We the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence.

The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.

Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.

English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the "libel capital" of the world.

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.

The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence.

Relax the censorship laws and role of the BBFC

The BBFC is responsible for classifying and censoring all film releases in cinemas and on DVD in the UK. During the early 70/80s there were concerns over the effects of the "video nasties" - causing viewers to re-enact deviant behaviour or "corrupting" the youth. As a result, the BBFC were handed guidelines by the government to censor certain materials. These measures saw a massive decline in the production of "video nasties". Although any film could be labelled a "nasty", the ones particularly targeted were so for their disturbing portrayal of sex, violence, sexual violence and real wild animal violence.

However, despite research, there is no conclusive proof that events portrayed in the movies have any significant effect in altering the moral values or behavior of the veiwers, whats more animal violence occurs in nature naturally and is merely being documented.

Therefore, I petition the PM to take the initiative, lift the censorship laws that are not in place to protect unwilling participants, liberate the British film industry from censorship and allow the general public to choose what they WANT to watch for themselves.

..Sign the petition

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Amend s63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act so as to explicitly target images of sexual abuse and to prevent the persecution of consenting adults, whether gay or straight, whose sex life involves consensual activity such as bondage, discipline, sadomasochism or role-playing.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 makes it a criminal offense to possess an 'extreme pornographic image'. This law is not evidence based and did not have proper parliamentary scrutiny.

As the new law stands, thousands of consenting adults who enjoy consensual, staged fantasy images of bondage and other kinks could have their lives, and that of their families, wrecked for looking at images of activities where no crime was committed.

We propose to amend this legislation so as to explicitly target people who collect images of real abuse. Similar amendments were introduced in the House of Lords but were rejected by the Government without good reason.

An amendment to provide a defense of reasonable belief of consent and absence of serious injury should be brought forward immediately.

...Sign the Petition

When Jacqui Smith unveiled proposals to track every e-mail, phone call and text message, she might have let herself in for more than she bargained for.

Thousands of civil liberties campaigners plan to flood the Home Secretary's inbox by copying her in on every email they send on 15 June.

Martin Allan Gray is spearheading the campaign. He said he aims to send the message: You want to see our e-mails? OK, here they are!

Ms Smith announced proposals for a communications database monstrosity, containing details of everyone's telephone calls, e-mails and internet use, last month,

A message from Mr Allan Gray on the campaign's Facebook page says: This is an immense infringement of civil liberties, not to mention a major risk to our private data – but it won't make us any safer.

Allan Gray has won the backing of Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone, Welsh Assembly member Peter Black and the Bishop of Buckinghamshire.

In her blog, Ms Featherstone described the proposals as bonkers and said she was backing the e-mail onslaught because civil liberties is the Lib Dem middle name.

Say no to the mean minded

To: Maria Carlshamre, MEP, rapporteur FEMM
Reference:

Draft report on prostitution in the Member States and the health consequences for women (2007/2263 (INI)) From the Committee on the Rights of Women and Gender Equality (FEMM)

We reject the report and ask :

• Elimination of discrimination with regard to consensual sexual services agreed between mature, free adults. It is a profession with unique skills and specialized training.
• Decriminalization and legalization of sex work: No rules without the participation of the sex workers. Give the sex workers rights against injustice.
• Stop with ideological agitation against sex work and Paysex by them with violence and abuse, coercion and war, drugs and disease.
• Assistance, education, counselling and training for sex workers: Safety First, Safer Sex, Sex Worker Burn Out Prevention, Self business management, training, Career Opportuinites, stigma management, vocational exchange
• Promotion of networking and self-representation of sex workers: sex workers are part of the solution
• Anonymous STI testing for sexually active people.

Sign the Petition

If MPs pass ridiculous laws to limit our freedom, they should be forced to abide by them too.

My lawyers have delivered a letter to the director of public prosecutions calling for an urgent investigation into allegations that the prime minister broke the law by demonstrating unlawfully in Parliament Square last summer. If found guilty he could face 50 weeks in prison.

This is partly Mr Brown's own fault. It began when MPs rushed the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 through, forcing anyone wishing to demonstrate within an area around parliament to get police approval. This is the law that Maya Evans was arrested and convicted under, for reading out the names of the British and Iraqi war dead.

In the past 18 months I have legally demonstrated in every corner of the area this law covers, from Hungerford Bridge (demanding more trolls) to the Mall (demanding human rights in Saudi Arabia). The definition of what constitutes a protest is such that I had to apply for permission to wear a red nose in Parliament Square on Red Nose Day. Not to do so would have risked arrest. Last month I had to get police approval to hold a banner saying, "Support the Poppy Appeal".

If the wearing of a brightly coloured proboscis constitutes a protest, then the unveiling of Nelson Mandela's statue must do so too. After all, it celebrated the collapse of apartheid (a political cause), honoured a man who organised the armed struggle in South Africa (definitely political and quite possibly glorifying terrorism) and pledged to fight poverty.

So, being civic-minded, I wrote to the police asking if I needed permission for a gathering at the statue. My event had speeches - in fact, they were extracts from the original speeches made on the day by Mr Brown and Mr Mandela. Yes, the police informed me, I did need permission to demonstrate - which I duly applied for and received. Unfortunately for the prime minister, it seems no one bothered to get police approval at the event he spoke at.

To support the action, you can buy an "I put Gordon Brown in the dock" badge for £2. Any money not used in the legal challenge will be donated to Index on Censorship

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to withdraw the Government's support for the Communications Data Bill

The Communications Data Bill would give the Government the legal authority to collect a database of every phone call, e-mail and time spent on the internet by the public. Even though the Government insists that this bill would reduce terrorism (which it probably will not), this is an intolerable intrusion into the privacy of free citizens and a step towards a dystopian "Big Brother" state. The Bill must be quashed to protect civil liberties and halt the slippery slope towards an Orwellian 1984-type nightmare.

Result:

Closed with 1210 signatures

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop ISP's from breaching customers privacy via advertising technologies.

We petition the Prime Minister to investigate the Phorm technology and if found to breach UK or European privacy laws then ban all ISP's from adopting it's use. Additionally the privacy laws should be reviewed to cover any future technologies such as Phorm

The UK's three largest ISP's, Virgin Media, BT and TalkTalk are all in talks with a view to introducing the Phorm technology. This would result in the browsing habits of the majority of the UK population being sold to a third party for advertising purposes. The opt out system for this technology is vague and unproven, even when opting out your every move on the Internet might be recorded. Surely this must be a breach of privacy laws, if not then the privacy laws need to be changed to cover such invasive technology.

Update: Result

Closed with 21,403 signatures

Government response:

Thank you for the e-petition on internet advertising technologies and customer privacy.

As your petition states, some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have been looking at the use of Phorm’s Webwise and Open Internet Exchange (OIX) products. However, the only use of the technology so far has been the trials conducted by BT.

Advertisers and ISPs need to ensure that they comply with all relevant data protection and privacy laws. It is also important that consumers’ privacy is protected and that they are given sufficient information and opportunity to make a clear and informed decision whether to participate in services such as Phorm.

The Government is committed to ensuring that people’s privacy is fully protected. Legislation is in place for this purpose and is enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). ICO looked at this technology, to ensure that any use of Phorm or similar technology is compatible with the relevant privacy legislation. ICO has published its view on Phorm [pdf] on its website

ICO is an independent body, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to second guess its decisions. However, ICO has been clear that it will be monitoring closely all progress on this issue, and in particular any future use of Phorm’s technology. They will ensure that any such future use is done in a lawful, appropriate and transparent manner, and that consumers’ rights are fully protected.

Have you got a licence for that camera?

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to clarify the laws surrounding photography in public places.

Through history, we have documented the world around us, whether through written word, art or photography.

Photography in particular has provided fantastic insights into the past and present, and is a hobby enjoyed by millions of people worldwide.

But today, it's becoming increasingly difficult to take photos of our surroundings, particularly in cities like London.

In recent years, the price divide between professional and consumer equipment has blurred, and it's quite common these days to see amateurs and hobbyists carrying around tripods, SLR cameras and a backpack full of equipment.

Yet, we are constantly harrassed by security guards and police officers in the name of preventing terrorism. They seem to be operating under a different interpretation of the law to the rest of us, believing that somehow the length of your lens, or size of your camera is relevant.

We would like clarification by the goverment on the law regarding photography of buildings and landmarks from public locations.

Update: Result

Closed with 5792 signatures

Statement from No 10 Downing Street:

There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places. However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations. Additionally, the police may require a person to move on in order to prevent a breach of the peace, to avoid a public order situation, or for the person’s own safety or welfare, or for the safety and welfare of others.

Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the Chief Constable of the relevant force.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to reject proposals to drive prostitution further underground by prosecuting clients of prostitutes; to endorse the policy suggested by the Royal College of Nursing, the National Association of Probation Officers and others by decriminalising prostitution; and to observe Council of Europe Resolution 1579 of October 2007.

Criminalising clients means:

• Street prostitutes revert to darker less safe areas
• don’t carry condoms (as used in evidence)
• they have little time to appraise clients and weigh up risk
• dispersal breaks up informal networks, needed for protection, and inhibits health services' ability
• trafficking victims are less likely to be helped
• prices have fallen so they have to work longer with more clients, and accept clients + acts they would have rejected .

We call upon Government to decriminalise + to comply with Council of Europe Resolution 1579 (Oct 2007), specifically:

…avoid double standards + policies which force prostitutes underground or under the influence of pimps..; instead...seek to empower them..by..refraining from criminalising…prostitutes + developing programmes to assist (them) leave the profession should they wish to..;…ensuring prostitutes have access to safe sexual practices...respect the right of prostitutes who freely choose (prostitution) to have a say in.. policies..;..ending the abuse of power by the police + other public authorities towards prostitutes..

Update: Result

Closed with 733 signatures

Government Response:

The Government has a Coordinated Prostitution Strategy. Offences exist to deal with anyone buying or attempting to buy sex from someone on the street; and in terms of off-street prostitution, our Strategy is clear that the demand for commercial sex from under-18s or individuals trafficked to this country is totally unacceptable. We have specific offences that cover paying for the sexual services of a child, and rape remains the appropriate offence with which to prosecute those who pay for sex with an individual who does not consent.

We will also do all we can to prevent individuals from falling into work in prostitution, and are committed to ensuring that services are in place to allow women already involved to develop routes out.

However, we recognise also that there is significant support for more to be done to tackle the demand for prostitution. Recently, the Home Secretary announced a number of proposals which have arisen from a major review into tackling the demand for prostitution. These include our intention to outlaw paying for sex with someone controlled for another person’s gain. This is aimed at protecting vulnerable individuals, for example those who have been trafficked or exploited in some other way. We also announced a crackdown on kerb-crawlers, as well as new powers to close premises associated with prostitution.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Support ISP's in not bowing to pressure from a desperate insustry into becoming defacto net police.

Recently there have been increasingly desperate attempts by the music industry to control how individuals consume media. Since these measures have in large parts failed (as a public relations disaster and an expensive, ultimately ineffective process), the industry is attempting to force ISP's to bear the blame for users actions and police information consumption.

There is no practical way to detect the difference between legal and illegal material – particularly if the content is encrypted therefore this will effectively ban the use of some methods of transferring data. ISP’s should not be encouraged to invade a users privacy by analysing their data if they are not suspected of any crime, this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which very quickly leads to censorship of the internet.

The government should not legislate on behalf of the music industry but should support open internet policed if necessary by public authorities using the usual mantra of innocent until proven guilty, requiring evidence and a court order before a users privacy may be invaded in this way.

Closed with 244 signatures and the following government response:

In December 2005, the then Chancellor asked Andrew Gowers to undertake an independent review of the UK intellectual property framework. The Review was published in December 2006 (and can be found on the website). The Government welcomed the findings of the Review, and committed to taking forward those recommendations for which it is responsible, to ensure that the UK Intellectual Property (IP) regime is fit for the digital age.

The following recommendation concerned "peer-to-peer" (P2P) data-sharing - in effect the un-authorised copying of data files (typically music or films) between individuals:

"Recommendation 39: Observe the industry agreement of protocols for sharing data between ISPs and rights holders to remove and disbar users engaged in 'piracy'. If this has not proved operationally successful by the end of 2007, Government should consider whether to legislate".

The issue is a complex one and has implications for data protection, e-commerce, consumers, the network infrastructure, competition, and copyright protection. To date, industry has been unable to develop a voluntary solution and, in view of this, we have decided to start looking at possible legislative solutions. As stated in the Creative Britain strategy paper published on 22 February:

"We will consult on legislation that would require internet service providers and rights holders to co-operate in taking action on illegal file sharing - with a view to implementing legislation by April 2009".

The consultation paper, which the Government is developing in discussion with stakeholders (including not just the music industry but also the film and software industries and ISPs), will seek to identify a number of possible legislative options, including technological solutions. However, the Government's preferred option is - and always has been - a voluntary solution.

For that reason we have made it clear that, whilst we will continue to develop possible legislation options, this will be in parallel with the industry's continuing efforts to develop a voluntary solution. If and when such a solution is presented to us, we will pause the legislative process to allow a proper trial, and stop it if, as Gowers recommended, a voluntary solution proves operationally successful.

As noted in the petition, there are potential difficulties with any technical solution to monitor or block file-sharing. Such technology does exist although it is not yet clear how reliable it is, especially in the number of "false positives" it generates. (A false positive is where the system miss-identifies legitimate traffic as illicit). Use of such technology also raises issues in connection with the "mere conduit" status of the ISPs, and hence any solution involving technology would have to take account of this and of any e-privacy issues.

On privacy, the Government recognises that any solution must take account of the relevant data protection legislation, and must have built in safeguards to ensure the rights of the consumer are protected. It is also worth noting that, under the e-Commerce Directive, ISPs cannot be placed under a general obligation to monitor internet traffic.

There are of course, legitimate uses of peer-to-peer technology, notably in academia, although possibly the most high-profile is the BBC's iPlayer. We have no intention of legislating to ban the use of peer-to-peer technology.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Decisively Reject The Swedish Model As An Effective Method Of Improving The Health, Welfare And Safety Of Sex Workers.

The Swedish Model is an attempt to suppress the oldest profession by criminalising the client only. This is in breach of the basic requirements of sexual equality. Results have shown that prohibition drives the industry further underground into a area of greatly increased risks to sex workers. This is unacceptable. The Swedish Model would also be extremely difficult and costly to enforce in the UK, and would divert resources from the prevention of trafficking. Most workers in the industry favour decriminalisation of their profession, and that is seen as the basis for constructive legislation.

Thanks to David Tong who submitted the petition

Closed with 67 signatures

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to allow the BBFC to continue in their current role without the political interference called for in the British Board of Film Classification (Accountability to Parliament and Appeals) Bill 2007-08.

In reality explicit sex DVDs are widely available without proper controls. It is illegal to show R18 explicit sex films on Sky, cable or terrestrial TV. It is also illegal to sell R18 in ordinary shops or by mail order. For 90% of people it is impractical to visit a licensed sex shop in person. There is a thriving underground market - local newspapers openly advertise discreet motorcycle delivery via untraceable mobile phones. Unregulated retailers have every incentive to maximise profit and no incentive to observe R18 boundaries or to check the ages. They are already breaking the law and have no licence to loose. Some include rape, torture porn and worse in their stock. Some include religious hate material. If R18 material was widely available, the unregulated market would shrink drastically, and unregulated sellers would go out of business. Allow sales in legit video stores, which check age, limited to 10% by stock level and by £ sold. This will improve protection for under-18s.

Thanks to Wynter Tyson who submitted the petition

Closed with 61 signatures