[PASSED] Right to Petition

[Knootoss]

OOC: WTF. PETA can and, in fact, does send out petitions. People sign them too. There are also petitions against PETA. The argument really makes no sense. Corporations being allowed to send letters is the beginning of the end?

[Nullarni]

OOC: Yeah, didn't you get the memo? Aw corporations iz ebol.

[Speculine]

OOC: WTF. PETA can and, in fact, does send out petitions. People sign them too. There are also petitions against PETA. The argument really makes no sense. Corporations being allowed to send letters is the beginning of the end?

OOC: Yes, I now this and I'm opposed to it in real life as well. I've worked for a couple large corporations and I really don't think they should be pushing their agendas around.

[Knootoss]

OOC: You want a law that bans organisations from sending letters to the government?!

[Southern Patriots]

This is a reasonable proposal.
Approved.

[Speculine]

OOC: PETA is a corporation and yes I do feel that corporations should not be allowed to petition. People and non-corporate entities can petition till their heart's are content. But I really don't think corporations should have that power.

[Knootoss]

If there are nations that want to take away the right of organisations to send letters, this resolution is very much needed.

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik read through the proposal and smiled.

"Ambassador Koopman, the Queendom shall be casting its vote in favour of this proposal, should it reach the floor.

Regarding companies, since that seems to be an issue of some controversy, I wonder if it would really affect the proposal to remove that clause or make it optional. Perhaps it would be worth it to gain some extra approvals and votes in favour? Perhaps just removing the word 'companies' would be enough for most Ambassadors, leaving organisations and associations in."

[Herttora]

OOC: PETA is a corporation and yes I do feel that corporations should not be allowed to petition. People and non-corporate entities can petition till their heart's are content. But I really don't think corporations should have that power.

So, if a member of a corporation passes around a petition would that then be illegal? Every petition is written by a person, pushed a person, and submitted by a person. You may perhaps be able to limit corporate funds given directly to a petitioner, but that corporation could simply give the person a "bonus" for "exceptional work". You can't ban the actual act of a corporation petitioning unless you discriminate against everyone employed by one, refusing them the right to petition.

OOC: There are states in the US who have passed laws attempting to do just that, they failed miserably on the same line. A corporation isn't a true entity, but an amalgam of entities. Corporations can't petition, but individuals can petition for something beneficial for a corporation for the express purpose of assisting that corporation. Too fine a line to ever draw.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If you are worried that government officials are going to be corrupted if corporations have the right to petition, you're looking at the wrong enemy. The problem clearly lies with the officials, not the corporations.

[Quelesh]

EXTENDS this right equally to companies, organisations and associations that have their headquarters in a World Assembly Member State;

I am still concerned that this clause sets an undesirable precedent regarding the recognition of corporate personhood.

I support the right of people, whether individually or collectively, to petition their government. However, as another ambassador has pointed out, petitions must come from people, and corporations are not people.

A petition signed with the names of all or many of the employees of a corporation would be accepted, as these people have the right to petition collectively. However, nations should be able to reject a petition signed not with the names of people but with the name of a corporation, as there is no such person with that name. Forcing member states to accept petitions that are not signed by any person, rather only by a corporation, sets a precedent towards the recognition of such corporations as legal persons, which I very much oppose.

I also continue to maintain that the above clause is entirely unnecessary, because of a previous clause:

RESOLVES that citizens and residents of World Assembly Member States, acting alone or as part of a group, have the right to send petitions to officials and institutions that claim jurisdiction over their person;

Under this clause, people will have the right to petition collectively, not just individually. Therefore, member states would be compelled to accept a petition signed with the names of the employees of a corporation. They would simply not be required to accept a petition with no people's names signed to it.

[Darenjo]

First, I'd like to re-iterate my support for this.

Second, I'd like to remind certain delegates to the fact that, under this proposal, your nation could legally decide to chuck any petitions from corporations into the bin upon seeing the return address. The right to petition does not include the right to force someone to read the petition.

Third, as to Quelesh's comment, I do agree that a corporation could count as a "group." Possibly, additional clarification on that point may be needed. And as for the precedent about corporations being people, how about this (if it's really needed):

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution is to be construed as the WA taking a position in the debate over whether corporations are people, or keeping the WA from taking a position on such in the future;

There - nice and neutral.

Anyways, once again, I support.

- Dr. Park

[Quelesh]

Third, as to Quelesh's comment, I do agree that a corporation could count as a "group." Possibly, additional clarification on that point may be needed. And as for the precedent about corporations being people, how about this (if it's really needed):

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution is to be construed as the WA taking a position in the debate over whether corporations are people, or keeping the WA from taking a position on such in the future;

There - nice and neutral.

I don't think such a clause would be sufficient. The WA may not be taking a stand on the matter, but member states would still be required to accept (though not necessarily read or act upon) petitions that are not signed by any people. Petitions signed by only a non-person corporation would legally have to be accepted, just as petitions signed by people. This would be a small, though I believe significant, step towards the recognition of corporate personhood by those member states.

The EXTENDS clause should be removed entirely. Doing so would not hurt the proposal in the slightest, as all people would still have the right to petition both individually and collectively, and it would earn the support of Quelesh and of other nations concerned about this issue.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Under this clause, people will have the right to petition collectively, not just individually. Therefore, member states would be compelled to accept a petition signed with the names of the employees of a corporation. They would simply not be required to accept a petition with no people's names signed to it.

To you, is there a difference between "Industrial Manufacturing, Inc." and "United Agricultural Workers Union?"

[Linux and the X]

To you, is there a difference between "Industrial Manufacturing, Inc." and "United Agricultural Workers Union?"

Da, Comrade! The Glorious People's Revolution declares that all Unions United Workers are permitted but corporations are forbidden!

[Quelesh]

Under this clause, people will have the right to petition collectively, not just individually. Therefore, member states would be compelled to accept a petition signed with the names of the employees of a corporation. They would simply not be required to accept a petition with no people's names signed to it.

To you, is there a difference between "Industrial Manufacturing, Inc." and "United Agricultural Workers Union?"

In terms of personhood, no. Neither is a person and neither entity in itself, as opposed to the people who compose it, should be granted legal recognition as a person.

That said, the aims of those two entities are likely very different; one likely seeks after profit alone while the other likely supports people over profit. However, that's irrelevant to the current discussion and to corporate (or perhaps "organizational") personhood.

[Glen-Rhodes]

In terms of personhood, no. Neither is a person and neither entity in itself, as opposed to the people who compose it, should be granted legal recognition as a person.

So a labor union should not be able to collectively petition the government? Doesn't that completely destroy the purpose of labor unions?

However, that's irrelevant to the current discussion and to corporate (or perhaps "organizational") personhood.

No, it's not irrelevant. Both are corporations. However, you are separating them into profit vs. non-profit categories, and saying that the profit category corporations don't deserve any rights.

For some reason, you've been fooled into thinking that the right to petition has anything to do with corporate personhood. Corporations have always had the right to petition. Corporate personhood arose in 1886; the right to petition arose in the late 1600s. Since corporations are affected by laws, they have always been given the right to petition for redress of grievances.

[Scandavian States]

[There are ways to sharply curb the influence of corporations in government without removing their right to petition. Further, as Glen Rhodes has pointed out, corporate personhood is an old legal concept that at this point is unassailable. Finally, as Knoot has pointed out, corporations have the right to petition because they are chartered by people.

If you're seriously going to argue that corporations don't have the right to petition, you're basically arguing against a whole slew of natural and statutory rights beyond the right to petition.]

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

The resolution says nothing about governments being forced to accept petitions.

Great! Therefore we actively support this proposal: support because we believe people should petition, and actively because we want this proposal to get through and so take some of the wind out of the sails of any possible future petition saying that governments should have to accept petitions.

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution is to be construed as the WA taking a position in the debate over whether corporations are people, or keeping the WA from taking a position on such in the future;

Beautiful wording - and a very good addition.

[Quelesh]

In terms of personhood, no. Neither is a person and neither entity in itself, as opposed to the people who compose it, should be granted legal recognition as a person.

So a labor union should not be able to collectively petition the government? Doesn't that completely destroy the purpose of labor unions?

The purpose of a labor union is to present a united front in negotiations with an employer, not necessarily to petition the state. The members of labor unions should have the right to collectively petition the government just as the employees of a corporation should have that right. All I'm saying is that the government should be able to reject petitions that are signed only with the name of a corporation (or union, or what have you) and not with the names of any people.

However, that's irrelevant to the current discussion and to corporate (or perhaps "organizational") personhood.

No, it's not irrelevant. Both are corporations. However, you are separating them into profit vs. non-profit categories, and saying that the profit category corporations don't deserve any rights.

For some reason, you've been fooled into thinking that the right to petition has anything to do with corporate personhood. Corporations have always had the right to petition. Corporate personhood arose in 1886; the right to petition arose in the late 1600s. Since corporations are affected by laws, they have always been given the right to petition for redress of grievances.

For the purposes of this proposal I'm not separating them into for-profit and not-for-profit. Quelesian law does not recognize the existence of corporations, or any other kind of organization. That doesn't mean that people can't organize; it just means that people are responsible and liable for their own actions individually. There is no "corporate liability."

Granting the right to petition to non-person entities does not grant those entities all the legal rights of personhood, but it is a small step in that direction.

[There are ways to sharply curb the influence of corporations in government without removing their right to petition. Further, as Glen Rhodes has pointed out, corporate personhood is an old legal concept that at this point is unassailable. Finally, as Knoot has pointed out, corporations have the right to petition because they are chartered by people.

If you're seriously going to argue that corporations don't have the right to petition, you're basically arguing against a whole slew of natural and statutory rights beyond the right to petition.]

Corporate personhood is practically unassailable in the RL United States, but not in NS.

Corporations don't have the right to petition because they don't have any rights at all. Rights, by definition, are for people. Impersonal entities cannot possess rights.

[Separatist Peoples]

[There are ways to sharply curb the influence of corporations in government without removing their right to petition. Further, as Glen Rhodes has pointed out, corporate personhood is an old legal concept that at this point is unassailable. Finally, as Knoot has pointed out, corporations have the right to petition because they are chartered by people.

If you're seriously going to argue that corporations don't have the right to petition, you're basically arguing against a whole slew of natural and statutory rights beyond the right to petition.]

Why should it be so bad that corporations control a government? Several nations in this august council are nothing more then corporate dictatorships and corporate oligarchies.

[Glen-Rhodes]

All I'm saying is that the government should be able to reject petitions that are signed only with the name of a corporation (or union, or what have you) and not with the names of any people.

That flies in the face of the entire concept of the right to petition.

[Linux and the X]

All I'm saying is that the government should be able to reject petitions that are signed only with the name of a corporation (or union, or what have you) and not with the names of any people.

That flies in the face of the entire concept of the right to petition.

How exactly does requiring signatures from actual people fly in the face of the right to petition?

[Separatist Peoples]

Aren't governments allowed to ignore any petition anyways? So why is it a problem if corporations are allowed to petition as corporations? You could simply ignore them, and allow nations that would accept such a petition to do so.

[Bears Armed]

Quelesian law does not recognize the existence of corporations, or any other kind of organization. That doesn't mean that people can't organize; it just means that people are responsible and liable for their own actions individually.

"So each person who's working in a business that they themselves don't own has to be employed by another specific individual there, in a sort of 'industrial feudalism' arrangement, rather than by the business as a whole? And all premises and vehicles and stocks of materials that are utilised by any business, and all products that have been produced by those businesses but not yet sold on, have to be owned by specific individuals rather than by the business as a whole?!? That smells decidely inefficient for any business that's too big to be financed and run by a single owner or -- at the most -- by a verrry small group of partners..."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.


_____________________________________________________________________________

OOC: *(checks)*

Economy _ Imploded

The private sector is almost wholly made up of enterprising ten-year-olds selling lemonade on the sidewalk, although the government is looking at stamping this out.

Ah, okay, looks as though you might already have found that out for yourself...

^_^