Petition Tag - responsibilities
1. Please do not scrap our Human Rights Act
Dear David Cameron,
Further to your election as our Prime Minister and your invitation to the British public to offer our energy, ideas and passion, we have put our names down on this petition to show our support for the Human Rights Act. We sincerely hope you will take note of this petition and understand that we have considered the Conservatives' reasons for replacing the Act with a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. In light of all the arguments and evidence, we strongly believe that the Human Rights Act is one of the most precious and important pieces of UK legislation and we feel passionate about protecting it. We would like to take this opportunity to remind you that it was instigated by the great Conservative Prime Minister, Winston Churchill.
This is not a political stance specific petition; we voted for a range of parties in the recent election, however we are appealing to you, as you negotiate our country's future, to assure us that you will not repeal this Act.
Our reasons for this are as follows:
1) Human rights are important words to us and human rights law is vital. It has evolved over many years to protect citizens from their state and to allow everybody to enjoy rights that they deserve, simply by their nature of being human. The Human Rights Act is simple and gives every person in the UK the following rights:
1) the right to life
2) freedom from torture and degrading treatment
3) freedom from slavery and forced labour
4) the right to liberty
5) the right to a fair trial
6) the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
7) the right to respect for private and family life
8) freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
9) freedom of expression
10) freedom of assembly and association
11) the right to marry and to start a family
12) the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
13) the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
14) the right to an education
15) the right to participate in free elections
16) the right not to be subjected to the death penalty
There are absolutely no articles in the Act that we, as members of the public, would not want to be fully protected by. We can see no reason for taking any of these rights away.
2) The Human Rights Act has been hugely misunderstood and misinterpreted. Many of the more ‘ridiculous’ law suits brought under the name of the act have been dismissed. It does not allow criminals to get whatever they want, in fact it actually makes it a legal requirement that the public is protected from dangers to society. Just one example of the benefits of the act is its use in keeping an elderly married couple in long-term care together. Although in an ideal world this should have been avoided by common sense or compassion, the fact is that law is clearly needed to prevent unpleasant situation like this occurring. Secondly, the Act does not, as it sometimes suggested, mean that threats to our nation’s security cannot be dealt with. The Act requires courts to balance public safety against individual rights and, if necessary, a person at risk of harming our country can certainly have their liberty deprived.
3) Far from, as the Conservatives have suggested, the Human Rights Act devaluing the words ‘human rights’, the Act actually strengthens them. The Conservatives have shown a great deal of interest in foreign policy and human rights abroad, but if we do not respect human rights at home we do not set a good example. For example, Guantanamo Bay has severely damaged the reputation of the USA. The USA put a lot of pressure on in the international community to respect human rights, yet did not themselves. This has tainted the concept of human rights negatively and has given countries who abuse human rights leverage to argue against changing their abusive practice. The UK should be an excellent example to the international community of a country that has the utmost respect for human rights. Removing the words ‘human rights’ from our laws would be a terrible signal of our lack of promotion of the concept within our own borders.
4) We welcome the promotion of more responsibility within society and are happy to lend a great deal of support to making this ideal a reality. The Human Rights Act is not the place for this however. There are many pieces of law that outline out responsibilities towards each other; the Act is the place to outline the state’s responsibilities towards us. It is therefore illogical to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
5) The Conservatives are unhappy with judges having power to advise Parliament, as the Act has allowed. We contest the idea that judges should not have a say in politics. They are exceptionally bright, informed members of society who would have had to demonstrate nuanced understanding and careful, responsible judgement before gaining such a position of authority. They will have a niche understanding of human rights that politicians cannot have because of the breadth of their mandates, and it is not wrong that they should not be consulted for their opinions. We note that, contrary to popular understanding, the Act does not give judges power to decide laws; MPs always have the last say on the laws Parliament produces.
6) It concerns us that a piece of legislation should only be designed to protect the British. For example, the issues of migration and asylum seeking have become confused, and there is often a lack of understanding that asylum seekers, who have suffered unimaginably and may face torture or even murder if they return to the country of origin, are different to economic migrants. We do not want our country to remove the piece of law that guarantees minorities such as asylum seekers the dignity they desperately deserve.
7) The Human Rights Act has not been imposed by Europe. The European Convention of Human Rights (upon which the Human Rights Act is based) was designed by European countries after World War II and has nothing to do with the EU. The Human Rights Act therefore actually allows human rights issues to be dealt with domestically rather than going all the way to courts in Strasbourg.
Further to your election as our Prime Minister and your invitation to the British public to offer our energy, ideas and passion, we have put our names down on this petition to show our support for the Human Rights Act. We sincerely hope you will take note of this petition and understand that we have considered the Conservatives' reasons for replacing the Act with a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. In light of all the arguments and evidence, we strongly believe that the Human Rights Act is one of the most precious and important pieces of UK legislation and we feel passionate about protecting it. We would like to take this opportunity to remind you that it was instigated by the great Conservative Prime Minister, Winston Churchill.
This is not a political stance specific petition; we voted for a range of parties in the recent election, however we are appealing to you, as you negotiate our country's future, to assure us that you will not repeal this Act.
Our reasons for this are as follows:
1) Human rights are important words to us and human rights law is vital. It has evolved over many years to protect citizens from their state and to allow everybody to enjoy rights that they deserve, simply by their nature of being human. The Human Rights Act is simple and gives every person in the UK the following rights:
1) the right to life
2) freedom from torture and degrading treatment
3) freedom from slavery and forced labour
4) the right to liberty
5) the right to a fair trial
6) the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
7) the right to respect for private and family life
8) freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
9) freedom of expression
10) freedom of assembly and association
11) the right to marry and to start a family
12) the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
13) the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
14) the right to an education
15) the right to participate in free elections
16) the right not to be subjected to the death penalty
There are absolutely no articles in the Act that we, as members of the public, would not want to be fully protected by. We can see no reason for taking any of these rights away.
2) The Human Rights Act has been hugely misunderstood and misinterpreted. Many of the more ‘ridiculous’ law suits brought under the name of the act have been dismissed. It does not allow criminals to get whatever they want, in fact it actually makes it a legal requirement that the public is protected from dangers to society. Just one example of the benefits of the act is its use in keeping an elderly married couple in long-term care together. Although in an ideal world this should have been avoided by common sense or compassion, the fact is that law is clearly needed to prevent unpleasant situation like this occurring. Secondly, the Act does not, as it sometimes suggested, mean that threats to our nation’s security cannot be dealt with. The Act requires courts to balance public safety against individual rights and, if necessary, a person at risk of harming our country can certainly have their liberty deprived.
3) Far from, as the Conservatives have suggested, the Human Rights Act devaluing the words ‘human rights’, the Act actually strengthens them. The Conservatives have shown a great deal of interest in foreign policy and human rights abroad, but if we do not respect human rights at home we do not set a good example. For example, Guantanamo Bay has severely damaged the reputation of the USA. The USA put a lot of pressure on in the international community to respect human rights, yet did not themselves. This has tainted the concept of human rights negatively and has given countries who abuse human rights leverage to argue against changing their abusive practice. The UK should be an excellent example to the international community of a country that has the utmost respect for human rights. Removing the words ‘human rights’ from our laws would be a terrible signal of our lack of promotion of the concept within our own borders.
4) We welcome the promotion of more responsibility within society and are happy to lend a great deal of support to making this ideal a reality. The Human Rights Act is not the place for this however. There are many pieces of law that outline out responsibilities towards each other; the Act is the place to outline the state’s responsibilities towards us. It is therefore illogical to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
5) The Conservatives are unhappy with judges having power to advise Parliament, as the Act has allowed. We contest the idea that judges should not have a say in politics. They are exceptionally bright, informed members of society who would have had to demonstrate nuanced understanding and careful, responsible judgement before gaining such a position of authority. They will have a niche understanding of human rights that politicians cannot have because of the breadth of their mandates, and it is not wrong that they should not be consulted for their opinions. We note that, contrary to popular understanding, the Act does not give judges power to decide laws; MPs always have the last say on the laws Parliament produces.
6) It concerns us that a piece of legislation should only be designed to protect the British. For example, the issues of migration and asylum seeking have become confused, and there is often a lack of understanding that asylum seekers, who have suffered unimaginably and may face torture or even murder if they return to the country of origin, are different to economic migrants. We do not want our country to remove the piece of law that guarantees minorities such as asylum seekers the dignity they desperately deserve.
7) The Human Rights Act has not been imposed by Europe. The European Convention of Human Rights (upon which the Human Rights Act is based) was designed by European countries after World War II and has nothing to do with the EU. The Human Rights Act therefore actually allows human rights issues to be dealt with domestically rather than going all the way to courts in Strasbourg.
2. Review Student Safety Policies
Recently my 8 year old daughter who was supposed to stay in an afterschool childcare program, was accidentally put on the school bus to ride home. Upon arriving home to an empty house, her bus driver let her off of the bus and left her untill 5:30 in the afternoon. The transportation department claims that they are only responcible for preschoolers and kindtergardeners. I as a parent am outraged at the fact that is is ok for our school system who are responcible for our children, to just be allowed to drop elementary aged school children off regaurdless of age or supervision.
TRANSPORTATION 06.22
Bus Drivers' Responsibilities
All bus drivers shall meet the qualifications of and be in compliance with the responsibilities noted in Kentucky Administrative Regulations.
Walkthrough at End of Run
Bus drivers shall conduct a walkthrough of their buses at the end of each run to ensure that all students have disembarked at their designated stops.
Disciplinary Action
Bus drivers who fail to observe/perform their responsibilities shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.
References:
1 702 KAR 005:080; 702 KAR 005:150
KRS 189.370
KRS 189.375
KRS 189.380
KRS 189.450
KRS 189.540
KRS 189.550
KRS 281A.175
KRS 281A.205
Adopted/Amended: 08/15/2000
Order #: lXTRANSPORTATION 06.33
Regular Bus Stops
Discharge of Pupils
The bus driver shall discharge pupils at their regularly scheduled stops only, except with written authorization from the Principal to discharge a pupil at another location.1 Preschool students shall be transported in accordance with applicable regulations.2
The Principal shall have a written authorization from a child's parents before permitting discharge at a location other than the regular stop.
Exception
The driver may discharge a pupil for disciplinary reasons in accordance with Policy 06.34 of this manual and with 702 KAR 005:080.1
References:
1 702 KAR 005:080
2 702 KAR 005:150
KRS 158.110
KRS 189.370
KRS 189.375
KRS 189.540
Adopted/Amended: 09/12/1991
Order #: X
TRANSPORTATION 06.22
Bus Drivers' Responsibilities
All bus drivers shall meet the qualifications of and be in compliance with the responsibilities noted in Kentucky Administrative Regulations.
Walkthrough at End of Run
Bus drivers shall conduct a walkthrough of their buses at the end of each run to ensure that all students have disembarked at their designated stops.
Disciplinary Action
Bus drivers who fail to observe/perform their responsibilities shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.
References:
1 702 KAR 005:080; 702 KAR 005:150
KRS 189.370
KRS 189.375
KRS 189.380
KRS 189.450
KRS 189.540
KRS 189.550
KRS 281A.175
KRS 281A.205
Adopted/Amended: 08/15/2000
Order #: lXTRANSPORTATION 06.33
Regular Bus Stops
Discharge of Pupils
The bus driver shall discharge pupils at their regularly scheduled stops only, except with written authorization from the Principal to discharge a pupil at another location.1 Preschool students shall be transported in accordance with applicable regulations.2
The Principal shall have a written authorization from a child's parents before permitting discharge at a location other than the regular stop.
Exception
The driver may discharge a pupil for disciplinary reasons in accordance with Policy 06.34 of this manual and with 702 KAR 005:080.1
References:
1 702 KAR 005:080
2 702 KAR 005:150
KRS 158.110
KRS 189.370
KRS 189.375
KRS 189.540
Adopted/Amended: 09/12/1991
Order #: X
3. Lowering the Drinking age to 18
The current United States legal drinking age is 21. Many United States citizens disagree with this age. Many believe that the age to legally be able to purchase, consume or possess alcohol should be 18.
A United States Citizen is allowed to vote when they are 18 years of age. 18 year old males are forced to join the Selective Service, for possible drafting. This means that 18-year old males can go to war. At age 18, a citizen is also inclined to jury duty. So, an 18-year old is given the responsibilities of voting, being selected for jury duty, and possibly being drafted for war.
If an 18-year old citizen is to be given these responsibilities, why is the legal drinking age 21? Does the U.S. Government not trust those of us under 21? They trust us with their votes, yet they cannot treat us like full adults for another 3 years!
A United States Citizen is allowed to vote when they are 18 years of age. 18 year old males are forced to join the Selective Service, for possible drafting. This means that 18-year old males can go to war. At age 18, a citizen is also inclined to jury duty. So, an 18-year old is given the responsibilities of voting, being selected for jury duty, and possibly being drafted for war.
If an 18-year old citizen is to be given these responsibilities, why is the legal drinking age 21? Does the U.S. Government not trust those of us under 21? They trust us with their votes, yet they cannot treat us like full adults for another 3 years!
4. Sign the AKC Responsible Dog Ownership Pet Promise!
This petition, originally published in August 2006, has been republished as of today's date: September 19, 2013.
We are petitioning America's pet owners to remind them of everything that is required to be a responsible dog owner.
The AKC Responsible Dog Owner Pet Promise, created to bring the spirit of AKC Responsible Dog Ownership Day to life and adapted from the AKC Canine Good Citizen Responsible Dog Owner's Pledge (http://www.akc.org/events/cgc/index.cfm), reminds us that raising a happy and healthy pet is more than just playtime and pampering.
For more information visit www.akc.org
We are petitioning America's pet owners to remind them of everything that is required to be a responsible dog owner.
The AKC Responsible Dog Owner Pet Promise, created to bring the spirit of AKC Responsible Dog Ownership Day to life and adapted from the AKC Canine Good Citizen Responsible Dog Owner's Pledge (http://www.akc.org/events/cgc/index.cfm), reminds us that raising a happy and healthy pet is more than just playtime and pampering.
For more information visit www.akc.org
July 30, 2006
This is a petition that calls for Congress to create a stipulation that all abortion rights legislation be accompanied by rights for fathers to also sign out of their parental responsibilities.
More information on this topic can be found at: http://www.nas.com/c4m/faq.html#what_is
This is a petition that calls for Congress to create a stipulation that all abortion rights legislation be accompanied by rights for fathers to also sign out of their parental responsibilities.
More information on this topic can be found at: http://www.nas.com/c4m/faq.html#what_is
6. OSU LIBRARY REFORM - Weekend Hours
Nov 17, 2005
On the branch campuses, where many of the students are non-traditional, have jobs, families, and responsibilities other than being full time college students, our Library has let us down.
We, who work, raise families, and have other responsibilities that take up our time throughout the week, and only have the weekends to utilize the Libraries as facilities for study, learning, and as a hub to our educational experience are shut out! The Branch Campus Libraries' hours are all shorter on the weekend than throughout the week.
This is a terrible example of discrimination based on the status of the non-traditional students. It is unfortunate that the University is so intolerant and unresponsive to the needs of students, but as exemplified in Issue I, The Ohio State University is not interested in us, in our educations, or our lives The Ohio State University is only interested in generating revenue and doing what is easiest for them!
We need to act! Attached is a petition seeking to force The Ohio State University Marion to offer the same hours of operation for the Library on the weekends as throughout the week, thereby ending the discrimination inherent in this policy toward non-traditional students.
On the branch campuses, where many of the students are non-traditional, have jobs, families, and responsibilities other than being full time college students, our Library has let us down.
We, who work, raise families, and have other responsibilities that take up our time throughout the week, and only have the weekends to utilize the Libraries as facilities for study, learning, and as a hub to our educational experience are shut out! The Branch Campus Libraries' hours are all shorter on the weekend than throughout the week.
This is a terrible example of discrimination based on the status of the non-traditional students. It is unfortunate that the University is so intolerant and unresponsive to the needs of students, but as exemplified in Issue I, The Ohio State University is not interested in us, in our educations, or our lives The Ohio State University is only interested in generating revenue and doing what is easiest for them!
We need to act! Attached is a petition seeking to force The Ohio State University Marion to offer the same hours of operation for the Library on the weekends as throughout the week, thereby ending the discrimination inherent in this policy toward non-traditional students.