[Draft] Cultural Heritage Protection

[WallachIX]

How are we supposed to determine what culture really is?

by studying it comparatively -- like anthropologists have been doing for the last century.

like i said before -- culture is everything a society has, thinks, and does that is learned and shared. if you want to go deeper into that you can look at kinship and other social structure, symbolism, division of labour, mode of production, environment...

cats, while very wonderful and lovable, do not have culture. other apes demonstrated limited capacity for cultural behaviours, but humans are the only organisms to primarily adapt culturally rather biologically.

[Bears Armed]

other apes demonstrated limited capacity for cultural behaviours, but humans are the only organisms to primarily adapt culturally rather biologically.

"Ahem!"

(Borrin o Redwood rises to his feet. Has the 'Reverend Mother' really managed to overlook, until now, the presence in this Assembly of an anthropomorphic Ursine who stands about eight feet tall even if you don't count the top hat that he wears as a part of his formal costume?)

^_^

[Bergnovinaia]

bump

[Bergnovinaia]

So this just got ejected from the proposal list becuase it is "optional." Can someone tell me why this is?

[Philimbesi]

So this just got ejected from the proposal list becuase it is "optional." Can someone tell me why this is?

e) Mueseums do not have to follow the advice in 1d however, it's strognly recommended.

Not a mod but I would guess that would be the line.

[Gobbannium]

So this just got ejected from the proposal list becuase it is "optional." Can someone tell me why this is?

e) Mueseums do not have to follow the advice in 1d however, it's strognly recommended.

Not a mod but I would guess that would be the line.

OOC: I'd have to say that's not actually optional, just really badly written. I'd have expected this to be the culprit:

Further Reocgnizing that impoverished WA nations should not have to build the institutions defined in this bill since this will jepordize their already unstable economy;

Thus these impoverished nations may recieve funding from the WA or wealthier member nations;

This looks like it's optional, though again it isn't really. I'd suggest cleaning up this and a few other similar clauses so that they aren't so actively misleading. Spellchecking would be good too.

[Bergnovinaia]

Thanks.

[Ardchoille]

'd have expected this to be the culprit:

Further Reocgnizing that impoverished WA nations should not have to build the institutions defined in this bill since this will jepordize their already unstable economy;

Thus these impoverished nations may recieve funding from the WA or wealthier member nations;

This looks like it's optional, though again it isn't really. I'd suggest cleaning up this and a few other similar clauses so that they aren't so actively misleading. Spellchecking would be good too.

Yes, that was the clause. And I'd even agree with Gobb's assessment that it "isn't really". For example, an NS-verse-wide financial crisis "isn't really" likely, since the economies of many WA nations aren't -- yet, despite some proposal-writers' determined efforts -- inescapably tied into a massive interdependent WA-nations' financial system. So it isn't really likely that the generous and rich WA nations couldn't or wouldn't help small nations out, nor is it really likely that the WA wouldn't come to the party if the rich nations didn't. In that sense, building the museum isn't really optional.

But there's a moral optionality in that clause: the WA insists that you do X, but if it will hurt your economy, you shouldn't have to.

Not all that important when it's something like building museums; but important if it's something like "the WA insists that you feed your poor, but if it will hurt your economy, well ...".

There is a constant tension between nations' reasonable and legitimate desire to keep the WA's nose out of their business, and the WA's reasonable and legitimate power to poke its nose wherever it wants. If a nation has agreed to join the WA, it has ceded the power to keep the WA out.

Collectively WA nations can curb or direct the WA's application of that power; but it should be done explicitly -- the WA shall do only X with this law -- not by an accidental turn of phrase.

Oh, and In Before The Citation: there may be passed WA resolutions where an accidental or deliberate turn of phrase had just that effect. The difference is that this one got noticed in time.

[Bergnovinaia]

Thanks Ardchoille! I was really confused but you cleared it up. I got rid of the optionality and spell-checked it but I think I will wait for a while to gather more opinions about it.

[Bergnovinaia]

I am going to submit it now.

[Bergnovinaia]

4 more approvals by delegates to reach queue!

[Bergnovinaia]

This proposal has reached queue!

[Charlotte Ryberg]

This proposal has reached queue!

Honoured ambassador, I am concerned that this proposal appears to be in conflict with "Protection of monuments", which is currently being voted, in terms of the preservation monuments. If passed then this proposal may duplicate a part of the "Protection of monuments" resolution, which I am in fact, against, since that resolution mandated that monuments it must be government property.

Yours etc,

[Bergnovinaia]

This proposal has reached queue!

Honoured ambassador, I am concerned that this proposal appears to be in conflict with "Protection of monuments", which is currently being voted, in terms of the preservation monuments. If passed then this proposal may duplicate a part of the "Protection of monuments" resolution, which I am in fact, against, since that resolution mandated that monuments it must be government property.

Yours etc,

I see your point... which is kind of readiculous since I thought if this idea months before the other person did. However, this mentions art and artifacts ad does not mention monuments. Hence, it may not be illegal but a bill that would expand on the idea...

[Ardchoille]

I'm afraid it will be illegal, if the other one passes. "Artefacts" covers made objects, which would include memorials. (It won't cop an "illegal proposal" warning, of course, since it wasn't illegal when you submitted it.)

I'd advise copying the list of delegate approvals just in case.

[New Rockport]

If my esteemed colleague from Bergnovinaia revises and re-submits this proposal, the following clause should be re-written:

c) The institutions may not refuse access to any citizen of any nation unless said citizen is a member of a nation that is currently at war with the nation of origin of the institution

I assume my esteemed colleague meant to write that these institution cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality. However, as currently written, these institutions cannot refuse access to non-enemy nationals for any reason. What if it is closing time? What if the person is disturbing other patrons? Museum personnel need broader discretion to refuse access to museums.

-Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Federal Republic of New Rockport

[Bergnovinaia]

I'm afraid it will be illegal, if the other one passes. "Artefacts" covers made objects, which would include memorials. (It won't cop an "illegal proposal" warning, of course, since it wasn't illegal when you submitted it.)

I'd advise copying the list of delegate approvals just in case.

Awww...

If my esteemed colleague from Bergnovinaia revises and re-submits this proposal, the following clause should be re-written:

c) The institutions may not refuse access to any citizen of any nation unless said citizen is a member of a nation that is currently at war with the nation of origin of the institution

True. I shall change it.
I assume my esteemed colleague meant to write that these institution cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality. However, as currently written, these institutions cannot refuse access to non-enemy nationals for any reason. What if it is closing time? What if the person is disturbing other patrons? Museum personnel need broader discretion to refuse access to museums.

-Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Federal Republic of New Rockport

[Bergnovinaia]

List of current endorsements: Bergnovinaia, Surote, Grittonia, The Resistence, West-Flanders, Tolololo, Yensidretlaw, FASTERCAT, Grays Harbor, The Brewsters, -Hellkite-, China-East Asia, Mihrad, Nuluht, ROMPA, HockeyNutville, The Derrak Quadrant, Sucram-Leon, Bart1meus, The Aryan Proleteriat, Whapalapaluba, Licentia pro rus ruris, Old Zertaxia, Kabanatuanistan, Chalcanthite, King Kulla, Freedomstaki, Kingsley Bedford, Free secular Humanists, Photios Glynn, Rainbow Isles, Morrissette, Pladrania, Kart Hadaszt, The Divine Avenger, Ventei, New Portage, Ashmount, Extre, Worldia555, Idiotic Idioms, Lutessia, Asyhlo AO, Little Basses, Todd McCloud, Karienna, AmericaXLI, Reseda Island, New Chalcedon, RIP yakier, William Alexander, Varazhdin, Onalim, Mandanisia, Troy1, Egotistical Wolves, Murmursa, Ashmore, FD Roosevelt, Kingdom Brittania, MartV, Distant Thought, New Gilboa, Mewsland, Galactic Furs, Meydenbauer, Rezslekovia, Borean Tundra, Epicnopolis

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

So, for the sake of the wiki chronicle, was this technically deleted or withdrawn?

[Ardchoille]

I deleted it when the other one passed.

[Bergnovinaia]

I deleted it when the other one passed.

So I'll take some suggestions now since I have to eidt it anyways...

[Bergnovinaia]

*Cough*Suggestions*Cough*

[Alexlantis]

Alexlantis is in full support of this, as culture is all a nation has.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador to Bergnovinaia, I think there is something missing in the draft, regarding the mandate for member states to enact and enforce laws to protect monuments. If the protection of monuments became national law, then the member state would have the power to prosecute vandal who deface such monuments. Please consider adding the following:

REQUIRES member states to enact and enforce national legislation to protect cultural and historical monuments from harm (including but not limited to vandalism or destruction);

I am also a bit concerned about dictating how member states determine the rates of admission and how they pay their employees in section 1. I must agree that admission fees must be reasonable, but we also observe institutions are sometimes not for profit, ie, 100% of all donations go towards the preservation/restoration of the monument, or that the preservation of monuments or similar are run volunteers. It is also okay to leave out the tour guides bit but in its place you could add:

ENCOURAGES member states to pass on knowledge of the history and the functions of historical artefacts to all interested parties.

This is because it is likely that it is not only the citizens of one country that is going to be interest in one monument, for example. Historical monuments have attracted tourists, too.

Here are the suggestions I put forward for the other draft that is currently under repeal debate (and never taken on board, regrettably):

MANDATES that should a non-governmental organization (NGO) or an individual be in ownership of a historical monument, they shall be responsible for the restoration, maintenance and/or preservation of the monument, and recommends member states to financially assist such NGOs and individuals to ensure such tasks can be done.

SPECIFIES that in the event of a need to transfer the ownership of a historical monument to public property, financial compensation shall be paid to the previous owner(s).

Submitted for your consideration,

[Bergnovinaia]

Honoured ambassador to Bergnovinaia, I think there is something missing in the draft, regarding the mandate for member states to enact and enforce laws to protect monuments. If the protection of monuments became national law, then the member state would have the power to prosecute vandal who deface such monuments. Please consider adding the following:

REQUIRES member states to enact and enforce national legislation to protect cultural and historical monuments from harm (including but not limited to vandalism or destruction);

I am also a bit concerned about dictating how member states determine the rates of admission and how they pay their employees in section 1. I must agree that admission fees must be reasonable, but we also observe institutions are sometimes not for profit, ie, 100% of all donations go towards the preservation/restoration of the monument, or that the preservation of monuments or similar are run volunteers. It is also okay to leave out the tour guides bit but in its place you could add:

ENCOURAGES member states to pass on knowledge of the history and the functions of historical artefacts to all interested parties.

This is because it is likely that it is not only the citizens of one country that is going to be interest in one monument, for example. Historical monuments have attracted tourists, too.

Here are the suggestions I put forward for the other draft that is currently under repeal debate (and never taken on board, regrettably):

MANDATES that should a non-governmental organization (NGO) or an individual be in ownership of a historical monument, they shall be responsible for the restoration, maintenance and/or preservation of the monument, and recommends member states to financially assist such NGOs and individuals to ensure such tasks can be done.

SPECIFIES that in the event of a need to transfer the ownership of a historical monument to public property, financial compensation shall be paid to the previous owner(s).

Submitted for your consideration,

Excellent ideas ambassador. I shall add them into the draft. Would you like to be added as a co-author since you have added so much to this legislation?