Page 1 of 13
[PASSED] Right to Petition
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:34 pmby Knootoss
~QUORUM~
Right to PetitionA resolution to increase democratic freedoms.Category: Furtherment of Democracy |
Strength: Mild|
Proposed by: Knootoss
The World Assembly,
BELIEVES that individuals should have the right to petition without fear of reprisal;
DEFINES a petition as: a written observation, suggestion, request, criticism or complaint that relates to an issue of public or private interest;
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, and extends this right equally to companies, organisations and associations that have their headquarters in a World Assembly Member State;
BANS Member States from enacting punishment or reprisals against anyone for making use of their right to petition;
OBLIGES officials and institutions to pass petitions that do not fall within their field of activity on to a more appropriate or competent official or government institution, whenever possible.
The right to petition is important, non-controversial and uncomplicated. In my
other resolution, which covers the right to rebel against a tyrannical government, people asked about the right to petition several times.
Resubmitted after a bit of rewording
here. Please endorse!
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:28 pmby Charlotte Ryberg
Isn't it short enough to make it part of the Right of Abjuration draft?
Sounds like a good idea so far.
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:46 pmby Knootoss
Different right, different resolution. I don't believe in riders.
Ambassador Aram KoopmanWorld Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:28 pmby Charlotte Ryberg
A question here: if a terrorist group advocating violence or repression petitioned a government to promote their aims, do the government have the right to reject it unconditionally?
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:29 pmby Knootoss
The resolution says nothing about governments being forced to accept petitions.
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:34 pmby Charlotte Ryberg
Fantastic! In this case Ms. Harper will support this.
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:57 pmby Monikian WA Mission
"We see no problem with this."
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:59 pmby Eternal Yerushalayim
In favour!
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:59 pmby Quelesh
Knootoss wrote:EXTENDS this right equally to companies, organisations and associations that have their headquarters in a World Assembly Member State;
We would like for this clause to be removed, or for it to be changed to "allows member states to extend this right" or something similar.
We believe that companies are not people, and should therefore not be granted individual rights.
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:02 pmby Eternal Yerushalayim
Quelesh wrote:Knootoss wrote:EXTENDS this right equally to companies, organisations and associations that have their headquarters in a World Assembly Member State;
We would like for this clause to be removed, or for it to be changed to "allows member states to extend this right" or something similar.
We believe that companies are not people, and should therefore not be granted individual rights.
What abot just leaving out companies and letting nations define what organisations and associations are?
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:06 pmby Charlotte Ryberg
Just in case anyone was wondering, how does it differ from Freedom of Expression? Thanks!
- Ms. S. Harper.
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:11 pmby Eternal Yerushalayim
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Just in case anyone was wondering, how does it differ from Freedom of Expression? Thanks!
- Ms. S. Harper.
The right to "express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views" may not include demanding certain actions on the government's part.
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:08 pmby Darenjo
Dr. Park, seeing that this wasn't a repeal, felt a great big smile appear on his face.
"Wonderful! Full support!"
An aide hurries over to Dr. Park.
"But Doctor, what about corporations? You know Darenjo's policy: businesses aren't people and-"
"Oh hush now," barked Dr. Park, ignoring the girl's look of shock. "You heard Aram - nowhere does this force us to accept those petitions."
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:48 pmby Eternal Yerushalayim
Darenjo wrote:Dr. Park, seeing that this wasn't a repeal, felt a great big smile appear on his face."Wonderful! Full support!"
An aide hurries over to Dr. Park."But Doctor, what about corporations? You know Darenjo's policy: businesses aren't people and-"
"Oh hush now,"
barked Dr. Park, ignoring the girl's look of shock. "You heard Aram - nowhere does this force us to
accept those petitions."
The implications of conferring a "right" on corporations is a bit too much for some people, though. ^^
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:36 pmby Mallorea and Riva
I find myself cautiously supporting this.
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:52 pmby Connopolis
I fully support this, given the fact that governments don't have to accept the petitions.
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:56 pmby Darenjo
Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:Darenjo wrote:Dr. Park, seeing that this wasn't a repeal, felt a great big smile appear on his face."Wonderful! Full support!"
An aide hurries over to Dr. Park."But Doctor, what about corporations? You know Darenjo's policy: businesses aren't people and-"
"Oh hush now,"
barked Dr. Park, ignoring the girl's look of shock. "You heard Aram - nowhere does this force us to
accept those petitions."
The implications of conferring a "right" on corporations is a bit too much for some people, though. ^^
"Yes, but they are missing how easily loophole-able this draft is. Because if that, Darenjo could continue allowing individuals to make petitions while making it extremely, ridiculously difficult for businesses and corporations to do the same. That being said, I am happy to announce that, after the loophole-able part being explained to them, the Darenjon Senate has voted 208-36 in favor of this draft."
- Dr. Park
Posted:
Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:22 pmby Bergnovinaia
Ms. Spenanda Thekenbail leaned back in her chair, comfortabely gazing at the copy of the proposal the Koopman had so kindly emaild her on her brand new ipad. She read through the text, sipped her chai, and then politely, but at the same time sternly, added, "How, Dr. Koopman (or anyone else in favour of the proposal) does this not necessarily fall under an 'already assumed' sort of proposal, such as certain proposals that assume basic rights on property (i.e. emminent domain), etc.? The right to petition, while seemingly not assumed as a core right in all nations, technically doesn't mean anything since this proposal only grants citizens the right to petition, but the government the ability to refuse their petition.
I hate to be such a NatSov person temporarily as I question the integrity of the necessity for this resolution, but I must have answers to these questions before I, or any other seat in the Bergnovinaian WA delegation, can make an informed vote to the WA."
Posted:
Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:38 amby Knootoss
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'.
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.
Ambassador Aram KoopmanWorld Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss
Posted:
Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:39 amby Eternal Yerushalayim
Knootoss wrote: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'.
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 KoopmanWorld Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss
Which is why I believe that corporations would be covered by "organisations and associations" alone.
Posted:
Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:43 amby Great Nepal
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.
Posted:
Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:45 amby Kasi Islands
In favour
Posted:
Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:50 amby Knootoss
The suggestion that a resolution must force governments to
accept written petitions is insane. A government is not some twisted amalgamation of God and Santa Claus. Just consider the practical implications for a moment, and you'll find yourself in agreement.
The right to petition does, however, ensure that petitioners are heard. It also protects petitioners from punishment or reprisals by governments less inclined to accept criticism on helpful suggestions.
Ambassador Aram KoopmanWorld Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss
Posted:
Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:00 amby Bears Armed
Bearing in mind how free the governments would be to deny those petitions, I'd say that this was only 'Mild' rather than 'Significant'...
And, as has already been asked, wouldn't this be covered by 'Freedom of Expression' anyway?
Posted:
Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:05 amby Knootoss
OOC: I can go along with saying that it is a "mild" right and change the category to suit. When I inquired, the right to petition did not already exist (
link) and my own searches also did not result in any obviously duplicating right. Freedom of expression is qualitatively different from the freedom to petition without fear of retribution -- and most RL constitutions list them both as separate rights.