Please copy, paste, share, tweet and retweet this – #freegary NEEDS YOU!.

I’ve just signed an urgent global petition supporting a new treaty to prevent mass extinction. The petition will be delivered Friday at UN talks in Japan — check out the email below and sign on here:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/the_end_of_whales/98.php
—–

Dear friends,

There are only 300 northern right whales left, and 99% of blue whales have been wiped out. These majestic giants are endangered species, and their case is being played out across the world, time and again. In fact, one third of all life forms on the planet are on the brink of extinction.

The natural world is being crushed by human activity, waste and exploitation. But there is a plan to save it — a global agreement to create, fund and enforce protected areas covering 20% of our lands and seas by 2020. And right now, 193 governments are meeting in Japan to address this crisis.

We have just 4 days left in this crucial meeting. Experts say that politicians are hesitant to adopt such an ambitious goal, but that a global public outcry could tip the balance, making leaders feel the eyes of the world upon them. Click to sign the urgent 20/20 petition, and forward this email widely — the message will be delivered directly to the meeting in Japan:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/the_end_of_whales98.php

Ironically, 2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. By now, our governments were supposed to have “achieved a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss.” They have failed, consistently caving to industry when given a choice between narrow profit and protecting species. Our animals, plants, oceans, forests, soils, and rivers are choking under immense burdens from over-exploitation and other pressures.

Humans are the primary cause of this destruction. But we can turn it around — we’ve saved species from extinction before. The causes of biodiversity decline are vast, and stopping them is going to require a move away from empty piecemeal promises with no clarity on who will pay, to a bold plan with strict enforcement and serious funding. The 20/20 plan is precisely that: governments will be forced to execute strict programmes to ensure that 20% of our earth is protected by the 2020 deadline, and massively scale up funding.

It has to be now. All over the world the picture is beginning to look bleaker — there are only 3,200 tigers left in the wild, our oceans are running out of fish, and we’re losing unique food sources to large mono-plantations. Nature is resilient, but we have to give it a safe place to bounce back. That’s why this meeting is key — it’s a watershed moment to accelerate action based on clear commitments that protect nature’s capital.

If our governments feel overwhelming public pressure right now to be courageous, we can jolt them to commit to the 20/20 plan at this meeting. But it’s going to take every one of us to get that message to echo around the convention in Japan. Sign this urgent petition below, then forward it widely:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/the_end_of_whales98.php

Already this year Avaaz, members have played a critical role in protecting elephants, defending the whale-hunting ban, and securing the world’s largest Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Islands. Our community has shown that we can set ambitious goals — and win. This campaign is the next stage in the essential battle to create the world that most of us everywhere want — where natural resources and species are valued, and our living planet is protected for future generations.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/the_end_of_whales/98.php

With hope,

Alice, Iain, Emma, Ricken, Paula, Benjamin, Mia, David, Graziela, Ben, and the rest of the Avaaz team

Sources:

The Times: “Third of all animals and plants face extinction”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7120676.ece

The Guardian: “Public awareness of the biodiversity crisis is virtually non-existent”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/16/public-awareness-biodiversity-crisis

Sydney Morning Herald: “UN calls for immediate action to save life on earth”
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/un-calls-for-immediate-action-to-save-life-on-earth-20101018-16qnv.html

IUCN: “Why is biodiversity in crisis?”
http://www.iucn.org/iyb/about/biodiversity_crisis/

More on the Convention of Biodiversity meeting
http://www.cbd.int/cop10/

Hilton is a market leader in the hotel industry. Let’s build global pressure on Hilton to protect the victims of this brutal trade.

I sent the following to the above consultation. Whilst I am aware that you strongly support the industries rightful efforts to reduce copyright breaches, I would like to think that you would take the enclosed points into consideration.

Phil Culmer
(address redacted)

From: Phil Culmer (email redacted)
Sent: 25 August 2009 17:30
To: ‘adrian.brazier@bis.gsi.gov.uk’
Subject:

Dear Mr Brazier,

I would like to register my objection to the proposed “two strikes” legislation on several grounds:

1. The proposed legislation is even more extreme than that rejected by previous consultations (as being too extreme), and proposing it is therefore not only in breach, but in defiant opposition to, the government’s consultation guidelines.
2. Whilst technological measures available may identify the protocol in use by a simple scan, the protocols used for illicit file-sharing are also used for entirely legal and innocent file-sharing, and for other applications, such as software distribution, and transmission of internet television. Whilst deep packet inspection may permit identification of the content, it is controversial, being ethically equivalent to phone-tapping or mail interception, both of which require a court to be shown probable cause for authorisation. It can also make no indication of the legal status of an identified file – it cannot tell the difference between a file being illicitly shared and a licensed download.
3. It is an attack on the common carrier status of ISPs. Currently, they make no attempt to regulate the content travelling over their wires, and are not held responsible for the actions of their users. This legislation is equivalent to holding a telephone company responsible for the content of a phone call, or requiring the Royal Mail to inspect all mail to ensure that it is legal. Whether or not it is technically feasible (and currently it would appear not to be), it completely changes the legal position of ISPs; by requiring them to attempt to regulate traffic traversing their network, they become legally responsible for it. At the current state of the art, this would hold them responsible for something which they cannot control – a patent violation of natural justice.
4. This legislation was proposed days after a meeting between Lord Mandelson and representatives of the recording industry, an industry which has become notorious for its abuse of the legal process in pursuit of those which it asserts are stealing its product, whilst showing cavalier disregard whether the individuals accused are guilty. In fact, in several cases, they have been found by the courts to have perjured themselves, with the intent of terrorising those accused into submitting, regardless of guilt or innocence. They are currently under investigation for breaches of the RICO statutes of both US federal law, and those of several states. There is thus a suspicion of improper influence, and of unclean hands on the part of the industry.
5. This legislation risks undermining public support for copyright law. In addition to the above mentioned legal issues in the United States, there is a growing public perception of the recording industry as endeavouring to manipulate the law in order to maximise their own profits, at the expense of both consumers and recording artists. Proposals such as copyright extension, which experts analyse as being for the benefit of the industry and a few major artists, at the expense of the public and of smaller artists, are eroding what support they have left.
6. The proposed legislation smacks of “giving the foxes the key to the hen-house”, and cannot avoid the suspicion of being used by the major labels to damage smaller independent distributers, and/or prevent legitimate non-commercial distribution. The major labels are currently running a major emotive campaign, equating the illicit copying of material with the theft of physical merchandise. This is the latest technological advance which they wail is “destroying” their industry – following such obvious social evils as tape recorders, VCR units, radio stations, and lending libraries, none of which have managed so to do. The reliance on emotive, and blatantly false, scare stories only damages their reputation further. Expert analysis indicates that those who are guilty of illicit file sharing are those who purchase the most music and movies, but the industry is attempting to smother data such as this with rhetoric and hyperbole. In the current age, the easy availability of expert studies shows hyperbole for what it is.
7. The proposed legislation is unnecessary. File sharing is decreasing, most probably due to the availability of legal means of obtaining music, such as Spotify, Last.fm, and similar advertising supported sites. The music industry is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and (despite their attempts to the contrary) is quite able to obtain a sufficient revenue stream from modern technologies. Their attempt to abrogate our constitutional protection from unjustified judicial interference is supported by assertions of a non-existent bogeyman, in order to maintain an artificial scarcity which serves not even them – there is even greater income to be made from ubiquity.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Yours sincerely,

Phil Culmer
—
This is what we know, when you tell us of your fondest hopes and dreams for us: that your greatest wish is that one day we will cease to be, and strangers you can love will move in behind our faces.
Jim Sinclair, “Don’t Mourn for Us”, http://autistics.selfip.org/dont_mourn.html

End the criminalisation of photographing police officers: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Photorestrict/

Restore the need for an imprisonable offence to make an arrest: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PowersofArrest/

End “kettling”, and review policing of peaceful demonstrations: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/kettling/

Require all police officers to be readily identifiable at all times when on duty: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/policeid/

—

This is what we know, when you tell us of your fondest hopes and dreams for us: that your greatest wish is that one day we will cease to be, and strangers you can love will move in behind our faces.

Jim Sinclair, "Don’t Mourn for Us", http://autistics.selfip.org/dont_mourn.html