[PASSED] Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection

[Mousebumples]

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

Nope. Once a resolution is at vote.

I'm not so sure, Sanct. It's quite possible that it's still illegal - after all, passed resolutions are only legal by the very nature of their passage - but, regardless, mods/admins don't/won't pull an At Vote resolution as a result of an illegality.

Probably splitting hairs, but that's my understanding.

Anyhow, as I also view this to be completely pointless, I have registered my vote AGAINST.

[Sanctaria]

Nope. Once a resolution is at vote.

I'm not so sure, Sanct. It's quite possible that it's still illegal - after all, passed resolutions are only legal by the very nature of their passage - but, regardless, mods/admins don't/won't pull an At Vote resolution as a result of an illegality.

Probably splitting hairs, but that's my understanding.

The General Assembly doesn't vote on or pass illegal proposals. It's legal once it's at vote.

[Mousebumples]

I'm not so sure, Sanct. It's quite possible that it's still illegal - after all, passed resolutions are only legal by the very nature of their passage - but, regardless, mods/admins don't/won't pull an At Vote resolution as a result of an illegality.

Probably splitting hairs, but that's my understanding.

The General Assembly doesn't vote on or pass illegal proposals. It's legal once it's at vote.

I seem to recall a mod (Ard, maybe?) acknowledging in the past that particular repeal At Vote was/is illegal and should have been pulled as a result. I don't know if she (or he, perhaps, if it wasn't Ard) made that distinction.

... However, this is probably enough of a threadjack, so ... moving on. *whistles innocently*

[Sanctaria]

The General Assembly doesn't vote on or pass illegal proposals. It's legal once it's at vote.

I seem to recall a mod (Ard, maybe?) acknowledging in the past that particular repeal At Vote was/is illegal and should have been pulled as a result. I don't know if she (or he, perhaps, if it wasn't Ard) made that distinction.

... However, this is probably enough of a threadjack, so ... moving on. *whistles innocently*

Should have been pulled before it got to vote.

[Alcatrazin]

This is an outrage! This proposal has to be the dumbest and most usless I have ever seen. This should be an issue that each nation must choose to support or fight against it. It should not be manditory. The creater has no idea what a mess they will get the many nations with weak economies into. He is tring to bankrupt us all! If it is passed, that is what will happen to many nations, in my region, too!

[Frisbeeteria]

mods/admins don't/won't pull an At Vote resolution

The word you're looking for there is "can't". Mods don't have the power, and admins know it breaks things.

[Tibberiria]

We're satisfied that this leaves us enough room to police laws in our own nation. We vote for.

[Marsano Nova]

While Marsano Nova itself agrees with this proposal, as the regional delegate of Hoenn I decided to vote against it. Many of the nations of my region are focused entirely on their economy, military, or other non-cultural pastimes. While Marsano Nova would never stoop to the banning of a language or the like, other citizens of my region, such as those dastardly Galeotians, would prefer to have the authority to mandate a single, efficient language, or a more useful loom, in the case of an early example discussed in this thread. Moreover, the gigantic and populous, but poor state of The Tree Gods simply cannot afford to maintain local language learning with the paltry sum they have to spend on education. A $4 billion USD education budget for 2 billion children is simply not enough to buy so many textbooks!

[Ossitania]

While Marsano Nova itself agrees with this proposal, as the regional delegate of Hoenn I decided to vote against it. Many of the nations of my region are focused entirely on their economy, military, or other non-cultural pastimes. While Marsano Nova would never stoop to the banning of a language or the like, other citizens of my region, such as those dastardly Galeotians, would prefer to have the authority to mandate a single, efficient language, or a more useful loom, in the case of an early example discussed in this thread. Moreover, the gigantic and populous, but poor state of The Tree Gods simply cannot afford to maintain local language learning with the paltry sum they have to spend on education. A $4 billion USD education budget for 2 billion children is simply not enough to buy so many textbooks!

Maybe they'd have more money for textbooks if they joined the WA, where they could benefit from the provisions of GA #80. That would also probably make a difference as to whether this law would apply to them or to "those dastardly Galeotias", since they're not in the WA either.

[Free South Califas]

It is regrettable that the ambassador's constituents are so intimidated by legislation that does not at all affect them. Perhaps, indeed, they would benefit from a boost in education spending.

[Etriel]

*cough*languages*cough cough*

[Winner12345]

I`m calling the vote.This bill will Pass by 25% or 50%

[Bears Armed]

"Both I and the government that I represent here are somewhat concerned that the following 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

"could actually be exploited in contradiction of this resolution's intended purpose: After all there are unfortunately some governments represented within this organisation that are so prejudiced against religion in general that they argue it constitutes a source of psychological harm to their peoples, and it seems to urrs that they could use this clause to claim the sanction of WA law for suppressing the practice of religion -- even in the many cases where it would not be a source of harm by most other people's reckoning -- within their jurisdictions."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Thorax232]

This act requires a government to spend the time and money of it's citizens and their tax dollars protecting culture when the protection of culture should be left to that culture. Yes, it should be criminal to harm or destroy personal beliefs, philosophy and property. The Republic Of Thorax232 does provide such securities and is willing to share information on various cultures with permission of it's member. But it will NOT charges it's people to forcibly take over their responsibility.

[United Federation of Ray]

There is a crippling ambiguity in this bill that renders it possibly antithetical to any kind of civilization whatsoever. Consider:

"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 that community, group or society;
REQUIRES member states to... criminalise any deliberate action which has the consequence of destroying an intangible cultural heritage by any means."

It's criminal to do any action that destroys a skill? Does that mean that it's illegal to replace bicycles with segways, since that would "destroy" the skill of bicycling, or does it just mean that it's illegal to forget how to ride a bike? It's illegal to deliberately destroy a religion... does that mean that it's now illegal for religions to evangelize, which has the practical effect of destroying someone else's religion?

And the objects associated therewith??? If this bill passes, it will become illegal for any member nation to ever tear down a church, throw away a Bible, or throw away a hammer for that matter (since it is an "object associated" with many "skills" and "practices"). No member state will permit their citizens to destroy the cultural objects associated with, say, the "practice" or "skill" of, say, serial murder? Really?

This bill shows an incredible lack of foresight on the part both of its author and its supporters.

[Damanucus]

There is a crippling ambiguity in this bill that renders it possibly antithetical to any kind of civilization whatsoever. Consider:

"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 that community, group or society;
REQUIRES member states to... criminalise any deliberate action which has the consequence of destroying an intangible cultural heritage by any means."

It's criminal to do any action that destroys a skill? Does that mean that it's illegal to replace bicycles with segways, since that would "destroy" the skill of bicycling, or does it just mean that it's illegal to forget how to ride a bike? It's illegal to deliberately destroy a religion... does that mean that it's now illegal for religions to evangelize, which has the practical effect of destroying someone else's religion?

And the objects associated therewith??? If this bill passes, it will become illegal for any member nation to ever tear down a church, throw away a Bible, or throw away a hammer for that matter (since it is an "object associated" with many "skills" and "practices"). No member state will permit their citizens to destroy the cultural objects associated with, say, the "practice" or "skill" of, say, serial murder? Really?

This bill shows an incredible lack of foresight on the part both of its author and its supporters.

This begins to sound more like extreme pedanty or exaggeration of the resolution's intentions than a true concern.

1. The way you destroy a culture's skill, trade or custom is to completely disallow it from being practice, and remove any and every record of its practice.
2. Your concept of culture in regards to this resolution extends beyond the scope defined by this resolution. If you seek to have every culture protected under this resolution, then by all means go for your life, but that is not what this resolution is about. Indigenous culture, for example, is the most perfect candidate for this, and this resolution protects any customs practiced by them from being subject to laws purely designed to prevent their practice (as long as they do not go against any other laws, such as theft, murder, arson, and jaywalking). Think along the lines of Cultural Heritage Protection.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Retired WerePenguins]

mods/admins don't/won't pull an At Vote resolution

The word you're looking for there is "can't". Mods don't have the power, and admins know it breaks things.

If you really want the power, I'm pretty sure you could whip up a Mod Nation/Region with a artificially large delegate count (coded to auto reset at the end of the delegate calculation cycle) that would give the nation say 50,000 votes, effectively shutting down any election right in its tracks. Seeing "Finger of Death" from the Region "Mod Squad" would indicate that this was censored by the mods post entry on the to vote phase.

Back when no one wanted to change a dot of code, I could understand the reluctance. But now there is talk of monir modifictions here and there. Creative solutions are always possible if you really want them.

We know you really don't want them. It's a lot of pressure to put on a Mod and one that makes a Mod very unpopular either way.

[Camwood]

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?

[Opaloka]

Being a cultured people the W&SG of the Council-Republic welcomes this.

[Wyvven]

The rule against damaging existing culture would be impossible to implement. Wouldn't any development of the culture 'damage' the old form? I'm not making my point very clear... so here's an example:

A nation has an heritage of putting up a Christmas tree on the 11th of December. As trees are messy and flammable, people start to use imitation trees. Likewise some people prefer to only put up their trees nearer to Christmas, such as the 20th, whilst others get in the Christmas spirit earlier. Now both of these alterations to tradition would be outlawed under the resolution as they deviate from what has been done for centuries. However in truth these alterations only STRENGTHEN the tradition as they make it easier for people to carry out.

It may be an obscure example, but you catch my drift.

Also, isn't culture evolutionary anyway? Don't some innovations become tradition themselves, such as, again, Christmas trees? Culture should be left to develop naturally, or at least nations should be able to choose their own policies.

Yours, the Wyvven Delegate.

[Rejaina]

The rule against damaging existing culture would be impossible to implement. Wouldn't any development of the culture 'damage' the old form? I'm not making my point very clear... so here's an example:

A nation has an heritage of putting up a Christmas tree on the 11th of December. As trees are messy and flammable, people start to use imitation trees. Likewise some people prefer to only put up their trees nearer to Christmas, such as the 20th, whilst others get in the Christmas spirit earlier. Now both of these alterations to tradition would be outlawed under the resolution as they deviate from what has been done for centuries. However in truth these alterations only STRENGTHEN the tradition as they make it easier for people to carry out.

It may be an obscure example, but you catch my drift.

Also, isn't culture evolutionary anyway? Don't some innovations become tradition themselves, such as, again, Christmas trees? Culture should be left to develop naturally, or at least nations should be able to choose their own policies.

Yours, the Wyvven Delegate.

I think as long as the people in the culture change it, then it's legal. If this resolution even restricts changes in culture.

[Wyvven]

Agreed actually, I just think legislating that culture cannot be changed by law leaves lots of room for abuse of power. What's to say a government could not deem a culture they dislike as being damaging to tradition? We didn't have TV fifty years ago, but if back then they said that was 'damaging' the tradition of listening to the radio and made that illegal the whole TV culture wouldn't exist. Which may not necessarily be a bad thing, but for the sake of argument...

[Kushtor]

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?

It would seem so, or at least the proposer had not considered this possibility. Unfortunately, Kuxtor only has one vote to cast.

[Mendevia]

Where does the World Assembly get all the money to create these commissions? This piece of legislation is not needed and so I vote no.

[Cloquet]

The definition is so broad that things like human sacrifice could be counted as "cultural heritage."

Anyway, I'm all for preserving important cultural practices, but I don't need to be told that I absolutely must do so. That's ridiculous.