Topic

law reform

6 petitions

Update posted 6 days ago

Petition to The Netherlands Parliament

Petition for Full Marriage Equality in The Netherlands

Adult consensual incest (ACI) is not illegal in the Netherlands but because CIAO people (Consensual Adult Incest Oriented) people living there are prevented from marrying legally, they are not entitled to the same advantages, privileges and benefits that legally married people have and so, in addition to other social stigma CIAO people face legal discrimination in the Netherlands, which in other respects is a very progressive country.. Deprived of equal rights under the law, such as the human right to marriage and a family, and thus discriminated against, by the state, CIAO people are objectively and subjectively the subjects of state-based incestophobia, in other words - institutionalized bigotry and hatred. If they were being treated as equal human beings, there would be no laws against them marrying. At present CIAO people and their children may be subjected to abuse and stigmatized merely because they are being treated differently by the laws of the state. This, like state-sanctioned homophobic abuse in the past is not acceptable in a modern secular state. Full Marriage Equality in the Netherlands, if introduced would ensure that 'everyone in the Netherlands has the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adult(s) of their choice, regardless of birth or sexual orientation.' The law needs to be changed to allow CIAO people to marry. Just as 'Lawrence' means that adult consensual incest must be decriminalized in the United States (Bergelson p 53 Crim Law and Philo (2013) 7:43-59), in those states where it is illegal, so, ipso facto CIAO marriage must be legalized in states where ACI is legal, such as the Netherlands. According to the 'CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Article 9   ‘'Right to marry and right to found a family' Everyone has the right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.’ Obviously the words 'in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights’ have been added to allow member states to discriminate against people, making the charter somewhat of a sham. These words thus need to be ignored by right acting states, and the article amended at some time to read "The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in the EU."  There is no sense in having a 'Charter of Fundamental Rights if the those rights don't apply to everyone equally. The various EU member states should not have any right to interfere in a citizens' equal rights to freedom and equality nor to discriminate against any member of any minority group because of his or her sexual orientation. CIAO people are consenting adults who have an incestuous orientation, just as homosexuals have a gay orientation. Laws depriving CIAO people of  the right to  marry are tantamount to a human rights abuse. Thus I hereby humbly petition the Parliament of the Netherlands to reforming the relevant laws (by decree if necessary) passing legislation making it possible for CIAO people to marry and make progress towards Full Marriage Equality (FME) in the Netherlands, the EU and the world. (Note: FME also needs to incorporate the rights of polyamorous people to marriage - something which is legal in most of the Muslim world, and was legal in most of recorded Jewish and Chinese history. Such marriages are legal in Australia if they have been legally entered into elsewhere, in places such as in Indonesia, a former Dutch colony, and the largest Muslim country in the world. Thus there is no rational reason to forbid polyamorous marriage for one's own citizens in a, multi-cultural society, especially when such relationships are increasingly common in de-facto form  in reality.   This petition will be delivered to: Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal T.a.v. Hoofd stafdienst Communicatie Postbus 20018 2500 EA Den Haag   Volwassen consensuele incest (ACI) is niet illegaal in Nederland, maar omdat CIAO mensen (Consensual volwassen Incest Oriented) mensen die er wonen zijn verhinderd wettelijk trouwen, zijn ze geen recht op dezelfde voordelen, privileges en voordelen die wettelijk getrouwde mensen hebben en dus , in aanvulling op andere sociale stigma CIAO mensen worden geconfronteerd wettelijke discriminatie in Nederland, die in andere opzichten is een zeer vooruitstrevend land .. Beroofd van gelijke rechten onder de wet, zoals het recht van de mens om het huwelijk en een gezin, en dus gediscrimineerd , door de staat, CIAO mensen objectief en subjectief de onderwerpen van state-based incestophobia, met andere woorden - geïnstitutionaliseerde onverdraagzaamheid en haat. Als ze als gelijkwaardige mensen werden behandeld, zou er geen wetten tegen hen te trouwen. Op dit moment CIAO mensen en hun kinderen kan worden onderworpen aan misbruik en gestigmatiseerd enkel en alleen omdat ze worden anders behandeld door de wetten van de staat. Dit, net als de staat gesanctioneerde homofoob geweld in het verleden zit niet in een moderne seculiere staat aanvaardbaar. Volledige Gelijkheid van het huwelijk in Nederland, indien geïntroduceerd zou ervoor zorgen dat 'iedereen in Nederland heeft recht op liefde, geslacht, woonplaats, en het huwelijk met enige en alle instemmende volwassenen (s) van hun keuze te delen, ongeacht geboorte of seksuele geaardheid. ' De wet moet worden veranderd om CIAO mensen te trouwen. Net als 'Lawrence' betekent dat volwassen consensuele incest moeten worden gelegaliseerd in de Verenigde Staten (Bergelson p 53 Crim Law and Philo (2013) 7: 43-59), in die landen waar het illegaal is, dus, moeten ipso facto CIAO huwelijk worden gelegaliseerd in staten waar ACI legaal is, zoals Nederland. Volgens het 'Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie, artikel 9, '' Recht te huwen en recht een gezin te stichten "Een ieder heeft het recht te huwen en het recht een gezin te stichten wordt volgens de nationale wetten die de uitoefening van deze rechten worden gewaarborgd." Uiteraard worden de woorden "in overeenstemming met de nationale wetten die de uitoefening van deze rechten 'zijn toegevoegd om de lidstaten te discrimineren personen, waardoor het handvest enigszins van een schijnvertoning. Deze woorden moeten dus worden genegeerd door met de rechter handelen staten, en het artikel gewijzigd op een gegeven moment om te lezen "Het recht om te trouwen en het recht op een gezin worden in de EU worden gegarandeerd." Er is geen zin in het hebben van een "Handvest van de grondrechten als de deze rechten niet eveneens van toepassing op iedereen. De verschillende EU-lidstaten moeten alle recht zich te mengen in gelijke rechten van een burger op vrijheid en gelijkheid, noch om te discrimineren tegen een lid van een minderheidsgroep vanwege zijn of haar seksuele geaardheid niet. CIAO mensen instemmende volwassenen die een incestueuze oriëntatie, net als homoseksuelen een homoseksuele geaardheid. Wetten ontnemen CIAO mensen van het recht om te trouwen zijn neer op een schendingen van de mensenrechten. Dus ik hierbij nederig verzoekschrift het parlement van Nederland om de hervorming van de desbetreffende wetgeving (bij decreet indien nodig) passeren wetgeving die het mogelijk maken voor Ciao mensen om te trouwen en vooruitgang te boeken in de richting van volledige Gelijkheid van het huwelijk (FME) in Nederland, de EU en de wereld . (Let op: FME moet ook de rechten van polyamoreuze mensen op te nemen om het huwelijk - iets wat legaal is in het grootste deel van de islamitische wereld, en was legaal in de meeste van de geregistreerde joodse en Chinese geschiedenis Dergelijke huwelijken zijn legaal in Australië als ze legaal zijn geweest. in plaatsen zoals in Indonesië, een voormalige Nederlandse kolonie, en het grootste islamitische land ter wereld naar elders ingevoerd. er is dus geen rationele reden om polyamoreuze huwelijk te verbieden voor eigen burgers in een multi-culturele samenleving, in het bijzonder wanneer dergelijke relaties steeds vaker in de-facto vorm werkelijkheid.   Deze petitie zal worden geleverd aan: Tweede Kamer der Staten-GeneraalT.a.v. Hoofd stafdienst CommunicatiePostbus 200182500 EA Den HaagGoogle Translate for Business:Translator ToolkitWebsite TranslatorGlobal M

CIAO
39 supporters
Update posted 5 months ago

Petition to Malcolm Turnbull

Give Police powers to act on people who breach Family Court orders.

I am a father of two children who is currently involved in a long and arduous custody battle. Having numerous vexatious Intervention Orders placed on me by the mother (all of which were thrown out), having my children withheld for no apparent reason other than to alienate me and not facilitating visits on my assigned days, I have, at times, been forced to call the local police to establish there whereabouts of my children. She refuses to call, text or email me about where the children are which I have had to convey to the police. The tell me that ALL they can do is call the mother and perform a "welfare check" because they don't get involved in Family Court matters. In my case the mother has withheld my children from me a total of 97 days this year to date (14/9), days which they should have been with me. I've been forced to take further Court action against her in the form of a Contravention hearing which could take months. In this time she has breached more than 10 times with NO consequence. I feel the police should have the powers to also charge the person for breaching a Family Court order when in place. I feel that vengeful, vexatious parents use this loophole against the other as there is NO penalty unless you pursue it through the Court. Even then there is no guarantee that the Judge will impose one. Our Family Law "system" needs a complete overhaul and police should have the powers to charge people who break these orders.    

Geoffrey Vincent
122 supporters
Update posted 9 months ago

Petition to Annastacia Palaszczuk, Jackie Trad, Yvette D'Ath

Make abortion legal in Queensland in 2017.

Make abortion legal in 2017. Abortion is still a crime in Queensland, even though 80% of people support a woman's right to decide. Queensland parliament recently failed to pass legislation to decriminalise and regulate abortion. Instead, the premier, deputy-premier and attorney-general promised to refer the issue to the Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC) and enact legislation based on the QLRC's report, in the next term of government. So far this referral hasn't been made, and there's every possibility it will report back too late for legislation to be introduced this year. Join us to call for the referral to be made to the QLRC now, for it to report quickly, and for a public commitment that legislation to decriminalise abortion will be introduced in this term of parliament, this year. Having abortion on the criminal code gives weight to anti-abortion stigma, takes away the legitimacy of women deciding for themselves whether or when to have children, and puts that decision-making power in the hands of doctors who must make a judgement about the physical and mental health impact of continuing or terminating the pregnancy. It empowers anti-abortion forces – most importantly in hospitals, where access to abortion is severely restricted. It means that most people requiring abortion must pay more and travel further, to access abortion in one of the free-standing private clinics. This situation is unjust, and out of keeping with the values of the majority of Queenslanders. It is not good enough to push it off into the never-never. No-one knows what the composition of the next parliament will be or who will be in a position to put any abortion-related bills forward. However, since this is the path that has been promised, we want the QLRC referral to be made now. We want to ensure that it reports quickly. And we want this parliament, this term, under this government, to legislate to decriminalise abortion. The parliamentary health committee has already twice conducted extensive hearings into the legislation, receiving submissions from psychological, medical, legal and ethical experts, women, women's rights and health care consumer advocates, abortion providers and numerous others. The 2002 Report of the Taskforce on Women and the Criminal Code advocated decriminalisation of abortion. While the QLRC will need to conduct its own research, it will have these reports, along with reports of the Victorian Law Reform Commission and those prepared for the Tasmanian parliament all available to it. Those who made submissions to the parliamentary health committee would be well placed to make submissions to the QLRC within a short timeframe. The QLRC has a staff of 4, with only one other report currently underway. So a timeframe of 6 months for the report, which would potentially allow the matter to be dealt with in the term of the current parliament, would be quite reasonable. We therefore request Premier Palaszczuk, Deputy-Premier Trad and Attorney-General D'Ath to ensure the immediate referral of this issue to the QLRC, with a timeframe for reporting of no more than six months, and to make a public commitment to introduce legislation to decriminalise abortion within the current term of government. Anything else is just transparent delaying tactics. We want reproductive justice and we want it now.

Kamala Emanuel
1,605 supporters