[PASSED] Right to Petition

[Knootoss]

Submitted for a test run paired with Vindiciae contra tyrannos here, please endorse!

[Morlago]

For once, I support a Knootian proposal.

[Knootoss]

For once, I support a Knootian proposal.

Support them both!

[Morlago]

For once, I support a Knootian proposal.

Support them both!

Sorry. I cannot support Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (for all those reasons about revolution/secession etc.), but I can support this one as it does not force governments to accept petition.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Done.

[Bergnovinaia]

In response to Ms. Thekenbail: the right to petition is one of the core concepts of constitutional government. You may not think it very important, but to many people it is indeed a very fundamental political right.

(Image)
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Ms. Thekenbail glanced at the Koopman, pondering the response, before adding, "I think you are not understanding my question, Aram... or perhaps I phrased it porrly.

I do recognize and believe the right to petition as a core right to a constitutional or democratic government, as the right is held near and dear amongst Bergnovinaian citizens since our government is a parliamentary democracy. However, I must make a 'stereotypical' NatSov arguement against this proposal since, in fact, it does nothing (other than allow a group of people to write on a piece of paper, give it to their government head, and let them either accept it, which is unlikely, or just chuck it in the furnace). While I consider this a good start to a decent proposal, I must push for a completely different approach.

Although it may cause uproar, especially amongst dictatorial regimes and autocratic societies that are already in firm opposition to this piece of legislation, I truly consider some sort of 'near acceptance' clause necessary for this proposal to have any reason to be accepted whatsoever, other than just to bolster the Koopman's resoliution count. Perhaps, something along the lines of if some substanicial majority of people (i.e. 15% or more) in any member nation sign on to a petition challanging a change in government that the government must recognize said petition and have a free and fair election to determine if that's what the entire nation wants. However, I could see where this could be considered approaching and ideological ban, so that's tough too...

All in all, as this stands, I do not see why this is needed because all it really does is give more fuel to the furnances in each offices of leaders of non-democratic societies."

[Morlago]

In response to Ms. Thekenbail: the right to petition is one of the core concepts of constitutional government. You may not think it very important, but to many people it is indeed a very fundamental political right.

(Image)
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Ms. Thekenbail glanced at the Koopman, pondering the response, before adding, "I think you are not understanding my question, Aram... or perhaps I phrased it porrly.

I do recognize and believe the right to petition as a core right to a constitutional or democratic government, as the right is held near and dear amongst Bergnovinaian citizens since our government is a parliamentary democracy. However, I must make a 'stereotypical' NatSov arguement against this proposal since, in fact, it does nothing (other than allow a group of people to write on a piece of paper, give it to their government head, and let them either accept it, which is unlikely, or just chuck it in the furnace). While I consider this a good start to a decent proposal, I must push for a completely different approach.

Although it may cause uproar, especially amongst dictatorial regimes and autocratic societies that are already in firm opposition to this piece of legislation, I truly consider some sort of 'near acceptance' clause necessary for this proposal to have any reason to be accepted whatsoever, other than just to bolster the Koopman's resoliution count. Perhaps, something along the lines of if some substanicial majority of people (i.e. 15% or more) in any member nation sign on to a petition challanging a change in government that the government must recognize said petition and have a free and fair election to determine if that's what the entire nation wants. However, I could see where this could be considered approaching and ideological ban, so that's tough too...

All in all, as this stands, I do not see why this is needed because all it really does is give more fuel to the furnances in each offices of leaders of non-democratic societies."

Actually, I believe that this proposal does act. It bans nations from declaring petitions illegal and punishing those who participate in them. While nothing in the WA resolutions deals with this, and therefore citizens of member states can do this by default, nothing in the resolutions declares these actions not punishable either. This makes sure that citizens of members states have the right to petition without having fear of being prosecuted.

[Bergnovinaia]

Ms. Thekenbail glanced at the Koopman, pondering the response, before adding, "I think you are not understanding my question, Aram... or perhaps I phrased it porrly.

I do recognize and believe the right to petition as a core right to a constitutional or democratic government, as the right is held near and dear amongst Bergnovinaian citizens since our government is a parliamentary democracy. However, I must make a 'stereotypical' NatSov arguement against this proposal since, in fact, it does nothing (other than allow a group of people to write on a piece of paper, give it to their government head, and let them either accept it, which is unlikely, or just chuck it in the furnace). While I consider this a good start to a decent proposal, I must push for a completely different approach.

Although it may cause uproar, especially amongst dictatorial regimes and autocratic societies that are already in firm opposition to this piece of legislation, I truly consider some sort of 'near acceptance' clause necessary for this proposal to have any reason to be accepted whatsoever, other than just to bolster the Koopman's resoliution count. Perhaps, something along the lines of if some substanicial majority of people (i.e. 15% or more) in any member nation sign on to a petition challanging a change in government that the government must recognize said petition and have a free and fair election to determine if that's what the entire nation wants. However, I could see where this could be considered approaching and ideological ban, so that's tough too...

All in all, as this stands, I do not see why this is needed because all it really does is give more fuel to the furnances in each offices of leaders of non-democratic societies."

Actually, I believe that this proposal does act. It bans nations from declaring petitions illegal and punishing those who participate in them. While nothing in the WA resolutions deals with this, and therefore citizens of member states can do this by default, nothing in the resolutions declares these actions not punishable either. This makes sure that citizens of members states have the right to petition without having fear of being prosecuted.

"So, free speech?" replied Ms. Thekenbail.

[Morlago]

Actually, I believe that this proposal does act. It bans nations from declaring petitions illegal and punishing those who participate in them. While nothing in the WA resolutions deals with this, and therefore citizens of member states can do this by default, nothing in the resolutions declares these actions not punishable either. This makes sure that citizens of members states have the right to petition without having fear of being prosecuted.

"So, free speech?" replied Ms. Thekenbail.

In a sense, I suppose. Perhaps Knootoss can tell you if my interpretation is correct.

[Knootoss]

The right to petition goes beyond free speech, and is firmly entrenched as a separate right.

((OOC: Look at England, the USA, the European Union, frickin' China... the right to petition has been established firmly in all these places and it is NOT the same as free speech. The resolution about the Right to Petition is qualitatively different from the resolution about free speech in the WA as well. Just... please go do the research.))

[Mesogirian WA Mission]

I... I like this? This is not an emotion I'm used to feeling with regard to WA proposals.

[Vocatus]

This is a very reasonable and moderate proposal. We will support it even as we reject your other one.

[Albert the Fourth]

I think this resolution is kinda redundant. Even if people have the right to petition, that doesn't mean the government will listen or care. I just don't see it doing much except filling more space in the WA list.

As such, AGAINST. Sorry Knootoss.

[Morlago]

I think this resolution is kinda redundant. Even if people have the right to petition, that doesn't mean the government will listen or care. I just don't see it doing much except filling more space in the WA list.

As such, AGAINST. Sorry Knootoss.

Again I would like to point out, honoured ambassador, there is nothing in the WA resolutions right now prevent those participating in petitions from being prosecuted. This secures the right to do this without having fear of being punished.

[Princess Luna]

The Right of Petition is prominent in our Bill of Rights, and an ancient freedom that all should enjoy. Freedom is the right of all sentient beings, and freedom to speak truth to power without fear of reprisal is important to the functioning of a democracy, while it is true as those who object say, that governments may ignore petitions, the protection this resolution offers is that it prevents the act of peacefully objecting to a governmental policy in itself being a criminal offense in any member state.

Motions to spread liberty to all peoples should be the duty of the World Assembly, and we endorse any effort in the Furtherance of Freedom. As such we are proud to sponsor this motion to be adopted by the World Assembly. It therefore gains our sincere approval and endorsement.

Long Live Liberty!

[Quelesh]

The instinctive gut response against extending the right to petition towards companies, organisations and associations is misguided. The right to petition is already extended towards both individuals and groups of individuals. Companies, organisations and associations are already established groups of people. Permitting companies, but also groups such as workers unions, to send petitions without fear of retribution is not the equivalent of saying that they are 'human'.

If individuals have the right to petition, then it stands to reason that groups of individuals, acting collectively, also have this right. The clause mentioning companies is unnecessary, and confers a right upon the impersonal corporate entity itself rather than upon the individuals within it.

That clause could safely be removed, and groups of individuals would still have the collective right to petition under your proposal, under the 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;

There is a difference between (1) an organization or association of citizens each signing their name to a petition and submitting it collectively and (2) an impersonal corporate entity affixing its name to a petition as a "corporate citizen." The RESOLVES clause, with the highlighted portion above, allows the first, which is desirable. The EXTENDS clause allows the second, which is not desirable for us and is the reason we have not approved this proposal.

[Knootoss]

I am grateful for the support that has been expressed so far. Unfortunately, a holiday weekend has not been the best of times to submit a proposal. Many delegates are either going on holiday, or sitting on a beach somewhere sipping Pink Bunny Cola. It is highly unlikely that 'Vindiciae contra tyrannos' will make it this run. On the other hand, with only 28 more approvals to go in 22 hours ... including a Monday evening... I'm not quite ruling out that 'Right to Petition' might reach quorum.

'Right to Petition' will therefore either reach vote /or/ be resubmitted to the proposal queue without amendments.

'Vindiciae contra tyrannos' on the other hand will go into a redraft phase, and will probably see much of the political philosophy cut out from it, to be replaced by more appetising 'current events' style justifications.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Knootoss]

We would like for Quelesh to cease their irrational hatred of economic activity. Corporations are hardly advantaged by this proposal, unless Quelesh wishes to reserve the right to punish job creators for petitioning their government.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Cerberion]

I can't object but doubt I'll vote for. I suppose some nations might take reprisals against people that ptetition, but I doubt the GA telling them off for it will change that.

Still, good luck.

[Cenetra]

Opposed, not because we disagree with the idea behind it but due to fact that it doesn't do anything meaningful. Governments are forced to accept petitions... and then? They can simply put it in a fireplace and use it to warm their houses in winter.

The meaningful part is:

BANS Member States from enacting punishment or reprisals against anyone for making use of the right to petition.

In other words, the government can still put the petition in a fireplace, but they can't use it as kindling to burn the petitioner at the stake.

Supported.

[Knootoss]

I can't object but doubt I'll vote for. I suppose some nations might take reprisals against people that ptetition, but I doubt the GA telling them off for it will change that.

Still, good luck.

That argument can be applied to every single WA resolution. It's hardly a reason to vote for or against it.

[Cerberion]

I can't object but doubt I'll vote for. I suppose some nations might take reprisals against people that ptetition, but I doubt the GA telling them off for it will change that.

Still, good luck.

That argument can be applied to every single WA resolution. It's hardly a reason to vote for or against it.

Well it's the polite way of saying I see no reason to vote for it because I think it's entirely unnecessary. I think it's pointless micromanagement but, even though I won't vote for it, I won't strongly lobby against it either.

The only way it could really do something is if it mandated that nations had to listen to the petitions of their citizenry rather than shredding them and using the paper to make nests for their pet hamsters. Not that a proposal like that would be likely to pass.

[Knootoss]

OOC: Uh. So .... you're saying that a right which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the federal constitution of the United States, all European Union treaties and even Chinese basic law is.... pointless micromanagement? And instead you'd like a resolution that says that governments should do whatever a literate citizen with a pen and the money to buy a stamp tells them to do? No matter how impossible or contradictory to other policies? Sorry, Cerberion, but that makes as little sense as your first argument.

[Cerberion]

OOC: Uh. So .... you're saying that a right which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the federal constitution of the United States, all European Union treaties and even Chinese basic law is.... pointless micromanagement? And instead you'd like a resolution that says that governments should do whatever a literate citizen with a pen and the money to buy a stamp tells them to do? No matter how impossible or contradictory to other policies? Sorry, Cerberion, but that makes as little sense as your first argument.

OOC: No, I'm not saying anything of the kind. Cerberion has been making statements though. The representative of that nation is stating that any halfway reasonable nation has this in place already. He's also stating that giving someone the freedom to speech without listening to them is pointless. He doesn't want to listen to the petitions at all, and won't. He was making a satirical observation, not expressing a preference.

At least that's what I think he was saying.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The representative of that nation is stating that any halfway reasonable nation has this in place already.

The representative should know that there are many member states that openly discuss their tyrannical governments, violent police forces, assassinations, and general evil-doing. Killing somebody for petitioning the government is not outside the realm of 'reason' for many member states.

(Covert this to IC if you wish!)