PetitionBoycottPayPalENcomplete_201606

	#NoOpinionSuppression #NoCensorship #NoConfidenceAbuse #NoRightsViolation #NoAntiSemitism #HumanRights #HumanDignity #ResponsibilityPerception #FreeSpeech #FreeThought #FreeOpinion #FreeExpression @PayPal @AirbusDS @Signalis Worldwide call to boycott of the above companies due to anti-Semitic attitudes, as well as disregarding human rights and fundamental ethical maxims. Other addressees of the petition: @FlorianHensel @BernhardGerwert @ThomasEnders @LarsImmisch @AndreaPrinz @KaiSchmidt @WolframSchorr @MarcusKrol @SéverineRitter @TanjaHaller
	Please sign my petition:	Call4Boycott [ShortURL] Call4Boycott [LongURL]
	Recipients of the Petition @PayPal @DavidEngel @DavidFerri @RupertKeeley @VictoriaReanney @RichardSwales @SéverineRitter @TanjaHaller @AirbusDS @BernhardGerwert @ThomasEnders @LarsImmisch @AndreaPrinz @KaiSchmidt @Signalis @WolframSchorr @InnovativeNavigation @MarcusKrol @skwschwarz @FlorianHensel
	Recipients of the Petition The petition addresses: to David Engel, personally liable shareholder of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. to David Ferri, personally liable shareholder of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. to Rupert Keeley, personally liable shareholder of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. to Victoria Reanney, personally liable shareholder of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. to Richard Swales, personally liable shareholder of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. to Séverine Ritter, Brand Risk Management of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. to Tanja Haller, Brand Risk Management of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. to Bernhard Gerwert, CEO of Airbus Defence and Space to Thomas Enders, CEO of Airbus Group to Lars Immisch, Head of HR of Airbus Defence and Space to Andrea Prinz, Airbus Defence and Space to Kai Schmidt, Airbus Defence and Space to Wolfram Schorr, Signalis GmbH to Marcus Krol, IN innovative-navigation GmbH to Florian Hensel, Attorney of Law in Munich, Germany
	Introduction of the originator My name is Adi B Treiner, prefer however Abe Treiner to be called and am 58 years old. I have published Web pages for the documentation of facts which I am not able to bring into line with my thoughts about constitutional and ethical / moralistic principles. Due to my perception of a responsibility regarding the burdened German history, I feel myself committed to document at an early stage the possibly undesirable developments in order to prevent a non-excluded calamitous repeating of history. My aim regarding the responsibilities to our history is geared on reflecting my everyday acting and reflecting my daily existence relating to the context of our history but not as in Germany prevalent practiced only as an alibi for sporadic recurring common day of remembrance with a zero at the end.
	Claim of the petition The petition calls PayPal on taking back the blocking of donations calls in the documentation of the author. The blocking of donations call for documentations, which fulfills the requirements of article 19 UDHR, article 10 of the ECHR and article 5 of the German Basic law, constitutes a disregard of fundamental human rights. In addition, such measures show analogies to the sinister German history where related to aryanization and deportation even only rudimentary involved participants (such as banks and insurance companies) used any means in order to prevent or hinder the claims of perceptions of victims. Thus, only anti-Semitic intentions can be certified to such behavior. With its exposed partiality, due to blockage of donation calls, PayPal shows against the world public opinion that it does not have the intellectual, ethical and moral maturity to cover the requirements for the key role of future payment systems. As some years ago, the largest German bank shook the confidence of investors to a large German media group because of partiality, such kind of behavior was exposed by everyone as unworthy and unethical behavior, which are not appropriate behaviors of financial service providers. The exposed partiality of PayPal indicates undoubtedly that this company would acting ruthlessly, without any ethical and moral considerations and thus a repetition of those human rights abuses has to be feared, which is from the sinister German history documented through irresponsible acting companies. The world's respected historian Timothy Garton Ash justifies a restriction of freedom of expression by personality rights only for child abuse or for so-called revenge porn. There is no doubt that the undermining of the freedom of expression was justified with an alleged violations of personal rights by all unjust systems. Therefore such kind of alleged justifications lacks any real legal basis. The European Court of Human Rights had already repeatedly Germany admonished to keep in mind for topics with public interest the primacy of the fundamental right of freedom of expression against alleged personality rights. The European Court of Justice had thus repeatedly appealed to the sense of responsibility of the German legal system due to its burdened past and therefore brought a not unfounded concern to expression of a possibly repetition of the disastrous history by just ignoring its perception of responsibility. The elimination of free speech through referred measures as well as to deletions, blocking or other disabling mechanisms of accesses contradicts to any democratic self-conception, as well as to the principles of rule of law and leaves an impression of ignoring historical lessons or of the perception of an effort to abrogate the liberal order. The ruthless application of these measures points to an inhuman, fundamental rights-defying attitude of the addressees of the petition. The petition calls therefore for a worldwide boycott of the addressed companies in order to meet the demands on the responsibility perception relating to the sinister German history thereby.
	Petition letter Petition letter to: David Engel, personally liable shareholder of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. David Ferri, personally liable shareholder of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. Rupert Keeley, personally liable shareholder of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. Victoria Reanney, personally liable shareholder of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. Richard Swales, personally liable shareholder of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. Séverine Ritter, Brand Risk Management of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. Tanja Haller, Brand Risk Management of PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. Bernhard Gerwert, CEO of Airbus Defence and Space Thomas Enders, CEO of Airbus Group Lars Immisch, Head of HR of Airbus Defence and Space Andrea Prinz, Airbus Defence and Space Kai Schmidt, Airbus Defence and Space Wolfram Schorr, Signalis GmbH Marcus Krol, IN innovative-navigation GmbH Florian Hensel, Attorney of Law in Munich, Germany #NoOpinionSuppression #NoCensorship #NoConfidenceAbuse #NoRightsViolation #NoAntiSemitism #HumanRights #HumanDignity #ResponsibilityPerception #FreeSpeech #FreeThought #FreeOpinion #FreeExpression We, the undersigned ask PayPal on taking back the blocking of donations calls in the documentation of the author. We, the signatories think that blocking of donations call for documentations, which fulfils the requirements of Article 19 UDHR, Article 10 of ECHR and Article 5 of the German Basic Law, constitutes a disregard of fundamental human rights. We, the undersigned believing furthermore that such measures show analogies to the sinister German history where related to aryanization and deportation even only rudimentary involved participants (such as banks and insurance companies) used any means in order to prevent or hinder the claims of perceptions of victims. Thus, only anti-Semitic intentions can be certified to such behavior. We, the signatories are convinced that PayPal with its exposed partiality, due to blockage of donation calls, shows against the world public opinion that it does not have the intellectual, ethical and moral maturity to cover the requirements for the key role of future payment systems. We, the undersigned have the impression that the exposed partiality of PayPal indicates undoubtedly that this company would acting ruthlessly, without any ethical and moral considerations and thus a repetition of those human rights abuses has to be feared, which is from the sinister German history documented through irresponsible acting companies. We, the undersigned match to the world's respected historian Timothy Garton Ash, that a restriction of freedom of expression by personality rights is only justified for child abuse or for so-called revenge porn. There is no doubt that the undermining of the freedom of expression was justified with an alleged violations of personal rights by all unjust systems. Therefore such kind of alleged justifications lacks any real legal basis. We, the undersigned would like to point out that the European Court of Human Rights had already repeatedly Germany admonished to keep in mind for topics with public interest the primacy of the fundamental right of freedom of expression against alleged personality rights. The European Court of Justice had thus repeatedly appealed to the sense of responsibility of the German legal system due to its burdened past and therefore brought a not unfounded concern to expression of a possibly repetition of the disastrous history by just ignoring its perception of responsibility. We, the signatories are convinced that the elimination of free speech through referred measures as well as to deletions, blocking or other disabling mechanisms of accesses contradicts to any democratic self-conception, as well as to the principles of rule of law and leaves an impression of ignoring historical lessons or of the perception of an effort to abrogate the liberal order. We, the signatories consider the ruthless application of these measures as an indication to an inhuman, fundamental rights-defying attitude of the addressees of the petition. We, the signatories calls therefore a worldwide boycott of the addressed companies in order to meet the demands on the responsibility perception relating to the sinister German history thereby. With kind regards The signers
	Justification of the claim The documentation of the author comply without a doubt to the requirements of the underlying fundamental rights regulations relating to article 19 of the UDHR, article 10 of the ECHR and article 5 of the German GG and are therefore explicitly protected by those regulations. None of the underlying fundamental rights justifies even only in the remotest way a restriction of the fundamental human right of freedom of expression. The fundamental human right of freedom of expression was proclaimed precisely due to the catastrophic occurrences of the 20th century, where the violations of human rights were mainly caused by functionaries within enterprises, institutions, organizations, associations, clubs, offices, authorities, parties and other groups. Reversing simply this causal link in retrospect, is undoubtedly a contempt of the underlying intentions from those who participated once in the drafting of the universal rights specifications. A such endeavor can be associated with only those legal machinations which systematically undermined that perpetrators could be held accountable by subtle interpretations and fanciful derivation. There is no doubt that the fundamental human right of freedom of expression derives its essential, unrestricted and all-encompassing claim from the facts that it was perceived during the era of injustice only by individuals, while all other institutions had failed to take responsibility toward the perception of their controlling function. Within of the global information culture of today's world the role of bloggers are undoubtedly covering those critical controlling function, which was covered in the traditional information society by press media and which seems to be more and more neglected by those. Thus is no doubt that the fundamental law regulations relating to the freedom of the press must be applied fully on publications of bloggers. A related impairment can therefore only be considered as attack against the democratic society and the liberal order. Mechanisms of justice for themselves, such as blocking of donations call, deletions, blocking or other access preventing with the intention to prevent publishing of publications must be identified and de-legitimized as those analogue attitudes of the injustice system, which caused once that perpetrators pushed people in living body in incinerators or into pits by shots in the neck, just because they had tried to defy the expectations of their tormentors. People who still considers such behavior patterns as adequate measures to enforce their own will, have certainly not learned any lessons from the burdened German history and underpin the profound fear by such behavior of an almost inevitable disastrous repeating of history. If PayPal and in particular their employees Séverine Ritter and Tanija Haller make themselves to the henchmen of the attorney Florian Hensel, whose intention seems to be the liquidation of opponents by documented behavior from the sinister German injustice system, then PayPal and its unreflective acting ladies have be attributed oneself to the same unlimited responsibility. The scientific historical research proves without doubt that victims of the German injustice system were driven to suicide by analogue machinations. And, as already confirmed by the history, we must again take note, the straight women seem to develop a special fervour in the implementation of injustice. Such unreflective behavior from PayPal, Séverine Ritter, Tanja Haller and the attorney Florian Hensel can no justification be met with, but obviously manifesting those German affinity on practices of injustice systems, which uniquely is only able to explain the occurrences of the worst humanitarian catastrophe as a result of a German character.
	Facts and background The author has decided to realize a public documentation about affairs where he is not able to bring those matters into line with his conviction about constitutional and ethical / moralistic principles and which have also strong analogies with the sinister German history. Since publishing his documentation, the author is showered by judicial authorities and lawyers with injunctions which following without doubt an intention to compel the author through intimidation to abandonment and renunciation of legitimate rights. An application of such drastic mechanisms against citizens who rely only on the fundamental right of freedom of expression, are throwing a revealing light on our judicial system and its understanding of the rule of law. Typically, we expect from totalitarian forms of Government such attempts of citizens harassing in order to prevent the claim of freedom of expression. Contrary to all other constitutional oriented Nations, the German judicial system gives however an impression that such mechanisms would be appropriate methods against individuals, in order to urge them on waiver of claiming fundamental rights by intimidation. This does not correspond to the ideas of the author regarding rule of law. After releasing his documentation, were parts of it blocked with the false accusations of alleged copyright infringement. As well the availability of parts of his documentary was stopped through page deletions. A further attempt with a false accusation that the author would distribute emails with malicious content (virus) was made with the intention to bring the author in closed psychiatric facilities. Since publication of his documentation, the author is exposed to an enormous amount of mails with malicious content (viruses and Trojans) and attack from hackers against his systems. Moreover, repeatedly contract cancellations has been obtained through false accusations from providers of servers featuring relevant functions for the documentation itself. As another variation in order to prevent unwanted documentation, has PayPal let misusing as henchmen themselves and blocked the donation appeals of the documentation pages of the author. Every historian will undoubtedly identify such kind of measures as mechanisms from injustice systems and would wondering why involved people seems have not learned the lessons from the sinister German history. The attorney Florian Hensel and the PayPal employees Séverine Ritter and Tanja Haller and the other addressees of the petition however appears being convinced, that the end justifies the means and such mechanisms could be adequately considered in order to bring others to silence. By judicial authorities in this country apparently disregard the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In the case of B. v. Germany (Application No. 5709/09) the Court denied any justification to the German practice to suppress the freedom of expression by interim disposal. In the case of H. v. Germany (Application No. 28274/08) the Court confirmed the admissibility of the disclosure of abuses without any limitation. From German history, as well as from historical consideration of other totalitarian systems we should have learned that elimination of Eyewitness accounts is coming nearly equal to a second ordeal of the victims. Such intentions degrade victims after their suffered tragedy, again on the level of an animal existence, which has a comparable public interest as a crushed insect somewhere in the world. Such an attitude of mind is certainly not that claim of a perception of responsibility, which is conveyed to us by historians, ethicists, theologians, philosophers, humanists and other reflective personalities of public life.
	References to affected sites
	The attorney Florian Hensel requested from PayPal a deactivation of donate buttons for the above sites. The sites contains confessions of the author to his understanding of a perception of responsibility towards the German history, documentaries about constitutional complaint and open letters to institutions in order to point to grievances. All of these are recognized in a democratic society as legal publications, which are explicitly protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention of Human Rights and the German Basic Law. Mr Florian Hensel as well as PayPal and the other addressees of the petition considers however obviously, that such expressions of opinion must be prevented by all means. The applied mechanisms, references without doubt to analogue practices of the German system of injustice in the 20th century. Apparently PayPal, Mr. Florian Hensel and the other addressees of the petition denies any significance to the fundamental rights declarations. From the history we should have pulled the recognition, that exactly such disregard of fundamental human rights has led to the worst humanitarian catastrophe. If we take perception of responsibility seriously, we may never again accept such kind of behavior patterns.
	Message to readers Please sign my petition that the disregard of freedom of expression and freedom of information as well as the perception of responsibility will no longer be abused through advanced reasons and as a farce of a commitment to democracy, the rule of law and the liberal democratic basic order will be served. The disregard of these principles leads at some point inevitably to an irreversible sinister development – which we should have learned from our history and consequently have drawn conclusions from it. No democracy can survive without unrestricted freedom of expression and freedom of information. Only with freedom of expression and freedom of information can be established a culture of error management in order to be able to detect such sinister developments at an early stage to prevent such developments. Please support my petition. Many thanks for your help.
	Revelations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) ARTICLE 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) ARTICLE 10 / Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany ARTICLE 5 / Freedom of expression, arts and sciences (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour. (3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.
	References Universal Declaration of Human Rights European Convention of Human Rights Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany Case of B. v. Germany (Application no. 5709/09) Case of H. v. Germany (Application no. 28274/08)
	Further links Complete version of the petition Compact version of the petition Short version of the petition Petition letter