[PASSED] Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection

[Geilinor]

So hold, I am just asking a question here. If a culture has a custom which on July x, ten animals must be skinned alive, would this proposal mandate that the governments can not prevent this?

"Apparently cultural heritage can't be banned by law unless it is a "threat to national populations", according to this resolution. There can be all kinds of bad/harmful customs that don't threaten society as a whole. We vote against this."

WA Ambassador Gerhard Scauble

[Ossitania]

So hold, I am just asking a question here. If a culture has a custom which on July x, ten animals must be skinned alive, would this proposal mandate that the governments can not prevent this?

"Apparently cultural heritage can't be banned by law unless it is a "threat to national populations", according to this resolution. There can be all kinds of bad/harmful customs that don't threaten society as a whole. We vote against this."

WA Ambassador Gerhard Scauble

To quote what I've already said earlier in the debate;

"It's the language preferred by NEF and I'd hardly call that extremely restrictive. In fact, surely it's immensely broad, as one could interpret it as either the entire population of a nation or individual populations within a nations."

[Kernak]

As the representative to The Republic of Kernak I pose only this concern for the other delegates to consider before placing their vote.

What of the nations who have made nudity mandatory? In many cultures clothing can be an intangible part of their heritage. Would nations who have already adopted an anti-clothes policy be subjected to ex post facto punishments as a result?

Driving seems to be inherent to many cultures as well. Would nations not be allowed to ban automobiles if they feel the environmental impact is to high?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

As the representative to The Republic of Kernak I pose only this concern for the other delegates to consider before placing their vote.

What of the nations who have made nudity mandatory? In many cultures clothing can be an intangible part of their heritage. Would nations who have already adopted an anti-clothes policy be subjected to ex post facto punishments as a result?

Driving seems to be inherent to many cultures as well. Would nations not be allowed to ban automobiles if they feel the environmental impact is to high?

My impression is that even the author and proponents of this soon-to-be resolution don't really know what an "intangible cultural heritage" is. They don't even seem to know what "intangible" means since the definition includes things like "locations and objects," which are certainly tangible.

Presumably if nudity is "considered to be a part of the cultural heritage of a community" then nations must protect that heritage and cannot compel nudists to wear clothes. Any lawmaker who tried requiring nudists to provide school clothes to their children would have to be arrested under the "criminalize" provision.

Same goes with driving. Any law encouraging bicycle use/public transportation would be a violation of the requirement that nations "adopt a general policy towards the protection of intangible cultural heritage." The representatives of the people certainly should not endanger the Cult of the SUV to pursue some new environmental or public transportation policy.

[Ossitania]

My impression is that even the author and proponents of this soon-to-be resolution don't really know what an "intangible cultural heritage" is. They don't even seem to know what "intangible" means since the definition includes things like "locations and objects," which are certainly tangible.

We submit that the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists is the one who doesn't understand the phrase. If these tangible objects are necessary for the survival of the intangible aspects, then they come under the umbrella of the protection, it's common sense. Otherwise we would prohibiting nations banning knitting but not banning knitting needles.

OOC: It's beggar's belief that you have actually gone out and said this without even the cursory Google search which would have lead you to the Wikipedia page on intangible cultural heritage. The formal definition, in relevant part, includes;

"the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces associated therewith"

Presumably if nudity is "considered to be a part of the cultural heritage of a community" then nations must protect that heritage and cannot compel nudists to wear clothes. Any lawmaker who tried requiring nudists to provide school clothes to their children would have to be arrested under the "criminalize" provision.

Perhaps your country is that obtuse but in my nation we would simply point out that there are public health concerns associated with nudity and would restrict it under the AFFIRMS clause. A general policy preserving the right to be nude is not undermined by restricting in certain circumstances.

Same goes with driving. Any law encouraging bicycle use/public transportation would be a violation of the requirement that nations "adopt a general policy towards the protection of intangible cultural heritage." The representatives of the people certainly should not endanger the Cult of the SUV to pursue some new environmental or public transportation policy.

If, in general, I think someone is a perfectly swell guy but, in particular scenarios, I think he's a dickhead, that doesn't change the fact that, in general, I think he's a perfectly swell guy. Similarly, a general policy towards the protection of cultural heritage does not preclude it being restricted where it is in the public interest. I can barely articulate my disbelief that you attack the supporters of this resolution for allegedly not knowing the definition of "intangible cultural heritage" (when it is, in fact, you who does not appear to know it) while you are seemingly ignorant of the meaning of the word "general".

[Cowardly Pacifists]

We submit that the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists is the one who doesn't understand the phrase. If these tangible objects are necessary for the survival of the intangible aspects, then they come under the umbrella of the protection, it's common sense. Otherwise we would prohibiting nations banning knitting but not banning knitting needles.

OOC: It's beggar's belief that you have actually gone out and said this without even the cursory Google search which would have lead you to the Wikipedia page on intangible cultural heritage. The formal definition, in relevant part, includes;

"the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces associated therewith"

There is simply no reason to include objects and locations in a definition of intangible cultural heritage. Aside from the obvious "those-things-are-tangible" argument, there's the small matter of a prior resolution that already covers those things.

EDIT: Oss is correct that the UN definition includes instruments etc., but I still think that definition is suspicious in this context since we already protected objects and sites in their own resolution. Why would the WA include tangible objects with intangible heritage when those tangible object are already protected?

Perhaps your country is that obtuse but in my nation we would simply point out that there are public health concerns associated with nudity and would restrict it under the AFFIRMS clause. A general policy preserving the right to be nude is not undermined by restricting in certain circumstances.
...
If, in general, I think someone is a perfectly swell guy but, in particular scenarios, I think he's a dickhead, that doesn't change the fact that, in general, I think he's a perfectly swell guy. Similarly, a general policy towards the protection of cultural heritage does not preclude it being restricted where it is in the public interest. I can barely articulate my disbelief that you attack the supporters of this resolution for allegedly not knowing the definition of "intangible cultural heritage" (when it is, in fact, you who does not appear to know it) while you are seemingly ignorant of the meaning of the word "general".

My sarcasm was not meant to be taken seriously but to make a point about the flimsiness of this Act's provisions.

The only meaningful thing this would do (protecting cultural sites and objects) is already done by a different resolution. The rest - a "general policy" of protecting intangible cultural heritage and criminalizing deliberate acts that "would destroy" that heritage - have no meaning. Keeping in mind that physical objects and sites are already protected, one cannot really act in a way that destroys an intangible aspect of heritage (or any intangible thing). Unless, of course, one is a lawmaker perusing a ban or restriction on some practice in the name of public policy or public health - something the proposal allows.

[Ossitania]

There is simply no reason to include objects and locations in a definition of intangible cultural heritage. Aside from the obvious "those-things-are-tangible" argument, there's the small matter of a prior resolution that already covers those things.

EDIT: Oss is correct that the UN definition includes instruments etc., but I still think that definition is suspicious in this context since we already protected objects and sites in their own resolution. Why would the WA include tangible objects with intangible heritage when those tangible object are already protected?

Surely the ambassador has been in the Assembly long enough to know that each resolution must be able to stand on its own without relying on extant law. There is overlap between this resolution and extant law but if we left tangible objects out of the definition, should the extant law on cultural heritage be repealed, this resolution would be unable to function. However, it performs functions not performed in extant law. We believe this satisfies any concerns about duplication or superfluity.

My sarcasm was not meant to be taken seriously but to make a point about the flimsiness of this Act's provisions.

The only meaningful thing this would do (protecting cultural sites and objects) is already done by a different resolution. The rest - a "general policy" of protecting intangible cultural heritage and criminalizing deliberate acts that "would destroy" that heritage - have no meaning. Keeping in mind that physical objects and sites are already protected, one cannot really act in a way that destroys an intangible aspect of heritage (or any intangible thing). Unless, of course, one is a lawmaker perusing a ban or restriction on some practice in the name of public policy or public health - something the proposal allows.

This is a naive view. It is perfectly possible to destroy languages by prohibiting their speaking. Certain singing styles? Dance styles? Oral history? Bardic tradition? None of these things inherently require objects or places but are undoubtedly a part of culture. This resolution prohibits the restriction and destruction of these practices without due reason, which is not accomplished elsewhere in extant WA law.

OOC: If you doubt that wholly intangible cultural practices can be destroyed, come over here to Ireland, walk up to any given Irish person and say a few simple Irish sentences. Irish was the majority language here up to the early 1800s but it was systematically destroyed by the British, both through deliberate acts against it (banning its teaching) and cruel negligence (their inaction during the Great Famine, which hit poor Irish-speaking areas hardest).

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Lothar Prolark, World Assembly Delegate and Vice-President of Europeia will be voting AYE on this proposal due to the majority of our WA nations doing so. This, instead of our usual internal vote system, was used to measure which way we will vote after a dead-heat in our poll.

So, that said... yeah we vote Aye. Not that it'll make much difference at this point now.

[Unibot II]

My question is, does "national populations" include "national populations of chickens" etc. Or are we barred from prohibiting cock-fighting?

[Ossitania]

My question is, does "national populations" include "national populations of chickens" etc. Or are we barred from prohibiting cock-fighting?

I would certainly interpret it as including non-sapient populations.

[Knootoss]

So is anyone doing the repeal? Or should I draft one?


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

[Unibot II]

My question is, does "national populations" include "national populations of chickens" etc. Or are we barred from prohibiting cock-fighting?

I would certainly interpret it as including non-sapient populations.

What about say "national population" of trees?

That would totally change the interpretation of Krioval's Commerce blocker, allowing for more environmental legislation.

[Ossitania]

I would certainly interpret it as including non-sapient populations.

What about say "national population" of trees?

That would totally change the interpretation of Krioval's Commerce blocker, allowing for more environmental legislation.

I'd say that's a fair interpretation too.

[Knootoss]

Sorry, but that is a bullshit interpretation.

[Ossitania]

Sorry, but that is a bullshit interpretation.

Well, what the "populations" are made up of is never specified and thanks to English not having plural adjectives, "national populations" can refer to both "the populations of nations" (referring to member-states in general) and "the populations of the nation" (referring to each member-state individually, one by one). The law is what the law says and all that.

[Knootoss]

I say again: Bullshit. You can tell yourself to justify your own abeyance of World Assembly resolutions, but the secretariat isn't likely to accept it as the proper reading. "If you read it in a way that no reasonable person would ever intend it, it's not so bad" is also a piss-poor defence of a piss-poor resolution.

~ KOOPMAN ARAMUS REX. IMP.

[Ossitania]

I say again: Bullshit. You can tell yourself to justify your own abeyance of World Assembly resolutions, but the secretariat isn't likely to accept it as the proper reading. "If you read it in a way that no reasonable person would ever intend it, it's not so bad" is also a piss-poor defence of a piss-poor resolution.

~ KOOPMAN ARAMUS REX. IMP.

Or if you read it in the exact way I intended it to be interpreted when I suggested the wording change to the author and in the exact way that I've always read NEF. But, by all means, proceed to call me unreasonable despite not actually providing any explanation as to why the interpretation is incorrect.