wrote:
>
> Dave Welsh, Unidroit-L listowner writes:
> > it has become glaringly apparent that you
> > simply do not understand, nor wish to productively
> > discuss, any of the real and operative issues. <
>
> [Barford] What I think would be productive to discuss here under the
topic heading "De Montabello replies" is what De Montabello actually
"replied" in the context of the actual contents of the text he
"replied" to.
.
What you think would be productive to discuss, and what I think would
be productive to discuss, are two very different things. You are
welcome to debate what de Montebello said with someone who is
interested in doing so. I am not.
.
> [Barford] To ignore that to head off chasing speculative side issues
intended merely to make a mockery of the original points raised is
just a waste of everybody's time and patience and certainly has
nothing to do with "real and operative issues" or productive
discussion (as Tom Flynn noted).
.
The "speculative side issues" referred to above are NOT speculative
nor are they "side issues." They are instead very significant and real
concerns that would, as I noted earlier, probably turn any attempt to
legally compel the return of pre-UNESCO cultural objects into a
nightmare in actual practice.
.
Once again I reiterate what I said about this when I first raised that
issue:
.
"In this case, reopening the question of who has the right to own
pre-Unidroit exported cultural property would literally be opening
Pandora's box.
.
As I pointed out in the post Dr. Barford responded to:
"If Dr. Opoku's viewpoint should be accepted and pursued to its
logical conclusion, what basis would there be for limiting the right
of a state to claim restitution of any cultural object that originated
in its territory?
.
Should the Government of Italy, for example, be required to seize and
return everything in Italy that can be shown to have been forcibly or
coercively acquired by past Italian regimes such as the Roman Empire,
and institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church? The list of
objects to be returned under such an interpretation would be
long indeed, and its implementation would be nightmarish."
.
"When does it end?" and "Where do we draw the line?" are very valid
and pertinent questions. Ignoring them in development of public policy
regarding cultural property would neglect very grave risks that the
"cure" might turn out to be far worse than the "disease."
.
Dave Welsh
Unidroit-L Listowner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L
dwelsh46@...
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Ancientartifacts-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Ancientartifacts-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Ancientartifacts-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
