BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Military objectives are more important than that of protecting cultural property.

Ultimately the debate between conservation of cultural heritage and the need to secure a military advantage in times of conflict, comes down to a comparison of two different kinds of goods. One the one hand we have cultural goods that are beneficial for aesthetic and educational purposes, and on the other we have more tangible goods that are often sough through military endeavours. When the latter are particularly pressing and important goods, such as the need to prevent genocide, or distribute famine relief or defend one’s security, these benefits far outweigh the benefits of preserving our world cultural heritage. Although it is regrettable that cultural property of significant value may be damaged, it is incomparable to the damage caused by mass killing of individuals or mass curtailing of human rights. The safeguarding of basic human rights such as the right to life, the right to be free from fear, enslavement or torture etc. is a prerequisite for one to be able to appreciate and learn from items, sites and monuments of high cultural and historical value. For these reasons, military and humanitarian objectives must come first, ahead of the need to safeguard cultural property.
The protection of cultural property is not within the scope of the ICC.

Though it is true the international Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes and investigates crimes against humanity, the destruction and desecration of cultural property cannot be categorised as a crime against humanity.  This is quite simply because human beings are not directly harmed when cultural property like ancient monuments or old scripts are destroyed. According to the ICC, the following would consist of crimes against humanity: ‘Murder, extermination; enslavement; deportation or forcible transfer of population; imprisonment; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; persecution against an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds; enforced disappearance of persons; the crime of apartheid; other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury’ [1]. The common factor with all these crimes is that they are committed as part of a ‘widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population’. [2] Thus, it is evident that crimes against humanity possess a very real human element to them. This is simply because the ICC and the international community recognise that the most serious crimes that fall under the category of crimes against humanity are crimes of this nature that violently and systematically attack the wellbeing of civilians on a gross scale. The destruction or damage to any property, be it homes, government buildings, or sites of cultural heritage may well be a crime and a heinous act, but cannot come under the category of crimes against humanity. [1] ICC website: “What are crimes against humanity?”, accessed 20/9/12, http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/about%20the%20court/frequently%20asked%20questions/12 [2] ibid
Our world cultural heritage is extremely important and its destruction would constitute a crime against humanity.

The proposition are not contentious in their claims that our world cultural heritage is valuable. However it is not true that if an item or site of cultural heritage is destroyed, it ceases to have any educational value. If the Taj Mahal were destroyed, of course it would be a great loss in terms of aesthetic value, but its footprint in the world would still exist in the form of the myriad of photographs and academic literature on it. The Dodo may be extinct, but we have sufficient academic records to still have in depth knowledge of how it lived, what it looked like etc. It is evident that the proposition are exaggerating the harms that would result from the destruction of cultural property. Regarding the ICTY, the precedent it sets is not the one identified by the proposition. Rather than supporting the prosecution of destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity by the ICC, it suggests that such issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis. This is the case with the ICTY which was set up specifically to deal with crimes committed during the breakup-war of Yugoslavia. This is particularly important with respect to the protection of cultural heritage, because the issues vary immensely in each situation. The looting of museums in Yugoslavia is a very different crime in nature and motive to that committed by the Taliban in their destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and the damage caused to ancient Babylon by US forces in Iraq. Damage to cultural property should be looked on a case by case basis; it should not fall under a blanket-protection of crimes against humanity by the ICC.
The desecration and destruction of cultural property is often discriminatory and attacks peoples’ identity.

Obviously the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan was an atrocity, it may have been aimed at a particular group, Buddhists, but it is hard to see how their destruction was crime against humanity because of this. It may have come as a grave harm and insult to Buddhists around the world, however none can be said to have been physically harmed in any meaningful way that would constitute a crime against humanity. The oppression during the Chinese Cultural Revolution may be a better example for the proposition, however even in this case it is hard to compare the crime of destroying old Chinese art and monuments, to the mass killing and imprisonment of Chinese civilians during the same period!
Making destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would ensure it is protected.

The kinds of people or groups that attack and destroy sites of cultural heritage are not likely to care much about international law. If anything, making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would further radicalise extremist groups. One only has to look at the proposition’s example of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas to see this point. The Taliban ordered their destruction in direct defiance of international law, but what’s more, they did it as a direct response and retaliation to sanctions imposed upon them by the international community for hosting and fostering terrorist training camps. [1] A similar sort of retaliation may occur if threats were to be made explicitly regarding the treatment of cultural property. This would then put more precious cultural property in danger. In respect to the example of US forces in Iraq, their actions would not actually fall under crimes against humanity even under this proposition anyway. Setting up a base in an archaeological site would not be a crime against humanity, while small scale damage would not either, so it is unclear what effect the proposition will have. [1] Francioni, Francesco and Lanzerini, Federico: “The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law”, EJIL (2003), Vol. 14 No. 4, 619–651, Oxford Journals, http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/4/619.full.pdf
Making destroying cultural heritage a crime against humanity would create severe strategic disadvantages for our armed forces.

Making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity is mainly targeted at the wanton destruction of sites of immense value or the systematic destruction on a gross scale, such as that witnessed in the 1960s in China. For the majority of cases, the current UNESCO conventions regarding the protection of cultural property in times of conflict would apply. It is not as though insurgents would be able to hide inside any mosque or museum or ancient site and be totally untouchable. It is true, however, that situations are conceivable where military necessity would normally dictate an attack on a high value site or object of cultural heritage, but the proposed legislation would not allow. This is not as peculiar as the opposition suggest. International law has created a vast number of limits on warfare that could potentially be used to gain a vital strategic advantage. There are existing limits on what constitute legitimate military targets (civilian populations are not, for example), and with respect to the kind of weapons that can be used (chemical weapons, cluster bombs etc. are banned). Given the immense cultural value of certain sites and objects, they deserve to receive special protection, even in times of war.
Criminalisation will not stop radicalisation

How will criminalising visiting extremist websites prevent radicalisation? Those who know about the law will simply look for the same material that they used to find on extremist websites elsewhere on the internet either through social networks such as Facebook and twitter, where for example Muhammad al-Arefe a Saudi cleric who has issued a fatwa endorsing violence against non-Muslims has over a million followers,[1] or other immense sites such as youtube. Radicalisation over the internet will therefore not be stopped by punishing users of certain websites. Indeed such punishment of users of extremist websites may well end up creating more radical extremists than it prevents. Merah himself when talking to police negotiators before his death told them that it was being sent to prison for 18 months for driving without a licence that provoked his outrage against France and path to murder. This law would be putting more young men in prison and therefore potentially radicalising them through giving them something to be angry about, the opportunity to meet real extremists and demonstrating why the extremists believe the west should be attacked.[2] [1] Kessler, Oren, ‘Saudi clerics use social media to spread hate’, Jerusalem Post, 10 May 2012. [2] Lando, Barry, ‘New Laws Pushed by Nicolas Sarkozy After Toulouse Massacre Go Too Far’, The Daily Beast, 24 March 2012.
Criminalisation creates more problems than it solves

A law that punishes users of extremist websites would create a whole host of practical problems. Most obviously how are the authorities to monitor who are visiting extremist websites without a large expansion of a surveillance society that already exists?[1] There would need to be large scale monitoring of what websites everyone visits or at least the ability for governments to get records from internet service providers, potentially a grave breach of individual’s right to privacy. Laws are only effective if those who are subject to the law have some idea of what that law means and what they should not be doing.[2] A good law should define what exactly the criminality is and this law would almost certainly have many problems with definitions. What makes someone a regular or habitual visitor? A few visits too many sites, hundreds of visits, regular visits once a week? There will also be challenges working out which websites should be considered extremist and even then how is a user to know that a website they visit is considered an ‘extremist’ website? Any type of warning would be counterproductive as no one would ever be caught and extremists would keep changing websites. This would create a climate of fear on the internet due to ambiguity about what is acceptable and what might result in being thrown into prison. While itself a terrible infringement of freedom of expression at least blocking access to some websites has the advantage of showing what the state considers unacceptable. [1] Ball, Kirstie et al., ‘A Report on the Surveillance Society’, Surveillance Studies Network, September 2006, p.1. [2] Robinson, Paul, ‘The Role of Deterrence in the Formulation of Criminal Law Rules: At Its Worst When Doing Its Best’, Scholarship at Penn Law, Paper 51, p.31.
There is a lack of proportionality in punishing users of extremist websites

It is a basic principle of fairness that punishment should fit the crime.[1] In this case the crime is visiting a website, something that in itself may cause no harm at all so why should there be punishment? At best such a law would be punishing on the basis of future harm the accused would otherwise cause if not punished while at worst it would be an arbitrary punishment for people who would never have committed any harm at all. Not everyone who visits extremist websites is themselves an extremist or is going to be radicalised even after regular visits. Moreover not every person with extremist views is either themselves violent or intending to promote violence.  Finally there are a large number of people who regularly visit extremist websites with the purpose of monitoring them; these may be members of the police, the intelligence services, those simply wanting to understand the other and journalists attempting to keep up with extremist trends. What such a law would be doing would be criminalising curiosity. [1] Hirsch, Andrew Vvon, ‘Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment’, Crime and Justice, Vol.16 (1992), pp.55-98.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that is recognised universally as is shown by its inclusion in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[1] This however should not just be taken as the freedom to have an opinion but also as the freedom to “seek and receive… information and ideas through any media”, being cut off from information that a person is seeking is as much an infringement of human rights as preventing them from voicing their opinion.[2] People are denied their voice as much by not having access to information as by not being allowed to speak because access to information is fundamental in the process of being able to form those opinions. Learning and opinion forming cannot exist within a vacuum access to information that enables this. This freedom includes the freedom to access extremist websites as often as you wish without being punished for this action, we cannot prejudge what opinion will be formed from access to this information let alone what actions may result from that opinion. [1] The General Assembly of the United Nations, ‘Article 19’, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948. [2] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.24
There needs to be a deterrent against those thinking of visiting extremist websites

There is no evidence that a deterrent like this works, we will never know who might have been radicalised but was not because they were deterred from visiting extremist websites. However if those visiting these websites really are terrorists then a spell in prison is not going to deter them. Moreover this is not a good way of preventing radicalisation as it does not get to the key issues. Instead of prosecuting those who visit extremist websites they must be shown how those views are wrong, something that can only be done through debate and discussion,[1] locking them up will not do this. [1] Rothschild, Nathalie, ‘How can debate challenge extremism?’, guardian.co.uk.
Link between visiting extremist websites and being radicalised

The proposition is assuming that we know what effect visiting extremist websites will have, we don’t. For some regularly visiting websites that promote violence may end up sickening them and encouraging them to re-evaluate their views rather than further radicalising them. The best way to prevent heinous terrorist acts is not to lock people up on minor offenses but to amass evidence of the much larger offences they are planning and convict them for those offenses rather than a law that will catch many innocents as well as the guilty.
Criminalisation will not stop radicalisation

Criminalisation will prevent radicalisation by stopping users accessing the most extreme content. Sites such as YouTube and Facebook already police themselves and are unlikely to allow extremist materials to remain online for extended periods in the face of public pressure.[1] It is for extremist websites where public pressure can have no effect that needs the law to step in by punishing those who are regularly visiting those sites and being radicalised by them. [1] Google, ‘Our approach to free expression and controversial content’, googleblog, 9 March 2012.
There is a lack of proportionality in punishing users of extremist websites

Many of the worries raised about who might be charged under such laws are irrelevant, judges and juries will be able to tell when someone is a journalist or intelligence official who does not have any criminal intent. Others who are visiting these extremist sites based upon ideology and yet are never going to engage in terrorist attacks themselves may well still provide financial or other support to those who do commit more violent acts.[1] A primary aim of the law is “to forbid and prevent conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests”[2] something that this does by through preventing more major crimes by prosecuting for a minor crime. We should also remember that the punishment need not be disproportionate as it could simply mean restricting the guilty party’s internet access rather than prison. [1] Kroenig, Matthew and Pavel, Barry, ‘How to Deter Terrorism’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.2, Spring 2012,  pp.21-36, p.24. [2] Duff, Antony, "Theories of Criminal Law", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right.

Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises.[1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are accessing damaging information. Freedom of expression does not therefore apply to extremist websites that are inciting people to engage in acts of terrorism. [1] Council of Europe, ‘Article 10’, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
There needs to be a deterrent against those thinking of visiting extremist websites

National security concerns around terrorism mean that it is necessary to have a deterrent that will help prevent the recruitment of terrorists. Terrorism is one of the biggest threats to western countries today and this is potentially an effective way of dealing with it. Traditional military responses to terrorism do not work due to terrorists’ underground nature and decentralised cell structure that operates throughout the world. It is even questionable whether ‘al Qaeda’ as a group exists at all except as an identity for those wanting to attack the west to operate under. Efforts against terrorism therefore need to be aimed at preventing radicalisation and stopping individuals rather than attempting to destroy the whole group known as al Qaeda. This law not only deters people from becoming extremists through making them think twice about visiting extremist websites but it also helps to deter promoters of extremism through denying them an audience.[1] If punishing users of extremist websites prevents even a few people who would otherwise have visited these websites from doing so and setting out on a part of radicalisation that leads to terrorism then it will have been a success. [1] Kroenig, Matthew and Pavel, Barry, ‘How to Deter Terrorism’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.2, Spring 2012,  pp.21-36, p.25.
The internet is an echo chamber that will confirm extremists in their views if not stopped

The internet may be a free for all where all ideas and viewpoints can be found but that does not mean that all users view all these views. Instead the internet acts as an echo chamber that encourages people to believe their own views are correct and so get more extreme rather than challenging them. Eli Pariser author of a book called The Filter Bubble argues that the internet forces us to consume a very narrow range of views as search engines have been personalised with the intention of letting users find what they like so two people searching for the same thing on google can get very different results, for example when googling ‘BP’ during the oil spill one person might be directed to information about the spill and its environmental consequences while another might get just investment information.[1] When this kind of filtering is added to people constantly interacting with extremists and on websites praise and incite terrorism it is clear that users of these sites will get caught in a confirmation bias and conformation bias tends to lead to people becoming more polarised.[2] It is therefore the right policy to punish users of extremist websites before they become too radicalised as it is only a very short step from believing an attack is praiseworthy to carrying out similar attacks. [1] Gross, Doug, ‘What the Internet is hiding from you’, CNN, 19 May 2011. [2] Lord, C., Ross, L., and Lepper, M., ‘Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence’. JPSP, 1979, no.37, pp.2098-2109. Summary from faculty.babson.edu.
Link between visiting extremist websites and being radicalised

Regardless of whether as Sarkozy claims Mohammed Merah would himself have been stopped earlier had this law been in place at the time this law will catch some terrorists in the future and stop them before they can do large amounts of harm. Punishing users of extremist websites will mean that the government can stop those who are on a path to radicalisation through their access to the internet and as a result this will help neutralise a key tool used by extremists to radicalise others. There have already been examples of people being inspired to carry out violent jihad through material online such as Roshonara Choudhry who after watching some of Anwar Al Awlaki’s sermons online attempted to murder Labour MP Stephen Timms.[1] This kind of legislation would mean that he could be punished for the lesser crime thereby preventing him from being able to engage in much more damaging criminal activities. Simply put if extremists are behind bars they are not engaging in terrorist attacks that could kill many people. [1] Dodd, Vikram, ‘YouTube urged to delete radical cleric’s sermons’, guardian.co.uk, 28 February 2011.
Yanukovych committed crimes against humanity

Even before most of the violence by riot police in February some experts were suggesting that Yanukovych had committed crimes against humanity – crimes committed by a state against a civilian population. Professor Alexander J Motyl argued “The Yanukovych regime may already be guilty of “imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law” and “persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender … or other grounds.””[1] Now at the very least murder can be added to that count. [1] Moryl, 2014, http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/taking-yanukovych-international-criminal-court
Would mean Ukraine signing up to the ICC

Having the ICC prosecute Yanukovych currently faces a major difficulty; Ukraine has not ratified the Rome statute.[1] It is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the court. Technically this means the parliament can’t ask for ICC prosecution as there is no State Party to refer the situation to the prosecutor.[2] Clearly there is an easy solution to this; Ukraine should ratify the statute. This would have the benefit of reaffirming international criminal law, showing that it can be beneficial in a crisis, and increasing it as an accepted norm. [1] ICC, ‘The States Parties to the Rome Statute’, icc.cpi.int, accessed 28/2/2014, http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/states%20parties/Pages/the%20states%20parties%20to%20the%20rome%20statute.aspx [2] Rome Statute, Article 14