[PASSED] Right to Petition

[Lealesutal]

Yes, but in a court of law with these resolutions, you know the lawyers are going to use every trick in the book. We just want to close the large obvious loopholes.

What courts of law? There are no courts that interpret World Assembly resolutions.

N. Taranton
etc.

As soon as an issue occurs whether or not someone broke the resolution.

[Knootoss]

The idea that adding more legalese will reduce the ability of lawyers to litigate feels rather counter-intuitive. Some constitutions have managed to guarantee the right to petition in half the number of words that is being used in this resolution.

"Not punishing petitioners" is a simple idea. This resolution defines petitions and it defines petitioners. Trying to enumerate the types of punishment or retribution that a government might think up is a pointless idea that will only create more loopholes. That is why it simply bans punishment and reprisals. The elephant test ("I know it when I see it") suffices perfectly in these cases.


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

[Lealesutal]

In response to that, one could argue that then you could break the law after putting forth a petition and coudl get away with it. If you were caught you simply would reply that you were arrested for putting forth a petition. The reverse situation could be true if that didn't apply. You could get arrested for some minor thing after putting forth the petition but it would not be technically punishment for the petition.

[Knootoss]

If the wording had been "BANS governments from punishing anyone who ever sent a petition", that would have been true. You're being contrary for the sake of it though, so have fun with that.

[Spartan Domain]

Let us all agree to both disagree and get on with something else.
Say my upcoming Peace Summit Between the Ponyist States & the MAAPS.
I need help getting this known to both sides.
Please Help.

[Krioval]

In response to that, one could argue that then you could break the law after putting forth a petition and coudl get away with it. If you were caught you simply would reply that you were arrested for putting forth a petition. The reverse situation could be true if that didn't apply. You could get arrested for some minor thing after putting forth the petition but it would not be technically punishment for the petition.

Uh...there's a reason that an arrest typically goes as follows: "You are under arrest for the crime of [alleged crime committed]. You have the right(s) to [insert rights of the accused here]". I suppose that one could attempt to argue that the arresting officer was lying about the crime for which the arrest occurred, but such an argument would have no sway in a Kriovaller court. If anything, the presiding judge would question whether the attorney defending the accused was competent to continue, or if the defendant were representing him- or herself, whether a public attorney would need to supervise the defense. It's fairly simple, actually.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[TFF]

.

[Belvadaire]

I vote "yay" we need the right to question Goverment, why? because you pay taxes, you've earned it, ask the Goverment any question you like, remember who you are, and don't never forget, because people are getting dumber by the second, like Maryland people, they act like they sleep walking, seriously.

[Welsh Cowboy]

This delegation is proud this legislation passed. It is an important step forward for the world and World Assembly. A basic human right has been affirmed.

Delegation to the WA,
Republic of Welsh Cowboy

[The Texas Steak]

~QUORUM~

(Image)
Right to Petition
A 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!

[Allied States of Demokratia]

The Federal Republic of the Allied States of Demokratia are disappointed in the passing of this resolution. While it may grant some powers to civillians, it grants even more lobbying power to corproations.
While the FRASD resepcts the rules of the World Assembly, and the process by which resolutions come to the floor for debate and are ultimatley legislated, our delegation cannot help but think that those who supported this resolution have not thought out all possible ramifications of the policy.
It is therefore, that should a motion come forward to repeal this resolution, the FRASD will work day and night, petitioning other WA delegates (no pun intended), to ensure it is carried.

[Welsh Cowboy]

The Federal Republic of the Allied States of Demokratia are disappointed in the passing of this resolution. While it may grant some powers to civillians, it grants even more lobbying power to corproations.
While the FRASD resepcts the rules of the World Assembly, and the process by which resolutions come to the floor for debate and are ultimatley legislated, our delegation cannot help but think that those who supported this resolution have not thought out all possible ramifications of the policy.
It is therefore, that should a motion come forward to repeal this resolution, the FRASD will work day and night, petitioning other WA delegates (no pun intended), to ensure it is carried.

Why is corporations having lobbying powers a bad thing, Your Excellency. They should have the same rights as people, right?

[Krioval]

The Federal Republic of the Allied States of Demokratia are disappointed in the passing of this resolution. While it may grant some powers to civillians, it grants even more lobbying power to corproations.
While the FRASD resepcts the rules of the World Assembly, and the process by which resolutions come to the floor for debate and are ultimatley legislated, our delegation cannot help but think that those who supported this resolution have not thought out all possible ramifications of the policy.
It is therefore, that should a motion come forward to repeal this resolution, the FRASD will work day and night, petitioning other WA delegates (no pun intended), to ensure it is carried.

Your government is free to ignore any petitions from corporate entities. It is typically not feasible for all of the shareholders to put together a petition or perform any other major matter of corporate governance; that is why they designate a board of directors to do these things. Similarly, individual laborers typically don't petition individually, and frequently form unions for the ability to petition collectively.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Allied States of Demokratia]

Why is corporations having lobbying powers a bad thing, Your Excellency. They should have the same rights as people, right?

Not particularly. A corporation is often more concerned with profits over the common employee. Our problem is the endless lobbying that a petition bill would allow for. Citizens over the Corporation. A good government should NOT run like a corporation as services like free healthcare, affodable housing and public transit would be inefficent uses of finances with no profit (or very slim margins if any). Allowing corporations to petition the government (even if we dont have to pass petitions) will just end up creating more beaurcracy.

Although, a department of dealing with petitions (Name subject to change [OOC when I think of something catchy] ) could lead to new jobs be created. I suppose.

Your government is free to ignore any petitions from corporate entities. It is typically not feasible for all of the shareholders to put together a petition or perform any other major matter of corporate governance; that is why they designate a board of directors to do these things. Similarly, individual laborers typically don't petition individually, and frequently form unions for the ability to petition collectively.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

We dont question this ability, but its an awful waste of resourcces that could be spent in bettering the people of our country via social programmes.
As for unionization, out country admittedly does borrow a "shareholder" ideology (OOC much like the corporation WestJet) where in certain sectors, such as government construction, and gov't manufacturing, where the workers take pride in their employer- a factory does well, the workers do well. If a factory needs a subsidy, then workers will recieve one too. The Department of Labor and Social Welfare deals with workers rights quite well. It is one of the largest divisions of the central administrative authority with unparalleled access to every citizen.

(OOC- I just dont like giving corporations any more power than they already have)

[Our New World Oceania]

Repeal! Repeal!

[Linux and the X]

We hope to see this repealed and replaced with a version that does not require corporations to be recognised as political entities. They exist purely for economic convenience. Until then, however, we are requiring almost all corporations (a few limited exceptions are being granted) to contractually restrict themselves from exercising the right to petition. Should they violate, or refuse to agree to, the contract, their charter will be revoked.

[Zaklen]

This horrific, government shutdown creating, corporation benefiting monstrosity MUST be repealed with all speed.

[Astro-Malsitari WA Seat]

government shutdown creating

What?

[Krioval]

We hope to see this repealed and replaced with a version that does not require corporations to be recognised as political entities. They exist purely for economic convenience. Until then, however, we are requiring almost all corporations (a few limited exceptions are being granted) to contractually restrict themselves from exercising the right to petition. Should they violate, or refuse to agree to, the contract, their charter will be revoked.

Or you could simply have your government ignore petitions from corporations. Seems easier that way.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Bears Armed]

We hope to see this repealed and replaced with a version that does not require corporations to be recognised as political entities. They exist purely for economic convenience.

OOC: 'Corporation' =/= 'big business', ‘corporation’ = any organisation that has been 'incorporated'... and that an organisation that has been incorporated counts as a person is actually intrinsic to that status: Both words, 'corporation' & 'incorporated', are actually derived from the Latin word for 'body', the same root as (for example) 'corpse'.
Depending on a nation's laws clubs can be 'corporations', charities can be 'corporations', local authorities can be corporations (e.g. 'The Mayor and Corporation of the City of London'), quangos can be corporations... In fact English law even recognises the concept of the 'corporation sole' which consists of one person at a time but with the "corporate" powers & property going to whoever that person's successor is in a particular office (e.g. bishop of a diocese) rather than to whoever would be their heirs for ordinary inheritance.

[Knootoss]

OOC: Lets not allow facts to get in the way of a knee-jerk response though.

[Sovreignry]

We hope to see this repealed and replaced with a version that does not require corporations to be recognised as political entities. They exist purely for economic convenience.

OOC: 'Corporation' =/= 'big business', ‘corporation’ = any organisation that has been 'incorporated'... and that an organisation that has been incorporated counts as a person is actually intrinsic to that status: Both words, 'corporation' & 'incorporated', are actually derived from the Latin word for 'body', the same root as (for example) 'corpse'.
Depending on a nation's laws clubs can be 'corporations', charities can be 'corporations', local authorities can be corporations (e.g. 'The Mayor and Corporation of the City of London'), quangos can be corporations... In fact English law even recognises the concept of the 'corporation sole' which consists of one person at a time but with the "corporate" powers & property going to whoever that person's successor is in a particular office (e.g. bishop of a diocese) rather than to whoever would be their heirs for ordinary inheritance.

OOC:Stop. Your rational thought and logic will destroy the internet in a fiery blaze.

[Linux and the X]

OOC: 'Corporation' =/= 'big business', ‘corporation’ = any organisation that has been 'incorporated'... and that an organisation that has been incorporated counts as a person is actually intrinsic to that status: Both words, 'corporation' & 'incorporated', are actually derived from the Latin word for 'body', the same root as (for example) 'corpse'.

Yes, corporation receive the economic rights of persons. They do not, however, receive political rights beyond those specifically needed for corporate purposes (such as amending the corporate charter or, for research corporations, applying for grants and recommending the application of findings).

Depending on a nation's laws clubs can be 'corporations', charities can be 'corporations', local authorities can be corporations (e.g. 'The Mayor and Corporation of the City of London'), quangos can be corporations... In fact English law even recognises the concept of the 'corporation sole' which consists of one person at a time but with the "corporate" powers & property going to whoever that person's successor is in a particular office (e.g. bishop of a diocese) rather than to whoever would be their heirs for ordinary inheritance.

None of which means that corporations have political rights. Individuals do, of course, and they are welcome to disclose their affiliation with a corporation in their petitions, but the exercise of political rights still remains with individuals.

Your own legal system may be different, of course, so it is quite understandable if you cannot or do not wish to take similar measures.

Or you could simply have your government ignore petitions from corporations. Seems easier that way.

It was found unacceptable to maintain our traditional right to petition, which includes a right to be heard, with a WA-mandated right to petition for corporations. I do not pretend to know why the vote went how it did.