[PASSED] Repeal "Intangible Cultural Heritage"

[Sciongrad]

The General Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES the importance of protecting and preserving cultural customs and practices;

BELIEVES that specific forms of intangible cultural heritage, while not strictly harmful to national populations, should be reasonably restricted in the interests of public morality, the rights of others, economics and development, national security, or other compelling reasons;

HIGHLIGHTS that the resolution in questions prevents member nations from compelling their citizens to obey pre-existing laws if such laws contradict any form of culture, regardless of the more important concerns outlined above, so long as such "culture" doesn't cause damage to society as a whole;

OUTRAGED that such a resolution may prevent further international legislation on topics such as animal cruelty and abuse, or others practices that may be considered barbaric, but are included in the definition of "intangible culture;"

CONCLUDING that such a resolution, while meritorious in its intent, causes much more harm than good;

Hereby,

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #207 "Intangible Cultural Heritage.

OOC: Would I support a resolution that protected cultural customs such as language, religion, and the ilk? Probably. Would I support a resolution that forbids nation from prohibiting public sex, necrophilia, or nudity, animal torture/sacrifice, or other barbaric practices? Nope. Pray criticize!

[The Solarian Isles]

How in the Sun's name did this resolution get approved in the first place? Aside from the absurdity factor, this isn't even an international issue. I think a repeal is definitely in order here.

His Radiance Cleric Joran Kell
Solarian Delegate to the WA

[Discoveria]

"We're not convinced. The original resolution does allow for intangible cultural heritage (call it ICH for short) to be restricted if it "may cause harm to national populations".

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.

This appears to be a sensible consequence of adopting a libertarian approach to ICH. Unless it causes harm, the state should not interfere.

HIGHLIGHTS that the resolution in questions prevents member nations from compelling their citizens to obey pre-existing laws if such laws contradict any form of culture, regardless of how obscure or barbaric, so long as such "culture" doesn't cause damage to society as a whole;

If your nation needs to criminalise some form of ICH that is considered barbaric, why can't you allow those against said ICH to make an argument that it causes harm? If it truly is barbaric, then the argument that it causes harm should be strong enough for you to restrict the ICH. I see no reason to restrict an ICH solely because it is obscure.

There might be a pedantic argument for saying that restriction is not the same as prohibition, and therefore you can't actually ban a harmful ICH outright, but I wouldn't be persuaded by this (while others might). You could highlight the clause below."

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

OOC: Would I support a resolution that protected cultural customs such as language, religion, and the ilk? Probably. Would I support a resolution that forbids nation from prohibiting public sex, necrophilia, or nudity, animal torture/sacrifice, or other barbaric practices? Nope.

OOC: I would consider animal torture/sacrifice, nudity and public sex to be vulnerable to a 'moral decency' argument - societal values are weakened and society is harmed when such practices go unrestricted. Necrophilia is also vulnerable, as well as being potentially a public health concern (!).

---

"As for whether intangible cultural heritage is an international issue, we do think there is some benefit in protecting cultural heritage on an international level. Many nations would otherwise allow their cultural heritage to perish, affecting future generations from all nations."

[The Solarian Isles]

"As for whether intangible cultural heritage is an international issue, we do think there is some benefit in protecting cultural heritage on an international level. Many nations would otherwise allow their cultural heritage to perish, affecting future generations from all nations."

If a nation has so little pride in itself that it cannot preserve it's own rich cultural heritage, I see no reason why we should do it for them.

[Sciongrad]

"We're not convinced. The original resolution does allow for intangible cultural heritage (call it ICH for short) to be restricted if it "may cause harm to national populations".

The repeal focuses primarily on practices that don't effect the "national population," ambassador. Public nudity and animal torture don't cause any harm to the national populations.

This appears to be a sensible consequence of adopting a libertarian approach to ICH. Unless it causes harm, the state should not interfere.

Ambassador, Sciongrad is a socially progressive nation - we do understand libertarianism. But that doesn't mean we believe that our citizens should be able to have sex on the sidewalk, or skin their pet dog.

If your nation needs to criminalise some form of ICH that is considered barbaric, why can't you allow those against said ICH to make an argument that it causes harm? If it truly is barbaric, then the argument that it causes harm should be strong enough for you to restrict the ICH. I see no reason to restrict an ICH solely because it is obscure.

Ambassador, barbarism is not confined strictly to practices that effect sapient beings. This resolution not only prevents domestic legislation banning animal abuse, but it prevent World Assembly legislation on the topic. Period. Unless this resolution is repealed, then it seems as if animal cruelty is a cultural "sacred cow."

OOC: I would consider animal torture/sacrifice, nudity and public sex to be vulnerable to a 'moral decency' argument - societal values are weakened and society is harmed when such practices go unrestricted. Necrophilia is also vulnerable, as well as being potentially a public health concern (!).

OOC: Sorry, but I disagree strongly. Resolutions aren't made of spandex - you shouldn't have to stretch a clause's literal meaning so far out that it has to be argued over whether or not that's a valid excercise of the clause. Excessively libertarian beliefs don't cause harm to the national population - that doesn't mean nation's should be forced to reverse laws on virtually all social issues that haven't been legislated on by the World Assembly.

[Discoveria]

OOC: I'm not sure if we're ideologically opposed or just interpreting the resolution in wildly different ways. Maybe both.

Thinking about this some more, it seems to me that this boils down to 'there are more legitimate reasons to deny protection to cultural practices, other than just harm to national populations'. I would support a repeal along these lines. Instead of nations having to rely on a wide definition of harm, a repeal would allow restriction of practices that create problems, e.g. economic, social, moral. The repeal would then look something like:

ACKNOWLEDGING that specific forms of intangible cultural heritage, while not strictly harmful to national populations, should reasonably be restricted in the interests of public morality, the rights of others, economics and development, national security, or other compelling reasons, (anything else?)

REALISING that GAR#207 protects intangible cultural heritage from being destroyed regardless of the more important concerns outlined above,

CONCLUDING that GAR#207, while meritorious in its intentions, causes much more harm than good...

Your first draft already implies the above, but I hope my suggestion makes the reasons for repeal much clearer.

Here's a now-obsolete response to your post anyway, relying on a wide definition of harm.

• I would consider public nudity and animal torture to cause harm to national populations, following the line of argument I laid out in my first post. I think this can justify banning these practices.
• Please provide an example of a barbaric cultural practice that somehow does not affect sapient beings. I can't think of any. If it's harmful, it's probably also barbaric.
• If the WA criminalises animal cruelty in a future resolution, it will not be possible to claim that a cultural practice involving animal cruelty is protected under GAR#207. Such practices will have been prohibited by the new resolution and should no longer be a problem.
  I don't think GAR#207 prevents future WA legislation on such issues. To clarify with an example: suppose that bullfighting is currently part of a certain nation's intangible cultural heritage. Then the WA requires member states to outlaw bullfighting. It can't be practised any more. So it ceases being part of that nation's heritage.
• Resolutions are always somewhat open to interpretation since language can't be precisely defined. I think it is reasonable to allow a wide interpretation of what counts as harm to national populations under GAR#207. I guess you'll have more support from nations with a narrower definition of harm.
• I'm struggling to understand what you mean in "Excessively libertarian beliefs don't cause harm to the national population - that doesn't mean nation's should be forced to reverse laws on virtually all social issues that haven't been legislated on by the World Assembly." You think that public nudity is "excessively libertarian", but not harmful, so you don't feel you can ban it in your nation. I would say that, by virtue of the fact that you think it's excessively libertarian, you do in fact think it causes harm to your society, enough to want it banned. You don't therefore need to repeal GAR#207 to do that. It would just be convenient to repeal it so that nobody can try to make public nudity a protected cultural practice. More generally, your laws on social issues will reflect the fact that you think some things are harmful and some aren't; I don't see that GAR#207 changes anything.

[Mousebumples]

Were those ABBA lyrics I just read in the proposal text?

Full support, Ambassador. (Unsurprising, I know.) And, of course, if you're keeping up your success repealing ways, you can expect a cheese basket to be sent to your delegation in thanks. You just keep crossing resolutions off of the To Repeal list that we keep in our delegation's study.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Ossitania]

I've outlined before how the phrase "national populations" doesn't just mean "the populations of nations", but also "the populations within nations" i.e. there being multiple populations within nations, as you can divide up the population of a nation into different populations based on different criteria, for example, in Ossitania, our "national populations" include populations of ethnic Ossitanians, ethnic Siroci and Solaci, atheists, Ossitanian Komodoists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, paraplegics, quadriplegics, adults, children, etc. It also doesn't refer specifically to sapients or sentients, so it also refers to populations of animals or plants within nations. That's exactly the reason that I suggested that specific wording, because the author's original wording didn't cover some of things that are being argued here and I pointed out that it would be more sensible to use the phrase "national populations", which could be interpreted broadly, making sure that if a practice was harmful, it could be restricted. I feared his original wording left the possibility that some just cause for prohibition would be precluded from the resolution and would end up being grounds for a repeal. The contentious wording is in fact the very thing preventing the resolution from doing the bad bad thing it's being accused of doing. Surely if your government can't argue that a practice represents some harm to a categorical group of people within your nation, then it shouldn't be able to prohibit that practice.

(Here is where I suggested the wording and here is where I defended it to the author, in case anyone wants to accuse me of a loophole argument. As you can see, I was, in fact, directly inspired by NEF, because that's how I had always interpreted NEF, because that's what is implied, advertently or inadvertently, by the specific turn of phrase "national populations".)

[Sciongrad]

Thinking about this some more, it seems to me that this boils down to 'there are more legitimate reasons to deny protection to cultural practices, other than just harm to national populations'. I would support a repeal along these lines. Instead of nations having to rely on a wide definition of harm, a repeal would allow restriction of practices that create problems, e.g. economic, social, moral. The repeal would then look something like:

ACKNOWLEDGING that specific forms of intangible cultural heritage, while not strictly harmful to national populations, should reasonably be restricted in the interests of public morality, the rights of others, economics and development, national security, or other compelling reasons,

REALISING that GAR#207 protects intangible cultural heritage from being destroyed regardless of the more important concerns outlined above,

CONCLUDING that GAR#207, while meritorious in its intentions, causes much more harm than good...

Your first draft already implies the above, but I hope my suggestion makes the reasons for repeal much clearer.

That's basically what I was trying to get at. I love your edits, though - much clearer than the current text - and I'll add that to the repeal. I'm glad we reached an agreement.

I've outlined before how the phrase "national populations" doesn't just mean "the populations of nations", but also "the populations within nations" i.e. there being multiple populations within nations, as you can divide up the population of a nation into different populations based on different criteria, for example, in Ossitania, our "national populations" include populations of ethnic Ossitanians, ethnic Siroci and Solaci, atheists, Ossitanian Komodoists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, paraplegics, quadriplegics, adults, children, etc. It also doesn't refer specifically to sapients or sentients, so it also refers to populations of animals or plants within nations. That's exactly the reason that I suggested that specific wording, because the author's original wording didn't cover some of things that are being argued here and I pointed out that it would be more sensible to use the phrase "national populations", which could be interpreted broadly, making sure that if a practice was harmful, it could be restricted. I feared his original wording left the possibility that some just cause for prohibition would be precluded from the resolution and would end up being grounds for a repeal. The contentious wording is in fact the very thing preventing the resolution from doing the bad bad thing it's being accused of doing. Surely if your government can't argue that a practice represents some harm to a categorical group of people within your nation, then it shouldn't be able to prohibit that practice.

Personally speaking, I think that's a crazy interpretation. Semantically speaking, the term was probably used to clarify that individual sub-populations such as religious and ethnic denominations were included individually, however, to say that it can be logically construed that the clause is referring to something like the tree population is absurd. If non-sapient beings are included, where does the line stop? Wouldn't it be possible, logically, to include something like grass, or microbial beings under the purview of the clause? Interpreting this clause entails either believing that all living organisms are included, or only sapient ones. There can't be any grey area. And frankly, the moon logic involved in reaching the former conclusion is enough for me to dismiss it as being a legitimate interpretation.

Were those ABBA lyrics I just read in the proposal text?

Full support, Ambassador. (Unsurprising, I know.) And, of course, if you're keeping up your success repealing ways, you can expect a cheese basket to be sent to your delegation in thanks. You just keep crossing resolutions off of the To Repeal list that we keep in our delegation's study.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

You bet they were!

Anyways, we thank you for your support, and can assure you that we have a few more resolutions in our repealing cross-hairs. We definitely look forward to the cheese, as well!

[Ossitania]

I've outlined before how the phrase "national populations" doesn't just mean "the populations of nations", but also "the populations within nations" i.e. there being multiple populations within nations, as you can divide up the population of a nation into different populations based on different criteria, for example, in Ossitania, our "national populations" include populations of ethnic Ossitanians, ethnic Siroci and Solaci, atheists, Ossitanian Komodoists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, paraplegics, quadriplegics, adults, children, etc. It also doesn't refer specifically to sapients or sentients, so it also refers to populations of animals or plants within nations. That's exactly the reason that I suggested that specific wording, because the author's original wording didn't cover some of things that are being argued here and I pointed out that it would be more sensible to use the phrase "national populations", which could be interpreted broadly, making sure that if a practice was harmful, it could be restricted. I feared his original wording left the possibility that some just cause for prohibition would be precluded from the resolution and would end up being grounds for a repeal. The contentious wording is in fact the very thing preventing the resolution from doing the bad bad thing it's being accused of doing. Surely if your government can't argue that a practice represents some harm to a categorical group of people within your nation, then it shouldn't be able to prohibit that practice.

Personally speaking, I think that's a crazy interpretation. Semantically speaking, the term was probably used to clarify that individual sub-populations such as religious and ethnic denominations were included individually, however, to say that it can be logically construed that the clause is referring to something like the tree population is absurd. If non-sapient beings are included, where does the line stop? Wouldn't it be possible, logically, to include something like grass, or microbial beings under the purview of the clause? Interpreting this clause entails either believing that all living organisms are included, or only sapient ones. There can't be any grey area. And frankly, the moon logic involved in reaching the former conclusion is enough for me to dismiss it as being a legitimate interpretation.

Fine then, say it only includes sapients. Are you really trying to say that harming trees or harming animals i.e. the freaking environment doesn't cause harm to sapient populations? Also, the term was probably not included to clarify that individual sub-populations such as religious and ethnic denominations were included individually and I know that because, as I pointed out, I am the one who suggested the phrase, using precisely the logic I just outlined and that was the logic on which it was included. And you can call it crazy or moon logic but just because it's counter-intuitive doesn't mean it's wrong. If Uni can successfully argue that purchasing unethically-produced goods is a harm to national populations, I can argue that harming the environment is also such a harm.

[Sciongrad]

Personally speaking, I think that's a crazy interpretation. Semantically speaking, the term was probably used to clarify that individual sub-populations such as religious and ethnic denominations were included individually, however, to say that it can be logically construed that the clause is referring to something like the tree population is absurd. If non-sapient beings are included, where does the line stop? Wouldn't it be possible, logically, to include something like grass, or microbial beings under the purview of the clause? Interpreting this clause entails either believing that all living organisms are included, or only sapient ones. There can't be any grey area. And frankly, the moon logic involved in reaching the former conclusion is enough for me to dismiss it as being a legitimate interpretation.

Fine then, say it only includes sapients. Are you really trying to say that harming trees or harming animals i.e. the freaking environment doesn't cause harm to sapient populations? Also, the term was probably not included to clarify that individual sub-populations such as religious and ethnic denominations were included individually and I know that because, as I pointed out, I am the one who suggested the phrase, using precisely the logic I just outlined and that was the logic on which it was included. And you can call it crazy or moon logic but just because it's counter-intuitive doesn't mean it's wrong. If Uni can successfully argue that purchasing unethically-produced goods is a harm to national populations, I can argue that harming the environment is also such a harm.

Minority religious groups can sacrifice domestic dogs with impacting the environment at all. Does this harm sapient populations? Not at all. Through a logical interpretation of the "national populations," animal sacrifice and torture, in most cases, can't be banned. Teaching a main language in school might contribute to the phasing out of other obscure languages, and thus isn't allowed. And then there are things that don't cause harm to any population, regardless of your interpretation of that clause, but are preserved solely because of this resolution, like public sex or nudity. I'm not against the idea - I'm against the execution.

[ForTheHorde]

The original resolution has more holes in it than Ozzy Osbournes mind with a rediculous amount of loopholes it feels rushed and poorly executed. It needs to be thrown out and we need to try again the example of ritualistic sacrifice was brought up as was in my mind the greater issue of crippling the economy of nations via a large number of holidays. In my nation each day is a day in a trade lords honor eg Oct 22 is trade lord baalanan's day. If these were taken off as is permitted (up to 5 days may be taken in honor of a trade family) all the minute sects could combine and never have to attend work.

IRL the example could be brought to 85+%,of all days in Catholicism are a day for a specific saint (saint Patrick is just the most popular)

[Ossitania]

Fine then, say it only includes sapients. Are you really trying to say that harming trees or harming animals i.e. the freaking environment doesn't cause harm to sapient populations? Also, the term was probably not included to clarify that individual sub-populations such as religious and ethnic denominations were included individually and I know that because, as I pointed out, I am the one who suggested the phrase, using precisely the logic I just outlined and that was the logic on which it was included. And you can call it crazy or moon logic but just because it's counter-intuitive doesn't mean it's wrong. If Uni can successfully argue that purchasing unethically-produced goods is a harm to national populations, I can argue that harming the environment is also such a harm.

Minority religious groups can sacrifice domestic dogs with impacting the environment at all. Does this harm sapient populations? Not at all. Through a logical interpretation of the "national populations," animal sacrifice and torture, in most cases, can't be banned. Teaching a main language in school might contribute to the phasing out of other obscure languages, and thus isn't allowed. And then there are things that don't cause harm to any population, regardless of your interpretation of that clause, but are preserved solely because of this resolution, like public sex or nudity. I'm not against the idea - I'm against the execution.

Uni has successfully argued that purchasing unethically-produced goods constitutes a moral harm to national populations, I don't see why you think that same argument can't be made for any of these other things. But obviously my inability to comprehend your thought process is just as crippling as your inability to comprehend mine, so I'm just going to leave this be. Clearly I'm the only person convinced by my arguments and this is going to roll on regardless.

[Sciongrad]

Uni has successfully argued that purchasing unethically-produced goods constitutes a moral harm to national populations, I don't see why you think that same argument can't be made for any of these other things. But obviously my inability to comprehend your thought process is just as crippling as your inability to comprehend mine, so I'm just going to leave this be. Clearly I'm the only person convinced by my arguments and this is going to roll on regardless.

I'm not arguing that you unable to comprehend my argument - please don't put words in my mouth. Clearly, we don't agree on the issue, and that's basically the extent of this - we disagree on that single interpretation. Unfortunately, that's not the only argument made in the resolution, and you've yet to address that one. There are certain forms of behavior, rituals, and practices that may not harm society, per se, but might compromise social norms, public morality (in nations where it applies), and things of that nature. For example, public sex can't be prevented while this resolution stands, nor can public nudity, nomadic groups camping in the middle of cities, and other such disruptive activities. This resolution is simply too riddled with flaws and (evidently) controversial interpretations to remain on the books.

[Ossitania]

I'm not arguing that you unable to comprehend my argument - please don't put words in my mouth.

Actually, I was saying that I can't understand your argument.

Clearly, we don't agree on the issue, and that's basically the extent of this - we disagree on that single interpretation. Unfortunately, that's not the only argument made in the resolution, and you've yet to address that one. There are certain forms of behavior, rituals, and practices that may not harm society, per se, but might compromise social norms, public morality (in nations where it applies), and things of that nature. For example, public sex can't be prevented while this resolution stands, nor can public nudity, nomadic groups camping in the middle of cities, and other such disruptive activities. This resolution is simply too riddled with flaws and (evidently) controversial interpretations to remain on the books.

Again, I repeat; Uni has successfully argued (in proposing Ethics in International Trade) that practices that constitute a moral harm to national populations are grounds for the restriction of trade in contravention of NEF, which is what inspired me to suggest the "national populations" phrasing to the author of the target resolution. If Uni was able to successfully argue that "national populations" can be harmed morally as regards NEF, then logic says that the same thing applies when you use the same wording elsewhere. The only other arguments you've made deal with rights of others, which falls under the moral harm argument, economics, which is inherently tied to national well-being, and national security, which would similarly inherently harm national populations if it was being compromised.

[Ilstoria]

How in the Sun's name did this resolution get approved in the first place? Aside from the absurdity factor, this isn't even an international issue. I think a repeal is definitely in order here.

His Radiance Cleric Joran Kell
Solarian Delegate to the WA

Yeah, protecting "culture" isn't going to affect nations outside of the nation in question, so it's definitely not international.

[Sciongrad]

Again, I repeat; Uni has successfully argued (in proposing Ethics in International Trade) that practices that constitute a moral harm to national populations are grounds for the restriction of trade in contravention of NEF, which is what inspired me to suggest the "national populations" phrasing to the author of the target resolution. If Uni was able to successfully argue that "national populations" can be harmed morally as regards NEF, then logic says that the same thing applies when you use the same wording elsewhere. The only other arguments you've made deal with rights of others, which falls under the moral harm argument, economics, which is inherently tied to national well-being, and national security, which would similarly inherently harm national populations if it was being compromised.

OOC: Sorry, I thought you were giving me Uni's interpretation of NEF; I didn't realize you were referencing his resolution. Although in retrospect, I'm not sure how I could have missed that.

IC: Ambassador, please tell me you acknowledge the difference between condoning nudity, and indirectly supporting deplorable work conditions. While I'd like to see Ethics in International Trade repealed, I do acknowledge the different levels in morality between that, and what you're arguing. So no, I disagree with your assertion that moral misconduct is harmful to people. I'd even go so far as to argue because moral misconduct is subjective, the interpretation is inherently illegitimate. If that interpretation were valid, that would open up a whole new can of worms, and would make the resolution too weak to effectively protect most culture. Perhaps it's best we agree to disagree, because I won't be changing my view on this any time soon.

[Tzenzariah-Nkri]

haha i say yes to an repeal-

[Sciongrad]

Are there any final comments, suggestions, or criticisms? Otherwise, I plan on submitting this tomorrow.

[Scithion]

Scithion will concur with the repeal, albeit begrudgingly. We don't take issue with the act of repeal so much so as the justification provided.

Firstly, the motion

ACKNOWLEDGES the importance of protecting and preserving cultural customs and practices;

whereas we do not;

it

BELIEVES that specific forms of intangible cultural heritage, while not strictly harmful to national populations, should be reasonably restricted in the interests of public morality, the rights of others, economics and development, national security, or other compelling reasons;

whereas the position of the Commonwealth of Scithion is that the time for these unmeditated, masturbatory fetishizations of "public morality" has long passed;

it expresses that it is

OUTRAGED that such a resolution may prevent further international legislation on topics such as animal cruelty and abuse, or others practices that may be considered barbaric, but are included in the definition of "intangible culture;"

which is unfortunate. Well, not the acts described, but the writing thereof. Scithion, as a state entity, is expressly forbidden from exhibiting emotional or moral agency. Animal cruelty in particular is a concept that does not exist in Scithion; its motivation is a casualty of meditation. If Scithion were to be outraged at anything here, it would be outraged at the sheer stupidity of exploiting formal legal means to build a moralist circlejerk to suppress conscientious opposition. But we won't be; we expect this of moralists. They have nothing better to do - nothing of good and substantive to accomplish, except insofar as they torture the semiotics of what is 'good' to suit their particular complex of behavior that they have been indoctrinated into in their culture - than to decry their imaginations of 'evil.'

The motion ends as it

CONCLUDES that such a resolution, while meritorious in its intent, causes much more harm than good;

which got a good laugh in this office, albeit not an official one.

Do we still have an opportunity to edit out the fluff in this motion? Its practical ends are clearly visible, and do not need to be decorated with this display of sentiment.

Graces,
Fevere Layis
Minister External
The Commonwealth of Scithion

[Christian Democrats]

My nation has voted in favor of this repeal proposal. Resolution 207 meddles too much in purely domestic affairs.

[Tibberiria]

We vote for.

[Delvoir]

The Kingdom of Delvoir votes for the repeal to take place.

[Bergnovinaia]

Meh... <-- My initiial reaction to both GA #207 and the repeal.

I will be voting in favor due to regional obligations that requires me, as the delegate, to vote along majority lines.

Cheers!

--Berg

[Mousebumples]

Yay, another repeal! *arranges for a lovely cheese basket to be sent to the delegation from Sciongrad*

Cheers,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island