[PASSED] Right to Petition

[Spartan Domain]

What About The Other Forms Of Government such As Dictatorships Or Even Empires and Kingdoms? To These Types The Right To Petition Without The Fear Of Reprisals Is Tantamount To The Kiss Of Death.

[Snefaldia]

Please accept this petition to ask you not to form every word with a capital letter.

See? Our office has even signed it!

N. Taranton
etc.

[Alqania]

This obligation creates a legal basis for a "denial of service" attack against officials and institutions which "companies, organisations and associations" are particularly able to exploit. Officials and institutions can be flooded with nuisance petitions with ostensibly legitimate aims which they are obliged to forward to a "more appropriate or competent official or government institution". The "whenever possible" does not exclude this scenario, as it is perfectly possible to forward such petitions, it just simply isn't convenient.

While the prospects of an individually attempting to flood an organisation with petitions are minimal, "companies, organisations and associations" are large bodies with resources more than capable of such nuisance petitioning.

"Interesting", Christine mused, "though I would like to point out that this proposal says nothing of how quickly petitions need to be passed on. A Government agency may allocate 1 % or even less of one person's time to receiving, reading and dealing with petitions and still be in compliance with this proposal. If an agency should be flooded with petitions, that would not necessarily hamper anything else than its reception of petitions.

The Queendom finds this piece of legislation rather toothless, but we shall vote for it nonetheless, because it is nice and fluffy and completely non-objectionable."

[Pantocratoria]

This obligation creates a legal basis for a "denial of service" attack against officials and institutions which "companies, organisations and associations" are particularly able to exploit. Officials and institutions can be flooded with nuisance petitions with ostensibly legitimate aims which they are obliged to forward to a "more appropriate or competent official or government institution". The "whenever possible" does not exclude this scenario, as it is perfectly possible to forward such petitions, it just simply isn't convenient.

While the prospects of an individually attempting to flood an organisation with petitions are minimal, "companies, organisations and associations" are large bodies with resources more than capable of such nuisance petitioning.

"Interesting", Christine mused, "though I would like to point out that this proposal says nothing of how quickly petitions need to be passed on. A Government agency may allocate 1 % or even less of one person's time to receiving, reading and dealing with petitions and still be in compliance with this proposal. If an agency should be flooded with petitions, that would not necessarily hamper anything else than its reception of petitions.

The Queendom finds this piece of legislation rather toothless, but we shall vote for it nonetheless, because it is nice and fluffy and completely non-objectionable."

And thus the Queendom demonstrates the awesome power of the lemming vote. In a few months somebody will want this repealed with sophistry about "APPLAUDING the intention of the Resolution Right to Petition" whilst noting that they are "CONCERNED that the potential for nuisance petitions being endlessly forwarded" exists. When that repeal appears, we will all have the thoughtful deliberations of nations like the Queendom to thank.

This is to say nothing of the fact that forwarding the petition to a more appropriate authority is required by the proposal, and that intentionally under-resourcing this function contravenes the proposal by having the effect of NOT passing the petition on as required. Further, under-resourcing this function means that it will be unavailable to ordinary citizens who have misdirected a petition in good faith, still permitting a "denial of service" caused by deliberately misdirected nuisance petitions coming from "companies, organisations and associations" with the resources to devote to such activities.

Let's say you are an ordinary citizen concerned about, say, whales. So you start a "Save the Whales" petition and then send it off to your local official. However, Whale Meat Incorporated starts a nuisance petition and also sends it to your local official. Given Whale Meat Incorporated has more resources than you, it is easier for them to submit endless nuisance petitions than it is for you to organise your one "Save the Whales" petition. Unfortunately for you, your local official only devotes 1% of his time to forwarding petitions, so your petition languishes for years and years and years due to all of the nuisance petitions filed by Whale Meat Incorporated. Your petition is therefore never considered, and all the whales get wiped out.

That's right, lemmings kill whales.

I hope that it is clear then that deliberately under-resourcing the consideration and forwarding of petitions, in order to avoid time-waste due to nuisance petitions, is completely unsatisfactory.

[Flibbleites]

First, the WA will be telling member states "You have to allow people to petition;" next the WA will be telling member states "You have to allow people to protest."

Actually, you've got that backwards.

What About The Other Forms Of Government such As Dictatorships Or Even Empires and Kingdoms? To These Types The Right To Petition Without The Fear Of Reprisals Is Tantamount To The Kiss Of Death.

Why? You don't have to listen to them.

Please accept this petition to ask you not to form every word with a capital letter.

See? Our office has even signed it!

N. Taranton
etc.

Can I sign that petition too?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[NewBriton]

I'm sorry if this has been bought up already. I don't currently have the time to read 11 pages of debating. I'm just wondering about the fear of reprisal thing. If a petition were to, say, include a threat against a person or group, would it still be possible to punish the writers for those threats under other laws?

[Spectaculawesomeness]

"Interesting", Christine mused, "though I would like to point out that this proposal says nothing of how quickly petitions need to be passed on. A Government agency may allocate 1 % or even less of one person's time to receiving, reading and dealing with petitions and still be in compliance with this proposal. If an agency should be flooded with petitions, that would not necessarily hamper anything else than its reception of petitions.

The Queendom finds this piece of legislation rather toothless, but we shall vote for it nonetheless, because it is nice and fluffy and completely non-objectionable."

And thus the Queendom demonstrates the awesome power of the lemming vote. In a few months somebody will want this repealed with sophistry about "APPLAUDING the intention of the Resolution Right to Petition" whilst noting that they are "CONCERNED that the potential for nuisance petitions being endlessly forwarded" exists. When that repeal appears, we will all have the thoughtful deliberations of nations like the Queendom to thank.

This is to say nothing of the fact that forwarding the petition to a more appropriate authority is required by the proposal, and that intentionally under-resourcing this function contravenes the proposal by having the effect of NOT passing the petition on as required. Further, under-resourcing this function means that it will be unavailable to ordinary citizens who have misdirected a petition in good faith, still permitting a "denial of service" caused by deliberately misdirected nuisance petitions coming from "companies, organisations and associations" with the resources to devote to such activities.

Let's say you are an ordinary citizen concerned about, say, whales. So you start a "Save the Whales" petition and then send it off to your local official. However, Whale Meat Incorporated starts a nuisance petition and also sends it to your local official. Given Whale Meat Incorporated has more resources than you, it is easier for them to submit endless nuisance petitions than it is for you to organise your one "Save the Whales" petition. Unfortunately for you, your local official only devotes 1% of his time to forwarding petitions, so your petition languishes for years and years and years due to all of the nuisance petitions filed by Whale Meat Incorporated. Your petition is therefore never considered, and all the whales get wiped out.

That's right, lemmings kill whales.

I hope that it is clear then that deliberately under-resourcing the consideration and forwarding of petitions, in order to avoid time-waste due to nuisance petitions, is completely unsatisfactory.

You've hit it on the head - at least from my perspective. The possibility of businesses effectively initiating DoS attacks (not literally, but you get the point) to drown out any petitions that go against what they want is reason for us to vote against it - although at this point it doesn't matter, it's already passed, numberwise (based on how many people usually vote). It's just sad that people are going to have to repeal it, nearly immediately.

[Alqania]

"Interesting", Christine mused, "though I would like to point out that this proposal says nothing of how quickly petitions need to be passed on. A Government agency may allocate 1 % or even less of one person's time to receiving, reading and dealing with petitions and still be in compliance with this proposal. If an agency should be flooded with petitions, that would not necessarily hamper anything else than its reception of petitions.

The Queendom finds this piece of legislation rather toothless, but we shall vote for it nonetheless, because it is nice and fluffy and completely non-objectionable."

And thus the Queendom demonstrates the awesome power of the lemming vote. In a few months somebody will want this repealed with sophistry about "APPLAUDING the intention of the Resolution Right to Petition" whilst noting that they are "CONCERNED that the potential for nuisance petitions being endlessly forwarded" exists. When that repeal appears, we will all have the thoughtful deliberations of nations like the Queendom to thank.

This is to say nothing of the fact that forwarding the petition to a more appropriate authority is required by the proposal, and that intentionally under-resourcing this function contravenes the proposal by having the effect of NOT passing the petition on as required. Further, under-resourcing this function means that it will be unavailable to ordinary citizens who have misdirected a petition in good faith, still permitting a "denial of service" caused by deliberately misdirected nuisance petitions coming from "companies, organisations and associations" with the resources to devote to such activities.

Let's say you are an ordinary citizen concerned about, say, whales. So you start a "Save the Whales" petition and then send it off to your local official. However, Whale Meat Incorporated starts a nuisance petition and also sends it to your local official. Given Whale Meat Incorporated has more resources than you, it is easier for them to submit endless nuisance petitions than it is for you to organise your one "Save the Whales" petition. Unfortunately for you, your local official only devotes 1% of his time to forwarding petitions, so your petition languishes for years and years and years due to all of the nuisance petitions filed by Whale Meat Incorporated. Your petition is therefore never considered, and all the whales get wiped out.

That's right, lemmings kill whales.

I hope that it is clear then that deliberately under-resourcing the consideration and forwarding of petitions, in order to avoid time-waste due to nuisance petitions, is completely unsatisfactory.

"I beg Your Excellency's pardon", Christine started with mild indignation, "but it is my understanding that the term lemming vote is generally applied to voting member states who are not active in the debates. It should be evident to any active Delegation that the Queendom is an active participant in the General Assembly and not merely one that shows up for the votes. On the other hand, I do not think I recall seeing Your Excellency in the debate chambers before.

Many repeals are baseless, unfounded and silly, yet they pass. I do take offence to the notion that the Queendom would be to blame if some time in the future, such a ridiculous repeal were to pass, assuming the Queendom would vote against it, as we usually do with such weak repeals when they target resolutions we support. It seems much more likely to me that Your Excellency's Delegation would attempt such a repeal and therefore be to blame.

I reiterate that the proposal makes no mention of time. A petition that is forwarded after ten years is still forwarded.

Furthermore, the proposal makes no mention of a first-come-first-serve principle or that petitions otherwise have to be treated equally. It would be within compliance with this proposal for an agency to prioritise some petitions over others. If a company submits an insane amount of petitions, all of those can legally be given less priority than any petition from anyone else. A Government may chose to give higher priority to petitions from individuals in the first place.

I hope Your Excellency's example is not an insinuation that the Alqanian whaling industry is in any way wrong, unethical or unsustainable. As I am Her Majesty's Deputy Ambassador and Her Majesty's Government does allow the killing of whales, then yes, by extension, I indirectly kill whales, though I personally for some time have been committed to improving regulations in hunting, fishing and whaling and the Queendom has come a long way in sustainability.

In this fictive example however, if applied to the Queendom, the individual whose petition had somehow been most unfortunately held up in bureaucracy would have several other, often more effective avenues than the petition, such as requesting an audience in Her Majesty's Court or getting a political party in the soon-to-be-elected Parliament to work for a Parliamentary Recommendation, a Parliament that is being created precisely to strengthen the abilities of the People to influence policy.

There is no problem with this proposal except for its toothlessness and no reason to repeal it later. If it were to be repealed later however without justification, the member states who would support the repeal would be to blame for the circus, not the member states voting for this unobjectionable proposal to begin with. And the claim that the Queendom or other supporters are voting in favour of this proposal without adequate thought is an argument the debate would do better without, as well as the debate would do better without Ambassadors resorting to simple name-calling."

[Southern Patriots]

I concur with my Alqanian colleague, particularly in the toothlessness of this proposal.

It basically is a repeat of the Freedom of Expression, in spirit and principle. And there is no obligation for the petitions to be read or heeded. Simply received.

[Pantocratoria]

"I beg Your Excellency's pardon", Christine started with mild indignation, "but it is my understanding that the term lemming vote is generally applied to voting member states who are not active in the debates. It should be evident to any active Delegation that the Queendom is an active participant in the General Assembly and not merely one that shows up for the votes. On the other hand, I do not think I recall seeing Your Excellency in the debate chambers before.

Many repeals are baseless, unfounded and silly, yet they pass. I do take offence to the notion that the Queendom would be to blame if some time in the future, such a ridiculous repeal were to pass, assuming the Queendom would vote against it, as we usually do with such weak repeals when they target resolutions we support. It seems much more likely to me that Your Excellency's Delegation would attempt such a repeal and therefore be to blame.

I reiterate that the proposal makes no mention of time. A petition that is forwarded after ten years is still forwarded.

Furthermore, the proposal makes no mention of a first-come-first-serve principle or that petitions otherwise have to be treated equally. It would be within compliance with this proposal for an agency to prioritise some petitions over others. If a company submits an insane amount of petitions, all of those can legally be given less priority than any petition from anyone else. A Government may chose to give higher priority to petitions from individuals in the first place.

I hope Your Excellency's example is not an insinuation that the Alqanian whaling industry is in any way wrong, unethical or unsustainable. As I am Her Majesty's Deputy Ambassador and Her Majesty's Government does allow the killing of whales, then yes, by extension, I indirectly kill whales, though I personally for some time have been committed to improving regulations in hunting, fishing and whaling and the Queendom has come a long way in sustainability.

In this fictive example however, if applied to the Queendom, the individual whose petition had somehow been most unfortunately held up in bureaucracy would have several other, often more effective avenues than the petition, such as requesting an audience in Her Majesty's Court or getting a political party in the soon-to-be-elected Parliament to work for a Parliamentary Recommendation, a Parliament that is being created precisely to strengthen the abilities of the People to influence policy.

There is no problem with this proposal except for its toothlessness and no reason to repeal it later. If it were to be repealed later however without justification, the member states who would support the repeal would be to blame for the circus, not the member states voting for this unobjectionable proposal to begin with. And the claim that the Queendom or other supporters are voting in favour of this proposal without adequate thought is an argument the debate would do better without, as well as the debate would do better without Ambassadors resorting to simple name-calling."

"Oh please," Henri Santiago sneered in reply. "Spare us all the self-justifying indignation. You said that the Queendom finds this piece of legislation rather toothless, but indicated that you shall vote for it nonetheless, because you described it as fluffy and completely non-objectionable. I have three daughters. They have teddy bears which I would describe as fluffy and non-objectionable. Neither in my time as a Member of Parliament, Minister, nor Ambassador have I ever heard of legislation being described as fluffy and non-objectionable by anybody who was taking that legislation seriously and treating it with due consideration. Treating legislation without due consideration is the epitome of what constitutes the General Assembly's so-called lemming vote. Observing that a piece of legislation has properties in common with teddy bears is not contribution to debate. So if you find the description of your vote in favour as a lemming vote offensive or objectionable, just consider how offensive or objectionable it must be to the few delegations who actually think critically about proposals prior to voting on them to listen to you describe a proposed resolution of the General Assembly as... fluffy."

Santiago spat the last few words with contempt.

"I shall leave the barbarous practice of whale hunting alone for now as it is totally unrelated to this so-called debate except in respect to my previous example." Santiago shook his head. "To refocus this discussion on the matter at hand, I have observed the debate over the recent repeal of the Social Assistance Accord. Anybody in this assembly who regards it as unlikely that a proposal to repeal this legislation will be moved in the near future on the basis of the very issue I have just pointed out is naive. The focus of the General Assembly should be on drafting and passing resolutions which will not be subject to constant repeal ostensibly justified by a pedantic obsession with the wording of the resolution."

[Alqania]

"Oh please," Henri Santiago sneered in reply. "Spare us all the self-justifying indignation. You said that the Queendom finds this piece of legislation rather toothless, but indicated that you shall vote for it nonetheless, because you described it as fluffy and completely non-objectionable. I have three daughters. They have teddy bears which I would describe as fluffy and non-objectionable. Neither in my time as a Member of Parliament, Minister, nor Ambassador have I ever heard of legislation being described as fluffy and non-objectionable by anybody who was taking that legislation seriously and treating it with due consideration. Treating legislation without due consideration is the epitome of what constitutes the General Assembly's so-called lemming vote. Observing that a piece of legislation has properties in common with teddy bears is not contribution to debate. So if you find the description of your vote in favour as a lemming vote offensive or objectionable, just consider how offensive or objectionable it must be to the few delegations who actually think critically about proposals prior to voting on them to listen to you describe a proposed resolution of the General Assembly as... fluffy."

Santiago spat the last few words with contempt.

"I shall leave the barbarous practice of whale hunting alone for now as it is totally unrelated to this so-called debate except in respect to my previous example." Santiago shook his head. "To refocus this discussion on the matter at hand, I have observed the debate over the recent repeal of the Social Assistance Accord. Anybody in this assembly who regards it as unlikely that a proposal to repeal this legislation will be moved in the near future on the basis of the very issue I have just pointed out is naive. The focus of the General Assembly should be on drafting and passing resolutions which will not be subject to constant repeal ostensibly justified by a pedantic obsession with the wording of the resolution."

"Your Excellency may address me as Your Royal Highness", Christine replied in the most polite tone she could muster, rather surprised that a representative of "The Holy and Most August Empire" had failed to address a Princess properly. "To the point, I think it ought to be rather clear from my remarks that the Alqanian Delegation has not only read the proposal at vote but given it due thought and consideration. My remarks have hardly been without criticism or critical thinking towards the proposal. The conclusion reached by the Alqanian Delegation is that we despite the proposal's toothlessness shall cast our vote in favour.

Your Excellency is of course free to criticise my choice of words. By choosing to label the proposal as fluffy I did aim for a rhetorical effect that the word harmless would not have produced as well. I do find it unfortunate that my choice of words has lead Your Excellency to the incorrect assumption that the Alqanian Delegation does not treat this proposal seriously and has not given it due consideration, but that was a jump to conclusion made by Your Excellency.

I was naive enough to have hoped Ambassadors could debate this proposal without resorting to simple name-calling. Whether either of the terms lemming or barbarian could be applied to me is not really relevant to this debate. Though I suspect the main reason for using them is rhetorical and perhaps comparable to when I called the proposal fluffy.

Naivety is often considered a virtue in the Queendom, but I am afraid I could not claim to be naive enough not to expect any repeal attempt to this or any other resolution. As the Alqanian Delegation actively reviews not only the proposals and repeals that reach quorum, but also those that do not make it thus far, I have no delusions about the stupidity of member states and the propensity for baseless repeals. On the contrary, I would deem it rather naive to expect any resolution to ever be immune from repeal attempts; even GAR #1 which is technically repeal-proof has been the target of repeal-happy Delegations."

[TFF]

.

[Grand Munster]

The Minister of External Affairs and of the Colonial Possessions wishes to have it noted that the Imperial Government of Grand Munster is voting against this motion due to this line "and extends this right equally to companies, organisations and associations".

His Imperial Majesty's Government firmly supports the rights of the people to position a government however Imperial Majesty's Government opposes the right of companies to petition a government as outlined in this resolution. Lobbying by companies, organisations etc should take place in a transparent form of course but the right to petition should be the exclusive remit of the citizen.

This is in keeping with the Constitution of the Empire. To vote in favour and to adopt this in legislation would find such legislation challenged in the Imperial Court of Council.

Alexandra Tandy, MLS
Minister of External Affairs and of the Colonial Possessions

[Lealesutal]

In a democracy, the majority is suppose to win. With this bill, you are saying that just by petitioning the government, the minority would be allowed to make the government do what they want. Therefore, going against the majority and thus, making democracy useless. Democracy was established so the majority choose, not the minority.

And if this bill does not say the government has to act on it, then it is pretty much pointless. The government can just burn the petition and later punish the people with disturbing the peace or some other law that technically has nothing to do with the petition.

[Knootoss]

In a democracy, the majority is suppose to win. With this bill, you are saying that just by petitioning the government, the minority would be allowed to make the government do what they want. Therefore, going against the majority and thus, making democracy useless. Democracy was established so the majority choose, not the minority.

And if this bill does not say the government has to act on it, then it is pretty much pointless. The government can just burn the petition and later punish the people with disturbing the peace or some other law that technically has nothing to do with the petition.

I do find it fascinating how anyone can convey two directly contradicting ideas in a single contribution, and then both use them as arguments against the resolution. In fact, the point of the resolution is to ban punishment. To say that "well, governments will cheat and refuse to uphold the resolution anyway" is to basically dismiss every resolution ever written in the history of the World Assembly.


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

[Unibot II]

No, it's not a reasonable interpretation to suggest that the logical conclusion of forewarding petitions will result in them being binned by a devious government. One would think you had never heard of the Reasonable Nation theory.

Since Your Most Uncouth Excellency's sapient employee seems to be on vacation...

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.

Pass, only; not pass and dutifully act on. I see no other mandate here other than that the government passes a petition on; maybe the author now wished he had done such a thing, or maybe not. The fluff is overwhelming.

A day in Bigtopia

Bureaucrat: "Mister Mayor, I'm here to pass to Your Excellency a petition signed by eight million voters asking for better schools"
Mayor: "Okay" (wipes ass with first page)
Bureaucrat: "Mister Mayor, this is an outrage! Won't you act on the people's yearnings?"
Mayor: "Shut the hell up and pack up! As far as the government is concerned, you have already PASSED me the petition. Why should I ACT on it as well?"
Ex-Bureaucrat: "Mister mayor, it's eight. Million. Voters."
Mayor: "Who cares? There are ninety million eligible voters here. And the Chamber of Commerce has just endorsed me."

I don't see what the problem is there, "passing" implies a shift of responsibility and duty. "Pass and dutifully act" would be incorrect, because if the same institution that is doing the passing is also dutifully acting there was no point to passing it off in the first place...

Furthermore, via the second formulation of RNT, that would suggest the government would be regarded as inappropriate for governing or otherwise incompetent ... thus would have grave consequences legally.

[Sarong-and-Saright]

First, the WA will be telling member states "You have to allow people to petition;" next the WA will be telling member states "You have to allow people to protest."

Actually, you've got that backwards.

Thanks for sharing. We weren't aware that the "right to protest" had already been guaranteed. Not sure where we were when that one got through! Alas, it only further solidifies our opposition to this current resolution.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

According to our national description page, "petitions to the government are being used to insulate politicians' office walls."

Does this mean the R-value of our various Council of Elders' offices is going to depend on public opinion? Some of the office suites around here are rather cold.

[Our New World Oceania]

NOOOO!

Take a moment. Think about this, the people have their freedom... Do the governments get any freedom?

[Damanucus]

Thank you for bringing up that resolution, Mr Flibble, because it has now got me thinking: while this resolution asks nations to allow people to petition the government, why is this not treated as a milder form of protest? And hence, asking for the right to protest to be extended to petitions, and thus allowing any petition as long as it does is not illegal under GAR#27?

I'll still keep my position as for, unless someone can sufficiently convince me that passing this resolution will worsen sovereignty.

Horgen Dush
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Knootoss]

A petition needs not be a protest. The definition states that it can also be a written observation, a suggestion or a request. And not all criticisms and complaints need to be considered "protests" either. Some might be entirely constructive.


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

[Arivali]

I suppose I can live with this, as long as I don't have to grant the requests of said petitions. I can already see the petitions flooding in from annoying people I'm going to want to strangle. Of course, having to tell people no upsets them. That is the one downside. If you give them hope, then crush that hope, they don't like it much. I think I'll send the really angry people to the author of this proposal for him to deal with.

[Damanucus]

A petition needs not be a protest. The definition states that it can also be a written observation, a suggestion or a request. And not all criticisms and complaints need to be considered "protests" either. Some might be entirely constructive.

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

OOC: My error; I suppose I'm too used to the common use of petition as a written protest.

[Pantocratoria]

Henri Santiago contemplated replying to the Alqanian's complaints, but decided that the discussion had moved beyond debating the actual proposal and on to Princess Christine's feeble attempts to retrospectively justify her uncritical support of the proposal as being somehow more substantial than a lemming vote. He therefore regarded that responding to her would be wasting the General Assembly's time with off-topic discussion. Instead, he asked his staff to send her a card which apologised for not referring to her by her royal style, accompanied by some flowers.

The complaint about not being referred to as a royal highness was, after all, the only legitimate objection she had made. The Alqanians had in no way been critical in their evaluation of the proposal, nor thoughtful, nor had they adequately explained their reasoning in supporting the proposal if they found being called lemmings so odious. Failing of Christine's own expression though it may have been, the other delegates could hardly be blamed for assuming that Alqania had supported this "fluffy" proposal as a default position.

[Adityastan]

Who will be to judge whether the petition has been reviewed properly, acted upon?