Repel Cultural Heritage Protection

[Bergnovinaia]

So... that is not covered in my legislation, nor does it need to be. Why would they wont to dismantle it, if it's not a health risk...? You're arguement is making less and less sense every minute and hence, it's getting weaker and weaker becuase you refuse to answer my question with a direct, relivant answer that actually is a major loophole.

[Fargoalmus]

The statue mat also be unstable and be big enough to cause major damage to tourists or local residents Ex: Christ statue in Spain.

[Crabulonia]

So... that is not covered in my legislation, nor does it need to be. Why would they wont to dismantle it, if it's not a health risk...? You're arguement is making less and less sense every minute and hence, it's getting weaker and weaker becuase you refuse to answer my question with a direct, relivant answer that actually is a major loophole.

Just so we're clear you understand that I'm on your side and that I don't want The City of Aberdeen demolished? I may want to go to university there.

[Crabulonia]

The statue mat also be unstable and be big enough to cause major damage to tourists or local residents Ex: Christ statue in Spain.

Guess who has been watching 2012.

And by the way, quite certain the statue you are referring to is in Rio, not Spain.

EDIT: Also certain it is stable. It has been there for a few centuries without catastrophic collapse.

[Fargoalmus]

The Christ statue isn't really unstable but if it were.

[Bergnovinaia]

So... that is not covered in my legislation, nor does it need to be. Why would they wont to dismantle it, if it's not a health risk...? You're arguement is making less and less sense every minute and hence, it's getting weaker and weaker becuase you refuse to answer my question with a direct, relivant answer that actually is a major loophole.

Just so we're clear you understand that I'm on your side and that I don't want The City of Aberdeen demolished? I may want to go to university there.

No... I understand.

The statue mat also be unstable and be big enough to cause major damage to tourists or local residents Ex: Christ statue in Spain.

First of all, it's "may" not "mat." And how does it cause "major damage" to tourists...? If there's an earthquake or something? Perhaps you would like to outlaw all large building that could fall on people when there is an earthquake.

[Crabulonia]

The Christ statue isn't really unstable but if it were.

Once again using "what if" hypotheticals to justify your point?

What if America got taken over by a crazy cowboy intent on nuking Moscow? Should we repeal Moscow so nobody gets hurt?

First of all, it's "may" not "mat." And how does it cause "major damage" to tourists...? If there's an earthquake or something? Perhaps you would like to outlaw all large building that could fall on people when there is an earthquake.

So all buildings with a roof?

[Fargoalmus]

The likelihood of an earthquake in that area is very low and no that is not what I am suggesting.

[Bergnovinaia]

The Christ statue isn't really unstable but if it were.

Once again using "what if" hypotheticals to justify your point?

What if America got taken over by a crazy cowboy intent on nuking Moscow? Should we repeal Moscow so nobody gets hurt?

Yes...



JK.

[A mean old man]

I see what you're trying to argue for in here, Fargo.

Basically, what you're trying to say is, that, if an artifact is potentially dangerous to people, such as if it is radioactive or structurally unsound, it should be dismantled or disposed of in the proper fashion.

However, I'd have to disagree with you on dismantling structurally unsound artifacts. I would prefer to restore them, (OOC: as we do all the time in the real world) rather than destroy them. I also believe that this is already being taken by this clause of the targeted resolution:

ACKNOWLEDGES that nations should have the rights and institutions to properly preserve these artifacts;

When it comes to potentially radioactive artifacts, I don't know exactly where to direct you.

Plus the very idea of repealing this act again and having to write a new one again isn't a very appealing idea to almost all of us, which will probably result in opposition to this proposal.

[Crabulonia]

The likelihood of an earthquake in that area is very low and no that is not what I am suggesting.

Can you please detail what you are suggesting, occasions where this has happened, why we need to repeal this well written proposal?

It would make this move much quicker.

[Bergnovinaia]

I see what you're trying to argue for in here, Fargo.

Basically, what you're trying to say is, that, if an artifact is potentially dangerous to people, such as if it is radioactive or structurally unsound, it should be dismantled or disposed of in the proper fashion.

However, I'd have to disagree with you on dismantling structurally unsound artifacts. I would prefer to restore them, (OOC: as we do all the time in the real world) rather than destroy them. I also believe that this is already being taken by this clause of the targeted resolution:

ACKNOWLEDGES that nations should have the rights and institutions to properly preserve these artifacts;

When it comes to potentially radioactive artifacts, I don't know exactly where to direct you.

Plus the very idea of repealing this act again and having to write a new one again isn't a very appealing idea to almost all of us, which will probably result in opposition to this proposal.

Hence, this arguement is invalid and isn't a strong reason to "repel" this resolution.

[Crabulonia]

You'd need to find a significantly radioactive cultural heritage site and you'd need to destroy it, as well as all history connected with it, or rebuild it from scratch with a safer material.

I'd say that both actions have considerable doubt with them.

[Fargoalmus]

There are many reasons that intervention from other countries is needed on a heritage rich monument.

[Bergnovinaia]

Furthermore, if I had a "radioactive" statue or monument in my nation's jurdistiction and some other nation wants to destroy it, I wouldn't let them, regardless of what the WA says. Any act of destruction towards a monument of mine is considered as an act of war on me and my allies.

[Grays Harbor]

There are many reasons that intervention from other countries is needed on a heritage rich monument.

And we have yet to hear one from you that is valid, compelling, legitimate or something that is not a vague "what-if".

This is nothing more than a repeal for the sake of a repeal, and as such will not get our support, and we shall inform every delegate we know that their support of this is a bad idea.

Now, if there is nothing further, we shall retire to the Ambassadors Club for a drink to wash the taste of this out of our mouth.

[Bergnovinaia]

There are many reasons that intervention from other countries is needed on a heritage rich monument.

Such as...

You sir, as Grays Harbor said, are VERY vague and do not make a very convincing arguement against my legislation.

[Crabulonia]

There are many reasons that intervention from other countries is needed on a heritage rich monument.

And we have yet to hear one from you that is valid, compelling, legitimate or something that is not a vague "what-if".

This is nothing more than a repeal for the sake of a repeal, and as such will not get our support, and we shall inform every delegate we know that their support of this is a bad idea.

Now, if there is nothing further, we shall retire to the Ambassadors Club for a drink to wash the taste of this out of our mouth.

Here here, (I'm not technically in the WA can I join in the club anyway?)

[Bergnovinaia]

There are many reasons that intervention from other countries is needed on a heritage rich monument.

And we have yet to hear one from you that is valid, compelling, legitimate or something that is not a vague "what-if".

This is nothing more than a repeal for the sake of a repeal, and as such will not get our support, and we shall inform every delegate we know that their support of this is a bad idea.

Now, if there is nothing further, we shall retire to the Ambassadors Club for a drink to wash the taste of this out of our mouth.

Here here, (I'm not technically in the WA can I join in the club anyway?)

"You can take my guess pass," gives him guest pass. "I am staying to watch this comedy act."

[Braakland]

Being new to the World Assembly, we of Braakland have not yet familiarized ourselves with all the fine points of the existing legislation, and it must be said that we are shocked by this legislation, which is clearly open to extreme misuse in the form of nations hiding troop buildups/weapons stockpiles/spy centers or even chemical, biological or nuclear weapons under the guise of protected 'cultural heritage sites'. We hope dearly that this loophole is closed in some other legislation enforced by this body of nations, but have, as yet, not discovered. We would also appreciate it greatly if such legislation could be forwarded to us, should it exist.

That being said, this 'repel' is clearly well considered neither in language nor reasoning, and would not, in our opinion, provide any satisfactory solution.

[Crabulonia]

There are many reasons that intervention from other countries is needed on a heritage rich monument.

And we have yet to hear one from you that is valid, compelling, legitimate or something that is not a vague "what-if".

This is nothing more than a repeal for the sake of a repeal, and as such will not get our support, and we shall inform every delegate we know that their support of this is a bad idea.

Now, if there is nothing further, we shall retire to the Ambassadors Club for a drink to wash the taste of this out of our mouth.

Here here, (I'm not technically in the WA can I join in the club anyway?)

"You can take my guess pass," gives him guest pass. "I am staying to watch this comedy act."

Thanks very much, I misplaced my membership, think it may be held by a friend who uses the same terminal.

[The Halseyist Faction]

Furthermore, here is a copy of the legislation:

Description: The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING that certain member nations have many historical and artistic artifacts that reflect their heritage;

RECOGNIZING that several of these artifacts could be threatened during conflict;

ACKNOWLEDGES that nations should have the rights and institutions to properly preserve these artifacts;

BELIEVING that preserving these artifacts will allow citizens to further understand their heritage and expand international recognition of culture collectively;

Hereby,

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.

BANS the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states against other states during times of peace and conflict;

REQUIRES that member states enact and enforce legislation criminalizing the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states citizens against other states;

ESTABLISHES the Cultural Heritage Preservation Committee as a non-profit organization that may assist non-governmental organizations and government agencies overseeing cultural heritage sites upon request;

ENCOURAGES member states to:
a) Make historical artifacts accessible to the public where possible
b) Ensure that where an admission fee exists for a historical monument, they are as reasonable as possible and balanced between the attraction of tourism and the preservation of such monument;
c) Pass on knowledge of the history and the functions of historical artifacts to all interested parties

Where did you even get your idea for a "repel" (as stated by you) in this piece of legislation...? Please underline it in the next post becuase I really want to know since I dont even see it.

(ooc) Is that the final draft? I swore I remember a line somewhere about not allowing the stationing of millitary forces in said Cultural Heritage sites, but I don't see anything to that effect now...

[Katganistan]

Name one RL referance where a nation would say "Would you please destroy our culture so some of our citizens don't die?"

I am not suggesting that is the scenario. The owning nation would be ignorant of the health effects and might believe it is helping them with there troubles refusing to listen to sense.

Seriously, how likely is this scenario?
You may wish to review the stickies... and to listen to the advice of your esteemed and experienced colleagues of the WA.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Loophole time:

BANS the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states against other states during times of peace and conflict;

REQUIRES that member states enact and enforce legislation criminalizing the destruction, blocking, and looting of cultural heritage sites by member states citizens against other states;

By including the word "against" in the active clauses, it only forbids hostile actions. Therefore, a nation could request the help of other nations do tear down these horrible and dangerous artifacts.

I still don't understand how nations would be unable to knock over a statue by themselves and yet still be able to pay other nations to do so. But, whatever.