[PASSED] Right to Petition

[Cerberion]

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!)

Then no doubt said nations are in violation of more GA resolutions that you could reasonably be expected to shake a stick at.

Sorry, I just don't see this doing anything worthwhile. I don't think it does any harm mind you, just doesn't do any good.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Then no doubt said nations are in violation of more GA resolutions that you could reasonably be expected to shake a stick at.

Well, no, they aren't really. For one, the World Assembly has no resolution preventing governments from getting rid of people who petition. That's what this proposal would actually prevent! While the World Assembly has made some strides in weeding out tyranny and suppression, it isn't a completed process. It won't ever be without this proposal, either.

[Bergnovinaia]

Then no doubt said nations are in violation of more GA resolutions that you could reasonably be expected to shake a stick at.

Well, no, they aren't really. For one, the World Assembly has no resolution preventing governments from getting rid of people who petition. That's what this proposal would actually prevent! While the World Assembly has made some strides in weeding out tyranny and suppression, it isn't a completed process. It won't ever be without this proposal, either.

Even in a fairly democratic Bergnovinaia, some people disappear if there views are too radical or contradictory to the current political establishments in place.

[Quelesh]

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.

This isn't about economic activity; it's about governmental recognition of corporations and other non-persons as legally distinct entities.

Even in a fairly democratic Bergnovinaia, some people disappear if there views are too radical or contradictory to the current political establishments in place.

*coughs*

[Cerberion]

Wish I could understand the point of this, but I can't.

Person A delivers a petition to the government.
The government marks it Exhibit A for the state and smiles benevolently on Person A as they walk away without reprisal for the petition.
Person A is arrested under the Waste of Paper Act and sentenced for 50 years of hard labor.

Tyrants will find workarounds for this and reasonable nations already preserve this right.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Wish I could understand the point of this, but I can't.

Person A delivers a petition to the government.
The government marks it Exhibit A for the state and smiles benevolently on Person A as they walk away without reprisal for the petition.
Person A is arrested under the Waste of Paper Act and sentenced for 50 years of hard labor.

Tyrants will find workarounds for this and reasonable nations already preserve this right.

Reasonable nation theory. Waste of Paper Act? Any nation with 50 year sentences for that has serious issues.

[Morlago]

Wish I could understand the point of this, but I can't.

Person A delivers a petition to the government.
The government marks it Exhibit A for the state and smiles benevolently on Person A as they walk away without reprisal for the petition.
Person A is arrested under the Waste of Paper Act and sentenced for 50 years of hard labor.

Tyrants will find workarounds for this and reasonable nations already preserve this right.

Well, I suppose if you put it like that then tyrants will find a loophole in every resolution that they do not like. That does not mean we should stop trying to do anything by putting new legislation.

[Bergnovinaia]

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.

This isn't about economic activity; it's about governmental recognition of corporations and other non-persons as legally distinct entities.

Even in a fairly democratic Bergnovinaia, some people disappear if there views are too radical or contradictory to the current political establishments in place.

*coughs*

Hehe... Maybe I'll have to start my own non-compliance book.

OOC: That was totally for the purpose of posting that, btw. ^^ I've never actually RPed that.

[Krioval]

OOC: 7 minutes to go...

Approvals: 64 (Knootoss, Charlotte Ryberg, Bears Armed Mission, Mousebumples, The State of New York, Aldonin, Tacobendria, Seazyr, Freedansia, Slivary, Krioval, The Imperial Federacy, Bobby Jindal, The Darling, Flibbleites, Umbra Ac Silentium, Nayrbja, Dagnia, Ballotonia, Villerar, Mahaj WA Seat, Capisaria, Brandington, Frenequesta, Princess Luna, Nullarni, Brodskopolis, Nothim, NewTexas, Junkyland, Aridiya, Aequabila, Doctor Insano, Todd McCloud, Greater Western Europe, Netzaj, IIIIIDaoistsIIIII, Infinis, Jaxandria, Floreria, Ascendas, RanSackTopia, The LoUnited Nations, Linux and the X, Esperius, Letsch, Armodica, ATCNH603, Gaiah, The holy God AHND, Mewsland, Aringosa, Pewor, Delhanara, Sunny Marionette, Royalsoldiers, Rangel11, The Fircone, Ventei, Ligiea, Nava Siam, Kalimat, The Child of the Jago, Radkicks)

[Casta Nal]

I support the right to pettion non hollow-point rounds shot at those dirty commies protesters! xD

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

It failed.

[Cardoness]

We must agree with Quelesh, to some extent. Independent corporation inherently have the potential to greatly influence the government. Some governments, like Cardoness, have instituted anti-lobbying laws to reduce this influence and help the people have a larger voice in crafting policy. This resolution will override many of those laws by allowing companies to use their power and influence to directly petition the government.

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;

This would allow the president, CEO, chairperson of the board, board members, etc. to petition the government using their own name. But we cannot allow the door to unfettered government access to be opened to corporations at the expense of the voices of the common people, in a resolution nobly aimed at increasing that voice no less.

[Knootoss]

Perhaps you could point out to me the clause that obliges "unfettered government access to be opened to corporations at the expense of the voices of the common people", since I cannot seem to find it.


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

[Cardoness]

Perhaps you could point out to me the clause that obliges "unfettered government access to be opened to corporations at the expense of the voices of the common people", since I cannot seem to find it.

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

Ahh, forgive the poetic license taken. Allow me to make it clearer what I meant.

RESOLVES that citizens and residents...have the right to send petitions to officials and institutions that claim jurisdiction over their person;

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

Large corporations, due to their size are within and under the jurisdiction of a greater part of the government then a common citizen or resident and are therefore able to lobby a greater portion of the government then the common person. Add to that the inherent influence the name of a large corporation carries and the fact that use that influence with a greater number of government officials and you have a situation where the opinion of the company carries more weight then the opinion of a common person. For example, a trade bill be being considered by a government, and Max~Cola will be affected by this deal. They are able to petition most of the members of the legislators and many of the other government officials who will be consulted before voting. The common person will only have access to a small number of these officials. Same situation without this second clause: Jennifer Barry, CEO of Max~Cola is able to lobby her representatives same as any other person. The right to petition is preserved and there is greater balance among the people.

We would wholeheartedly support this resolution with this one clause removed.

[Knootoss]

This is all very nice, but this whole phenomenon has nothing whatsoever to do with this resolution. In Knootoss, even a moderately poor person would be able to afford the stamps needed to send a letter to all members of the Staten-Generaal, should he or she be so inclined. Companies have no real advantage there.

All this clap-trap about how it is unfair that companies have more access to elected politicians, or that elected politicians are more inclined to listen to job creators, has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the basic right to petition. Make your own laws against corporate lobbying if that's your style. Nobody is stopping you.

If Cardoness and other nations truly do want to punish environmental groups, companies, labour unions and other organisations for sending letters and e-mails to government officials, that is all the more reason to include this clause.


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

[Cardoness]

This is all very nice, but this whole phenomenon has nothing whatsoever to do with this resolution. In Knootoss, even a moderately poor person would be able to afford the stamps needed to send a letter to all members of the Staten-Generaal, should he or she be so inclined. Companies have no real advantage there.

All this clap-trap about how it is unfair that companies have more access to elected politicians, or that elected politicians are more inclined to listen to job creators, has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the basic right to petition. Make your own laws against corporate lobbying if that's your style. Nobody is stopping you.

If Cardoness and other nations truly do want to punish environmental groups, companies, labour unions and other organisations for sending letters and e-mails to government officials, that is all the more reason to include this clause.

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

It is not political theory, but rather general practice that a corporation is more widely able to influence government officials then a person. A corporation is also able to devote more time, energy, and resources to lobbying then a person. We are not suggesting that there be no contact between corporations and the government, that would be unpractical, irresponsible, foolish, and otherwise absurd. However, we have found it to be in the best interest of the people, and the voicing of their concerns, to limit the ability of corporations to influence government officials. Further, we not only approve of, but encourage members of companies to send letters, e-mails, and otherwise contact their government representatives, just not on company time or with company resources. Finally, the "RESOLVES" clause allows for two or more persons acting as a group to petition the government, and we are more then supportive of that. We urge the honored ambassador to reconsider our position.

[Knootoss]

I would be happy to reconsider my position, if the ambassador actually offered arguments that were even slightly relevant to the resolution at hand. You oppose the right to petition because members of a company communications department might e-mail with your government officials, thereby tainting it with its evil capitalist ideology? Does your government wish for the right to ban such activities by law?

If not, why the opposition?

This resolution still allows you to limit corporate lobbying in whatever crazy ways you see fit, but you cannot ban people from writing to your government for a redress of grievances. This includes people who are gainfully employed, and who are trying to represent their small business, chess club or trade union. This is not a point of negotiation. If your communistic ideology does not allow you to support such a basic right, that says more about the Kingdom of Cardoness than the quality of this resolution.


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

[Cardoness]

I've never been called a communist before, though I guess I can understand why you would think so.

Yes, I want to ban a company communications department from indiscriminately contacting government officials, but not for the reason you gave. We do not want the government to control private companies and to that end we have very limited oversight and regulations on industry. On the other hand, we do not want companies to control the government, which is by and for the people, not corporate executives and their bottom line. We do not allow for profit organizations to use their resources to influence the government or the electorate. However, "people who are gainfully employed, and who are trying to represent their small business, chess club or trade union" are free to do so on their own time with their own resources.

As to this issues relevancy to the resolution at hand, the current wording allows corporations, and thereby company resources to be used, to petition the government. We feel that this would be harmful in varying degrees to the more important goal of allowing the voices of the people to be heard by their government.

We cannot see how the basic right of persons and groups to petition the government freely and free of the fear of retribution is in anyway restricted by the removal of this clause. Nor would it prevent states from giving this ability to companies if they so desired. It is the basic right of the people to petition the government that we must work to establish and protect.

[Glen-Rhodes]

As to this issues relevancy to the resolution at hand, the current wording allows corporations, and thereby company resources to be used, to petition the government. We feel that this would be harmful in varying degrees to the more important goal of allowing the voices of the people to be heard by their government.

Why is there a dichotomy? Petition is simply complaining to a government to asking for a government's assistance without being punished for doing so. If a company is being harmed by regulations, should they not be able to ask the government to end or amend those regulations? I understand that progressive ideologies distrust corporations, but corporations have always been able to petition a government, even before the invention of corporate personhood. That's because the right to petition includes groups of persons. Corporations have the right to petition for the same reason that labor unions, advocacy groups, and non-profit organizations have the right to petition...

- Dr. B. Castro

[Knootoss]

Just to note - this is not dead yet, but may instead be submitted after the weekend.


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

[Casta Nal Expeditionary Forces Command]

Personally I think it this fine.
But against as in autocratic nations will just find a way around this or just completely ignore this.
Also it cramps autocrats style.

[Knootoss]

Personally I think it this fine.
But against as in autocratic nations will just find a way around this or just completely ignore this.
Also it cramps autocrats style.

The rules of logic do not allow for the possibility that statement 2 and 3 are both true.

[Casta Nal Expeditionary Forces Command]

Rules of Logic...
Autocratic nations don't give two shits, they will ignore all this paperwork.
Autocratic nations are autocratic, they don't want dissidents petitioning their government to without them being shot a la Tiananmen.

[Knootoss]

But against as in autocratic nations will just find a way around this or just completely ignore this.

This argument could apply to any resolution.

Also it cramps autocrats style.

How does it, if they will just find a way around this or just completely ignore this?

[Casta Nal Expeditionary Forces Command]

As in they will oppose it for the reason it bosses them around.