| Home | Bookmark | Tell | Active petitions in over 75 countries | Follow GoPetition |
Petition Tag - g20
1. Apologize and Take Accountability for the G-20 
When the City of Toronto hosted the G-20 summit in the summer of 2010, it was a target for anarchists and criminals that wanted to destroy the city by burning and torching everything in their sight. Destroying stores and looting them also.
2. Provide CIDA Funding for IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation)
Canada has been a partner of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) continuously since the 1960s, regardless of the political party in power, and this includes the current Government. IPPF’s funding agreement with Canada ended on December 31, 2009.
IPPF submitted a proposal to the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) to renew its contract for funding in June 2009. To-date, IPPF has yet to receive an indication of whether its funding agreement will be renewed.
Petition will be sent to CIDA and the Prime Minister of Canada on June 18, 2010, ahead of the G8 and G20 summits.
As the host country of the G8 Summit on June 25/26, 2010 in Huntsville Ontario, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his governing Conservative Party of Canada have chosen to champion an initiative to improve maternal and child health in developing countries.
However, this admirable initiative has become deeply mired in the Conservatives’ anti-choice ideology. The government announced on April 26 that they will not fund safe abortion services “under any circumstances” in developing countries. Although they were forced to back down from their earlier position that family planning and contraception would also be excluded from the initiative, there is still no firm commitment to fund family planning – only a vague promise to “consider” it, and to “not close doors against any options, including contraception.”
Please sign the following petition to call upon Parliament to include funding for safe abortion and family planning/contraception in Canada’s G8 maternal/child health initiative.
------------------------------------------
Incluez le financement du planning familial et d’avortements sans risques dans l’Initiative canadienne du G8 pour la santé des mères et des enfants:
À titre de pays-hôte du Sommet du G8, les 25 et 26 juin 2010 à Huntsville (Ontario), le premier ministre Stephen Harper et son Parti conservateur du Canada au pouvoir ont choisi de faire du Canada le champion d’une initiative visant à améliorer la santé des mères et des enfants dans les pays en voie de développement.
Toutefois, cette initiative admirable se retrouve profondément enlisée dans l’idéologie anti-choix des Conservateurs. Le gouvernement a annoncé le 26 avril qu’il ne financerait « sous aucune considération » la prestation de services d’avortement sans risques dans les pays en voie de développement. Même s’ils ont été forcés de faire marche arrière en regard de leur position préalable visant à exclure également de l’Initiative le planning familial et la contraception, il n’existe pas encore d’engagement ferme du Canada de financer le planning familial – seulement une vague promesse de « l’envisager » et de « ne fermer la porte à aucune option, y compris la contraception ».
Veuillez signer la pétition suivante qui réclame du Parlement le financement d’avortements sans risques, du planning familial et de la contraception dans l’Initiative canadienne du G8 pour la santé des mères et des enfants.
4. Request to G20 for regulating the financial markets
Credit ratings are normally assigned by private Agencies on demand of the issuers. However, when the issuers and investors are very Big (for instance States) the rating Agencies play a role too big for their capacity to remain impartial. The values of such ratings has been widely questioned after the 2008 financial crisis.
Let’s read a few rows in Wikipedia : if an Agency cuts the rating of bonds issued by a State indebted on long term, this gives rise on short term to an increase of the interest applied to the bonds, that is an increase of the State financial burden. The issuer might be compelled to sell off his real estates or goods to reduce declassifying .
This is just what we saw in the last days of April 2010. After an exhausting negotiation, the Euro Countries went (April 26) on approval, together with the IMF, of a credit to Greece amounting to 45 billion Euro per year (110 billions over 3 years) at acceptable interest, in connection with an adequate commitment of the Greek government.
The day after, Standard & Poor’s declassified the Greek bonds to BB+ (Junk bonds), so these were sold in the Stock Exchanges at an interest rate not less than 10%. The greek government protested with the Agency, but it was too late.
Some days after, a new declassifying operation was repeated on bonds of Spain and Portugal. Successively Moody's recalled that also Italy and United Kingdom show public debts and annual deficits too high respect the EU standards.
After the losses suffered by the Greek bonds, some economists observed that the credit needed by Greece to avoid default will amount to about 70 billion Euro per year. This means that Greece will give back not only the 45 billions, but also other 25 billions to some creditors which speculated, thanks to a suspect rating, on a financial operation between two parties. In other words, the system of free market “regulated” by private rating agencies presents an extra cost which compels the indebted countries to return much more than the original debt.
The question arising from these facts is the same that troubled the governments during the 2008 financial crisis: Why some private Agencies have the power to trigger the financial default of the bank’s system and even of the States ?
This power is unacceptable because only the States have the democratic power to take decisions about politics and macro-economics. A solution has been immediately foreseen by EU governments through the institution of an European rating Agency. A collateral action to avoid conflict of interest between private operators, has been made by the US Senate which on May 14 established that in the emission of derivative products the choice of the rating agency pertains to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However much work needs to be done in regulating the global financial market.
Let’s remember that two years ago many industrialised countries discovered that a great financial bubble (a US Court is just inquiring about its origin) triggered the default of banks, followed by a general economic recession centered in the G20 area.
