[PASSED] Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection

[Ile Royale]

OOC: Does the spelling used by British English always arouse such strong feelings in you?

IC: The resolution does not allow a community to claim a place as intangible, it allows then to claim a practice as intangible. If such a practice has an associated location, that too is protected, lets traditional grounds be eradicated as a way to indirectly eliminate a cultural practice. In addition to this, the proposed resolution only orders member states to "provide information...", it does not order physical excavations, though of course it does not preclude them.

"CALLS UPON" is clearly and deliberately asking for a voluntary action; there is no element of compulsion, we simply wish the General Assembly to express its view that such education should be provided.

We hope the ambassador's fears have been assuaged somewhat.

[Free South Califas]

The Twelfth Federal Assembly and the WAGA detachment thereof stand IN STRONG AND UNRESERVED SUPPORT of this resolution as written. In domestic legislation, 12FAR WAGA136 Support Cultural Heritage Protection Act COMMENDS the WAGA delegations of Ile Royale, Ossitania, Pollepao, Damanacus, and Bergnovinaia for their vocal support of this important legislation and their work. Undoubtedly, these delegations have the eternal gratitude of endangered and minority cultures everywhere. 12FAR WAGA136 also humbly suggests that Ossitania be offered co-author status in recognition of their contributions to the language of the proposal.

We also offer of our time and energy to present and future drafters who need extra bodies for WAGA legwork, for this and similar proposed legislation in future.

---

Since federal law mandates that the Federal Assembly may not contradict international legislation which it has vocally supported, the text of Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection automatically takes effect as, at the very least, a restriction on future federal legislation to the contrary. It is not yet similarly binding on the ten County Assemblies or any lower-level government which delegates them, but similar legislation is typically the status quo, and other jurisdictions are working to up their standard of cultural heritage protection under federal pressure.

[The Palentine]

Y'all gotta be kidding me? This is some kind of joke, right? RIGHT??!!!! You mean this isn't a joke? Pull the other one......Seriously???? This has been proposed and is up for a vote? Damn! Somedays its just not worth gnawing through the leather straps. Opppsed! Now I'm off to play a rousing game of ride the kinky pony with the Thessadorian ambassador, and hobmail my liver drinking Wild Turkey. See y'all in the funny papers.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
(now with 25% more unwholesomeness)

[Ile Royale]

We thank the Federal Assembly of Free South Califas for its support for our resolution, however, it is already up for vote, and therefore, unfortunately, we cannot undertake its recommendations.

To Sen. Sulla, we suggest that he might benefit from this resolution, particularly if his particular brand of entertainments becomes a widely practiced cultural phenomenon.

[Ossitania]

Noting the spelling of "artefact" in line 1, I'm against. I might be overreacting to the last line (CALLS UPON), but PUT should not be forced into providing useless classes for the masses.

Artifact and artefact are both valid spellings. You don't have to force people into classes but you have to make the option available if it's wanted.

Also, the definition allows any community to claim any location as "intangible," and then ORDERS members to assist in information gathering, ie: excavation and/or preservation. It's detrimental to any established or needed roads, for example.

No, it doesn't. It's only for sites of cultural significance and you can demand that the group in question prove its significance.

In PUT, we don't have cars, only trains. Therefore, a preserved location at a city's central station, or a a narrow pass through mountains may force thousands of citizens to take an out-of-the-way path to their destination.

You realise that you can preserve a significant site without blocking it off, right? Or does PUT forbid its citizens from entering government buildings and other cultural sites?

The proposal should have less power and restrictions.

This proposal has little to no power or restrictions, so we disagree fundamentally with this claim.

We have lodged our vote decisively FOR.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

My delegation must come out in opposition. I feel that the concept of "intangible cultural heritage" is poorly defined and highly duplicative. Franky, I'm surprised this was allowed to reach quorum.

DEFINING an intangible cultural heritage as a custom, practice, tradition or skill, and all locations and objects associated therewith, which is considered to be a part of the cultural heritage of a community, group, or society by members of such a community, group or society;

We already have a resolution dealing with items and locations of cultural significance:

DEFINES an artifact as any item of cultural, historical, or archeological interest to the member nation in question.

DEFINES a cultural heritage site as a area of interest, archeological, historical, or cultural to any member nation within its own jurdisticion.

I feel that the definition of intangible cultural heritage impermissibly usurps jurisdiction over cultural objects and cultural locations from the Cultural Heritage Protection Act. This is more than a slight duplication, since Cultural Heritage Protection was concerned only with protecting such objects and locations, and the concept of "intangible cultural heritage" - as defined by the proposal - clearly includes things already protected by other international law.

I am also quite skeptical about the usefulness of the "REQUIRES" clause:

REQUIRES member states to:
a. adopt a general policy towards the protection of intangible cultural heritage
b. criminalise any deliberate action which has the consequence of destroying an intangible cultural heritage by any means.

It seems impossible to destroy intangible cultural heritage just as it is impossible to destroy poetry or love. Concepts cannot be destroyed, and the physical manifestation of those concepts in items and sites is already protected. There is simply no possible "deliberate action" that nations could criminalize to comply with this mandate. Unless the author is afraid of hypnotists making people forget their heritage or loonies clubbing folks in the back of the head in the hopes that they will develop cultural amnesia.

I know that the author once said that a "prohibition of a traditional form of weaving... Or maybe the intentional destruction of looms used for that weaving" would amount to a "deliberate action which has the consequence of destroying an intangible cultural heritage." The second is clearly the destruction of a cultural artifact and is already illegal under Cultural Heritage Protection. The first is a legislative act which cannot be a crime. The idea that nations should criminalize the actions of their own lawmakers is absolutely unacceptable.

I'm afraid I simply cannot understand what, if anything, this proposal does. I'd also like to know why this was not struck as largely duplicative (in fact, entirely duplicative) of Cultural Heritage Protection. I'm sure someone will say this goes beyond CHP to conver "intangible" things, but it also attempts to completely swallow up the jurisdiction of CHP over cultural artifacts and sites.

I urge nations to vote AGAINST this legislation and I ask the Secretariat for one more hard look at whether this Act completely duplicates all the functions of Cultural Heritage Protection.

[Sanctaria]

I urge nations to vote AGAINST this legislation and I ask the Secretariat for one more hard look at whether this Act completely duplicates all the functions of Cultural Heritage Protections.

It doesn't matter if it does or not, once it's at vote, it's legal.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I urge nations to vote AGAINST this legislation and I ask the Secretariat for one more hard look at whether this Act completely duplicates all the functions of Cultural Heritage Protections.

It doesn't matter if it does or not, once it's at vote, it's legal.

I thought once it's enacted its legal...

[Sanctaria]

It doesn't matter if it does or not, once it's at vote, it's legal.

I thought once it's enacted its legal...

Nope. Once a resolution is at vote.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I thought once it's enacted its legal...

Nope. Once a resolution is at vote.

Gah... should have spoken up sooner.

Well, live and learn.

[The Palentine]

Nope. Once a resolution is at vote.

Gah... should have spoken up sooner.

Well, live and learn.

I'd suggest an instarepeal, old bean. Unfortunately I can't muster up enough viniger, bile, and vitriol to even attempt to rid the Festering Snakepit of this silly thing should it pass.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[The Palentine]

Gah... should have spoken up sooner.

Well, live and learn.

I'd suggest an instarepeal, old bean. Unfortunately I can't muster up enough viniger, bile, and vitriol to even attempt to rid the Festering Snakepit of this silly thing should it pass.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

To Sen. Sulla, we suggest that he might benefit from this resolution, particularly if his particular brand of entertainments becomes a widely practiced cultural phenomenon.

I don't think so old bean. most of my hobbies are unwholesome, unheathy, and expensive...usually all three(espcially when I must see to the services of rather fetching catgirls of loose but negotiable morals and virtue.)

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[People United Together]

OOC: Does the spelling used by British English always arouse such strong feelings in you?

...IC: In addition to this, the proposed resolution only orders member states to "provide information...", it does not order physical excavations, though of course it does not preclude them.

"CALLS UPON" is clearly and deliberately asking for a voluntary action; there is no element of compulsion, we simply wish the General Assembly to express its view that such education should be provided.

We hope the ambassador's fears have been assuaged somewhat.

OOC: Guess which country I'm from!

IC: Concerning assuaged fears, yes. Excavations and optional classes are expenses the people united together should not have to pay.

Artifact and artefact are both valid spellings. You don't have to force people into classes but you have to make the option available if it's wanted.

I sense conflicting meanings of "calls upon"...

No, it doesn't. It's only for sites of cultural significance and you can demand that the group in question prove its significance.

My argument pertains to the rebuttal of progress by preservation. What if a beach is going to be developed, but people sign a petition saying it's a "intangible custom" to go there and build sandcastles?

You realise that you can preserve a significant site without blocking it off, right? Or does PUT forbid its citizens from entering government buildings and other cultural sites?

Even when visiting the moon(s), man leaves his trash, ie: lunar modules and flags. Preserved sites must be that, preserved. Furthermore, certain religious practices may pertain to certain mountains. Train tracks may be needed to pass through a mountain range, and that involves dynamite and bridges, even in the least invasive of methods. As mentioned, PUT has no cars and therefore needs trains and a network of tracks.

This proposal has little to no power or restrictions, so we disagree fundamentally with this claim.

You are right, we disagree!

[Knootoss]

An instant repeal for this resolution would seem in order, in the likely event that the fluffies will stampede all over themselves to approve this. This resolution protects utterly barbaric rituals and practices and forces humanity to maintain skills that have long since been surpassed.

[Ile Royale]

I respectfully point the ambassador to this clause: "AFFIRMS the right of member states to restrict cultural practices that may cause harm to national populations, provided that academic information regarding these practices is recorded and submitted to the ICHC." There is no protection for "utterly barbaric" rituals.

Nor, sir, does it petrify cultural innovation. The clause which requires member states to adopt a general policy for the protection of ICH in no way stops the process of moving forward, if these ICHs genuinely do have a negative impact on national populations they may be prohibited, provided, of course that academic information is preserved.

[Knootoss]

"Harm to national populations" is extremely restrictive. Rituals can be utterly barbaric and degrading without harming "national populations".

[The Eternal Kawaii]

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

While we suspect this proposal of being too "fluffy" for most nations here, if it keeps folks in the WA Strangers' Bar from throwing peanut shells at the Shrine of the Manifestation, we're for it.

[Kareliana]

This means that even those cultural deeds that are less good like childens genital mutilation should be protected. This law cannot go beyond human rights.

[Ile Royale]

"Harm to national populations" is extremely restrictive. Rituals can be utterly barbaric and degrading without harming "national populations".

We would submit that "national populations" is actually a deliberately vague phrase that can take on a number of meanings. Without wanting to get into "my dictionary is bigger than yours" arguments, the definition of "population" which we find most pertinent is "a group of persons [...] considered statistically". We believe that this, combined with the relatively elastic definition of "harm" would probably allow your nation to prohibit actions which are, in your eyes utterly barbaric and degrading.

We direct the same point towards the ambassador from Kareliana.

We also wish to extend our thanks to the ambassador of Eternal Kawaii for their gracious support.

[Ossitania]

I sense conflicting meanings of "calls upon"...

CALLS UPON is not the important part. The important bit is "provide for". You have to facilitate the education, but you don't have to force it where it's not wanted by the population.

My argument pertains to the rebuttal of progress by preservation. What if a beach is going to be developed, but people sign a petition saying it's a "intangible custom" to go there and build sandcastles?

If it is a significant custom of a cultural or religious group, then, frankly, I don't think you should be allowed to develop that beach. Progress is not inherently good, you know. Moving forward is a means, not an end and progress which robs people of their culture and heritage should be restricted and approached cautiously. I think people are reading too much into the resolution - it says to adopt a general policy towards the protection of cultural sites, it doesn't completely preclude their development as long as the general policy is in the interests of their protection. It only criminalises the deliberate destruction of these sites, it doesn't prohibit their development as long as the development is carried out in a manner which preserves the site as much as possible.

Even when visiting the moon(s), man leaves his trash, ie: lunar modules and flags. Preserved sites must be that, preserved. Furthermore, certain religious practices may pertain to certain mountains. Train tracks may be needed to pass through a mountain range, and that involves dynamite and bridges, even in the least invasive of methods. As mentioned, PUT has no cars and therefore needs trains and a network of tracks.

Are we the only delegation that approaches legislation with a principle of reason? The protection and preservation of significant cultural sites is required as a general policy, it doesn't call for you to shrinkwrap these sites and keep them safe in perpetuity - nothing is permanent. Nothing in the resolution prohibits the development of these sites as long as the development is carried out which as much reverence and respect as possible.

"Harm to national populations" is extremely restrictive. Rituals can be utterly barbaric and degrading without harming "national populations".

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.

[Christian Democrats]

I have voted against this proposal for reasons similar to those aforementioned by other ambassadors.

[Kushtor]

An instant repeal for this resolution would seem in order, in the likely event that the fluffies will stampede all over themselves to approve this. This resolution protects utterly barbaric rituals and practices and forces humanity to maintain skills that have long since been surpassed.

For such reasons as barbaric rituals including, but not limited to, living sacrifice, genital mutilation, forced body modification, and other abusive or neglectful behavior toward conscious life, Kuxtor is voting AGAINST this resolution.
However, we would be in support of a resolution aimed at the preservation of traditional artforms (music, theatre, painting, etc.).

[Datavia]

I praise the good intentions of this proposal, but it must be somewhat more explicit on the kind of Intangible Cultural items it protects, lest it becomes a loophole for inhumane practices. I say: protecting things like pilgrimages, ceremonies, music, art forms... and explicitly forbidding customs that infringe Human Rights. So, Datavia votes AGAINST.

It seems impossible to destroy intangible cultural heritage just as it is impossible to destroy poetry or love. Concepts cannot be destroyed, and the physical manifestation of those concepts in items and sites is already protected. There is simply no possible "deliberate action" that nations could criminalize to comply with this mandate. Unless the author is afraid of hypnotists making people forget their heritage or loonies clubbing folks in the back of the head in the hopes that they will develop cultural amnesia.

Really? Use your imagination. There had been banned languages, for instance. Or unusual, but perfectly tolerable customs, outlawed in a country simply because they didn't comply with the prevailing culture there. Such cultural instances can be suppressed to the point of their extintion.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Really? Use your imagination. There had been banned languages, for instance. Or unusual, but perfectly tolerable customs, outlawed in a country simply because they didn't comply with the prevailing culture there. Such cultural instances can be suppressed to the point of their extintion.

The proposal requires nations to "criminalise any deliberate action which has the consequence of destroying an intangible cultural heritage by any means." How the hell is anyone - aside from a legislator or someone with the power to make law - going to commit that crime? Banning this or that conduct is a lawmaking act - and the WA should not be requiring nations to criminalize lawmaking activities. What's more, the Act presumably already told nations to avoid passing bans on language and the like by mandating that they "adopt a general policy towards the protection of intangible cultural heritage."

And really, the wording is just plain bad. Lets assume you're right and that with a healthy imagination it means something to criminalize the destruction of an intangible cultural heritage. How would you ever know if a certain "deliberate action" would have that "consequence"? You couldn't. The best you could do is criminalize something after the fact, once you actually knew that a certain action actually destroyed an intangible cultural heritage (which, btw would be an ex post facto law).

That's if you could ever come up with evidence that an intangible cultural heritage had been "destroyed" in the first place - something I highly doubt. "Uh, yes, I remember when people spoke that culturally significant language. It's been destroyed, on account of no one speaks it anymore thanks to Bert and that ban he enacted." Rubbish.

No amount of imagination is capable of salvaging that provision. It really has no meaning, and even if it did mean something that meaning would make no practical sense.

Best Regards.

[Auralia]

REQUIRES member states to...criminalise any deliberate action which has the consequence of destroying an intangible cultural heritage by any means.

The implications of this clause worry me greatly, given the rather broad definition of "intangible cultural heritage". Opposed.