NationStates Jolt Archive

Art Protection Act

A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.


Category: Education and Creativity


Area of Effect: Artistic


Proposed by: Arrakia

Description: RECOGNIZING the lack of international law for the protection and furtherment of the arts and the need for human beings to connect with and nurture their spirit.

OPENING the following suggestions to edit by other members, the original is merely to serve as the spine for the furtherment of the arts and their creators.

DEFINES THE ARTS (Or simply ARTS) as any work created by any novelist, poet, photographer, fashion designer, actor, painter, lyricist, prosist, photojournalist, film maker, video-game designer or journalist.

Body:
1. Artists will be granted immediate cross-border permission and/or citizenship in any nation of their choice, due to the understanding of the need for cultural development.

2. Artists and their work will be exempt from trial, imprisonment, harassment or any other form of punishment both private and government-controlled due to offense that may be derived from their works, as well as any criminal offenses that may be derived specifically there from.

3. In further support of #2, artists and their works will be open to the purest form of free speech and free expression so long as their works do not cause another citizen or citizens BODILY harm. For the purpose of this act, BODILY harm is defined as physical and does not include any spiritual/mental 'harm' that may be claimed from offense taken.

4. Governments, for the sake of their internal cultural development, are to see to the placement of government funding for the arts. The limits of these systems and the regulations needed to prevent abuse by non-artists are left to be open and controlled by the governments themselves.

5. To promote international and external cultural development, nations are encouraged (but not required) by this act to do what they can to stimulate the development of the arts both in their nation's borders and beyond, and especially in their respect regions and culturally-impoverished nations and regions.

I'm all for it on general principle, but people are going to scream "NATSOV" so loud every piece of art in the UN is going to be shattered. Tragic irony really.

We'd like to welcome the representative of Arrakian to the Assembly. Unfortunately, we must advise him that we are firmly opposed to this proposal as written. We were stopped dead in our tracks by Article 1:

1. Artists will be granted immediate cross-border permission and/or citizenship in any nation of their choice, due to the understanding of the need for cultural development.

An artist is also a serial rapist, but we have to allow him entry into our nation? No. We don't intend to put our people at risk by allowing dangerous criminals to cross our borders. An artist repeatedly advocates the violent overthrow of our government and comes to Ausserland to further that goal, yet we're to be required to grant him citizenship? Never happen.

We have other problems with the proposal, but we felt that Article 1 was so completely objectionable that it really didn't make much sense discussing them as long as that article was in place.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Description: RECOGNIZING the lack of international law for the protection and furtherment of the arts and the need for human beings to connect with and nurture their spirit.
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=137

OPENING the following suggestions to edit by other members, the original is merely to serve as the spine for the furtherment of the arts and their creators.
Nope, sorry, doesn't work like that. Documents can't be amended once they're submitted. If you want edits, post on the forum before submitting it.

DEFINES THE ARTS (Or simply ARTS) as any work created by any novelist, poet, photographer, fashion designer, actor, painter, lyricist, prosist, photojournalist, film maker, video-game designer or journalist.
Uh...definitions should be definitions. Making a list isn't the same thing. For example, your definition wouldn't allow sculpture, landscape gardening or short stories. But it would allow any non-artistic work done by these people.

1. Artists will be granted immediate cross-border permission and/or citizenship in any nation of their choice, due to the understanding of the need for cultural development.
Fortunately you haven't defined artists. Otherwise, we'd have to give a hells no. Citizenship in their nation of choice? Why?

2. Artists and their work will be exempt from trial, imprisonment, harassment or any other form of punishment both private and government-controlled due to offense that may be derived from their works, as well as any criminal offenses that may be derived specifically there from.
They already have this protection from government oppression. But exemption from private punishment is so over broad as to be ridiculous. This would mean a gallery owner couldn't take down a picture he didn't like.

3. In further support of #2, artists and their works will be open to the purest form of free speech and free expression so long as their works do not cause another citizen or citizens BODILY harm. For the purpose of this act, BODILY harm is defined as physical and does not include any spiritual/mental 'harm' that may be claimed from offense taken.
Contradicts Resolution #138.

4. Governments, for the sake of their internal cultural development, are to see to the placement of government funding for the arts. The limits of these systems and the regulations needed to prevent abuse by non-artists are left to be open and controlled by the governments themselves.
Vague, but ok.

5. To promote international and external cultural development, nations are encouraged (but not required) by this act to do what they can to stimulate the development of the arts both in their nation's borders and beyond, and especially in their respect regions and culturally-impoverished nations and regions.
Fine. If only those last two were the focus of the proposal.

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 0
????

An artist is also a serial rapist, but we have to allow him entry into our nation? No. We don't intend to put our people at risk by allowing dangerous criminals to cross our borders. An artist repeatedly advocates the violent overthrow of our government and comes to Ausserland to further that goal, yet we're to be required to grant him citizenship? Never happen.Yeah this seems completely out of the scope of the resolution.

Interestingly enough I've been pondering a migration/emigration over borders proposal for a while.

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 0
This was one of those "Moderated" posts, and it looks like we've got a new quirk. Duly noted.

We greatly applaud the sentiment behind this proposal, but have two issues:

1. Artists will be granted immediate cross-border permission and/or citizenship in any nation of their choice, due to the understanding of the need for cultural development.

This clause goes entirely too far in infringing upon national rights to control their borders and their citizenship. We cannot support this proposal based on that alone. However, if this clause were deleted, we might change our position.

5. To promote international and external cultural development, nations are encouraged (but not required) by this act to do what they can to stimulate the development of the arts both in their nation's borders and beyond, and especially in their respect regions and culturally-impoverished nations and regions.

We are concerned that this clause, though well-intentioned, could encourage cultural and artistic imperialism, whereby nations try to impose their culture and art on other nations beyond their borders "for their own good". For that reason, we would prefer a rewording, something along the lines of this: "To promote international and external cultural development, nations are encouraged (but not required) to engage in cross-border cultural and artistic exchanges to further enhance their mutual artistic growth and development."

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

*Vladimir Khernynko reads the draft proposal and then pulls out two antacids from his pocket and chews them before making his statement hoping that he doesn't become violently ill.*

What the hell is this shit!?

RECOGNIZING the lack of international law for the protection and furtherment of the arts and the need for human beings to connect with and nurture their spirit.


Am I to take it that Artistic Freedom doesn't already address the protection/promotion of the arts? If that is true...someone inform Jey immediately. As I understand that resolution (UNR 137) this is a blatant fallacy.

1. Artists will be granted immediate cross-border permission and/or citizenship in any nation of their choice, due to the understanding of the need for cultural development.


I don't bloody think so. Nations have a Sovereign Right to say who can and who cant emigrate/immigrate to and from their countries. It is a Sovereignty issue and a Security issue. What if one of these "artists" is a ax murderer? What we have to let that freak in to terrorize our people?

2. Artists and their work will be exempt from trial, imprisonment, harassment or any other form of punishment both private and government-controlled due to offense that may be derived from their works, as well as any criminal offenses that may be derived specifically there from

Okay so this will force nations not only to let in ax murdering painters but they can deface the Image of Comrade Serpov as well and get away with it? Again I don't bloody think so. Different cultures have different values and different ethics. What may be illegal (or offensive) in one nation may not be in an other and it is the Right of a nation to punish persons for publishing or producing illegal materials.

4. Governments, for the sake of their internal cultural development, are to see to the placement of government funding for the arts. The limits of these systems and the regulations needed to prevent abuse by non-artists are left to be open and controlled by the governments themselves

Governments can already do this....we don't need a bloody resolution from the UN to tell us we can or that we need to do this.

5. To promote international and external cultural development, nations are encouraged (but not required) by this act to do what they can to stimulate the development of the arts both in their nation's borders and beyond, and especially in their respect regions and culturally-impoverished nations and regions.

I believe this to be the only redeemable fragment of this travesty of a draft proposal. I wish this were the whole of it because it is the only part that doesn't make my bile rise.

"NATSOV!"

We agree with the representatives of Ausserland, Gruenberg, Altanar and Ellelt about this proposal's flaws. As regards citizenship, acquiring this in the St Edmundan Antarctic (or in any other member of the Godwinnian Commonwealth) requires completion of a course of study and a period of national service, and it will not be handed out to people more easily just because the UN says so...

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume...)

No.