Your topic headline is "Filed a petition to the parliament to erase the legal entity of the Jehovah's Witness" but then you claim "The petition does NOT seek to ban the Jehovah's Witness as a whole in the country". That seems to be contradictory. What exactly is it meant to do? What is the outcome that would have you say "yes, we did it, we were successful!"
Have you bothered to read the actual text of the petition, Simon?
The reason to ask for the dissolving of the "charity" "not-for-profit" corporation that represents the Jehovah's Witnesses in Portugal is because there isn't any other provision in the Portuguese law to sanction a religious community for violations of human rights. Do you deny that institutionally enforced shunning for religious reasons is a violation of human rights? The practical consequences of this termination are ZERO for the individual witnesses; their constitutional rights to gather for worship meetings isn't touched, as isn't touched their right to share their faith by preaching. The practical consequences for the CORPORATION of the Jehovah's Witnesses? They might lose their status as an officially recognized religion, and therefore, lose: a) tax exemptions b) the right to celebrate weddings without a civil ceremony; c) the right to be heard in certain city planning situations regarding their places of worship; d) the right to access hospitals and prisons as "religious ministers".
The petition also asks for two other things: a) For the legislators to amend the Religious Freedom Act 16/2001, so that it includes a proper sanctions provision for religious communities who engage in hate speech and discrimination; and b) that the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses community in Portugal are summoned to the Parliament and, under the mediation of the Parliament meet with the victims of their shunning policy, and negotiate changes in their policies to alleviate the suffering of the victims.
Then there is the question of admissibility: If the petition is considered admissible by the Parliament and the petitioners are granted an audience (even if we don't get 1000 votes) and we get the opportunity to explain what the shunning issue is about, so that the legislators become aware of this problem with the Jehovah's Witnesses.
If ANY of these four situations takes place, yes I would consider the petition a success.
You mention Laws of Religious Freedom. What are they exactly? Have you tried to find those laws? There are declarations which sound very nice but are worth diddly squat and there are treaties that are often the basis for laws being enacted in the countries that sign up to them - do you have the actual laws that you think they contravene?
Yes, and that is what a good portion of the petition is about: detailing how the institutionally enforced shunning and discrimination breaches the Law. If you had bothered to read the petition, you wouldn't be asking that question. I know, it's 36 pages long and perhaps you can't be bothered to attempt to translate it with Chrome or Firefox and then actually reading it. Some other people did just that and signed for it though. Go figure.
Take a look around at the world. There are people being executed in some countries for their religion. That is the sort of thing that the laws are there for and even THEY don't count for much. The idea that someone's internal family issues would take precedence over genuine abuses is rather sick IMO.
This petition does not concern with the rest of the world; it concerns my country, which is a member State of the European Community, where executions for religious reasons do not exist, and thankfully religions don't have the leeway they have in north America, thankfully. Your point is moot. And, again, read the petition: The individual right to associate or not associate with someone (even a family member) isn't being questioned, as long as it's exercised free from moral harassment and coercion. What is being challenged is the right of an institution that benefits from legal recognition and tax exemptions from the State to teach and enforce discrimination based on religious grounds.
Everyone is free to leave at any time. The JWs don't put an embargo round your house and prevent people going there. Whether their members chose to stay or chose to leave is up to those individuals and there is nothing that you can do to get what you want without trampling on a whole set of established laws around the world and I'm sorry, it just ain't gonna happen, not for this and not for other things 1,000 times more important.
I have to strongly disagree with you. I mean, really, Simon?? You're doing the Watchtower Society a favor with that argument. Real freedom means to do (or not do) something without being unduly conditioned by the fear of morally wrong, unreasonable and unwarranted consequences. If Jehovah's Witnesses would be able to leave their religion without facing the dire consequences of being perpetually shunned, then I would agree with you. But both you and I know that's not how it works. That's not how cults operate.
The 'irrelevancy argument' that you brought up doesn't make sense either. As an example: If your business partner would screw you up, would you not take legal action just because there are a gazillion more important issues in the world?
There are Treaties on equal pay for women - with all the current hullabaloo about gender pay inequality, where are those court cases? Or Treaties about equal treatment of race - again, how's that all working out? Why do you imagine something of practically zero interest to the majority of people will jump to prime importance?
That may be the scenario in north America. It's not the case in Europe, where matters like such are taken a lot more seriously. And if no one does nothing, then nothing will ever change. We have to start somewhere.
No one cares
If everyone would have your attitude, then we would still live in a society where slavery would be acceptable, women's rights wouldn't exist, and burning witches would be a thing, because .... no one would care.
Truth is: YOU don't care. Others do, though. Your criticism has been duly noted.