In this way, we believe that e-petitions at GoPetition can be presented to the Lower House for consideration.

The Timeless Nature of Petitions

As I recently returned home to Australia to catch up on a mountain of paperwork, I suddenly realised that my awaiting mail was only about a third of its usual size. No doubt this was due to the fact that I now receive most correspondence and statements electronically by email. But there is a paradox. Although I see less paper, I see just as much information (if not more). Nothing has changed.

And so it is with petitions. Nothing has changed. History tells us that the process of petitioning is ancient. I have written about this here. It seems that the human condition (psyche) is built to protest, to advocate, and to seek justice. No matter what the age. No matter what time in history we find ourselves.

For example, less than two hundred years ago, in Australia, one of the most famous petitions ever written had a powerful social influence. Despite an absence on Internet and email, the Ned Kelly petition has become a testimony to the trial and execution of an iconic Australian legend. Whether he is famous or infamous, is beside the point. The Ned Kelly petition demonstrated and captured like a photograph, a cross-section of the Australian colonial psyche.

After the bushranger Kelly was sentenced to death by Irish-born judge Sir Redmond Barry, Ned Kelly's friends and family, along with David Gaunson (the parliamentarian) organised a petition for reprieve and did their best to obtain as many signatures as possible to try and save Ned's life  from the hangman's noose.

Petitions in Ned's day were nothing new. They were used to help gain compo for Ann Jones, to try and stop Constable Fitzpatrick from being booted out of the police force in Lancefield, to get Mr. Ryan out of gaol after being arrested under the Felon's Apprehension Act and several others associated with the Kelly story.

After Ned's capture, a public meeting was held at the Hippodrome in Melbourne, seeking that the life of Ned Kelly be spared. The petition for reprieve was organised, published widely and then presented to the Governor. Over 30,000 signatures were collected on the petition. The actual numbers of signatures reported varies from 30,000 to 60,000.

The petition for reprieve has an important place in Australian colonial history. It demonstrates the tensions between "the establishment" - the incumbent government of Victoria - and the general population, anti-authoritarian working class battlers.

The petition came after the astonishing trial of Ned Kelly. After he was captured and stood trial, he was sentenced to death by the Irish-born judge Sir Redmond Barry. This case was extraordinary in that there were exchanges between the prisoner Kelly and the judge, and the case has been the subject of attention by both historians and lawyers. When the judge uttered the customary words "May God have mercy on your soul", Ned allegedly replied "I will go a little further than that, and say I will see you there when I go". He was hanged on 11 November at the Melbourne Gaol for multiple murder by Elijah Upjohn.

Although two newspapers (The Age and The Herald) reported Kelly's last words as "Such is life," another source, Ned Kelly's gaol warden, writes in his diary that when Kelly was prompted to say his last words, he (Kelly) opened his mouth and mumbled something that he couldn't hear—and since the warden's office is closer to the scene of the hanging than the witnesses' allotted space, Ned Kelly's last words actually remain uncertain.

Sir Redmond Barry died of the effects of a carbuncle on his neck on 23 November 1880, twelve days after Kelly. Kelly's prophetic powers and iconic magnetism were clearly evidenced by his trial, death and the amazing support he received in the Petition for Reprieve. Over 30,000 Victorians solidified Kelly's legendary status by signing the petition for reprieve which ultimately confirmed his iconic and quintessential colonial rebel status.

Petitions, then and now, have not changed. The delivery method and technology for signature collection may have advanced. But the human spirit behind each petition stays the same. Justice.

Petitions used to address intense pain of sexual abuse and lax anti-abuse laws

United Kingdom: One unfortunate observation about trending petitions at GoPetition is the constant stream of sexual abuse cases and the urgent need for law reform in this area at various levels.

In one case, child sex abuse survivor, Sarah Fox, has expressed her deep disappointment and outrage at a Supreme Court Ruling in the UK allowing sex offenders the right to appeal against being on the relevant sex register. Urging review, she has asked for help and support in a petition campaign targeting local MPs and the British Government.

Thousands of sex offenders in England and Wales are set to be given the right to appeal against having to register with the police for life. Home Secretary Theresa May said the government would make the "minimum possible changes" to comply with a 2010 Supreme Court ruling.She said ministers were "appalled" by the ruling and the bar for appeals would be set as "high as possible". Sex offenders will only be able to appeal 15 years after leaving prison.The Supreme Court ruled that denying offenders the right of appeal was incompatible with their human rights. But Andrew Flanagan, chief executive of the NSPCC, said: "Adults who sexually abuse children should stay on the offenders register for life as we can never be sure their behaviour will change."

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the appeals system "must be extremely tough" in order to win the support of Labour MPs."The depravity and the seriousness of sex offences, and the harm and damage they do to their victims, means the systems we have in place to protect the public must be paramount," she said.

Paedophiles: Only individuals sentenced to more than 30 months for a sex-related crime are required to register with police for life. It is estimated that about 24,000 sex offenders who were required to register for life, including paedophiles and rapists, could be affected by the ruling. Qualifying sex offenders are currently required to notify the police of their personal details, any change of address and when they travel abroad.There is no centrally held register of sex offenders in the UK, but the Home Office says the system of notifying the police is commonly known as the sex offenders register.

Last year, two convicted sex offenders used human rights laws to challenge the system and won the right to appeal against their life-long registration. The two offenders were a teenager convicted of rape and a 59-year-old man guilty of indecent assault. The teenage boy, known only as F, had been jailed for 30 months in October 2005, aged 11, for raping a six-year-old boy. The second case involved a man named Angus Aubrey Thompson, who was jailed in 1996 for five years. Both the offenders said their life-long registration with no chance of a review was a disproportionate interference in their family lives. In the case of F, he said he had been prevented from taking a family holiday abroad and from playing rugby league.

'Minimum changes'

Mrs May told the Commons the government was "appalled" by the Supreme Court ruling, but there was no possibility of further appeal. "This government is determined to do everything we can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders," she said. "And so we will make the minimum possible changes to the law in order to comply with this ruling." She said the Scottish government had already amended its laws to allow convicted adults to seek a review after 15 years on the sex offenders register, but the rules in England and Wales would be "much tougher".

"Offenders can only apply for consideration of removal after waiting 15 years following release from custody - in England and Wales there will be no automatic appeals," she said."The final decision of whether an offender should remain on the register will be down to the police, not the courts as in Scotland."There will be no right of appeal against the police's decision to keep an offender on the register. That decision will be final." She added the government was about to launch a consultation on closing down "four existing loopholes" in the registration system, including making it compulsory for offenders to notify the police if they intended to travel abroad for even one day, as opposed to the current three days or more. 

BBC political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said the ruling meant ministers were now "committed to introducing a review process". "They were due to bring proposals forward around now to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 but government sources have told the BBC an appeal system won't be introduced to Parliament until the spring," he said. He added the move was likely to infuriate backbenchers on both sides of the Commons who last week registered their disapproval over plans to give prisoners the vote in elections following legal decisions based on human rights laws.

Mark Williams-Thomas, a former police officer who worked in child protection, is concerned about the decision - particularly in relation to child sex offenders. "These people are like leopards, they don't change their spots," he said. "What we will end up with is potentially a very dangerous situation where someone has committed offences in the past and be able to say they haven't committed any new offences and therefore don't present a risk. "But they are a risk in the same way as an alcoholic is always an alcoholic."

The link to the online petition can be seen here: http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43086.html

Calls for Constitutional Reform Escalate in the USA

I find it interesting to observe trending topics at GoPetition, particularly in relation to executive government and constitutional reform.

What has become clear in the United States is that there is widespread discontent, if not anger, with the current status quo. Budget deficits, fiscal madness, bailout after bailout after bailout, and a never ending printing press at the Federal Reserve as Ben Bernanke seeks to devalue, if not debase, the once mighty US dollar.

Not surprisingly, many have called for an end to the Federal Reserve, a return to the gold standard, a return to balanced budgets, and the end of self-serving fiscal theft by politicians and their crony supporters and interest groups.

Perhaps in response, a 28th Amendment Petition was released on Presidents' Day February 21st, 2011. It was published as an online petition at www.gopetition.com/petitions/28th.html and simultaneously released as a spoken musical performance by We the People Folk Group at www.youtube.com/wethepeoplefolkgroup.

"Something like this needs to be done" said Rick Durrett, keyboardist of the group based in Nashville, TN. Rick joined the group along with six veteran entertainers in 2010 to bring back the sounds, joy, excitement and activism of American Folk Music from the 1960's era. While developing a new repertoire of songs pertinent to the current times, "people were telling us over and over again, fundamental changes need to be made and those in office will not do it," according to the group's producer, Jim Corrigan.

The group faced a dilemma: a constitutional amendment by 2/3rds of both Houses or 3/4ths of State Legislatures would never be approved given the fundamental changes included in this 28th Amendment Petition. For instance, the sections "No person seeking election to public office shall accept monetary gifts from any organization of any kind" and "Senators and Representatives shall not engage in fund-raising activities of any kind," are not revisions those holding public office would endorse.

The solution is an amendment by Popular Amendment. Although this method previously has not been tried in the USA, the legal status of online petitions is evolving. This petition could potentially become the first critical test of this fundamental right.

"Americans are introspectively watching suppressed people in the Middle East and Africa demand their fundamental rights, and this leads them to wonder about their own rights in their own country," the group's producer said. This 28th Amendment calls for a modernization of voting rights with a turn-of-the-century concept, "open-source voting," along with eight other changes to the Constitution.

Time will tell how well such calls are heeded by the American public. But one thing is certain. The winds of change are blowing and the status quo is about to be challenged by a political earthquake.

Additional information is available on the group's website www.wethepeoplefolkgroup.com.

A Press Release for the 28th Amendment petition can be viewed at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/03/01/prweb5105354.DTL

The petition can be viewed here.

John Pope

Guest Post: On the Art and Technology of Petition Publishing

London: My first petition was a response to the “Credit Crunch” - Stop the Cash Crumble to Equalize the Credit Crunch – in May 2008. The text was targeted at the Treasury Select Committee, for that was the advice I had been given: “go for Parliamentary scrutiny via the Treasury Select Committee”.  But what did the petition achieve? 235 signatures with more than 12,000 page views. Somewhere I read that petitions with less than 200 signatures are not taken seriously in Downing Street.

We had 200 signatures in April 2009, when the election was due and thus a new Treasury Select Committee. Hence the petition actually remains to be “exploited”.  Meanwhile, we got 1,316 signatures for Stop the Oppression of the British People – with 8,900 page views – but due to the avid promotion by one particular person. In our age where only numbers count, preferably big ones, I console myself with the awareness that goes with viewing and reading a petition. 

I have taken great pride in the collections of comments which have become the most wonderful literary by-product. They are a different kind of ‘web product’ than blog comments. Collated and grouped, they are a remarkable expression of likemindedness in our times. Together with the number of signatures, I have sent the comments not just to the ‘targets’ of our petitions, but also to lots of other ‘people in high places’, besides mentioning the links in emails and blog posts.

I have written to Buckingham Palace and other fine addresses often enough to know that their answers do not matter. What matters is that they’ve been told. They must know what’s going on, besides what they read in the mainstream media.  

All in all, I’ve got 4 petitions going. The first 2, speak on behalf of victims as to the effects of unsustainable monetary policies. The subsequent 2, addressing misguided monetary policy as the cause of financial and economic ills in our society.

1.  WANTED: Fair Trials and Compensation with > 3,900 page views, > 230 signatures and these most interesting comments (since November 2010);   

2.  Stop the Oppression of the British People with > 8,900 page views, > 1310 signatures and these wonderful comments (since March 2010).   

3.  Financial Fairness for Taxpayers and Voters with > 3,600 page views, > 45 signatures and neat comments (since March 2009);    

4.  Stop the Cash Crumble to Equalize the Credit Crunch with > 12,300 page views, > 230 signatures and very intelligent comments (since May 2008).  

As all the issues are long term, the petitions will never be closed and I shall email signatories every so often. For I see signers as another kind of ‘community’ that the web creates. People who support the same causes are likeminded. They mean what they write as comment on a petition or a blog.  They are not by-standers. But only 17% opened the email I sent to the 196 signers of WANTED: Fair Trials and Compensation. Maybe comments are more valuable than email addresses? Only time will tell!  

Sabine K McNeill
Forum for Stable Currencies
Most supported petition: Stop the oppression of the British people

Guest Post: In support of Nobel Peace Laureate Muhammad Yunus

The idea of starting a petition on GoPetition in support of Nobel Peace Laureate Muhammad Yunus came to me in early January after I noticed an unforeseen turn of events sparked by unfounded allegations by a Norwegian journalist, who claimed that Professor Yunus had misused some funds donated to Grameen Bank some 15 years ago. The Norwegian government gave the use of funds the all-clear, but prior to being cleared of any misdoing, I never had a shadow of a doubt that there was any truth to this story. For further details and clarifications on this issue, please visit our website and the links provided here. http://www.socialbusinessearth.org/false-allegations-prof-yunus/

It amazes me how the media can often blow things out of proportion and make people believe fabricated reports to sensationalize and sell a story. Working with Professor Yunus is a privilege, and I personally visited Grameen Bank in Bangladesh several times. His work to eradicate poverty is monumental, not only for his genial idea to provide microcredit to the poor without collateral but also for all the social businesses he has created in Bangladesh to raise the standard of living of poor people in the areas of education, healthcare, housing and so on. He has done more for the poor than any of us will ever be able to achieve in our lifetime. I have the utmost respect for Professor Yunus who, as President Obama stated at the ceremony to award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009, “managed to change the world.” He really did change the world of millions of poor people, and my support for him is solid and enduring.

It is unfortunate that the government of Bangladesh has started a well-orchestrated campaign against him instead of commending a national treasure whose work has been acclaimed all over the world. They have a chance to compensate for their misdeed by allowing him to continue his mission in peace. If he has to step down as Managing Director of Grameen for age reasons, I think that a committee should be formed by Professor Yunus and the Board of Directors of Grameen to properly search for a new Managing Director who has the necessary requisites to fulfill this pivotal role and, most importantly, who truly and deeply cares for the poor. It saddens me to see that Bangladeshi government leaders are going to such lengths to make his life difficult when he has done so much to help the poor.

The government of Bangladesh is gaining bad publicity quickly as country leaders, NGOs and private individuals the world over unite to stand in support of Professor Yunus. When I was asked to be a founding member of “Friends of Grameen,” a French association that was recently formed to promote microcredit and social business in the world, I immediately accepted. I feel honored to be part of this group of people who stand by Professor Yunus and Grameen Bank. Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, is Chair of the Friends of Grameen Honorary Committee. “Our duty is to protect the integrity of Professor Yunus and the independence of Grameen Bank,” said Robinson in a recent statement.

The petition we published on GoPetition titled “We Stand in Support of Professor Muhammad Yunus against the Corruption Investigations by the Government of Bangladesh” was my initiative as the founder of Social Business Earth and is independent of “Friends of Grameen.” I am happy that as a result of what is happening, the Nobel Committee has reasserted its support to Professor Yunus and Grameen Bank. You can find their statement here (http://www.socialbusinessearth.org/nobel-committee-supports-prof/). The objective of our campaign is to collect as many signatures as possible so that the government of Bangladesh will stop persecuting Professor Yunus. In addition, we want Grameen borrowers to retain ownership of the bank. The bank is owned by the poor borrowers, and it should continue to operate in this way, maintaining its independence.

I encourage all readers to sign our petition. Like Professor Yunus, I strongly believe that eradicating poverty in the world is possible, and I am committed to this cause through my work in social business. Thank you GoPetition for publishing this campaign. You can sign the petition here http://www.gopetition.com/petition/42857.html

Samantha Caccamo
Founder
Social Business Earth
www.socialbusinessearth.org

Guest Post: Stop the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive!

The people of Egypt have taken to the streets en masse to protest for democracy. We have the pleasure of living with that freedom, but often forget how easily it can be lost. Our politicians become less responsive to the electorate as they become more and more beholden to moneyed interests.

GoPetition, though, helps provide a voice to people, allowing them to assemble on a cause and providing a forum to impress upon legislators that their interests are best served by acting for their constituents' benefit. A more subtle value is to provide people with a means of discovering how many others hold the same views -- thus giving them heart to participate.

The newly-minted European Union has been acting in favor of the desires of Big Pharma and against the interests of the people. The EU Parliament passed Directive 2004/24/EC, also known as The Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD), that purports to provide for the health and safety of citizens by taking control of their access to medicinal herbs. The THMPD, while claiming merely to "simplify" the registration of medicinal herbs, will effectively ban most of them and limit sales to only large, usually multinational, corporations.

As the producer of Gaia Health, it is apparent to me that the loss of access to medicinal herbs would prove exceedingly harmful to people who use them to manage their health. It's also obvious that herbal treatments are virtually always far safer than their drug equivalents and often more effective.

After investigating the issue, I wrote an article on the topic, Big Pharma Scores Big Win: Medicinal Herbs Will Disappear in EU, urging people to write to their Member of European Parliament (MEP). And write they did!  Hundreds of letters went out.

But then the responses started to come back. What a letdown. Nearly every MEP responded as if the letter writer were utterly misinformed. Typical responses were:

  • "No one wants to take your herbs away!"
  • "The directive just simplifies the registration procedure."
  • "We are trying to assure that herbs are safe."

The reality is that none of these statements is true. Whatever the intended purpose of the THMPD, the effect will obviously be to remove access to most medicinal herbs from most people. The suggestion that the purpose is to "simplify" registration is absurd on its face, since there was no functioning registration system until the THMPD. Medicinal herbs are so much safer than pharmaceutical drugs that it makes the concept of concern for danger downright absurd.

So what was left for people to do? A big voice was obviously required. Other than taking to the streets, that meant a petition. So, I investigated. The requirements for a European-wide petition are large. After a significant amount of research, it became obvious that only GoPetition has the ability to manage the Stop the THMPD's requirements. The flexibility, history of handling petitions with hundreds of thousands of signatures, and their concern for the integrity of petitions and their authors made GoPetition the obvious choice.

After 85,000 signatures, the Stop the THMPD campaign is developing momentum. A true grassroots effort, the petition's growth is to the credit of people who are passionate about their their right to manage their health as they see fit. It's been translated into 14 languages! Articles are being written, duplicated, and translated all over the world.

Our right to obtain the herbs of our choice, an inalienable right held since humans began to walk the earth, is under attack. What right could be more basic than the right to manage one's health? It's so basic that no one ever thought to delineate it along with the right to free speech and assembly.

Now that it's under attack, we, the people of the European Union, are standing up and saying, "No! You will not take over control of our bodies. You will not force us towards pharmaceuticals and away from nature. This is where it stops. We demand that no law limit our access to medicinal herbs."

Everyone who cares about civil and personal rights should care about this issue. Even if you don't use medicinal herbs, you must ask what you do care about that could come under control. Access to vitamins and supplements? Prevention of GMOs? Access to foods of your choice? All of these are under attack in the EU. Let's stop these incursions into our personal lives.

Please, join the Stop the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive campaign. Be part of the movement to take back control of our lives!

For more information, see:

Translations of the Stop the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive Petition (links to translations and articles)

Contributor: Heidi Stevenson