EU - Offer European Citizenship to UK citizens
We are European citizens, but our country has voted to strip us of our citizenship. Since 1993, British citizens have been European citizens, living under the laws and support of the European Union. For many of us, this EU citizenship is a birthright. Britain has just voted in a referendum to leave the EU, stripping all UK citizens of their EU citizenship. Those of us who voted to Remain in the EU membership referendum are left without recourse, unable to retain our EU citizenship if we wish to stay a part of this great continental project, to travel and work together in a connected Europe. This is deeply unjust. We call on the European Union and the member states of the EU to offer a means for UK citizens to retain their European citizenship. This may take the form of a European Passport, or a fast-track to citizenship of a nation within the EU. We are proud European citizens. We have supported and been supported by the EU for decades, and we fought to Remain in Europe. Please offer a way for us to stay. #WeVotedRemain
JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER DOIT PARTIR !
Le journal britannique The Guardian vient de faire de nouvelles révélations. Elles émanent du Consortium international des journalistes d’investigation (ICIJ) qui étaient déjà à l’origine des LuxLeaks. Cette fois-ci c’est le président de la Commission européenne, Jean-Claude Juncker, ancien ministre des Finances puis Premier ministre du Luxembourg entre 1995 et 2013 qui est visé. Le Luxembourg Leaks est un gigantesque scandale financier concernant plusieurs centaines d'accords entre le fisc du Grand-duché et des cabinets d'audit pour le compte de firmes multinationales. Le but est de faire baisser les impôts de ces sociétés. Jean-Claude Juncker, jusqu’à présent, a prétendu qu’il ignorait tout de cette fraude. Or le Guardian publie des câbles diplomatiques allemands qui montrent que les dirigeants luxembourgeois agissaient pour empêcher la lutte contre le dumping fiscal. Et ceci au moment où les politiques de l’Union européenne, avec Monsieur Juncker à leur tête, applique une austérité dramatique pour les peuples. Par conséquent Monsieur Juncker doit quitter son poste de président de la Commission européenne. Soit il démissionne de lui-même s’il lui reste un peu de décence, soit les commissaires européens nomment un autre président. C’est d’ailleurs ce qu’avait fait la Commission européenne en 1999 qui avait démissionné le président de l’époque, Jacques Santer. Il était accusé d’avoir couvert des fraudes et du népotisme. Le Parlement européen peut également censurer la Commission, l’obligeant ainsi à faire le ménage. Le gouvernement français doit se prononcer publiquement pour le départ de Monsieur Juncker.
Open letter to EU leaders - Not my vote
Dear European leaders, We, the signatories, understand that an EU summit has been called for this Wednesday 29 June 2016 to discuss the ramifications of the “Leave” vote in the UK referendum on EU membership. While the UK government is understandably not invited to these talks, we urge those present to hear the voice of millions of Brits who are proud to be EU citizens and do not wish that citizenship to be ripped away from us against our will. With a turnout of 72% in the referendum, only 37% of the voting population actively voted to leave the EU. According to polls, 73% of those under 25 voted to stay, as did the majority of the under 45s, and 40% of those over 65. Thousands of Brits living in the rest of Europe were not given the choice to vote about their future, nor were British young adults; those 16 and 17 year-olds who were given the vote in the Scottish independence referendum and denied that right in this one. Their future is now decided before they have had a chance to cast any political vote. We also represent those Europeans who have made the UK their home and who had no vote but will be impacted by the outcome of this result. So many of us voted to remain in the EU because being British and European are not mutually exclusive. Europeans are our friends, our co-workers, and our family. When you start negotiations with a government that only has the mandate of 37% of the voting population, please remember the 16,141,241 who voted on Thursday that are being taken out of the EU against our will. Please do not allow our voices to be silenced. Thank you.
Fair treatment for musicians traveling on planes with their instruments
Musicians can’t work if they can’t travel! Musicians who travel on planes for professional purposes are confronted with huge difficulties when it comes to being allowed to carry their instrument on board as cabin luggage, even when they have paid an extra-seat. For a professional musician, not being allowed to travel with his/her instrument in safe conditions means losing a job. This is a concern not just for EU performers but also for all non-EU performers flying from a EU airport or traveling from abroad with a EU-based airline. There is this year a unique opportunity to amend EU regulation 261/2004 on air passenger rights and redress this acute problem. Why you should sign and share this petition Only a broad mobilization will convince European Commissioner Siim Kallas to address this issue within the review of regulation 261/2004. Such mobilization will help him resist the lobbying of enormously powerful airline companies. What musicians report about this issue Watch Dave Caroll's video "United breaks guitars": http://youtu.be/5YGc4zOqozo Watch Liu Tao's video "Airchina broke my guitar": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osur6neQyOU Read Paul Katz's scary story about his trip from Calgary to LA with WestJet. Although he had bought a second seat for his Andrea Guarneri cello (1669), he was not allowed to keep it in the cabin: http://articles.boston.com/2012-08-20/lifestyle/33281126_1_cello-flight-attendant-westjet “My guitar was allowed on board but I couldn’t take any other piece of personal luggage, not even a small handbag.” “The Easyjet staff at check-in requested me to buy an extra-seat for my instrument just because its case was in aluminum. My colleague whose case was covered with fabric did not have any such problem.” “My viola fits in the overhead lockers but I had to buy an extra-seat anyway.” “I had bought an extra-seat for my cello but was told to put it flat on 3 seats in the same row, then eventually to put it in the overhead lockers. The whole procedure delayed departure by about 30 minutes as 3 passengers and their luggage had to switch places as we were trying the second option.” “I bought an extra-seat when flying Alitalia with my viola da gamba. That extra-seat was charged twice the price!” “I was traveling for a concert with both a lute and guitar. Vueling wouldn’t allow me to buy a second extra-seat for my second instrument.” “I had bought an extra seat for my cello, but was asked by the company to strap it into a bulkhead seat. Unfortunately, none of the passengers sitting in bulkhead seats was willing to switch and I could not keep it in the cabin.” “Booking the extra-seat online was not possible.” “Due to overbooking, the extra-seat I had bought was allocated by Air France to another passenger and I couldn’t keep my instrument with me in the cabin.” “I was allowed to put my instrument on an extra-seat at departure but that was refused for the flight back. I therefore had to take another flight.” “I was asked by Alitalia to buy 3 extra-seats for my cello, although it easily fits one.” What the petition says 1. Without their own instruments, musicians are unable to perform and properly execute their jobs. Musicians have a very special relationship with their instrument(s). Without their own instruments – the tools of their trade on which they rehearse and perform – musicians are unable to execute their profession. Except in very rare and specific cases, substituting instruments upon arrival at a new destination is simply not an option. 2. Many instruments, even when put in appropriate travel cases (flight-cases), cannot be left in the cargo part of the plane without being subject to a high risk of unrecoverable damage. It is common knowledge that violins and similar instruments can be of immense monetary value. But this is not the sole reason for which they need special care. A musician may spend months or years before he / she finds the adequate instrument. Several hours of daily practice make the relationship between the performer and his / her instrument a symbiotic one. 3. Restrictions applying to the carrying of instruments on planes have become a serious hindrance to the mobility of artists, either because it is impossible to take the instrument on board or because the additional price to pay makes the travel too expensive to be covered by the performer's revenues or small art businesses. 4. There is no industry-wide policy. One of the main problems confronting musicians who travel with their instruments is that there is no consistent policy across the EU applicable to airlines to rely upon. When an individual airline does have a policy, it is often applied inconsistently, which results in great uncertainty as to whether instruments may be carried on board and under which conditions. 5. The update of Regulation (EC) no. 261/2004 on air passenger rights is the appropriate framework for the inclusion of provisions that take proper account of the problems encountered by musicians travelling on planes for professional purposes. The United States’ FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act - SEC. 403 § 41724, adopted by the US Congress on 6 February 2012, gives an example of what could be done at European level. What the US FAA regulation says H.R.658 - FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 SEC. 403. MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. (a) In General- Subchapter I of chapter 417 is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘Sec. 41724. Musical instruments ‘(a) In General- ‘(1) SMALL INSTRUMENTS AS CARRY-ON BAGGAGE- An air carrier providing air transportation shall permit a passenger to carry a (B) information provided to correct a condition that compromises safety, if that condition continues uncorrected; or (C) information provided to carry out a criminal investigation or prosecution. violin, guitar, or other musical instrument in the aircraft cabin, without charging the passenger a fee in addition to any standard fee that carrier may require for comparable carry-on baggage, if-- ‘(A) the instrument can be stowed safely in a suitable baggage compartment in the aircraft cabin or under a passenger seat, in accordance with the requirements for carriage of carry-on baggage or cargo established by the Administrator; and ‘(B) there is space for such stowage at the time the passenger boards the aircraft. ‘(2) LARGER INSTRUMENTS AS CARRY-ON BAGGAGE- An air carrier providing air transportation shall permit a passenger to carry a musical instrument that is too large to meet the requirements of paragraph (1) in the aircraft cabin, without charging the passenger a fee in addition to the cost of the additional ticket described in subparagraph (E), if-- ‘(A) the instrument is contained in a case or covered so as to avoid injury to other passengers; ‘(B) the weight of the instrument, including the case or covering, does not exceed 165 pounds or the applicable weight restrictions for the aircraft; ‘(C) the instrument can be stowed in accordance with the requirements for carriage of carry-on baggage or cargo established by the Administrator; ‘(D) neither the instrument nor the case contains any object not otherwise permitted to be carried in an aircraft cabin because of a law or regulation of the United States; and ‘(E) the passenger wishing to carry the instrument in the aircraft cabin has purchased an additional seat to accommodate the instrument. ‘(3) LARGE INSTRUMENTS AS CHECKED BAGGAGE- An air carrier shall transport as baggage a musical instrument that is the property of a passenger traveling in air transportation that may not be carried in the aircraft cabin if-- ‘(A) the sum of the length, width, and height measured in inches of the outside linear dimensions of the instrument (including the case) does not exceed 150 inches or the applicable size restrictions for the aircraft; ‘(B) the weight of the instrument does not exceed 165 pounds or the applicable weight restrictions for the aircraft; and ‘(C) the instrument can be stowed in accordance with the requirements for carriage of carry-on baggage or cargo established by the Administrator. ‘(b) Regulations- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue final regulations to carry out subsection (a). ‘(c) Effective Date- The requirements of this section shall become effective on the date of issuance of the final regulations under subsection (b).’. (b) Conforming Amendment- The analysis for such subchapter is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘41724. Musical instruments.’.
Tutuklanan HDP’li Milletvekilleri Serbest Bırakılsın!
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin yurttaşıyım. Bu ülkede doğan her yurttaş gibi seçme ve seçilme hakkına sahibim. Oy verdiğim siyasi partinin eş genel başkanları ve milletvekilleri bugün bütün demokratik değerler çiğnenerek gözaltına alındılar. Gözaltına alınan eş genel başkanlarımız Selahattin Demirtaş ve Figen Yüksekdağ ile birlikte Seçilmiş milletvekillerimiz İdris Baluken, Nursel Aydoğan, Ferhat Encü, Mehmet Ali Arslan, Gülser Yıldırım, Abdullah Zeydan ve Leyla Birlik tutuklandılar. Sayın Selahattin Demirtaş ve Sayın Figen Yüksekdağ oy verdiğim siyasi partinin eş genel başkanlarıdır. Şahidim ki Demirtaş’ın ve Yüksekdağ’ın barışı söylemediği, insan ölümlerinin durmasını istemediği tek beyanı yoktur. Selahattin Demirtaş ve Figen Yüksekdağ ile beraber seçilmiş milletvekillerinin tutuklanması kabul edilemez. Dava hukuki ise eğer onları sorgulayan ve tutuklayan mahkemelerin beni ve benim gibi düşünüp HDP’ye oy veren diğer seçmenleri de tutuklaması gerekmektedir. Zira ortada bir suç varsa aynı suçu defalarca işledim ve işlemeye devam edeceğim. 40 yıldır süregelen savaşın barışçıl yöntemlerle çözülmesini istemeye ve söylemeye devam edeceğim. Bu hukuksuzluğu ve yargılama sürecini yakından takip etmenizi ve Türkiye Demokrasisi için HDP’yle dayanışma göstermenizi rica ediyorum I am a citizen of the Turkish Republic. I am, by law, entitled to vote for members of parliament. Mr. Selahattin Demirtaş and Ms.Figen Yüksekdağ, who are the leaders of the political party HDP that I voted for and 7 Nursel Aydogan, Ferhat Encü, Mehmet Ali Arslan, Gülser Yıldırım, Abdullah Zeydan, Leyla Birlik, Idris Baluken have been detained and arrested following operations to forcibly enter their houses on the early hours of the 4th of November. Their doors have been knocked down and their pleas to have their lawyers have been ignored. I sincerely declare HDP as a party that has always stood for peace and both leaders have shown great effort to establish peace and solidarity among ethnic groups in Turkey, Turks and Kurds in particular. I would like to send a massage to the Turkish Government and their law makers and judges here: If promoting peace is a crime than I commit that crime too. I would put my name and signature under any speeches that were delivered in and outside the parliament by the leaders of HDP. I will continue to voice their legacy which is about ending a 40 year old war between Turkish state and Kurdish civilians and their representatives. We urge you to follow this unlawful case closely and show solidarity with HDP which has a crucial role in the democracy that we are trying to protect in Turkey.
Respect, promote and protect freedom of informed vaccination consent throughout Europe
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states clearly: ‘Free and informed consent must be respected in the fields of medicine and biology’. Approximately 40% of EU citizens do not however have this basic right when faced with the medical act of vaccination. This is a breach of our Universal Human Rights. In 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled that vaccines are ‘unavoidably unsafe’, so mandatory vaccination as imposed on these citizens is not medically or ethically acceptable, especially where medical, religious or philosophical exemptions are not allowed. The EFVV (http://www.efvv.eu), a group representing some 20 European countries (both EU member states and non-EU members) is therefore demanding: 1. That compulsory vaccination be abolished throughout Europe as it is a breach of our Universal Human Rights, 2. That mandatory vaccination never be introduced in any country where vaccines are only recommended at present. 3. That the Precautionary Principle be applied in the case of vaccination in Europe, 4. That European citizens benefit from freedom of fully informed vaccination choice and consent, 5. That an effective, independent European Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting (VAER) system be established to monitor vaccine safety. One million signatures from at least seven EU countries will guarantee a debate in Brussels. Whatever your own government’s policy, please unite by signing and then sharing this petition far and wide. In 2016, it is estimated that nearly 400 million Europeans in EU member countries enjoy freedom of informed vaccination choice but approximately 258 million do not . Vaccinations are mandatory in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and potentially other countries if new members, e.g. Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia or others join the European Union. We therefore call on all Europeans to stand together in a demand for a united vaccination policy based on freedom of informed choice and consent. We also demand the formation of an independent and effective vaccino-vigilance unit with transparency and public availability of results. We believe that mandatory vaccination must be abolished and an effective Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting (VAER) system established because: Any involuntary or enforced medical treatment is a breach of: o the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, o the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, o the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, o the European Council’s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, o the European Charter of Patients’ Rights, o the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, o and even the Nuremberg Code (a set of research ethics principles for medical experimentation on humans set as a result of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials at the end of the Second World War). In detail: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states clearly: ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity’. It also states: ‘Free and informed consent must be respected in the fields of medicine and biology’ and lastly: ‘The prohibition of eugenic practices and of making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain must be respected’.The European Council’s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine states clearly: ‘The interests and welfare of the human being shall prevail over the sole interest of society or science’. It also states: ‘An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it. This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks. The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time.’The European Charter of Patients’ Rights states clearly: ‘Every individual has the right of access to all information that might enable him or her to actively participate in the decisions regarding his or her health; this information is a prerequisite for any procedure and treatment, including the participation in scientific research (4 – Right to Consent)’. It also states: ‘Each individual has the right to freely choose from among different treatment procedures and providers on the basis of adequate information (5 – Right to Free Choice)’ and also ‘Each individual has the right to be free from harm caused by the poor functioning of health services, medical malpractice and errors, and the right of access to health services and treatments that meet high safety standards (9 – Right to Safety)’.The UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child states clearly: ‘Parents … have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern’.The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states clearly: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes… freedom … to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance’.The Nuremberg Code states clearly: ‘The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.’Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs), which would include Vaccine Adverse Effects (VAEs), are reported to be the fifth-leading cause of death in the EU but this could be even higher since there is gross under-reporting of these events, as acknowledged by David Kessler, head of the FDA during most of the 90s, and in the case of vaccines, failure to acknowledge a causal link is a further problem.The US Supreme Court has ruled that vaccines are ‘unavoidably unsafe’.According to the German Criminal Code , vaccination is an invasive medical act causing bodily harm and as such, it requires the informed consent of either the individual being vaccinated or his/her carers. It has however been acknowledged officially that there are still enormous gaps in current scientific knowledge regarding vaccination, so the provision of full and comprehensive prior information is simply not possible. Vaccine package inserts list many possible adverse effects, sometimes including death. As long as there is risk involved in a medical procedure, if safety cannot be guaranteed and if comprehensive prior information cannot be given, the Precautionary Principle must be applied.It has been shown in regions with freedom of informed vaccination choice that high WHO-recommended levels of vaccine uptake are achieved without mandatory vaccination .Each European country sees legal responsibility for vaccine damage differently but in the main, medical and political authorities as well as the vaccine manufacturers are not fully accountable, leaving victims with no compensation or support.No significant research has yet been done to compare the health of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children but there are an increasing number of studies suggesting that unvaccinated children enjoy far greater health than their vaccinated peers. This is an area where further research is needed. Given all of the above, we demand: 1. That mandatory vaccination be abolished in all European countries, 2. That mandatory vaccination never be introduced in any country where vaccines are only recommended at present, 3. That the Precautionary Principle be applied in the case of vaccination in Europe, 4. That European citizens benefit from freedom of fully informed vaccination choice and consent, a universal human right, 5. And that an independent vaccino-vigilance unit be established where Vaccine Adverse Effects (VAEs) will be reported and the number and severity of VAEs in Europe will be easily accessible to all. Footnotes:  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf, Article 3, page 9  Calculated using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population and http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V17N22/DAncona_tab1.jpg  Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068, 179 L.Ed.2d 1 (2011), http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf  Calculated using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population and http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V17N22/DAncona_tab1.jpg http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V17N22/DAncona_tab1.jpg http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf, Article 3, page 9 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf, Article 3, page 9 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf, Article 3, page 9. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm, Article 2 – Primacy of the Human Being http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm, Article 5 – General Rulehttp://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_overview/co_operation/mobility/docs/health_services_co108_en.pdf, page 5http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_overview/co_operation/mobility/docs/health_services_co108_en.pdf, page 5http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_overview/co_operation/mobility/docs/health_services_co108_en.pdf, page 6 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx, Article 18 https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf, Article 18, page 8. http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf, Item 1, page 1 Arlett, Dr. Peter, Setting the Scene: New European Union Pharmacovigilance Legislation, November 2012, slide 6 - (http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Presentation/2013/01/WC500137839.pdf) and also http://who-umc.org/DynPage.aspx?id=105196&mn1=7347&mn2=7489&mn3=7248&newsid=11241 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16689555  Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068, 179 L.Ed.2d 1 (2011), http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf http://www.impfkritik.de/upload/pdf/Koerperverletzung/Koerperverletzung-IfSG-Erdle.pdf: §§ 20-22 (§ 223 in the German Criminal Code) http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm  For example, uptake is at 97% in Scotland: http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Child-Health/publications/index.asp  http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/science/studies-comparing-vaccinated-to-unvaccinated-populations/, http://www.efi-online.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/VaccineFreeChildrenHealthier.pdf and http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/quick-compare-2/
Urge the EU to require a stronger mandate for Brexit from the UK Government
In contrast to the undemocratic image of the EU portrayed by referendum campaigners, it is a little known fact that every single citizen of the European Union can directly petition the European Parliament and be heard. There is no minimum signatory requirement and every petition will be responded to. The following petition is therefore being sent directly to the EU Chairman of the Petitions Committee, and is also being filed through the European Parliament petitions portal, where you can express additional support. In light of Articles 10, 11 and 50 of the Treaty On European Union, and in accordance with Article 227 of the Treaty On The Functioning of The European Union, the undersigned hereby request that the Union requires the United Kingdom government to conduct a more rigorous domestic consultation, consisting of a second referendum, a parliamentary vote, or similar, before any application for withdrawal from the Union is entertained. This appeal is made on the grounds that: 1) The manner in which the domestic referendum campaign was conducted was in stark contrast to the spirit of transparency and democracy advocated by Articles 10 and 11 to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, in that government members engaged in gross and active misrepresentation of the nature of the European Union and the rights of citizens and obligations of states within it. 2) It remains highly plausible that the majority of United Kingdom citizens do not presently support such a withdrawal. This is on the basis that: Less than 38% of politically active citizens expressed support for a withdrawal in the referendum. A substantial and unknown number of citizens initially supporting a withdrawal have since publicly expressed that they no longer support one. A domestic petition to hold a second referendum with higher turnout and majority requirements has gained unprecedented support. 3) In light of the above it is plausible that a move to withdraw from the European Union without further democratic consultation would be overturned by a successive government within a short timeframe or challenged in the domestic courts and rendered effectively unconstitutional, thereby placing it at odds with the basic requirement of Article 50. Given the practical difficulties of reversing withdrawal proceedings following such a challenge, and the enormous impact on Union citizens from across the United Kingdom and other member states, we hold it critical that a more robust mandate is obtained at the present stage.
Law against animal cruelty in all European countries
We need to stop animal cruelty in all countries - Let's start in Europe!!!The European Parlament needs to make a law in all the European countries - there are countries which are members of the European Union that don't have a law against animal cruelty - We need to have a law together which applies to all countries. The new organization KARLA will do anything to make this happen!!! We will get the best lawyers to make this happen!!!We need to get over 1.000.000 supporters!!!SIGN FOR ALL COUNTRIES - SIGN FOR ALL ANIMALS@Karla - www.karla.life - www.facebook.com/karla.life
URGENT APPEAL TO SAVE THE LIFE OF HABTAMU AYALEW!!!!!!
June 29, 2016 Urgent Appeal to Prime Minster Haile Mariam Dessalegn of Ethiopia to Allow Mr. Habtamu Ayalew to Seek Immediate Medical Treatment Abroad A global petition drive is underway from concerned persons within and outside Ethiopia urging the Government of Prime Minister Hailemariam Dessalegn to allow Mr. Habtamu Ayalew, an ex-political prisoner who is in a coma and on life support in Addis Ababa to seek medical treatment abroad immediately. This appeal on humanitarian grounds is premised on fundamental human rights laws, protocols and best practices observed by civilized nations. We remind the Government of Ethiopia, currently a member of the UN Human Rights Council, that it has an obligation to abide by the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights covenants to which Ethiopia is a signatory. More specifically we refer to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration that states clearly the binding obligation of member states as follows: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. In its compelling appeal to the Government of Ethiopia and the global community on June 30, 2016, Amnesty International said “Ethiopian authorities must allow an opposition politician who is now unconscious due to injuries sustained in torture and other ill-treatment to obtain life-saving medical treatment abroad.” We remind the Government of Ethiopia and the global community that medical professionals in Ethiopia have determined that in Mr. Ayalew’s case, life-saving medical treatment, tools and facilities are unavailable in Ethiopia. Therefore, to not grant Mr. Ayalew to leave the country to seek immediate treatment anywhere in the world is tantamount to sentencing him to die. Mr. Habtamu Ayalew is one among the few young prominent democratic activists and political leaders in Ethiopia. Before his arrest on July 8, 2014, he was the spokesman for and chief of public relations of the enormously popular and legally registered Andinet or Unity for Democracy and Justice (UDJ)) party. He was also instrumental in leading UDJ’s pioneering and grassroots level mobilization work called the “Millions' Voices.” This peaceful national movement was intended to empower citizens to participate in the political process and to advance the democratization process in Ethiopia. Mr. Ayalew stood for peaceful democratic change, national consensus, dialogue and reconciliation. Despite this, he was charged with terrorism and imprisoned at the notorious, unhealthy, diseases ridden and crowded Maekelawi and Qilinto Prisons. As is often the case in similar political situations in Ethiopia, this sentencing was done without any credible evidence to support a political decision by the governing party and justify it using any means necessary. In order to legitimize its assertions, the Government of Ethiopia concocted that Mr. Ayalew was “collaborating” with Ginbot 7 that it had designated as a “terrorist group.” Independent human rights groups, the U.S. Department of State and others provide a plethora of evidence that political prisoners at Maekelawi and other prisons are subjected to inhumane and debilitating treatment including physical and psychological torture. They are often denied access to basic facilities such as toilets and medical care. This is why Mr. Ayalew suffers from painful hemorrhoids and kidney problems; and is in a coma. . On June the 28th 2016 his situation deteriorated and he had to be sent to a hospital. Doctors within Ethiopia, couldn’t do anything other than giving him pain killers to alleviate his pain. Mr. Ayalew is now in a critical situation and faces imminent death unless he leaves Ethiopia and receives treatment abroad. According to medical doctors who know his case, his hemorrhoids could easily and quickly deteriorate to Stage-3. This is the reason why he needs urgent medical care. We concur with Amnesty International that “He must be urgently let out of the country on humanitarian grounds, if for nothing else, if his life is to be saved.” Why would the Government of Ethiopia deny him the fundamental human right to leave his country to seek medical treatment abroad that could potentially save his life? The Government’s prosecutor argues that the decision by Ethiopia’s High Court that released him has now been appealed to the country’s Supreme Court. This political decision by a highly politicized court system must be weighed against the imminent danger that Mr. Ayalew is facing now. Human life must be given precedence over the expediency of political judgment. We therefore urge the Prime Minister to use his authority and let Mr. Ayalew leave the country for immediate medical treatment abroad. This is a humanitarian request that we hope the Prime Minster will treat on its own merit. His release will send a powerful signal to the Ethiopian people and to the world community that Ethiopia’s government is not callous or inhumane or insensitive to the plight of a citizen in dire distres Will you please sign to help save Habtamu?