Petitions

[apathy maybe]

Hate to piss on the parade and all, but how is this online petition meant to stop anything?

Not only that, a quick browse of Wikipedia suggests that nothing of the sort is happening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iraq
At least, it isn't an official government action.

Wait, a new search suggests that only five of the hundred and so people are queer.



“At the moment, we think that there are five gays among the 128 people who are reported to be awaiting execution,” Mr. Hili said.

And he added that while the Ministry of Interior is officially denying that there are five people sentenced to death for having contact with Iraqi-LGBT, he has spoken to someone in the Ministry who has confirmed the five death sentences.
http://iraqilgbtuk.blogspot.com/

On the English version of the page for the group that allegedly started this petition, I find no mention of it:
http://www.everyonegroup.com/

I didn't even go into how bullshit online petitions are, especially when you are trying to influence a government that doesn't give a shit. It's like holding a protest in Sweden about US troops being in Iraq, it might, if you are lucky, make the news in the USA, but no one in power is going to pay attention.

[Patchd]

Would you not have signed it simply because "they would have ignored it anyway"?

[apathy maybe]

Would you not have signed it simply because "they would have ignored it anyway"?
First, the petition is simply wrong, there is a big difference between executing 128 people because they are gay, and executing 128 people, including five folk who are gay.

Second, I don't sign online petitions (and rarely on paper ones). There haven't really been any real discussion that I know of regarding petitions, but here are some quotes (from 2007).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sign-petition-political-t58144/index.html?

I hardly know how signing an online petition is going to do anything. But whatever floats your boat I guess.

Online petitions do fuck all, even if they are official (see for example Mr Blair's online petition system). Especially for something like the court system, this sort of thing will do nothing.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/petition-stop-39-t60628/index.html

Have you ever stopped to think if petitions such as this have any effect on anything? Especially considering it is an online petition.

Yes all this is nasty, no signing a random online petition won't help.


It's not that some people have their "head up their arse" Noah, it's that some people have more realistic expectations. Online petitions are about as useful as beating your head with a shoebox... if you genuinely think this will have any notable affect, then you're living in a fucking dream world.

I have beaten my head with a shoebox. The desired effect has not been achieved, maybe I'll have more luck signing this internet petition and becoming another person in a long list of pissants that will be ignored by those more powerful than them.

Sheesh.

Oh, and I am more than happy to discuss the usefulness (or not) of online petitions, just say the word, post a response, and I'm sure someone will split the thread.

[JohannGE]

Oh, and I am more than happy to discuss the usefulness (or not) of online petitions, just say the word, post a response, and I'm sure someone will split the thread.

A further discussion re the usefulness (or not) of online petitions might be worthwhile if it could avoid degenerating into the usual dogmatic slanging match.

Leaving aside for the moment the petition which forms the topic of this thread, which because of reasons stated below I am happy to sign.
(Up to 2497 signitures now)

Split if you feel appropriate.

Personally, I tend to agree that any significant effectiveness of the majority of such petitions is unlikely. Especially the patently duplicitous efforts of Number10.gov. However, this does not necessarily mean that this is or will always be the case.

Consider for example a hypothetical scenario where a multi million or even multi billion name petition is delivered to an orginisation who wish to present at least an impression of being "in tune" and showing consideration of public opinion, or require the support of the demographic who are signing the petition. I can envisage a situation where such a massively supported petition might be effective in such a case. This would not necessarily mean that the values of the body being petitioned would have been changed but that they had decided that in a specific incidence they had decided it was in their own best interests to bow to the pressure. Not an ideal outcome from our revolutionary perspective but it could be a worthwhile result for the objective of the petitioners.

Obviously multi billion signatures are not likely in the normal run of things though and quite often the organisation has no concern for public opinion or any fear of such opinion significantly affecting their interests. There could still though be some useful aspects of smaller and perhaps even unsuccessful petitioning.

These could include:-

The encouragement of collective action, even on a minor and possibly ineffective level.

Showing solidarity with fellow campaigners and/or comrades.

Being able to at least take some action, even if very minor, with regards to a situation in which you might otherwise feel totally impotent.

The promotion and encouragement of protest and active participation in socio/political matters by people who might not otherwise consider doing so.

The usual ineffectiveness of such action may itself also serve, via the accompanying frustration of being ignored, to further the radicalisation of those same people.

I am well aware of the hardline ideological argument that such actions may be counterproductive. Primarily due to the fact that engaging in such possibly futile and superficial activities may satiate the tiny glimmer of protest that many petitioners (not referring to RevLefters here) might be experiencing and make them feel that they have "done their bit". It would also be argued that it dissipates the energy of more committed activists who might indulge in such petitioning.

Neither of the above arguments accord with my own personal experience though.

I have found that for many people, an introduction to activism even at such a minor level, is the first step towards finding other, hopefully and eventually, effective ways to express opinions that would otherwise go unheard.

As for the wasting of the time of "more serious" activists, I would suggest that even the most committed would not miss the minute of their valuable time it takes to sign a petition. It certainly takes far less time than it does to compose a post haranguing those that do sign and it is less likely to harm the relevant cause than it is to help it.

I would also add that if I decided not to contribute any effort to activities that do not lead directly to effective progress toward the achievement of my/our ultimate goals, I would not have taken part in many of the demo's and protests that I have over the years. In fact it could be argued that in the light of the progress made by the left in the past half century (at least in the UK) none of us should bother doing anything at all! However historically speaking, many protests and demands which have gone on to progress our cause must have appeared futile at their inception, but have still grown and gone on to achieve significant changes.

I would be glad to hear and discuss the opinions of others on the above but Jehovah's Witness style blind adherence to dogma by those who consider their commitment may be measured by their venom and macho aggression will be ignored. (As Roy Harper said... they are who they think they are)

[Revy]

Petitions can be useful. Take for example, the case of Nazanin Fatehi. 350,000 people signed the petition to save her from execution, and it ended up generating a lot of international attention. And she was saved from execution. It wasn't just an online petition, though, there was a lot more action connected to it.

I signed.

[Devrim]

Would you not have signed it simply because "they would have ignored it anyway"?

Do anarchists believe that petitions to Governments are a way to defend the working class?

Devrim

[apathy maybe]

Two things, there is a big difference between an online petition, and a paper petition. Electronic petitions are a lot easier to fake, and it is a lot easier to get multiple fake names in (heck, I could write a script pretty easy, you just need a list of first names, a list of last names, and then randomly mix and match).

Using petitions to generate attention is one thing, but the thing is, it isn't the petition that is saving anyone, it is the attention. Surely that attention can be generated in other ways as well?

Anyway, paper petitions are, as I said, different. In many cases, a government or company will pay attention to a paper petition due to the relative hardness to fake. However, they aren't paying attention to your name, they are paying attention to the attention, and publicity. Again, there are other ways to generate that.

So, electronic, online petitions, waste of time, paper, sometimes a waste of time.


Do anarchists believe that petitions to Governments are a way to defend the working class?
Some might, but they haven't thought it through properly. Anyone who has thought through the issue fully will realise that governments are under no obligation to pay any attention to petitions. Anarchists should realise that: "Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html)". (Though, to be fair, anarchists usually go further than Mr Thoreau, I just wanted to link to his Civil Disobedience 'cause I like it a lot. Even if it isn't an explicitly anarchist work, it has a lot of good political ideas.)


Edit: Oh, and I should expand on the point about courts. Petitions will not affect the decision of a court, at least, not if the court has any pretence of impartiality.

[Patchd]

First, the petition is simply wrong, there is a big difference between executing 128 people because they are gay, and executing 128 people, including five folk who are gay.

Second, I don't sign online petitions (and rarely on paper ones).

I understand that, and I realise that the petition was wrong, yet my question was a general one on petitions. I don't have any illusions with petitions whatsoever, and I realise that online ones are even worse when it comes to effectiveness.

But I do see them as a tool of some sort, if anything, it gives a decent show of how much support you have for a certain cause, which could be useful when it comes to organising something. I realise that online petitions are pretty useless, if not completely useless, and unlike some paper petitions they give the illusion that all you have to do to change something is to put your name down on a web page, it makes people lazy and sedentary if anything.