Unlike Megan's Law in the United States, communities have no knowledge as to who they are or where they are. A public register is a right and a national duty that is long overdue.

The changes will affect schools' language policy, teacher appointments and pupil admissions.

The public has until November 10 to comment on the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill, which was published earlier this month.

The petition of the undersigned shows:

that the recent bullying-related death of 15 year-old Chloe Ferguson has led to a public outpouring of grief and concern, with many others coming forward to speak out about the devastating effects of bullying, including cyberbullying, in their own lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren.

Over 271 000 people have joined an online community calling for stricter anti-bullying laws and enforcement of those laws as part of a determined approach to addressing the ongoing problem of bullying. In addition to the signatures on the petition presented here, more than another 29 000 people have also signed non-conforming petitions, calling for review of Australia’s anti-bullying laws (over 19 5000 on GoPetition: Chloe’s Law – Bullying a crime punishable by law and over 9 500 on change.org: Australian Government: Introduce anti-bullying laws in Australia).

There is clearly strong community support for law reform in relation to bullying in general, and cyberbullying in particular.

The call from the community for action on this issue is supported by the research findings of Dr Colette Langos of the School of Law, University of South Australia, whose doctoral thesis considers the merits and constraints of enacting a specific criminal cyberbullying offence (Colette Langos, ‘Cyberbullying, associated harm and the criminal law’ (PhD Thesis, University of South Australia, 2013). Dr Langos has drafted model cyberbullying legislation which aims to criminalize only the most serious manifestations (forms) of cyberbullying, thereby minimizing over-criminalization, and we commend her work to the members of the Senate and any committees or inquiries that may result from this petition.

The signatories to this petition believe that Sections 15 and 17 of Division 474 of the Schedule of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) provide critical tools for the regulation of cyberbullying, capturing some behaviour that may not be adequately captured by state laws. Since s 474.17 of the Schedule of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) requires the perpetrator to be aware that there was a substantial risk the conduct would be considered menacing, harassing or offensive and that the perpetrator is unjustified in taking that risk, we believe there is educative, normative and legal value in the incorporation of a legal definition of cyberbullying into Division 474.

What happened in Amboli with Keenan and Reuben is known to us. The act was brutal and the perpetrators should be booked, punished and the proceeding should be established but the root cause of what happened that night and the issue they stood up for was eve teasing. Hence this campaign ZERO TOLERANCE, which is a campaign for zero tolerance to Sexual Harassment.

It is not just the casual approach. There is also a stigma attached to the entire issue, which prevents vulnerable victims from standing up and complaining. What makes matter worst is that Section 354 and 509 of IPC, are toothless provisions which have completely failed to tackle the issue.

As a campaign we have three major goals:

1. Spread awareness especially amongst the youth, that Sexual Harassment is just not acceptable and we need to be ZERO TOLERANT, be it victims or onlooker (An onlooker can also complain and not just the victim).

2. Empower women through imparting information about their rights and the existing laws to book the culprit and combat the menace. (E.g. What exactly a girl do if she is touched in appropriately at public).

3. Petition Shri. RR Patil through a signature campaign both online and offline. To strengthen sections 354 and 509, make them non bail-able, a move that is under consideration by the government but has not been implemented.

4. Take legal recourse, by filing a PIL in the high court asking for clear directions that the present mechanism is insufficient to tackle the menace of Sexual Harassment and stronger law is needed in addition to robust procedure, which genuinely empower women.

So join this campaign for the women in all our lives be it then our mothers, our sister, wives, daughter, friends or we ourselves!

Support what Keenan & Reuben stood for ! Join the Zero Tolerance Campaign and spread the word. It's time we all got ZERO TOLERANT !

Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/zerotolerancecampaign

Twitter:http://twitter.com/Zero_Tol

For full details and restrictions, read the 10/14/2008 announcement in the Press Room link at www.uscis.gov. Or visit www.jcics.org/I600A.htm to read the announcement by Tom DiFilipo, President of the Joint Council on International Children's Services.

THIS IS A MAJOR VICTORY FOR THOUSANDS OF US FAMILIES WHO ARE ADOPTING INTERNATIONALLY.

Our efforts would not have succeeded without the tireless efforts of the US Congress (including Representative Pitts), Kathleen Strottman of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, Michael Valverde at USCIS, Tom DiFilipio and the entire JCICS staff, and everyone who has taken the time to sign this petition and pass it along. Lastly, our thanks to gopetition.com for providing this forum; this is proof-positive that individual voices can make a positive difference.

You are still welcome to sign the petition to show your support for this cause. Thank you.

David Yurkovich and Dianne Pearce
----------

SECTION 1: SUMMARY OF THE CRISIS FACED BY AMERICAN ADOPTIVE FAMILIES

Recently, the rules and regulations in the United States of America regarding international adoption have changed. Congress passed The Hague into law. When this was done, Congress explicitly stated that families who are in the process of adopting a child internationally and who have been in process prior to April 1, 2008, are considered “transition cases.” As such, these families are, by law, grandfathered into the adoption rules and regulations that existed PRIOR TO April 1, 2008 until their adoptions are completed, and these families DO NOT have to re-file under the new Hague guidelines. However, the Department of State and the US Department of Homeland Security’s CIS (Citizenship and Immigration Services, aka USCIS) bureau are blatantly ignoring this law and forcing all transitional families to abide by the new regulations. This not only contravenes the law as written, but also creates undue hardship for the thousands of US families affected, and will likely cause the disruption of the adoption.

Thousands of US families have been waiting in excess of 2 to 3 years for their adoptions from China and other countries to be completed. Now these families are being forced by the National Benefits Council (NBC) and USCIS to re-file under Hague, when clearly Congress wanted them to be grandfathered under the I600A rules they were subject to when they began their adoption process. Under the new rules these families will have to pay additional dollars, in some cases running into the thousands in fees to US adoption and homestudy agencies. Having already spent in excess of $10,000, many cannot afford these additional fees. In the next 2 to 3 years >10,000 US families will need to go through the I600A renewal process, which is a quick process, with approval time running from about 6 weeks to 2 months.

The new Hague (I800A) process is taking a MINIMUM of 6 months. So, should a waiting family be able to resubmit through all of the new Hague guidelines in a timely fashion, they still risk having the acceptance of their adoption referral, and the completion of their family, delayed by months, or terminated by the foreign government, and at the very least, during those months the vulnerable child that is to be adopted will languish in an orphanage. Also, since so few agencies received Hague certification, many thousands of families will be forced to re-sign with a new agency. If any person waiting in line for a China adoption changes agencies FOR ANY REASON, China requires that they resubmit their dossier, and move to the end of a line that includes adopters from many countries and is in excess of 25,000 families long.

So, after having waited in line for years to reach the front, AMERICAN FAMILIES ONLY will be unfairly shunted to the back of the line due to USCIS and NBC not following the law as written. No other country’s adopters face this hardship. In addition, having to resubmit a dossier to China will mean the family must now meet China’s newer, stricter rules. Many families who have been in line for 2 to 3 years will lose their China adoption completely under those circumstances.

The US Congress passed the new rules for USA adopters into law; however, in their wisdom, they had the foresight to see that the adoption process (particularly in China) has been moving extremely slowly, and so the US Congress particularly provided in the law that “transition cases” (those in the adoption process prior to April 1, 2008) can continue their adoption under the rules that were in effect at the time they began the process and UNTIL THEIR ADOPTION IS CONCLUDED. By breaking the law, the Department of State and Homeland Security’s CIS bureau is literally playing with the lives of thousands of families (and thousands of innocent waiting children). To date, the USCIS and NBC are telling agencies and families that they have no choice but to follow the path they have set down, which is a deliberate lie, and also blatantly defies the law as written by Congress.

NO AGENCY IS ABOVE THE LAW. We, the undersigned, respectfully demand that our elected officials contact the Department of State and Homeland Security’s CIS bureau and insist that the law be upheld as written by ALL the local USCIS offices nationwide, and the new NBC office. Thousands of couples and orphaned children are in danger of having their lives terribly altered by the arrogance and stubbornness of these government agencies who wish to ignore the law for their own benefit. This is unacceptable.

Effective 10:00 pm eastern tonight the RCMP has reclassified the Swiss Arms Classic Green carbine from non-restricted (and restricted) to prohibited status. There are approximately 1,000 -1,800 of these firearms in the public. The government will not be offering compensation and will be demanding that the firearms, which cost between $3,000 - $4,000 be surrendered. The government is suggesting that all affected firearms owners contact the distributors from which the firearms were purchased for reimbursement.

The NFA encourages all affected owners to contact their federal Member of Parliament. This is part of an ongoing agenda of the RCMP to progressively prohibit firearms in Canada.

Under Bill C-68, the firearms classification system was supposed to be updated regularly to prohibit firearms being introduced into the market, as well as those already in Canada.

The Government of Canada was supposed to assist in this with periodic new legislation and Order in Council (OIC).

The RCMP have been doing this unilaterally since 2006. Access to information records show that RCMP have an aggressive firearms reclassification agenda, and that prohibitions will not stop with the Swiss Arms Series Rifles. These rifles were approved for import by the RCMP have been sold in Canada for over a decade. Owners once held registrations for them under the now defunct long gun registry.
There has never been a crime or incident of violence committed with one of these rifles.

NFA condemns this RCMP assault on the rights and private property of law abiding Canadians. The RCMP has shown contempt for the rights of Canadians by their actions, and we expect the Government of Canada to take steps and introduce measures to reign in the RCMP and end the assault against the rights, property and freedoms of Canadians.

If you wish to join the support group please goto!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/221239064736413/

Each case in the CSA Australia should be individually assessed.

Something in my opinion must be done to create a fairer system.

The geneal public of Perth supports the removal of such restrictions to allow all shops to have the option of trading further than the current 6pm closing time.

It is reported that extending the hours which retailers can trade will create more jobs and attract competition to the existing market place.

Unlike the USA there is no Megan's Law.

This Bill will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce drive-by shootings by CRIMINALS in Sydney.

What it will do is:

(1) inconvenience tens of thousands of LAW-ABIDING FIREARM OWNERS, particularly in the bush,

(2) drive firearm dealers to the wall with the added paperwork, and

(3) breach Mr O'Farrell's pledge to reduce red tape for businesses and the community by 20% by June 2015 ( http://goo.gl/bSOhQ ).