PASSED: Protection of historical monuments

[La Habana]

Strongly AGAINST current WA Resolution, and with good reason, look at line 4:

'STATES that Historical Monuments may not be used as a place of residence, but can be used as museums, libraries, temples and for other functions apart from as military instillations.'

So basically if you have a residential district that is composed of historic buildings (buildings fall under jurisdiction of monument in this Resolution) I would have to forcibly evict everyone from that district?!? What a load of nonsense! This resolution will basically force governments to create ghost towns!

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Bah! Opposed.

[Grays Harbor]

Strongly AGAINST current WA Resolution, and with good reason, look at line 4:

'STATES that Historical Monuments may not be used as a place of residence, but can be used as museums, libraries, temples and for other functions apart from as military instillations.'

So basically if you have a residential district that is composed of historic buildings (buildings fall under jurisdiction of monument in this Resolution) I would have to forcibly evict everyone from that district?!? What a load of nonsense! This resolution will basically force governments to create ghost towns!

But ghosttowns are good for tourism.

Like my 3 fellow representatives above, we are opposed to this, and sincerely hope that the NSWA lemming Brigade doesn't merely look to the title, go "oh, thats nice" and vote yes. I am recommending to my region that all WA members vote no.

[Flibbleites]

Once again, the WA decides to tackle an issue that, at best, is only marginally international. The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote AGAINST this resolution.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Grays Harbor]

Considering that this vote is currently 717 for, 72 against I believe my nation should prepare itself to be in compliance with the following two provisions:

DEFINES “historical monument” as a structure or significant location that symbolises a historical event, a culture or influential individuals.

STATES that Historical Monuments may not be used as a place of residence, but can be used as museums, libraries, temples and for other functions apart from as military instillations.


Our culture is several centuries old, and it is almost a certainty that something that could be described as "symbolises a historical event, a culture or influential individuals" has happened at some point in time most everywhere in our nation, and that residences there shall be forbidden, it may well become quite likely that we shall have to relocate our entire population to a 2 square mile area deep in the mountains of one of our eastern counties that has been deemed completely eventless.

Barring that, it seems likely that at the very least our current Monarch and his family will have to be evicted from the Royal Palace, as many significant historical events have taken place there, and it is their residence. I'm sure they ought be able to find a suitable flat somewhere in the Capitol. I'll get the Justice Ministry to start the eviction notice.

[Philimbesi]

NSWA lemming Brigade doesn't merely look to the title, go "oh, thats nice" and vote yes.

Alas good ambassador, I believe we are going to be doomed by the fluffy name brigade.

As much as I enjoy beating the occasional dead horse I'm sorry to say they've all been named historical monuments so I better get it in now before I'm banned from doing so. I renew my objections before this was hastily submitted during the vetting process.

However we in the USP have decided that in order for a monument to be historical it must have been around for more then 500 years, and as the USP is little more then 100 years old, since the act states:

STATES that governing bodies are responsible for identifying their historical monuments and declaring them to the World Assembly Monuments Register, so that this act may apply to them.

we're satisfied that we don't have to worry about this...

[Sevenelevens]

on the first exception to the requirement on a government to repair a damaged monument, perhaps economic considerations are not a factor as long as repairs can be undertaken regularly. i'm a little gray on this.

on the requirement that Historical Monuments not be attacked, bombed or used as cover, shelter or vantage points by military personnel of attacking or defending countries, unless they are being used as such by the enemy, there is no way to enforce this except by appealing to the sympathies of the opposing forces. maybe we should just link this to the above exception: have the country of the attacking army reimburse damages to the country whose monuments were damaged.

[La Habana]

DEFINES “historical monument” as a structure or significant location that symbolises a historical event, a culture or influential individuals.

STATES that Historical Monuments may not be used as a place of residence, but can be used as museums, libraries, temples and for other functions apart from as military instillations.

Barring that, it seems likely that at the very least our current Monarch and his family will have to be evicted from the Royal Palace, as many significant historical events have taken place there, and it is their residence. I'm sure they ought be able to find a suitable flat somewhere in the Capitol. I'll get the Justice Ministry to start the eviction notice.

BUT you are missing an important point, surely the flat they move in to will then be classified as a 'historical monument' as the royal family will live there? Which therefore will mean that they will have to be evicted from the flat because they are not allowed to live in a historical monument......so they will have to move into another flat...and the same thing will happen again! And again...And again...And again.......Your royal family will be stuck in an infinite cycle of moving into a new home and then being evicted! Quite a paradox......

[Grays Harbor]

DEFINES “historical monument” as a structure or significant location that symbolises a historical event, a culture or influential individuals.

STATES that Historical Monuments may not be used as a place of residence, but can be used as museums, libraries, temples and for other functions apart from as military instillations.

Barring that, it seems likely that at the very least our current Monarch and his family will have to be evicted from the Royal Palace, as many significant historical events have taken place there, and it is their residence. I'm sure they ought be able to find a suitable flat somewhere in the Capitol. I'll get the Justice Ministry to start the eviction notice.

BUT you are missing an important point, surely the flat they move in to will then be classified as a 'historical monument' as the royal family will live there? Which therefore will mean that they will have to be evicted from the flat because they are not allowed to live in a historical monument......so they will have to move into another flat...and the same thing will happen again! And again...And again...And again.......Your royal family will be stuck in an infinite cycle of moving into a new home and then being evicted! Quite a paradox......

Yes, it is. maybe they can be houseguests. 1 week with each household in the Kingdom, that way they can get out prior to it becoming historical.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

CREATES the Monument Assessment Committee to asses the monuments...

They're supposed to do what to the monuments?

[Grays Harbor]

CREATES the Monument Assessment Committee to asses the monuments...

They're supposed to do what to the monuments?

Maybe they have some very significant donkeys in some nations?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Barring that, it seems likely that at the very least our current Monarch and his family will have to be evicted from the Royal Palace, as many significant historical events have taken place there, and it is their residence. I'm sure they ought be able to find a suitable flat somewhere in the Capitol. I'll get the Justice Ministry to start the eviction notice.

I didn't know that was the side effect for requiring all historical monuments to be public property, honoured ambassador (Note to self: refrain from too many "what if" scenarios).

The honoured ambassador cannot vote in favour of the current version of this resolution and would be interested in drafting a repeal. The principle however, is excellent.

[Conservative Alliances]

I vote no on account of this resolution's innapropriate meddling in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations.

[Vetok]

The Holy Empire of Vetok believes this resolution could be of much use in the preservation of world culture and history, and therefore vote yes. Our reasoning being, for example, the seventh suburb of Central Municipality is the birthplace of his most Original Holiness Imperator Vetok I. The particular house where the Great One lived is now a memorial and stands empty as a sign of respect for his memory. Any nation that would allow a site of comparable importance to them to be despoiled by commoners has already ransacked it.

[Cor-Dem]

STATES that Historical Monuments may not be used as a place of residence, but can be used as museums, libraries, temples and for other functions apart from as military instillations.

Some historical monuments act as places of residence for religious organizations. Therefore, Cor-Dem does not support this measure.

[La Habana]

This Resolution has so many holes in it that the lols and facepalms are leaking all over the place......seriously, the residence restriction creates a massive problem for nations....it is just so impractical for nations that have a lot of historic architecture, never mind the fact that famous individuals homes will be declared historic monuments, resulting in them getting evicted......

[The Altani Federation]

Wow, this thing has more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese. And more cheese, too.

Luckily, however, I think I spot a massive loophole that makes the whole thing irrelevant:

STATES that governing bodies are responsible for identifying their historical monuments and declaring them to the World Assembly Monuments Register, so that this act may apply to them.

If this silly thing passes, we just won't list anything as historic. I mean, sure, maybe something historic happened somewhere in the Altani Federation. But how's the WA going to know?

Saying nothing important ever happened to us is a safer option than asking our monarchs, for example, to give up their fancy palaces. I'm pretty sure they still keep dungeons in the bottom of those things...or at least that's what I was told it was during that one party I went to in Celavan....ahem.

So, yes, we think this is a horrible abomination almost as bad as wearing brown shoes with a black suit. So we vote no.

-Nikolai Nagashybyuly, Ambassador

[The Autumn Clans]

OMG - horray - it's up for vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't bellive it
Please vote yes (obviously)

Notes about the last days ramble you guys had;

-Compenstaion is up to the country's government. I can't tell a dictator to pay his people. I he feels like ripping a property from their fingers without compenstaion that's his choise. Make another law for that. (PS. not a bad Idea, I'm on it)

-I opted agains't removal because governments come and go but monuments should stand forever.

-Nope people should not own monuments inorder to make a profit for themselfs, those sort of people would use this law to milk the government dry of funds so that it would repair the monument for them, but they still get the tourist money. If tax-payers pay to maintain then tax-payers should own (or at least their government).

-People can't live in monuments of they could be used to shield them, esspecialy royalty. This law isn't meant to protect royalty. Yes it means some sites don't get registered. But some protected monuments is better than no protected monuments.

-The WA rules are obligatory. Read the FAQ. So its no good saying the 'monuments can't be attacked law' is hard to enforce. WA nations have to obay it. Besides saying it's hard to enforce is NOT a reason to remove the law (ie.murder is hard to prevent, should we make it legal?) It just means we have to work harder at enforcing it.

-If you don't want to make a monument public to register it (pretty simple) there are still other ones that can be protected, so it's not reason for you to vote no.

[Cookesland]

OoC: You really should have ran this proposal through a spell check first.

STATES that Historical Monuments may not be used as a place of residence, but can be used as museums, libraries, temples and for other functions apart from as military instillations.

We disagree. Why can’t a a reigning monarch keep their home or historic fort that is still in active use continue to be used as a military installation?

CREATES the Monument Assessment Committee to asses the monuments being proposed for the World Assembly Monuments Register so that they are of actual historical importance, and not selected as a way of protecting people.

Please explain, excluding the references to donkeys, about the way of protecting people.

REQUIRES that Historical Monuments not be attacked, bombed or used as cover, shelter or vantage points by military personnel of attacking or defending countries, unless they are being used as such by the enemy.

If they are not to be attacked in warfare, then why do you feel it's a good idea to prevent innocent civilians from protecting themselves?

Nope people should not own monuments inorder to make a profit for themselfs, those sort of people would use this law to milk the government dry of funds so that it would repair the monument for them, but they still get the tourist money. If tax-payers pay to maintain then tax-payers should own (or at least theeir government).

Please explain why a non-profit organization, supported by private donations, should not be allowed to support a landmark or monument.

I am sorry, but we cannot support this proposal. AGAINST.

Cookeslandic WA Mission

[Enn]

So the Palace of the Triumvirate (previously the Palace of the Council), which has stood for nearly a thousand years, and has housed Enn's leaders throughout its lifetime, doesn't count as an historical monument because it is used as a place of residence?

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

OOC: Under that clause, buildings like Buckingham Palace and Versailles (since it at least houses the staff) wouldn't be protected.

[Krioval]

The Imperial Chiefdom is puzzled by this resolution. We do not feel that its quality or its focus are sufficient for World Assembly consideration. Krioval had avoided the drafting discussion since it appeared that several delegations were in collaboration on this legislation; we are now sadly aware that the work done was superficial, and that this legislation was hastily pushed through to quorum despite several misgivings expressed shortly before it came to vote. With regret, the Imperial Chiefdom must cast its vote against this resolution. We hope that its author will recognize the flaws in this work, campaign to have other nations defeat this legislation, and craft a more mature document for WA consideration.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[The Autumn Clans]

OK cookesland.

Why can’t a a reigning monarch keep their home or historic fort that is still in active use continue to be used as a military installation?

Duh. If a millitary base is protected by international law then that counry can use it to attack and the base can't be attacked back.

Please explain, excluding the references to donkeys, about the way of protecting people.

Sirriously what donkeys? Where does it say donkeys? What does Assessing if monuments should be monuments have do do with DONKEYS!?!?!

If they are not to be attacked in warfare, then why do you feel it's a good idea to prevent innocent civilians from protecting themselves?

They can that's why I said MILITARY PERSONNEL.

REQUIRES that Historical Monuments not be attacked, bombed or used as cover, shelter or vantage points by MILITARY PERSONNEL of attacking or defending countries, unless they are being used as such by the enemy.

I'm all for non-profit organisations. But then that would require defining and then there would be more loop holes and you'll see it won't ever have a chance then. They're best left out of the proposal. For now.
PS if it is voted for then repealed I still get to write the new version right?

[Grays Harbor]

The Holy Empire of Vetok believes this resolution could be of much use in the preservation of world culture and history, and therefore vote yes. Our reasoning being, for example, the seventh suburb of Central Municipality is the birthplace of his most Original Holiness Imperator Vetok I. The particular house where the Great One lived is now a memorial and stands empty as a sign of respect for his memory. Any nation that would allow a site of comparable importance to them to be despoiled by commoners has already ransacked it.

We do not dispute that the preservation of historical places is important. What we object to is the "one size fits all" implementation this proposal puts forth. We would urge the Ambassador from Vetok to recosider his vote.

[Cookesland]

Duh. If a millitary base is protected by international law then that counry can use it to attack and the base can't be attacked back.

Then what is your reasoning about the first part of my question?

Sirriously what donkeys? Where does it say donkeys? What does Assessing if monuments should be monuments have do do with DONKEYS!?!?!

CREATES the Monument Assessment Committee to asses the monuments being proposed for the World Assembly Monuments Register so that they are of actual historical importance, and not selected as a way of protecting people.

Your words, not mine.

They can that's why I said MILITARY PERSONNEL.

You say only that military personnel can't use them as vantage points. Despite what you meant to say, nothing about them is mentioned about the military earlier. They cannot be used by anyone, from what I have read. I understand your intended meaning, but I feel the text is rather ambiguous.

I'm all for non-profit organisations. But then that would require defining and then there would be more loop holes and you'll see it won't ever have a chance then. They're best left out of the proposal. For now.

I fail to see why non-profit organizations should be excluded from custody of a national monument simply because you don't feel like working towards better a proposal and closing more loopholes. On the contrary, it would probably give your proposal a better chance.

PS if it is voted for then repealed I still get to write the new version right?

OoC: Hypothetically if it passes and then repealed you would still be able to right a better version.


Cookeslandic WA Mission

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I have a few questions about the donkeys mentioned in the "CREATES" clause. Who is to provide the donkeys? Will the donkeys be paid for out of the WA General Fund? Why were donkeys chosen over other animals, sheep for instance? What, exactly, is the purpose of the donkeys?