NationStates Jolt Archive

I have proposed a resolution titled "The Musical Appreciation Act". Here is the text of the proposal:

Resolved, that the United Nations, recognizing the positive impact of music on society, encourages and promotes music of all forms and genres.

Whereas music is defined as rhythms and/or melodies that may be sung, hummed, tapped, whistled, or played with a musical instrument.

No United Nations member may discriminate against specific genres of music, to be punishable with sanctions. However, member nations may use their discretion in restricting access to certain songs and/or certain bands/artists, as long as those songs and/or bands/artists are not entirely banned.

United Nations members will not be allowed to discriminate against any artist or band for any reason other than lack of talent. Discrimination for any other reason will result in sanctions.

Introduced by the Democratic States of Armandium, September 23, 2004.

I think that makes sense, don't you? Let's get the regional delegates to approve it so we can put this on the floor. I appreciate everyone's help, and debate can begin on this topic.

Don't you think it's just a little bit asinine for the United Nations to undertake a policy that is more often debated by school boards than international committees? I don't think any member state will be able to make a good case for "music bad" but I'm certain most will agree that this decision is far beyond the scope of what the United Nations would consider worthy of discussion.

I must respectfully disagree with you. The fact of the matter is, music is an integral component of what defines a culture. If we are to participate in a truly global society, the right for music to exist and be exchanged must be preserved. Of course, it MUST be taken into account that some nations are vehemently opposed to some artists, and I have written a provision into my proposal dealing with that. But in the interest of basic human rights, they may not be discriminated against unfairly. Only lack of talent would merit potential governmental discrimination, if one saw fit.

coughdomesticissuecough

coughwtfcough

I don't think that this is going to be an effective way to address this issue. If you were to propose that UN nations support diversity or support some initiative to do something that'd be one thing. But if you propose that UN nations are "restricted" in this sort of thing it is very doubtful that it will reach quorum or pass through on the floor.

I think the best move for you right now is, if the proposal fails, to bring the issue back up in the forum in the form of a draft or something like that, so you can get a good feel as for what levels would be accpetable to the members of the UN: the people who will be passing your proposal.

Also if you're trying to get regional delegates to support your proposal it is unlikely that you will find much success through the forums. Only a small percentage of the actively approving delegates frequent the forum. As to date, telegrams seem the only effective way of reaching enough delegates to get a proposal passed.

It's a nice idea, but

The fact of the matter is, music is an integral component of what defines a culture

and cultures are particular to their nations. What if a culture holds its music sacred and does not wish to share? What if some nations are very authoritarian and don't allow music at all? In history, there have been many religious groups that banned music of any kind.

This would make a nice nation-level issue, as anything cultural should not be governed at the world level IMHO.

I have proposed a resolution titled "The Musical Appreciation Act". Here is the text of the proposal:

Resolved, that the United Nations, recognizing the positive impact of music on society, encourages and promotes music of all forms and genres.

Whereas music is defined as rhythms and/or melodies that may be sung, hummed, tapped, whistled, or played with a musical instrument.

No United Nations member may discriminate against specific genres of music, to be punishable with sanctions. However, member nations may use their discretion in restricting access to certain songs and/or certain bands/artists, as long as those songs and/or bands/artists are not entirely banned.

United Nations members will not be allowed to discriminate against any artist or band for any reason other than lack of talent. Discrimination for any other reason will result in sanctions.

Introduced by the Democratic States of Armandium, September 23, 2004.

I think that makes sense, don't you? Let's get the regional delegates to approve it so we can put this on the floor. I appreciate everyone's help, and debate can begin on this topic.

I have been trying to find a reason not to support this, as I believe musical appriciation should not be something that is covered by national law, let alone international law. However there is nothing in the proposal (save two things) that I would have a problem with.

The only things I take issue with are

1) The right to restrict access to certin bands/songs/artists.
If you are going to forbid the government to ban music, then you can not let them ban specific instances of music. It violates the freedom of expression and freedom of speach that my people value highly.
2) The right of the government to disrciminate based on lack of talent.
Talent is a remarkably subjective thing, and for a government to be able to decide what band is talented and what isn't would prevent the people making their minds up.

If you remove both of these clauses (and I still don't know the plural of clause) then I would happily support it, should it ever come to a vote (however unlikely that might be)

I don't think this is an issue for the UN. People have the right to hate a genre of music and love another. For example, I hate country and I love grunge, but then a person standing next to me could hate grunge and love country, but nobody holds it against the other.

May I suggest that it be a more general anti-censorship resolution (unless one has already been passed of which I am not aware)? I would propose that a government may only ban or restrict music (or any other expressive art form) only upon the grounds that it is potentially dangerous for public order and that its restriction is in the interests of preserving democracy. However, should they make a decision to censor, the party censored may indeed bring a case before an independent and international court in order to have the case reviewed and examined, thus the national government may not arbitrarily impose standards upon the freedom of expression. I believe this position to be compatible with the current European Human Rights legislation in force.

Thank you, Arpege, you reminded me where I originally wanted to go with this. I must admit, I got sidetracked while writing this and forgot my original intentions halfway through the process. I will draft a new resolution immediately.

This is pointless. What do you think would hapen if a nation made this proposal to the real U.N? Simple enough, the UN doesn't care. You can't make a resolution saying to treat genres of music equal and expect it to hapen, you can't make people think a certain way.